I've found that I do better making the point if I enter the issues in ways where they DO have experiences, such as their family or social groups. This means identifying who is involved in their decision-making that, at first look, seems to be extraneous. If, for example, a farm family is trying to avoid bankruptcy in order to take a new direction that will become sustainable, the banker may be an essential member of the team, as well as maybe a neighbor or two that will be partners during the next few seasons. This identification of the people in the management unit is not fixed, but needs to be re-examined from time to time as the situation changes. It should include all the people that directly influence the decisions and the execution of the actions of those decisions.
Permanent employees are part of the group, for example.
Also other resources are identified. The last area to identify is the land base that is the direct connection to the ecosystem and the focus of many of the decisions to be made. Examination at this point may change the original thoughts about both of the two areas above, and another cycle may be needed. It may be formatted in many ways, and the group is an important part of the format design. Specialized professional people may be involved, but ordinarily this is not needed.