Harno needed a process that would bring different stakeholders into the same room, systematically capture their input, and translate it into a strategic framework. Not seminar notes, but a working document that could guide future action. An external partner was brought in for this work, and together with Harno we completed the process in autumn 2025.

The Process the Client Doesn’t See

We began with preparatory interviews. Before any workshop took place, we met separately with a partner school teacher, a representative of the Ministry of Education and Research, and a member of the steering committee. This step is often underestimated, but in my view it is one of the most important parts of the process.

“People speak differently in a one-to-one conversation than in a group.”

People speak differently in a one-to-one conversation than in a group. In individual conversations, people are more open about tensions that are not voiced publicly, and it becomes easier to understand the issues that truly matter. Without this groundwork, it would have been significantly harder to place workshop input into context, ask more precise questions, and draw meaningful conclusions from what was heard.

From Mapping to Validation

The development workshop with partner schools was the most visible part of the process. Our role was not simply to ask questions. We began with a structured mapping of problems; my responsibility was to organise participants’ input and maintain focus on the objectives of the Engineering Academy.

Participants need to feel safe expressing their views, while the facilitator ensures the process remains structured and moves forward according to its goals at each stage. We mapped eight key problem areas, examined how they interrelate, and prioritised them accordingly. This gave the client a clear understanding of the needs of participating schools and provided me with the input needed to shape the strategic framework.

The workshop was followed by additional stakeholder interviews and a validation session. We wanted to check whether our interpretation of the input matched what participants actually meant, and to fill in gaps in areas that had remained underdeveloped during the workshop.

Five Strategic Directions for Developing MATIK Education

The final stage was compiling the synthesis. This is where SpeakSmart’s work goes beyond traditional moderation. Our task was not to record what was said.

We needed to understand how the problems were interconnected, distinguish what Harno can directly influence and what requires other decision-makers, consolidate solutions into a coherent whole, and translate everything into a document that could be used for further decision-making.

At first glance, resource shortages, teacher overload, and school culture appeared to be three separate issues. In reality, they are deeply interconnected. A teacher who lacks time for collaboration does not experiment with new methods not because they are unwilling, but because the system does not support it. Harno cannot directly change teacher salaries or timetable structures, but it can support change through training, networking, and the exchange of best practices. This distinction defines which actions are feasible and which remain aspirations on someone else’s desk.

The final document outlined five strategic directions: training activities, network development, cooperation and partnerships, sharing of good practices, and promoting MATIK education. Each direction was linked to specific actions and the mapped problem areas.

Final Outcome: A Strategic Framework

Harno now holds a document with a clear internal logic. Problems are linked to solutions, solutions are aligned with the actual capacity of the Engineering Academy, and the structure takes funding constraints into account. Internally, it helps prioritise resource allocation for 2024–2026. In the longer term, it provides a foundation for MATIK education development that does not depend on individual enthusiasm, but is systemically supported.

“It is easy for discussions to remain superficial, where everyone agrees that problems exist, but compromises are never discussed.”

One of the most striking aspects of this project was the tension between participants from different backgrounds. Teachers, school leaders, policymakers, and steering committee members operate with different responsibilities and time horizons. It is easy for discussions to remain superficial, where everyone agrees that problems exist, but compromises are never discussed.  My role was to create a format in which these differences could surface productively. This is one of the most nuanced—and most interesting—aspects of moderating.

If your organisation needs support in turning complex situations into clear, evidence-based plans through structured dialogue, feel free to get in touch.

Kristin Parts
Trainer and Moderator

Kristin Parts has been involved in debate since 2008, working as an active debater, judge, coach, debate club leader, organizer, and debate instructor. Through this experience, she has developed strong argumentation skills and now contributes these skills to society as a trainer at SpeakSmart.

She has led a university debate club, organized numerous debate events, participated in public exhibition debates, and delivered workshops for teachers, young people, and adults on argumentation and debating skills. Kristin holds a Bachelor’s degree in Law from the University of Tartu and has previously served as Chair of the Estonian Debating Society (Eesti Väitlusselts).