Recently, I've mentioned the importance of contrast and some of the problems associated with failing to make contrasts clear as change is contemplated, communicated, advocated, or resisted. This awareness leads to what we might call contrasting competency.
Merriam-Webster defines contrast as "to set off in contrast: compare or appraise in respect to differences". https://bit.ly/9bXIVB
So, if you see the value of defining contrasts, how should you begin?
First, as discussions begin make a two-column list - in your mind's eye or on some type of visual record - that permits you to list the characteristics of the existing situation in one column and the characteristics of the proposed situation in the other column.
Secondly, compare contrasting characteristics between the existing situation and of the changed situation that could affect people's routines. These characteristics might include contrasts such as: time elements (e.g., starting times, duration, ending times), dates (e.g., day of the week or month, frequency), and physical considerations (e.g., activity locations).
These types of contrasts are obvious and offer a good place to begin considering contrasts between the current and the envisioned. This first level of contrasting is essential and is a sensible place to begin differentiating the emerging situation from the existing reality. Yet, these types of basic contrasts are inadequate to communicate realities of most contemplated change unless the envisioned change is nothing more than a simple adjustment.
If a change would affect more than times, dates, and places then you'll need to communicate contrasts that are more compelling. Tomorrow we'll consider the next level of contrasting.