Eight Fascinating Hooks and Writing Techniques in “Facilitating with FINESSE”

Facilitating with FINESSE is both practically instructive and narratively engaging, using cognitive and emotional hooks to enhance learning and retention.

I wanted to use a few creative and distinct writing techniques when I penned Facilitating with FINESSE: A Guide to Successful Business Solutions in 2023. The hope was to show a little creativity because, after all, the trademarked tag is FINESSE. More importantly, I hoped to engage technically trained professionals while providing practical facilitation guidance. Three years later, this is what one AI source says about those ‘hooks’ (get it, a play of words on the FINESSE Fishbone Diagram).

The Top Eight Techniques

1. Storytelling Integration

• The book weaves in twelve real-world illustrative stories that explain facilitation strategies in context.

  
  

• An epic narrative journey featuring characters such as Benedick, Beatrice, and Bartholomew rounds the book, linking chapters and reinforcing key concepts.

  
  

• This narrative approach balances technical instruction with narrative relief, making dense topics more digestible.

2. Self-Contained Applications

• Each of the ten facilitation applications is modular and stand-alone, allowing readers to focus selectively on the chapters most relevant to their needs.

• The book separates practical examples from foundational explanations, ensuring clarity for readers of varying experience levels.

3. Use of Mnemonics for Cognitive Retention

• CATER (Communicate, Ask, Troubles, Exercises, Rhythm) and FINESSE (Frame, Illustrate, Noise Reduction, Empathy, Structure, Synergy, Ethics) are memory aids.

  
  

• Mnemonics anchor readers’ understanding and make complex facilitation and communication principles easy to recall and apply.

4. Illustrative Contrast

• Each application includes good and bad examples from Solomon's professional experience.

• This technique demonstrates common pitfalls, highlights best practices, and grounds abstract facilitation principles in tangible, relatable situations.

5. Practical Checklists and Frameworks

• The book incorporates structured tools, such as the FINESSE Fishbone Diagram and the FINESSE Checklist, systematically breaking down complex tasks for reader application.

  
  

• These frameworks convert technical guidance into actionable step-by-step strategies.

6. Empathetic and Inclusive Tone

• The narrative consistently acknowledges novice facilitators’ challenges, encouraging readers to learn iteratively and embrace mistakes for growth.

7. Bridging Story with Technical Content

• Solomon seamlessly blends narrative, mnemonics, and examples with technical facilitation content such as block diagrams, tree diagrams, risk management plans, and capital program prioritization.

  
  

• This hybrid approach reinforces learning through dual coding – combining visual, narrative, and structural cues.

8. Selective Depth

• The book avoids exhaustive teaching of basic facilitation, instead focusing on advanced, practical insights.

  
  

• This technique ensures that readers quickly glean value-driven lessons without losing time on standard introductory material found in other facilitation texts.

Key Takeaway 

The book is both practically instructive and narratively engaging, using cognitive and emotional hooks to enhance learning and retention.

The Hooks of Facilitating with FINESSE

 Facilitating with FINESSE: A Guide to Successful Business Solutions blends real‑world contrasts, practical frameworks, and just enough depth to help readers grasp the essentials without getting bogged down. Its mix of storytelling and simple cognitive anchors makes the lessons stick, giving practitioners the confidence to use these facilitation techniques in the messy realities of business life.

---

Sources:

Primary Source: Co-Pilot (accessed June 25, 2026)

https://accendoreliability.com/jd-solomons-new-book-provides-technical-professionals-with-guidance-to-move-facilitation-from-good-to-great/

https://www.jdsolomonsolutions.com/post/five-unique-attributes-of-the-fresh-book-facilitating-with-finesse

https://www.communicatingwithfinesse.com/post/nine-questions-with-jd-solomon-on-his-new-book-facilitating-with-finesse

https://www.jdsolomonsolutions.com/post/new-book-jd-solomon-s-facilitating-with-finesse-is-available-on-amazon

 https://www.amazon.com/Facilitating-FINESSE-Successful-Business-Solutions/dp/099895943X

 https://communicatingwithfinesse.substack.com/

---

JD Solomon champions practical communication skills that help technical professionals convey complex ideas clearly and confidently. Learn more at www.jdsolomonsolutions.com and www.communicatingwithfinesse.com.

Environment Risk: The Psychology of Rare Events

What constitutes a rare event is often in the eyes of the beholder.

Unlike many risk managers, engineers, and other technical professionals, social scientists have a long-held belief that risk is more subjective than objective.  “Risk does not exist ’out there,’ independent of our minds and cultures, waiting to be measured.”[9]  Instead, risk is a concept human beings invented to help understand and cope with the dangers and uncertainties of life.  

Social scientists would say that, although these dangers are real, there is no such thing as “real risk” or “objective risk.  “Subjective judgments are made at every stage of the assessment process, from the initial structuring of a risk problem to deciding which endpoints or consequences to include in the analysis, identifying and estimating exposures, choosing dose-response relationships, and so on.[10]

“Danger is real, but risk is socially constructed. Rare events expose how psychology, perception, and power shape environmental risk far more than technical models alone.”

Risk perceptions and risk attitudes play a large role in the psychology of risk, risk treatment, and risk communications.  One finding is that laypeople typically prefer to have more governmental regulation when confronted with risks, which are deemed to be beyond their control, catastrophic, or whose consequences have an inequitable effect.  On the other hand, a more laissez-faire attitude results when risks are perceived as unnoticeable, longer term, or new.

Danger is real, but risk is socially constructed.[11]  To many social scientists and psychologists, risk analysis, risk treatment, and associated communications are a blending of science with social, cultural, and political factors.  And those who hold power also control the communication; winners write history.[12]  This is particularly true in the case of rare events.

An example of the scenario discussed in the aforementioned paragraph could be climate change.  Climate change is considered a rare event, and therefore risk communication requires a four-fold approach: scientists and engineers to attest to its accuracy; decision scientists to attest to its relevance; social scientists to attest to its clarity; and communication designers to attest to its format.  The accuracy, tone, and comprehensibility of any communication can be undermined if any of these four cannot be attested.[13]

---

 References

[9] Paul Slovic and Elke U. Weber, “Perception of Risk Posed by Extreme Events,” Presented at the conference “Risk Management Strategies in an Uncertain World,” Palisades, NY, Apr. 12-13, 2002, available at https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/chrr/documents/meetings/roundtable/white_papers/slovic_wp.pdf

[10] Ibid.

[11] Paul Slovic, “Trust, Emotion, Sex, Politics, and Science: Surveying the Risk-Assessment Battlefield,” Risk Analysis 19, no. 4 (1999), available at http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1224&context=uclf.

[12] Analogous to the statement that “history is written by the victors,” attributed to Machiavelli, Winston Churchill, Walter Benjamin, and others.

[13] Baruch Fischoff, “Nonpersuasive Communication about Matters of Greatest Urgency: Climate Change,” Environmental Science & Technology 41, no. 21 (Nov. 1, 2007), 7204-7208, available at https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/sds/docs/fischhoff/NonpersuasiveCommMatters.pdf.

---

This article is an excerpt from:

Solomon, J. D., & Vallero, D. (2016, June 1). From our partners – Communicating risk and resiliency: Special considerations for rare events. Center for Infrastructure Protection & Homeland Security. https://cip.gmu.edu/2016/06/01/partners-communicating-risk-resiliency-special-considerations-rare-events/

---

Additional Resources on Rare Events from JD Solomon

Improve Your Communication of Rare Events Before They Happen

Improve Your Communication of Rare Events After They Happen

Success Or Failure Determined by Addressing Rare Events

---

JD Solomon champions practical communication skills that help technical professionals convey complex ideas clearly and confidently. Learn more at www.jdsolomonsolutions.com and www.communicatingwithfinesse.com.

Three Things You Need to Know About Capital Project Prioritization

Human judgment, organizational maturity, and organizational capacity are three essential factors in prioritizing capital projects.

“Why do you think these two projects rank so much higher in this method than the first method?” the facilitator asked the director of reliability.

“Because those two projects are the ones that Jack (the engineering director) and I are going to do,” an always blunt Cathy replied. “I don’t give a damn about those points in that one method with all the criteria. Jack and I will do the projects that we think need to be done."

“Well, that explains why the senior management team has been frustrating Mary so much by redoing the criteria and the weightings,” the facilitator replied.

“You bet!” smiled Cathy. “We told her. She did not want to listen. We will change the criteria until we get the projects we need to do. We are going to do those two projects.”

This exchange is an example of harsh reality from the real world. Despite all the theories on both prioritization and decision-making, this conversation is more common than it is uncommon. You need to know three things about capital project prioritization to make you more effective (and less frustrated).

1. The Method Must Commensurate With Maturity

Multiple criteria and ranking approaches are the most common capital program prioritization methods. Multiple criteria approaches involve developing a handful of criteria, weighting each criterion, and assigning scores to each criterion. The projects with the greatest number of points become the preferred projects. This approach is based on the solid foundation of problem disaggregation.

Ranking approaches involve establishing a hierarchy of projects, usually from most important to least important, through some form of ballot. Consistent with the theory of choice, several management science methods exist for establishing the final ranked lists from multiple participants.

“Capital project prioritization often breaks down long before the scoring starts. Maturity, human judgment, and organizational capacity ultimately determine whether the process succeeds or frustrates everyone involved.”

Most academics and consultants consider ranking approaches less refined than multiple criteria approaches because the logic behind the participants’ preferences is unclear. However, a multiple criteria approach takes more time because of all the work needed to develop the criteria, establish importance weighting, score the projects, and analyze the results and sensitivities. Another underappreciated aspect of a multiple criteria approach is that all participants must have, or rapidly develop, a common understanding of the many granular details.

So which approach is better? The short answer is it depends on organization maturity. Ranking approaches are best for initial efforts or when there is a lot of new staff. Multiple criteria methods are better for mature organizations with seasoned teams. Among many, there is a preference to do both so that teams can see which method works best for their situation. After all, when done correctly, both approaches should yield similar prioritizations.

2. Human Judgment Is Required

Figure 1: Regardless of the capital improvement plan (CIP) prioritization approach, human judgment is needed when selecting capital projects.

Prioritization is not optimization. Optimization incorporates values and trade-offs more robustly than prioritization. In many cases, business case evaluations (BCEs) are needed to evaluate the trade-offs of the status quo, doing everything, or doing something in between. In nearly every case, the final resource allocation decision comes down to one individual.

The reality is that a single prioritization approach cannot be developed to address every component or type of project within an organization’s portfolio. Human judgment is needed; prioritization should be considered a good starting point, but not the final determination of which projects are in or out of the capital program.

3. Organizational Capacity Is Essential

Most capital improvement projects and programs fail because of organizational capacity. The types of projects, the size of projects, the complexity of the projects, the capabilities of internal staff, and the availability of key staff are all important aspects that should shape the prioritization process. Unfortunately, organizational capacity is not considered until the capital projects are selected.

Organizational capacity can be evaluated through three components:

• Secure harbor includes having and maintaining a secure or safe place ripe for change and continual improvement.

• CID nexus involves the capability (C) of staff, how information (I) is shared within the organizational structure, and how decisions (D) are made.

• Personality is the long-term culture (e.g., commitment to initial costs or lifecycle costs) shaped by the short-term climate (e.g., financial stress, mergers, or changes in market share).

Organizational capacity is a governing constraint. Considering organizational capacity before diving into prioritization often reduces the need for complex approaches. If resources are limited, only a limited number of projects should be attempted.

Summary

Three of the essential things to know about capital project prioritization are:

1. The selected approach should be consistent with the maturity of the organization.

2. Human judgment is required, regardless of the approach that is used.

3. Organizational capacity provides a governing constraint that often simplifies the approach.

---

Resources

Adams, Tim; Rider, John; and Solomon, J.D. “Ask the Experts: Prioritization.” J.D. Solomon, Inc.: May 21, 2020. https://www.jdsolomoninc.com/post/prioritization

Solomon, J.D. “CIP Prioritization: Where Master Planning and Asset Management Meet.” The Wave, Volume 39, Number 4, 2018.

Solomon, J.D. (2022). "Five Ways to More Effectively Facilitate Capital Program Prioritization.” J.D. Solomon, Inc.: April 4, 2022. https://www.jdsolomoninc.com/post/five-ways-to-more-effectively-facilitate-capital-program-prioritization

Solomon, J.D. and Wojak, Rebekah. “Implementing Asset Management: Organizational Capacity as the Primary Challenge." Proceedings from the International Maintenance Conference (IMC), Bonita Springs, FL, December 14, 2016.

---

This article is a reprint of Solomon, J. D. (n.d.). Three things you need to know about capital project prioritization. Reliabilityweb. https://reliabilityweb.com/en/articles/three-things-you-need-to-know-about-capital-project-prioritization

---

Need help getting started? JD Solomon Inc. provides solutions for program development, asset management, and facilitation at the nexus of facilities, infrastructure, and the environment. Visit our Program Development page for more information on capital project prioritization, business cases, third-party assessments, project phasing, and related services.