# Pre-Workshop Questionnaire: Prepare a Co-Design Session A pre-workshop questionnaire for co-design: collect cases, missing information, and participation needs, then prepare useful session activities. - Canonical URL: https://www.harmate.com/en/blog/pre-workshop-questionnaire - Author: Harmate Team - Published: 2026-10-25 - Updated: 2026-10-25T22:42:33.297499+00:00 - Language: en ## Content # Pre-Workshop Questionnaire: Prepare a Co-Design Session A pre-workshop questionnaire can help you prepare the cases, information, and participation arrangements the group needs. When the deliverable is already fixed—for example, a proposed handoff process—ask participants what they can contribute and what still needs clarification. Their answers should lead to specific changes in the session plan. This guide concerns a collaborative working session with a defined output. It is not a survey to choose an event program or a placement questionnaire to assess learners before training. ## Explain what participants will produce Before the form, describe the deliverable, room for discussion, and next step. For example: “We will draft a handoff sheet for Teams A and B. The group can propose which information to include and which exceptions to cover. The process owner will review the proposal before any trial.” That introduction gives people a reference point. If the topic or decision is still unclear, address the framing first. The [pre-event survey guide](/en/blog/pre-event-survey-choose-topics-for-your-event-programme) serves a different purpose: choosing topics for a program. Practitioners already use preparation questionnaires to collect situations and objectives. [CMPartners’ pre-workshop questionnaire](https://www.cmpartners.com/pre-workshop-questionnaire/) provides an example for negotiation and communication workshops. It illustrates a preparation practice, not proof that a form improves every workshop. The template below is an original application for a co-design session. ## Questions that prepare the work Select only prompts whose answers you can use. Explain who will read the responses and what may be shown to the group. Do not ask people to submit sensitive case files merely to provide an example. A description without identifying details, or an authorized demonstration, may be enough. ### A case to work on **“Describe a recent situation our proposal should be able to address.”** Separate follow-up: “What happened, and which part did you experience directly?” You need a working case rather than only a preference about the eventual solution. ### A contrasting case **“Is there a different situation we should also examine?”** An exception can reveal a limit of the proposed output. Do not ask only for examples that confirm the problem described in the invitation. ### Available material **“What document, example, or feedback could you present to help the group?”** Optional field: “Who can authorize its use?” Identifying a resource does not automatically establish permission to share it. ### Missing information **“What information would you need in order to contribute to the proposal?”** The answer may suggest a short explanation or someone who can answer a specific question. It is not a basis for assigning participants a competence level. ### The understood mandate **“Based on the invitation, what will the group be able to change or propose?”** A mismatch with the intended mandate gives you something to clarify. It does not establish that the participant read carelessly; the invitation itself may be ambiguous. ### Participation arrangements **“Is there a practical arrangement we should consider so you can contribute?”** Offer a private channel for needs that should not appear in the shared materials. Avoid requesting a personal diagnosis when an accommodation is all you need to arrange. ### An open question **“What important question should remain visible during the workshop?”** This may concern a dependency, disagreement, or issue the other prompts missed. Preserve it even if the session cannot resolve it. ## Turn answers into session preparation Do not treat the questionnaire as an advance vote on the solution. Use a working table that separates what someone said, the preparation you are considering, and the check still needed. | Response — fictional examples | Preparation to consider | Check before the session | |---|---|---| | “We get different information from different teams.” | Compare two examples before designing the handoff sheet | Permission to use them and whether the cases are comparable | | “Urgent requests follow another route.” | Test the draft against an exception | Who knows that route and can describe a case? | | “I thought we would choose the new tool.” | Start by clarifying the decision scope | Does the sponsor confirm that tool selection is outside the mandate? | | “I have never seen what happens after I send the request.” | Include a short walkthrough from the receiving side | Can someone explain it with a shareable record? | One response may justify a check without representing the entire group. Several similar responses do not automatically determine the agenda either: consider their context and the time available. ## Worked example: preparing a handoff sheet **Entirely fictional scenario.** Two teams need to propose a handoff sheet. The preparation responses provide a standard case, an urgent case, and uncertainty about who confirms receipt. The facilitator prepares four working movements: reconstruct the standard case, compare the information each side needs, test a draft sheet against the urgent case, and record decisions beyond the group’s mandate. They keep the responsibility question visible for follow-up with the process owner. This plan does not come from averaging the answers. It responds to work needs identified in the accounts. If the documents are unavailable, the group may use an explicitly reconstructed example and preserve that limitation. The facilitator should not present a reconstruction as an observed case. For the idea-generation segment, the [brainstorming guide](/en/blog/brainstorming-generate-ideas-and-choose-the-next-step) separates generation, clarification, and examination of options. That segment follows preparation; it does not replace choosing useful cases and information. ## Tell participants what changed Send a short preparation note: the deliverable remains fixed, the selected cases are described, material to bring is specified, and out-of-scope questions have a follow-up route. Check whether it is appropriate to share any recognizable response before quoting it. Nonresponse means neither agreement nor absence of need. Leave a way to add a case at the start of the session. Afterward, the [workshop report](/en/blog/workshop-report-how-to-show-contributions-and-what-happens-next) should distinguish contributions, decisions, and unresolved questions. For written preparation responses, [Harmate’s open-ended response analysis](/en/product/open-questions) can help you examine themes and supporting excerpts before selecting material for the session. The facilitator remains responsible for the agenda: the tool does not choose activities or decide whom to invite.