Sme Workshops

SME Workshops

Part of the discovery-phase skill pack · evidence group · reads discovery-context.md (run profile-builder first if missing).

Use when direct user access is blocked but the client has people who interact with the user daily — customer success, support, sales, ops, internal tool admins. Their view is proxy evidence: faster to access, lower fidelity than direct.

Step 1 — Read discovery context

Read discovery-context.md (sections 1. Client → Decision-makers, 4. Access & Data → Client SMEs). If no SMEs listed there, ask the BA to list them now and update the context file.

If discovery-context.md is missing, ask the BA inline: "which client SMEs are accessible (names + roles, or 'none yet')?" — tag the output [ASSUMED]. Never block; recommend profile-builder for high-stakes work.

Step 2 — Choose workshop format

Step 3 — Pre-workshop prompts (sent 24h before)

Send the SME a 4-bullet brief:

1. The problem-canvas one-liner
2. "Bring a recent example (last 90 days) where this came up"
3. "List the 3 most painful touch-points you've heard about from users in the last quarter"
4. "What would 'fixed' look like to you, in user behavior, not feature names?"

Step 4 — Workshop facilitation

• Anchor on stories. "Walk me through the last user who hit this." Same rule as user-interviews — past beats hypothetical.
• Separate observation from speculation. When the SME says "users feel X", probe: "How do you know? Did a user say it, or are you inferring?" Tag accordingly.
• Get artifacts. Screenshots, ticket numbers, recorded call links, internal docs. SMEs hoard these by default; ask explicitly.
• End with disagreements. "Where do you and your team disagree about this problem?" Internal disagreement = signal.

Step 5 — Capture as proxy evidence

Write ./discovery/sme-notes/<initials>-<role>.md per ./template.md.

Critical: tag every observation with confidence:

• [direct] — SME quoted a specific user
• [inferred] — SME's interpretation
• [anecdotal] — single-case generalization
• [disagreement] — multiple SMEs disagree

This is what makes synthesis trustworthy when interviews aren't in the mix.

Step 6 — Triangulation note

After 2+ SME workshops, write ./discovery/sme-notes/_triangulation.md:

• What multiple SMEs agree on (raise confidence)
• What only one SME claims (lower confidence)
• What SMEs flatly disagree on (flag for follow-up)

Output

• ./discovery/sme-notes/<initials>-<role>.md per SME
• ./discovery/sme-notes/_triangulation.md running

Append to _log.md: [sme-workshops | YYYY-MM-DD] sme: <initials>; takeaway: <one-line>; confidence: <high/med/low>.

Anti-patterns

• Treating SME insight as user insight. It isn't. Every artifact downstream of this skill must visibly mark "proxy evidence". Synthesis weights it lower than direct interviews.
• Letting one loud SME dominate. Separate intakes first, calibrate second.
• Skipping disagreements. SME consensus is suspicious — they often work in the same building, share the same biases.
• No artifacts collected. A workshop without ticket/call references produces opinion, not evidence.