Meaning and interpretation
People understand the challenge, evidence, proposed change, or consequences differently.
Resource Hub · Strategy and Action Tool
Communication, Engagement, and Influence Canvas
Diagnose what is blocking movement, then design a credible pathway that connects the right people, purpose, messenger, relationship, venue, timing, ask, and feedback loop.
Entries stay in the Brief working canvas when you change views. Use short, labeled notes or a partner to capture ideas. Print before leaving; reloading clears entries.
Complete meeting sequence
Brief working canvas
Communication, Engagement, and Influence Canvas
Purpose: Diagnose the barrier, pair engagement with structural action, and design a credible, testable pathway and ask.
Use this when: A bounded change needs a next interaction or decision before broader outreach.
Start with: A framed challenge, affected and operational perspectives, relevant authority and influence mapping, and an initial action.
Time: 45–55 minutes for one prepared pathway and an internal message check; steps allocate 45. A live test and review require separate time. Use 60–75 minutes for fuller strategy work or unresolved diagnosis. These are planning estimates; allow additional processing and participation time.
Participation: Think individually before discussion. Use bullets, a labeled diagram, or spoken ideas captured and checked by a partner. You may pass and return. Keep the required information and reasoning visible in your chosen format.
1. Bound the outcome and diagnose barriers
10 minutesName the desired change, affected people, immediate action or decision, who can take it, and your authority. Review all eight barriers: meaning/interpretation; trust/relationship; evidence/legitimacy; access/communication; authority/permission; capacity/resources; process/timing; interests/consequences. Select the most consequential and influenceable.
Keep the labels shown so related answers remain distinguishable. An explicit unknown is useful.
Include: Desired change / people affected · Next action / decision owner / what needed · Our role / authority / limits
Keep the labels shown so related answers remain distinguishable. An explicit unknown is useful.
Include: Barrier / direct evidence and source · Interpretation / uncertainty / verification · Communication or engagement response · Structural or material response / owner · Primary barrier / why / what cannot be treated as messaging
2. Choose the participant and engagement purpose
6 minutesSelect Listen / Clarify / Invite / Co-design / Decide / Mobilize. Ground role-specific responsibilities, pressures, values, stakes, and gains or losses in evidence; specify meaningful influence.
Keep the labels shown so related answers remain distinguishable. An explicit unknown is useful.
Include: Person / group / purpose · Responsibilities / values / stakes / gain or loss — source · Assumed / heard / observed / tested / contested claims · Verification needed / meaningful influence
3. Fit the relationship pathway
8 minutesChoose messenger/convener, relationship route, medium/genre, venue, timing/window, and a two-way response channel. For each state why it fits, access/equity needs, and preparation.
Keep the labels shown so related answers remain distinguishable. An explicit unknown is useful.
Include: Messenger / consent · Relationship route · Medium / genre · Venue / decision setting · Timing / opportunity window · Two-way response channel · Fit / disability-language-technology-schedule-caregiving-transport access / preparation
4. Draft, compare, and revise two approaches
12 minutesIndividually draft two approaches varying purpose, evidence, messenger, engagement or ask, as well as wording. Each includes shared purpose, current condition, evidence/experience, tension/consequence, possibility, and specific ask. Compare and revise one for the actual pathway.
Keep the labels shown so related answers remain distinguishable. An explicit unknown is useful.
Include: A: purpose / condition / evidence / tension / possibility / ask · B: purpose / condition / evidence / tension / possibility / ask · Comparison / why one fits · Revised approach / actual pathway
5. Check readiness and plan test and decision
9 minutes planning; live test and review laterCheck accuracy, role-specific learning, tensions/uncertainty, specific ask, messenger/route, access, affected participants’ direction and consent, and accompanying structural action. Revise gaps before a small test.
Keep the labels shown so related answers remain distinguishable. An explicit unknown is useful.
Include: Ready or revise across all eight checks / evidence or concern · Smallest test / lead / consenting participants · Accompanying structural action / owner · Feedback / source / access / consent · Misunderstanding / concern / readiness signals · Message reaction versus substantive disagreement — how distinguish · Continue / revise / change route / deepen engagement / pause — criteria · Review date / decision owner
Done when
All eight barrier types have been considered; the diagnosis has evidence and unknowns; purpose and six-part pathway fit a participant; two six-part messages inform a revision; eight quality checks and a bounded test, structural action, and decision loop are recorded.
One next move
Run the bounded engagement test with the Rapid Prototype and Test Card.
This preserves the Wardle-credited worksheet lineage and the Collaboratory’s substantial extension: barrier diagnosis, structural action, evidence codes, engagement purposes, consent/access, two-round sprint, and learning loop. The brief is a Collaboratory presentation adaptation of this tool; its established sources and local contributions remain attributed in Optional support. CAST UDL Guidelines 3.0 informs the navigation and participation supports.
Complete instructions and working materials
Full guide
Communication, Engagement, and Influence Canvas
Work through the visible activity below. Use the Brief working canvas tab to enter or revisit your notes.
Plan the chosen activity, preparation, fieldwork, and review separately. The brief gives revised meeting estimates; allow more time to complete the full working materials or resolve missing evidence and commitments.
Before writing the message
Determine the role communication should play.
Higher-education change often crosses units, roles, governance structures, and professional cultures. A team may encounter competing interpretations, weak relationships, unclear decision rights, constrained resources, or consequences that fall differently across groups.
Begin by identifying the actual barrier. Then choose a fitting form of engagement and pair communication with the material or relational action required.
Engagement purpose
Choose what the next interaction must accomplish.
“Raise awareness” is rarely specific enough. The same person may need to be engaged differently at different moments.
ListenUnderstand experience, concerns, priorities, language, or conditions before defining the message or ask.
ClarifyMake the challenge, evidence, decision, roles, or possible consequences easier to understand.
InviteOpen a credible path for participation, inquiry, partnership, or contribution while leaving room for disagreement.
Co-designShare meaningful influence over the framing, response, test, safeguards, or communication itself.
DecideBring a bounded proposal and necessary evidence to a person or body with relevant authority.
MobilizeAsk people to take a specific, feasible, and coordinated action on behalf of a shared purpose.
35–45-minute facilitation sequence
Diagnose → Connect → Compose → Test → Learn
Begin with direct evidence from affected people and relevant knowledge holders. When the team is describing what another group values, believes, or will do, label the claim as assumed, heard, observed, tested, or contested.
4 minutes
Bound the outcome
Name the change, the next decision or action, and the people most affected.
7 minutes
Diagnose the barrier
Separate communication and relationship gaps from authority, resources, process, and conflicting interests.
4 minutes
Choose the engagement purpose
Decide whether the next move is to listen, clarify, invite, co-design, decide, or mobilize.
8 minutes
Map the pathway
Connect participant, messenger, relationship route, medium, venue, timing, and response channel.
8 minutes
Build and test the message
Combine shared purpose, credible evidence, acknowledged tensions, possibility, and a specific ask.
5 minutes
Plan the learning loop
Identify a small test, feedback source, interpretation question, and next decision.
Participant canvas
Communication, Engagement, and Influence Canvas
Use pages 1–2 to diagnose the situation before drafting language. Pages 3–6 turn that diagnosis into a testable pathway.
Bound
Name the outcome, decision, and people affected
Change or desired outcome
People most directly affected
Immediate decision or action needed
Person, group, or body able to take that action
What they would need to decide, do, contribute, or stop
Our authority, role, and limits in this decision
Diagnose
Identify the barriers and corresponding change moves
Possible barrierEvidence / sourceWhat remains uncertainCommunication or engagement responseStructural or material response
Meaning and interpretation
Trust and relationship
Evidence and legitimacy
Access and communication
Authority and permission
Capacity and resources
Process and timing
Interests and consequences
Primary diagnosis: Which barrier is most consequential now? Which one can this team influence? What would be irresponsible to frame as a messaging problem?
Understand
Ground the strategy in the participant or decision owner
Priority participant, partner, or decision owner
Engagement purpose: listen, clarify, invite, co-design, decide, or mobilize
What we know about their responsibilities, pressures, values, and stakes
What is assumed, contested, or needs direct verification
What they may gain, lose, protect, or be accountable for
What meaningful influence they should have over the work
Evidence check: Assumed · Heard directly · Observed · Tested · Contested. Plan inquiry when consequential claims remain assumed.
Connect
Map how the interaction should happen
ElementChoiceWhy it fitsAccess / equity checkPreparation needed
Messenger or convener
Existing relationship or route
Medium and genre
Venue or decision setting
Timing and opportunity window
Two-way response channel
Compose
Build the message and invitation
Shared purposeWhat value, responsibility, aspiration, or future can be named honestly while differences remain visible?
Current conditionWhat is happening, for whom, and under what conditions? What is known, uncertain, or contested?
Evidence and experienceWhat combination of data, examples, lived experience, and implementation knowledge is credible and proportionate?
Tension or consequenceWhat concern, tradeoff, loss, workload, or risk needs direct acknowledgment?
PossibilityWhat becomes possible if people act together? How does the proposal connect to the shared purpose?
Specific askWhat decision, action, contribution, conversation, or commitment is being requested now—and from whom?
Message and pathway sprint 1
Individually draft two distinct approaches. Vary the shared purpose, evidence, messenger, engagement purpose, or ask as well as the wording.
Message and pathway sprint 2
After comparison, revise one approach for the actual relationship route, medium, accessibility needs, venue, timing, and response channel.
Test and learn
Run a small strategy test before broad dissemination
Quality checkReady / reviseEvidence or concernRevision needed
Accurate and proportionate to the evidence
Grounded in direct, role-specific learning
Honest about tensions, tradeoffs, and uncertainty
Specific about the requested action or decision
Credible messenger and relationship route
Accessible format, language, venue, and timing
Consistent with affected participants’ direction and consent
Paired with needed structural or material action
Act and revisit
Document the strategy, feedback, and next decision
Smallest useful communication or engagement test
Who will lead—and who has consented to participate
Structural action that must accompany it
Feedback or response we will collect
What would indicate misunderstanding, concern, resistance, or readiness
How we will distinguish reaction to the message from disagreement with the proposal
Next decision: continue, revise, change route, deepen engagement, or pause
Owner and review date
Next move: Use the Prototype Learning Canvas to clarify the uncertainty and learning approach, then the Rapid Prototype and Test Card to run a bounded communication or engagement test. Revisit the Power, Knowledge, and Influence Map when access or authority is unclear, and use the Evidence-to-Decision Canvas to interpret responses.
Power, equity, and ethics
Use communication to expand agency.
Responsible persuasion names tradeoffs, honors consent, gives messengers real choice, and creates meaningful influence over the decision.
Engagement includes shared influence.People affected by a change need meaningful routes to shape it throughout the decision process.
Treat values with integrity.Use shared values to clarify genuine common purpose while keeping differences in interests, power, and consequences visible.
Stories require consent and stewardship.Use another person’s experience as persuasive content only with permission, context, and agreement about audience and reuse.
Invite messengers responsibly.Credibility comes with choice. Ask before inviting someone to represent a group, disclose experience, absorb conflict, or lend legitimacy to a decision.
Accessibility begins before dissemination.Include disability access, language, technology, schedule, caregiving, transportation, and cognitive load when choosing format and venue.
Address material barriers directly.When the limiting condition is authority, workload, funding, policy, or competing interests, pair communication with the corresponding structural action.
Where it fits
Use it after mapping the system and before broad outreach.
Translate verified perspectives, responsibilities, and concerns into an engagement purpose and pathway.
Clarify the next decision, specific ask, structural requirements, and feedback loop.
Re-diagnose whether the barrier concerns meaning, trust, evidence, access, authority, capacity, process, or competing interests.
Test accuracy, consent, accessibility, messenger fit, timing, and whether communication is paired with the necessary action.
How this tool connects
Carry the work forward.
Use these handoffs flexibly. New evidence may send a team back to an earlier tool.
Possible next tools
Return to this tool
when movement stalls or responses across affected, implementation, or decision roles change the strategy.
Optional support
Preparation, pacing, and participationPrepare the starting information and access supports; allow time for the activity and its follow-through.
A framed challenge, affected and operational perspectives, relevant authority and influence mapping, and an initial action.
45–55 minutes for one prepared pathway and an internal message check; steps allocate 45. A live test and review require separate time. Use 60–75 minutes for fuller strategy work or unresolved diagnosis.
Share purpose and prompts in advance when possible. Offer private preparation, accessible formats, and a recorder or partner. Plan how outputs will be returned, stored, and reviewed.
Worked examples and applicationsUse illustrations to understand the prompts, then return to your own context and evidence.
Generic higher-education example
Earlier access to required course materials
This composite example draws on general higher-education patterns.
Diagnose before messagingStudents describe unexpected costs and late access. Faculty and operational staff identify scheduling, adoption, procurement, and workload constraints. The barrier is partly informational and partly procedural.
Map the pathwayA faculty–staff pair with implementation knowledge convenes a short working session with students, a library representative, and the relevant process owner before bringing a bounded pilot request to the decision venue.
Build the askThe message connects course readiness and affordability with credible student and workflow evidence. It requests a one-term pilot with defined roles and a specific decision.
Test and learnThe team checks whether the proposed timeline is usable, whose labor increases, whether the format is accessible, and what authority is still missing. Feedback changes both the communication and the pilot design.
Sources, adaptations, and attributionReview the intellectual foundations, local contributions, and suggested citation.
Source and attribution
An adapted working resource, substantially extended for this Resource Hub
The starting worksheet was shared through the Miami University Sensemaking for Student Success work and credited Elizabeth Wardle. It connected desired outcomes, strategic and tactical power, stakeholder values, relationships, communication channels, collective skills, and rhetorical choices such as credibility, evidence, emotion, messenger, genre, venue, and timing. It was later adapted into the Collaboratory’s change-work resources.
The Resource Hub extension adds barrier diagnosis, a distinction between communication and structural action, experiential and implementation knowledge, evidence-confidence codes, six engagement purposes, accessibility and story-consent safeguards, a two-round message-and-pathway sprint, and a test-and-learning loop. It also draws on Marshall Ganz’s public-narrative framework and established power-mapping practice. Authorship of those frameworks remains with their originators.
Ganz, Marshall. 2009. What Is Public Narrative: Self, Us & Now.
Union of Concerned Scientists. 2018. Power Mapping Your Way to Success.
Authorship, foundations, and suggested citation
Synthesized and developed by Jessica A. Leveto, Ph.D.
Intellectual foundations: A Miami University Sensemaking for Student Success worksheet credited to Elizabeth Wardle, Marshall Ganz’s public narrative, power mapping, rhetorical strategy, and higher-education shared leadership.
Suggested citation: Leveto, Jessica A. 2026. “Communication, Engagement, and Influence Canvas.” Sensemaking Collaboratory Resource Library. https://sensemakingcollaboratory.org/resources/tools/communication-engagement-influence-canvas.