Workshop report portal · 16–18 October 2026 · Aston Inn Mataram
MARVEL – Wahana Visi Indonesia Admin
MARVELEcotourism Knowledge Hub
Learning Sessions

Integrated SOP Simulation & Decision-Making Workshop

From notes to a procedure that survives a busy Saturday

Proposed frameworkLearning session 18 October 2026Updated 31 Oct 2026

The closing session tests everything the workshop produced. Participants receive operating problems they did not choose, resolve them using the draft SOPs, and then sit in a musyawarah on how the money and the follow-up should be handled.

1. Introduction to the simulation#

A procedure that reads well in a workshop can fail on a wet Saturday with twenty visitors and one guide. The simulation exists to find out which ones fail, in the room, before the village finds out in the field.

2. Learning objectives#

Participants should be able to apply a draft procedure to an unfamiliar situation, explain which part of the procedure decided the outcome, identify a gap in the procedure when it fails, and take part in a structured joint decision.

3. The scenario method#

Each group draws a scenario card at random. The card describes a situation, not a question: a group arriving without a booking, a visitor injured on the boardwalk, an engine failing at low tide, a guide absent at short notice, a stall operator disputing the rent. The group must decide what to do, in sequence, using only the procedures the workshop has produced.

Example learning scenarios

Every scenario used in this session is a constructed learning example. None of them describes an event that took place in Sugian or Seruni Mumbul.

4. Random scenario draw#

The random draw matters methodologically: it prevents a group from preparing only for the situation it already knows, which is the failure mode of most village drills.

5. Analysing the operational problem#

The group works through four questions: what is actually happening, who is at risk, which procedure covers it, and who has the authority to decide. If no procedure covers it, the group states the gap instead of improvising.

6. Applying the SOP#

The relevant procedure is read out and followed step by step. Where the group departs from the procedure, the reason is recorded — because a procedure that is routinely departed from is either wrong or not yet agreed.

7. The musyawarah simulation#

The second half of the session rehearses the village decision process. A proposal is presented, examined against the available data, discussed by interest, and brought to a joint decision that is written down.

8. Budget allocation considerations#

Participants examined the allocation proposal from the budgeting session, including the open category, using the process rather than the percentage as the subject: what information is needed, who speaks, how disagreement is recorded, and what makes a decision legitimate.

9. Learning dynamics#

The pressure in the room comes from having to decide quickly and defend the decision. That is the point: the procedure has to hold when nobody has time to look it up.

10. Competencies targeted#

  • Applying a written procedure to an unfamiliar situation.
  • Recognising the limits of one's own competence and escalating correctly.
  • Taking part in a structured collective decision and accepting its record.
  • Identifying a gap and referring it back to the drafting process.

11. Output#

  • A list of SOP revisions required after the simulation.
  • A documented decision-making rehearsal with a written record.
  • Follow-up items assigned to the action plan.

12. Expected outcome#

Both villages leave with procedures that have been tested and with a decision routine they have practised, so the first real decision is not also the first rehearsal.

13. Evaluation of the method#

The method is evaluated by what it changed: how many procedures were revised, how many gaps were identified, and whether the participants who spoke in the musyawarah were the same people who spoke in the earlier sessions.

Session results pending

The scenarios drawn, the decisions taken and the procedure revisions made are entered from the facilitator notes. They are not reconstructed here.

14. Recommendations#

  • Re-run the simulation with new scenarios before the first high season.
  • Keep the scenario cards as a training asset of the management body.
  • Record every musyawarah decision in the same format used in the rehearsal.
  • Review the SOPs after the first three months of operation and revise only with evidence.

Learning objectives#

  • Apply the draft SOPs to realistic operating problems
  • Identify which procedures fail under pressure and why
  • Practise a joint decision on budget allocation
  • Agree the follow-up steps and who owns them

Presentation method#

Scenario cards drawn at random, group analysis, then a facilitated musyawarah on the allocation proposal and follow-up.

Interaction & Q&A#

All participants worked in mixed groups; each group presented its decision and defended it against questions.

Output & outcome#

A list of SOP revisions required, a documented decision-making rehearsal, and the follow-up items carried into the action plan.

Session facts#

Date
18 October 2026
Facilitator
MARVEL facilitation team — Wahana Visi Indonesia

Proposed framework and learning simulation. Scenario cards are examples, not events that occurred.

Scenario-based learning flow#

  1. 1

    Scenario#

    A constructed operating situation is drawn at random.

  2. 2

    Problem identification#

    What is happening, who is at risk, what is at stake?

  3. 3

    Risk analysis#

    What could get worse, and how fast?

  4. 4

    Choose the SOP#

    Which procedure applies, and who holds the authority?

  5. 5

    Decision#

    Act, escalate, or record the gap.

  6. 6

    Evaluation#

    Did the procedure hold? Revise it if it did not.

Learning sequence used in the simulation.

Community decision-making flow#

  1. 01

    Proposal presented#

    A written proposal with its basis and its open questions.

  2. 02

    Data examined#

    What do we actually know, and what is missing?

  3. 03

    Interests discussed#

    Each affected group states its position and its reason.

  4. 04

    Musyawarah#

    Joint deliberation towards an agreed decision.

  5. 05

    Decision recorded#

    Written, dated, and readable by those it affects.

  6. 06

    Documentation#

    Filed where the community can reach it.

  7. 07

    Follow-up#

    Owner, timing and the next review point.

The decision routine rehearsed in the session. A rehearsal, not a village decision.

01

A procedure is tested, not read#

The simulation is the point where the workshop's writing meets the workshop's operational reality.

02

The gap is a legitimate result#

When no procedure covers a scenario, recording the gap is more useful than producing an improvised answer.

03

Decisions need a format#

A decision that is not written in an agreed format cannot be implemented or reviewed.

Supporting documents & downloads

One page can carry several PDF attachments. Until the documentation team uploads them, this section says so instead of offering an empty download.

Supporting documents will be available after publication.

Sources & references

Workshop brief and three-day agenda supplied by the MARVEL – Wahana Visi Indonesia programme team (16–18 October 2026, Aston Inn Mataram). Session outline and speaker assignments as supplied.

Editorial status: Proposed framework.

Related content