If you can google it, do. If a test or a book will provide the answer, run it or read it.

Unfortunately, when it comes to understanding a situation or the root causes of an issue or who has a stake in what you consider doing, Google isn't very useful.

Google doesn't know the situation as it applies to you, nor do outside consultants unless you tell them first. Your people do. But in meetings, politics and a host of social barriers get in the way of sharing situational knowledge fully and honestly. This matters because you rarely get to the right solution without understanding the issue or opportunity.

Which is why XLeap session usually offer anonymity. Anonymity cuts through politics and self-conciousness. People share what they know. Make sense by building on each other's insights, even if they are from the 'wrong' person or department. This gives you a much sharper take of the situation faster than possible by conventional means.  

If people you have invited to contribute, and who have something to say, cannot get a word in, don't expect them to stay tuned.

If such people pass up the opportunity to say what they think and know, because they prefer to remain silent or indulge in pleasentries, this wastes everybody's time.

If they don't agree and you fail to notice, you may be in for a surprise.

Which is why XLeap lets everybody contribute honestly when they have something to say, without having to wait their turn.

Which is why XLeap measures and shows where groups are aligned and where consensus remains to be built. 

Good luck if you must rely on a committee to inform important decisions.

This is because, committees face all the difficulties above without the tools to overcome them. Even where they are successful, their report will be the result of a negotiation meaning that you get a sausage without the details how it was made.

With XLeap enquiries are not just much faster, more honest and comprehensive. The result is structured, often culminating in a detailed utility analysis, and a verbatim record of the process that led to this result. Differences of opinion within the task force are not plastered over which absolves management from reading between the lines. Management can focus on the results and, where the it matters, drill into the sources of disagreement by checking the arguments that preceded the final assessment.