This game is an icebreaker and presentation game that can be played in a large room or outdoor.

The main aim of this game is to introduce the participants of a big (international) group in a non-formal and dynamic way. For 30 participants it takes approximately 40 minutes.

This game can be performed inside the classroom without tables or outside.

The goal is to create a big spider web that connects people by using a wool yarn.

Students

Lecturers

Entrepreneurs

Colleagues of the same company or work team

Professionals of different areas

To introduce people to others in a dynamic way

To connect people

A ball of wool

Scissors

1. Assemble sets of materials for each team
2. Present everyone the rules
3. Start the game
4. Finish the game

As a first step, assemble sets of materials for each team. You can form teams according to the size of your overall group. Remember that long yarn will be needed. The length of the yarn can approximately be determined by the number of participants in the team multiplied by the diameter of the circle that they create.

Secondly, present everyone the rules. The game will proceed as follows:

1. The participants form a circle. They should stand in a circle facing each other to the circle centre.
2. The ball of wool is held by one of the participants. You can choose the first person randomly by throwing the wool ball. The participant then wraps the wool around the wrist and introduces him or herself. This person should shortly tell about his or her name, age, educational background and one special thing about habits, tastes, or hobbies.
3. The participant throws the ball of wool to another person. He or she then introduces him or herself and wraps the wool around his or her wrist.

The game starts when the teacher throws the wool ball to the first selected participant.

The game finishes when the teacher cuts with scissors the wool that connects all the participants.

Guided larger group conversations and reflections

Making the informal formal and collecting joint knowledge of the participants is the objective of a World Café. Its logic is to encourage a reflection along 3 question rounds. The first round starts with a rather generic question and then is followed by more concrete ones that are oriented to find concrete common results.

The methodology is used for group reflections that want to integrate all participants. It is a very interactive format in which participants exchange on the questions based on their knowledge. It assures that everybody gets a voice and that communication is assured in an egalitarian way. It takes out of the conversation hierarchies (e.g. between students and teachers, between R&D organisations and the community, between teachers) and focuses on the connection of ideas and suggestions.

The World Café can be used  

• in a smaller group (minimum 12 persons) as well as in large groups of participants (300 persons and even more)
• internally with students or between teachers of e.g. a university
• with members of the university and the outside community (e.g. with University departments and businesses, between the R&D activities and the locality or region e.g. for a more applied research orientation)

1. Students and graduates inside the different courses
2. Researchers and teachers to align cooperation opportunities and organisational development improvements
3. With businesses and start-ups relevant for the research fields of the university
4. With the local community where the university is based to identify contributions of R&D, research projects or capacity building demands from local organisations and businesses

Minimum 12 - up to 300 people and more

The World Café aims to

• create the hospitable atmosphere of a sidewalk café where people can feel at ease and engage in informal conversation
• develop an interest in others, discover their knowledge and points of views
• ensure that through the interactive exchange every participants gets a deeper knowledge on the topic that is chosen
• collect opinions and exchange of concrete ideas (brainstorming)
• connect the ideas towards a joint synthesis or the concretisation of concrete next steps  and further networking opportunities

• Small round or square tables with chairs, seating 4-5 people
• Vases with flowers on each table
• 3 different colours of markers (e.g. green, blue, red) according to the number of participants (ideally everybody should have access to each marker from the same colour. Alternatively, 2-3 markers from each colour for each table, where the participants at the table share the markers)
• White sheet of large papers that covers each table as table cloth on which ideas can be written down
• Menus for tables describing rules and roles of the World Cafe

In case of online realisation, the requirements need to be adapted. Working e. g. with Zoom break-out sessions and mural board documentation provide a good alternative.

20 minutes for each question round, minimum 1 hour plus the introduction and explanation of the purpose of the World Café, its  methodology, rules and roles, and feedback of findings (altogether minimum 1.5 hours)

The methodology is realised in three main organisational steps. 

The preparation has to be adjusted to the target group and the context in which it is applied. When working as university staff with external actors, official invitations and procedures should be applied. For internal reflection e.g. with university and department staff, the format can be applied in a joint meeting. In a student class it also can be applied as a didactical instrument. In all 3 application formats there is a sequence of preparation to be considered:

 1. Preparation

1.1.  Clarification of the purpose

The World Café can be used for e.g.  

• Brainstorming with students to collect their experiences and knowledge
• Reflection to reach a certain concrete objective (e.g. better coordination between the departments of the university or to identify concrete entry points for research projects with businesses)
• Promotion of communication on a certain relevant topic to align understanding (e.g. “What is the opinion of different professors and university staff to increase innovation orientation in their delivery of teaching?”)

1.2. Phrasing of the questions

Phrasing suitable questions is key to reach the purpose of the World Café. The logic of phrasing follows a funnel logic. It starts with a rather generic question to get the communication going, then a more concrete question related to the purpose of the meeting, then a final question that provides the opportunity to get a concrete outcome.

1.3.  Preparation of the event

This includes invitation but also setting up the space:

• Documentation of 3 questions on a pin board or a PowerPoint in three colours (first question in green, 2^nd question in red, 3^rd question in blue)
• Round table and table cloth organisation with vases or a flower drawing on the table cloth
• Placing markers (green ones for 1^st question, red ones for 2^nd question, blue ones for 3^rd question) on the tables
• Preparing the menu card with the rules and roles of the exercise or preparing on a flipchart (or PowerPoint) the rules and roles 
• Preparation of a mind map on a pin board to document final summary of findings

2. Realisation of the World Café

2.1.  Welcome speech and introduction to the purpose and sequence 

One of the key questions that can be asked to the audience is: “Where do you have most informal exchange on an official event” The answer in general is: “During the coffee breaks.” The World Café has the logic to encourage informal communication and exchange in a formal structure. It is relevant to give a short overview of the structure of the World Café (3 questions, groups are mixing, and tables are changed after each question, each reflection on a question is e.g. 20 minutes). The explanation of rules and roles are relevant finally (in the first-round group at each table chooses one host who stays at each table through all question rounds, everybody takes the markers and doodles and draws on the table cloth, every comment is documented or visualized on the table cloth etc.). Then the group is asked to find themselves up at different tables before the first round of question starts.

2.2.  First round of questions

The first round of questions is beginning, and answers are getting documented in one colour (e.g. green). Answers to the questions get exchanged and documented on the table cloth (using symbols and graphics, not only words is encouraged). At the end of the 1^st question round each participant is asked to look for a new table with a new group of participants (e.g. students). Only the selected host stays at the same table to brief the newcomers.

2.3.  Second round of questions

Before the second question is presented, the host presents the main answers from the first round of reflection (only 2 minutes to wrap up). Meanwhile, moderators take the green markers from the table and exchange it with a new colour (e.g. red). Then the second question is presented to the participants. The reflections on answers related to the second question get then documented by the participants in a different colour (e.g. red). At the end of the second question round each participant is asked to look for a new table with a new group of participants. Only the selected host stays at the same table to brief again the newcomers.

2.4.  Third round of questions

Before the third question is presented, the host presents the main answers from the second round of reflection (only 2 minutes to wrap up). Meanwhile, moderators take the red markers from the table and exchange it with a new colour (e.g. blue). Then the third and last question is presented to the participants. The reflections on answers related to the third question get then documented by the participants in a different colour (e.g. blue).

3.     Reflection of findings

3.1.  Summarising main findings

The hosts at each table are asked to give a synthesis of the main answers on each question at their table. The results are documented in a mind map (on a pin board or flipchart).

3.2.  Reflection on main steps forward

It is important to reflect on how to make use of the information collected or how to move forward as a next step. The momentum that is created provides the opportunity to become well documented and to make use of (e.g. through the realisation of the ideas or further planning steps).

Local Economic Development Forum in a city (and in a Student) for a reflection on Local Economic Development

The following examples come from a Summer Academy on Economic Development in Germany for experts and practitioners and from  a student course at the SEPT Master Course in Germany. In both events the main topic to reflect on is local economic development (LED). The logic of the World Café was oriented to

1)      Identify common knowledge on what LED is all about

2)      Reflect about key challenges in LED in a respective city/place

3)      Identify key success criteria for LED

Designing a pin board with main objectives of the World Café and application of examples (if existing)

Students and local practitioners were provided examples of the use of the World Café in different projects and local events in the world. Along this board also the objectives of the world café logic were explained. Stressing out the logic of making the informal talk formal is a key aspect of the World Café as well as making use of common knowledge and getting to know each other through discussing and reflecting on concrete targeted questions.

Description of the rules and roles of the World Café sequence

In the local city workshop/training the description of the main rules and roles were provided. This can be done on a pin board, flipchart or on a PowerPoint. Presenting it in a nice visualised way encourages the participants to also visualise on the table cloths and to make use of symbols while jointly reflecting.

Presentation of one question after the other in the sequence

In a local economic development event with stakeholders a pin board to demonstrate the questions was used while in a student class a PowerPoint was used to present the three question in a sequence.

Summarising the discussions from the different round tables

A mind map is a good way to document the main findings of the discussions. The hosts are asked to come up with their main important findings which are then documented directly on the mind map. It provides a good joint reflection of the large group.

Documentation of the results

The summary reflection provides a good overview of the overall discussion. But each tablecloth table also entails many additional information. In a conference, these additional findings can be documented in a written format or photographed as documentation.

Support

The events with the World Café are organised by very different stakeholders in very different communities. In large public events, the core group who organises the World Café should make sure to have a number of moderators with them who visit the different tables and who make sure that people are not only talking but also documenting their reflections on the tablecloths.

• The web page for the World Café Community provides many detailed information: http://www.theworldcafe.com
• A short description of the World Café  - Handout Mesopartner: Handout World Cafe.pdf
• An LED Café Handbook in which the World Café format is used in the context of promoting local economic development with local stakeholders: https://de.scribd.com/document/158640382/The-LED-Cafe-and-Stone-Soup-Tale-English 

• A good video on key criteria and sequence for a World Café: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0d0Gybq-l0
• An application of the World Café in class: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ODLvTBvKow
• Recommended blogs can be found on theworldcafe.com page http://www.theworldcafe.com/blog with the provision of deeper insights and application examples.
• Accessible professional graphics can be find here: http://www.theworldcafe.com/tools-store/hosting-tool-kit/image-bank/book-images/

Snakes is a teambuilding activity that helps people practice trusting each other. A team captain guides his or her partners around obstacles using nonverbal instructions. The objective of the game is to place an item into the bucket by every (or some) team members.

Students

Lecturers

Entrepreneurs

Colleagues of the same company or work team

Professionals of different areas

To work in a team

To collaborate within a short time

Blindfolds

Items

Buckets

Rope or tape for barrier

Stopwatch

Snakes is a teambuilding activity that requires a great deal of space. An outdoor setting with some obstacles (but nothing dangerous) is ideal. As the facilitator of the Trust Walk, be sure to choose a safe area in advance. Large fields or the woods may be good places to try. Minor obstacles (trees, branches, small hills) are okay, but do not play this game in a dangerous environment (e.g. anywhere with very steep ledges or sharp protruding objects).

1. Assemble sets of materials for the teams. The materials required include blindfolds, items, buckets, rope or tape for barrier, and a stopwatch.
2. Create a large circle barrier with tape or a rope. Place a bucket in the middle of the circle. Toss the items randomly inside the barrier. Depending on the amount of people in the group, ask the participants to get into teams of 5-7 people.
3. Present the rules to everyone. The following rules apply for the game: All participants are blindfolded except for the person standing last in the line. Remember that only nonverbal communication is allowed. The person in the back of the line guides the participants around the circle barrier by tapping the shoulders of the person in front of him or her. Then, the next person taps the shoulders of the participant in front of him or her. This procedure continues until the person in the front of the line moves towards an item. When an item is approached, the person in the front grabs the item and is guided to the bucket where he or she drops the item. When a participant drops the item into the bucket, then he or she removes the blindfold and moves to the back of the line and becomes the sighted team member. The person who was in the back of the line puts on a blindfold. Game time is 5 minutes.
4. Start the game. Ask the participants to stand in a single line and put their hands on the shoulders of the person in front of them. This is a no-talking activity, but allow the group to take 1-2 minutes to pre-plan.
5. Play the game until all team members have placed an item into the bucket. If there is more than one team, the team that wins is the one that finishes the task in the shortest time. If the teams are uneven, the team with the least amount of members will continue to rotate until they have dropped as many items into the bucket as the largest team.
6. Draw conclusions. Let the teams discuss their feelings related to the game. What was easy? What was challenging? Focus on leadership, cooperation, strategies, surprises, etc. Some sample questions to ask the teams include
   • What was it like to be the “guide,” being fully responsible for the safety of your partner?
   • What do you think was the purpose of this team building activity?
   • Did you have any difficulty trusting your partner while blindfolded? Why or why not?
   • Why is trusting your teammates important?
   • How does this relate to employees working together on a project?

Additional format/references

The video shows Snakes (Trust Walk) in action:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93yqu-1Zb10?rel=0

Field of application

Guided larger group reflections on system dynamics

Resume / Brief description

In most of our work as lecturers or as scientists we are explaining certain system dynamics. The context can be a value chain as a business relational system, local economic development as a system in a certain geographic space or even a business itself as a system of departments, employees, changing markets and demand. Most systems are complex and interrelations in the system cannot always be traced back. The Systems Game is a funny and insightful self-experience on how systems and interrelationships are affecting each other in a multidimensional way. In the beginning, the participants of the exercise stay in a circle. They have to select two persons in the circle between which they have to position themselves once the moderator gives the signal. Different rounds of this game and joint reflections about observations provide an inside on how system dynamics function.

Target group

1. Students and graduates that should reflect on certain system dynamics.
2. Researchers and University departments that want to experience the system dynamics and who want to sensitise themselves on their interdependence.
3. Businesses and support organisations to sensitise themselves on the consideration of system dynamics and changes in the environment on which they have to respond.

Objectives

The Systems Game aims to

• Illustrate how a complex adaptive system works and how small changes can have a big effect
• Experience that cause and effect in complex systems is separated in time, and there are typically multiple cause and effect relations that are weakly connected but that influence each other
• Sensitise on who is following whom in complex living systems, and where the different stakeholders and system parts get their signals from to change their position
• Learn that due to the interconnectedness of system relations it is very difficult to intervene in the system without running into the risk that the system responds in an unpredictable way
• Learn that the history of a system and the relationships between the stakeholders shape the present and the future
• Experience that nobody has the complete picture of the system.

Requirements

• Space for the exercise. The Systems Game can be played in a larger classroom and outside in a parking lot, garden or park
• A flipchart for reflection in between the exercise

Time: 20 -30 minutes depending on the depth of reflection

Implementation - Overview

The methodology is realised in three main organisational steps. 

Implementation - Guidelines

The preparation is mainly the identification of a space large enough to freely make movements. Apart from that it is relevant to be aware of system dynamics and its explanation to the students or participants. The starting point of the exercise is that the students or the participants are building a circle in the space.

1.     Explanation of the rules

1.1.  Explaining the relevance of system dynamics

First, focus on the relevance of system dynamics and how we are acting in these dynamics. For example,

• Ask the students what the term “system dynamics” means and what systems are coming up in their mind
• Explain that we often try to fix a system without really knowing the relations in the system
• Ask participants to imagine a network of stakeholders with many connections. Moreover, let them think about what is happening when you shift or remove one stakeholder.

1.2.  Explanation of rules of exercise

• All participants are already standing in a large circle in which they can all see each other.
• Everyone should choose two people in the circle without being recognised or saying anything. Please also do not look at the persons during the exercise. Tell them to put on a "Pokerface".

• As soon as the moderator or teacher claps their hands, it is the task of all participants to position themselves between the two people they have chosen. If these two people move, each participant must also reposition him or herself so that he or she is again between the two people (see graphic).

1.3.  Demonstration

• The moderator selects two participants in the circle and names them. He or she asks them to move slowly in different directions in the room.
• As soon as they move, he or she constantly repositions him or herself between them.
• It is emphasised that everybody has to continue the adjustment until the moderator claps his or her hands again.
• If other people are in the way to be able move into the correct position, you will still try to move carefully into the correct position.  
• When the moderator claps his or her hands again, all participants should stop moving and have to stay where they are (freeze). 

2.     Exercise and observations

2.1.  First round of exercise

• The moderator asks all participants whether they have understood the rules and whether they have chosen two people.
• The moderator claps his or her hands and all participants take their positions. What will happen is the formation of a knot in which all participants stand very close together and move constantly.
• The moderator reminds the group to keep positioning themselves until he or she claps into the hands again. 
• When the moderator claps his or her hands, everyone in the group should stand where he or she stands (freeze).

2.2.  First round of reflection

• “What do you observe? What is happening?”, is the question the moderator asks the group. In general, different answers are coming up, e.g. “We are moving constantly.” "We are creating a knot?"
• The moderator asks again what else they observe? Answers could e.g. be: "It seems we are somehow connected.” "I do not know why the others are moving and where the centre of movement is.” The feeling of the complexity of the system starts to emerge.
• The moderator asks the group: Who thinks that he or she knows who is following them? They should say nothing but just raise their arm.
• The moderator asks then: Please raise the arm, if you think that nobody is following you.

2.3.  Second round of exercise: Observe who is following you

• The moderator asks all participants to go back to the circle.
• The moderator then asks the persons to do the same exercise but trying to give attention to the potential persons who are following them. Can they identify of who is following them? The rule is that everybody has to position him or herself in between his or her previously selected two persons.
• The moderator claps his or her hand and the same positioning starts again like in the first round.
• After two minutes the moderator claps his or her hand to ask the participants to freeze again.

2.4.  Reflection on what has happened

• The moderator asks again: "What has happened?" Further comments are coming from the participants.
• The moderator asks: “Who thinks that he or she knows who is following him or her? Please raise your hand.”
• The moderator asks: “Who thinks that he or she is not followed by anybody? Raise your hand.”

2.5.  Third round of exercise: Taking stakeholders out of the system

• The moderator takes two persons out from of the centre of the group and positions them somewhere else in the room while asking everybody else to stay where they are. The persons who have been taken out of the centre are now standing still in the next round. They are freezed for a moment.
• The moderator gives the introduction that if he or she claps again into the hand the whole group of persons has to position itself again between the two earlier selected persons. The persons who have been taken out of the group are now observers and have to see if they observe something and if they maybe identify persons that are following them.
• What happens in general is that the knot gets further dissolved. If not, the moderator takes another person, who thinks that he or she is not followed, out of the group and positions him or her or even two persons into another corner of the space while the whole group has to adjust immediately.
• Finally, the moderator asks the group for a last exercise. He chooses one person, who seems very much connected from the outside. He then asks the whole group to directly react on changes. At the same time everybody has the task to try to identify again who is following them. The moderator then takes the chosen person and moves with this one through the whole room or park. What happens normally is that the whole system of participants is moving again, and relations are becoming more visible.

2.6.  Third reflection on what has happened

• The moderator asks again the whole group and the persons who have been repositioned: “What do you observe? What has happened?" Observations are often that some persons who have formerly thought that they have not been followed but now realise the persons that are following them. Additionally, some persons realise some other interdependencies.
• The moderator asks the whole group again. “Who still thinks that he or she is not followed?” Then relations are getting dissolved and everybody tells whom he or she followed.

3.   Final reflection

3.1. Reflection of the whole exercise and insights

• The flipchart is taken into the circle and upcoming observations are documented.
• The moderator does a summary reflection: "What did we observe in the first round?" (e.g. knot, continuous movement without clear idea of who is following whom, etc.) "What did we observe in the second round?" (e.g. dissolved knot, more clarification of some interrelations but no clarity about all relations, etc.). "What did we observe in the third round?" (e.g. persons in the system who think they are not followed are actually followed etc.).

3.2. Reflection on (additional) system dynamics aspects

• The moderator then asks: "What are the insights from this exercise on system dynamics? What does this tell us about the complexity of systems?" Comments are documented again on the flipchart.
• The moderator then gives also additional inputs on typical system dynamics (see bullet points under “Objectives” above).

3.3. Reflection on relevance for our work

• The final reflection is on the relevance of these insights on our work (e.g. on value chains, on internal dynamics in sectors, business branches, etc.).

Example of application

Sensitisation on local economic development (LED) at a Summer Academy on Economic Development in Germany with international experts as well as a SEPT Master Course class in Leipzig with students in a course of local economic development

The participants of the Summer Academy are all coming from different countries, but they are all representatives of either private business organisations, public entities or support organisations. Also, the students at the Master Course have got experience in different organisations. In both occasions, all of the participants have to imagine that they are now in a location to promote local economic development with very different stakeholders and different interests. The objective in this context is that participants learn that LED is about

• A complex task where relationships between key stakeholders are highly diverse and complex, often not visible really.
• Sensitising for the importance to not only do a stakeholder analysis but specially to understand the interrelationships between the stakeholders.
• Realising that competitiveness of a locality does not only depend on the competitiveness of businesses, but also requires relationships between businesses, service providers, support organisations and local government entities. Socio-cultural norms and values often define certain overall relational contexts.
• Understanding better missing interrelations where it is possible to identify potential for cooperation.

Finding a place to realise the Systems Game

In the case of the Summer Academy the moderators decided to move into the park next to the training location.

Starting point

The group starts with a large circle and the introduction and rules of the exercise documented above.

Exercise itself

Impressions from the exercise itself through the round of reflections (left side Academy, right side Master Class)

Final reflection on the  flipchart

Support

The Systems Game requires especially facilitation through a moderator. It is also good to have a second moderator to document the final reflection on the flipchart. The group of participants should go beyond 12 people. It can also be facilitated with up to 50 persons to still manage a good reflection. 

Templates, Graphics for download

The Systems Game does not need templates. The flipchart for summarising reflections can be designed as a mind map (see above) or in a structured way along the reflection questions.

Additional format/references

Template and description of the tool by Mesopartner: Handout Systems Game.pdf

Facilitation and collaboration method for dealing with complex challenges, which can be used in workshops and research projects that includes a group of stakeholders.

A Dynamic Facilitation workshop starts with a certain topic on which every participant can give his or her opinion. No interruption is allowed as long as the person talks. The comments are written on cards or flipcharts along 4 panels and issues:

• Problems / Questions,
• Solutions / Ideas,
• Concerns / Objections, and
• Perceptions / Information.

The facilitator takes the emotional element and the conflictive aspects out of the reflection round through differentiating and structuring the main arguments. Through this format every participant gets the chance to bring in their opinion and to listen to the other ones. The documentation and the process of listening provides at the end the opportunity to come up with joint solutions that are considering the different perspectives and arguments raised.

1. Students and graduates that want to learn innovative facilitation skills for their own research and for the facilitation of workshops
2. Members of the university or research departments that want to facilitate a meeting on a complex topic and that want to overcome linear facilitation approaches
3. For the facilitation of workshops and cooperation projects with outside stakeholders (e.g. businesses, support organisations, etc.) and for working out cooperation opportunities.

This format works especially with smaller and medium-sized groups of up to 15 people.

The Dynamic Facilitation methodology has the objective to overcome classic facilitation methods often based on a very linear defined sequence. Different aspects are the following:

• It provides a more dynamic approach to conducting meetings or workshops
• It overcomes the setting of a sequential structure. In difference, it follows no steps that build on each other.
• The content has no predefined agenda and not the objective of a clear outcome.
• The facilitator starts with a specific topic or problem or question, but he or she gives flexibility for the group to follow it. Openness to what topics are emerging is a key objective of the methodology.
• The way of facilitation targets towards the emergence of content-related breakthroughs that provide the opportunity to develop  more complexity-sensitive solutions.

The tool is suitable to use, when

• Creative solutions are needed with building trust
• Participants really want to find a solution
• Issues have a strong emotional aspect and there are different perspectives involved
• Issues may have hidden facets.

Materials

• 4 pin boards or flipcharts with 4 headings. If the group is smaller one pin board with the use of different coloured cards can also be an alternative. What is relevant are the 4 headings:  

• Problems / Questions: Involves statements that are phrased as questions on how to solve the given problem
• Solutions / Ideas: Involves all possible solutions independent of which problem statement they belong
• Concerns / Objections: Involves all concerns raised to given solutions and ideas.
• Perceptions / Information: Involves all other statements, facts, or data which the participants speak out regardless of whether they are true or false

Time

• 2 hours to 1 day
• A shorter meeting might just start the process which then can be continued

The activity is realised in four main phases. 

At the beginning of a Dynamic Facilitation process there is always an initial question or a problem that is relevant for the participants and for which no solution is yet in reach. Based on this question, the process of reflection starts considering four main phases.

1.      Co-Initiating

• At the beginning, there is a short check-in round in which each participant can describe his or her expectations and ask questions about the process.
• Everyone should have a chance to speak so that it is clear with which background he or she is present.
• The facilitator states that, dissimilar to classical facilitation, his or her role is not to follow an agenda. Also, he or she does not stop the group from changing the topic or focus. Instead, he or she allows spontaneous changes of direction.
• It is mentioned that during the workshop or meeting hierarchies are neglected and directors are becoming one among others.

2.      Co-Seeing

• One of the group - usually the director or supervisor in the group - starts and introduces the topic that is important to him or her. The facilitator listens intensively and writes down the contributions on the 4 flipcharts. In this way, all opinions, concerns and ideas for solutions are mentioned and documented.
• Afterwards each participant has the time to contribute what is important to him or her.

3.      Co-Sensing

• After everyone has made their perspectives visible, the inputs are structured and differentiated.
• The facilitator again presents all the documented inputs and aspects that were pointed out, but in relation to the main headings. In this way, he or she provides a summary of the discussion but in a structured way.
• Participants can have additional comments that are then written on cards according to the four headings.

4.      Co-Acting

• After the reflection has been finalised, the group starts to reflect on the identification of further possible solutions and ideas.
• The next step is focusing on the question: “Which solutions and ideas seem to be most helpful?"
• Once the group has decided on one (or more) possible solutions, the reflection on the following question starts: “What do we have to do to realise the solutions and ideas?”
• Once the group has decided on concrete solutions, a classical method (e.g. like an action plan) can be used to plan the next steps in detail.

Reflection workshop with university and research institute representatives to increase local knowledge transfer with local businesses

Description of the context

Many universities and research institutes have the challenge to work together with local businesses. For many scientists it is more interesting to work with international research projects then to apply their knowledge to local business challenges. On the other side, these local businesses require new applied knowledge from the knowledge organisations in the surrounding. Many university staff members as well as consultancies that want to promote these local knowledge networks face the challenge to encourage local knowledge transfer projects due to very different opinions in the university or institute itself,. At the same time all employees and scientists know that they have to become involved in these projects if they want to get access to certain financial incentives.

Consultancies like Mesopartner often make use of the Dynamic Facilitation methodology in these situations with a group of representatives of local knowledge organisations. The objective of these Dynamic Facilitation workshops is to explore opportunities for concrete projects with local businesses and business organisations.

Source: https://participedia.net/method/1692

Starting point

Identification of a topic: "How can we strengthen the knowledge transfer with local businesses in the region?"

Main discussion aspects

The discussion often includes controversial arguments although the conflict between participants is reduced. The reason is that everybody can express all their arguments, and nobody is allowed to interrupt the other. On this topic main discussion lines could be going into the following direction:

• Businesses need our support and we have to work locally.
• Our international work is more relevant because it provides us access to state-of-the-art knowledge and international knowledge networks.
• The staff is mainly familiar with international funding sources, less with local ones.
• The reputation of the research institute and university research is based on publications. Why should we put the reputation at risk?
• The reputation would be high if we can demonstrate that we are able to apply our knowledge to reality and to our own environment.

There are more arguments against or in favour of the local knowledge transfer focus. In the following, some answers along the four headings are documented:

Problems / Questions

• How can we assure both, staying involved in the international knowledge network as well as creating local business-research networks?
• How can we get more information about local funding opportunities for the initiation of local knowledge transfer?
• How can we change the incentives for reputation? Currently, the focus is mainly on the number of publications rather than the realisation of local innovations.

Solutions / Ideas

• Starting pilot projects with students and faculty inside factories to test opportunities.
• Starting a local knowledge transfer initiative that provides also reputation to the university or research centre.
• Doing a number of visits to motivated businesses to identify opportunities for knowledge transfer.
• Providing incentives for local knowledge transfer projects (e.g. a local innovation contest).
• Moving into international knowledge networks which are also interested in promoting local knowledge transfer projects and learn with them.

Concerns / Objections

• The university or research institute cannot change the incentive system. Main employees and researchers were selected based on publications and international research activities and rewarding systems.
• Students have no additional time to do other knowledge transfer projects apart from their assignments.
• Students are mainly interested in researching topics that are related to international challenges.

Perceptions / Information

• Businesses are not really interested in knowledge transfer.
• We cannot find a common language with local businesses. They are not listening and not innovation oriented.
• There are international donor organisations or a fund available in the country where we can apply for local innovation projects.

The joint reflection with the staff members often changes at a certain point when all arguments and resentments are spoken out and structured. It often provides a breakthrough in which certain opportunities emerge. For example, the result can be that other research institutes are also interested to start with a contest for students and young researchers to find local knowledge transfer solutions through cross-innovation workshops within businesses.

In this case a solution could look like this:

• As a first step it is decided to identify businesses that want to participate in such internal workshops, in which students and researchers first get an impression about the production process and products.
• Then students and researchers will work with faculty on different solutions through a kind of cross-innovation workshop or in a kind of hackathon.
• The first ideas are then presented to the local businesses.
• Local businesses provide comments. They can then express which potential solution sounds feasible or realistic.
• Another opportunity is that in the presentation and discussion of innovative ideas with the businesses more concrete and jointly defined knowledge transfer opportunities will emerge.

The example above is just one example where the Dynamic Facilitation method can help to move from a relatively complex discussion of a topic towards a concrete result. An action plan format can finally help to define concrete next steps if the example of knowledge transfer contest or cross-innovation workshop approach should become realised.

Support

Dynamic Facilitation requires much attention from the facilitator. Thus, it is good to get support from another facilitator who writes down on the cards while the leading facilitator moderates the process. Two facilitators would be good to be present. An alternative is to ask one of the participants to write on the cards or to document on flipcharts the main issues based on the directions from the lead facilitator.

The main features of the Dynamic Facilitation method can be found in the presentation Dynamic Facilitation.ppt

There are many graphics available in web search engines that visualise the main directions and logics of Dynamic Facilitation. Have a look at visualisation ideas for flipcharts at the Community of Practice website  http://www.dynamicfacilitation.com/index.html

More information is available at:

https://www.knaus-consulting.ch/en/services/large-group-facilitation/dynamic-facilitation.html#illustration-df

Information on the method and step-by-step handouts:

Dynamic Facilitation Community of Practice page: http://www.dynamicfacilitation.com/index.html

The Dynamic Facilitation Method: https://participedia.net/method/1692

Online-Manual from the founder of the Dynamic Facilitation method, Jim Rough: http://www.co-intelligence.org/DFManual.html

A manual for Dynamic Facilitation and the Choice-Creating Process, by Rosa Zubizarreta and Jim Rough (2002), https://de.scribd.com/document/403917595/Dynamic-Facilitation-Manual

Videos:

Choice-creating and Dynamic Facilitation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Nc9lIXLB1s

Dynamic Facilitation – How it Works (by Jim Rough & Rosa Zubizarreta): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpESecMWtfE

The goal of this exercise is to build the highest free-standing structure using supplied materials. The teams must cooperate in a well-organised way to build the structure in a relatively short time. The challenge should be performed in a room big enough to allow all team members free access to the tables where structures are being built.

Students

Lecturers

Entrepreneurs

Colleagues of the same company or work team

Professionals of different areas

To work in a team

To collaborate within short time

20 sticks of spaghetti

Half a metre of masking tape

Half a metre of string

One marshmallow

Remember to prepare all materials before the challenge. Start with creating teams, then ask one person from each team to collect prepared materials. Clearly define and describe the rules and do not forget to mention that this is a competition with a prize. Ask for possible questions. Perform the challenge using a stopwatch and play up-beat music in the meantime. Be active during competition – walk from one team to another. When the time counts down, measure all standing structures, and write down all results in a visible place (e.g. black board, projector). Prepare the prize for the winning team. Do the summary, draw the conclusions to show that this challenge is not only for the fun, but is has a deeper meaning related to rapid prototyping, testing solutions and methods of education. The overall time needed to finish this exercise is about 50 minutes.

1. Assemble sets of materials for each team. Every set contains twenty sticks of spaghetti, half a metre of masking tape, half a metre of string and one marshmallow. If the string is too strong, provide access to scissors (one for three teams). Marshmallows should be in standard size with a shape close to a cube or cylinder. Ingredients can be optionally placed into a paper bag, which simplifies distribution and hides the contents, maximising the element of surprise. Other important tools needed for the exercise are measuring tape, countdown application or a stopwatch. There are plenty on the web or use a smartphone. The best option is when teams see the timer. In addition, a video projector and sound system are required. Use the projector for rules presentation, the stopwatch and showing the final movie. Use the sound system for an effective communication with the audience, especially during the challenge, when it is very loud. Play music during the contest. The prize can be a new box of marshmallows, book, or even a small amount of cash.
2. Create teams.  Teams can be formed randomly but can also be created by people who know each other. The size of the team should be 4 to 5 members. If you have the possibility, check both options for team formation.
3. Present everyone the rules. The goal is to build the tallest freestanding structure. The winning team is the one that reaches the biggest distance from the tabletop surface to the top of the marshmallow. The structure cannot be suspended from a higher structure, like a chair, ceiling, or chandelier. The entire marshmallow needs to be on the top of the structure. Cutting or eating part of the marshmallow disqualifies the team. Use as much or as little of the kit, for example the team can use as many or as few of the twenty spaghetti sticks, and as much or as little of the string or tape. If the paper bags were used, then the teams cannot use them as a part of their structure. The teams are free to break the spaghetti and cut up the tape and string. The time for the challenge is 18 minutes. The teams are not allowed to hold the structure during measurement. The structure must stand for at least 10 seconds.
4. Ask for questions before the start. There are always any.
5. Start the challenge. Walk over the room and enjoy the teams’ creativity. Try to visit all teams, but do not suggest anything to them. Answer the questions if there are any. Remind the teams about time (e.g. every 6 minutes, focusing on half of the time).
6. Finish the challenge. You can ask everyone in the room to sit down so everyone else can see the structures. Measure all structures and write down the results in a well seen place. Remember to identify the winning team. Ensure that they get a standing ovation and give them a prize.
7. Talk with the teams about their feelings related to the competition. What was easy? What was challenging? Focus on cooperation, leadership, the most time-consuming part and surprises.
8. Show everyone the movie at TED2010 by Tom Wujec (see "Additional formats/references" below).
9. Draw conclusions after the movie and discuss it with the group. Some observations are:
   • Kids do better than business students.
   • When talking about creativity, kindergarteners create taller and more interesting structures.
   • Prototyping matters. The reason kids do better than business school students is that kids spend more time testing the solution and prototyping. They naturally start with the marshmallow and stick in the sticks.
   • The business school students spend a vast amount of time planning, then executing on the plan, with almost no time to fix the design once they put the marshmallow on top.
   • Metaphor for the hidden assumptions of a project. The assumption in the Marshmallow Challenge is that marshmallows are light and fluffy and easily supported by the spaghetti sticks. When you try to build the structure, the marshmallows do not seem so light. The lesson in the marshmallow challenge is that we need to identify the assumptions in our project - the real customer needs, the cost of the product, the duration of the service - and test them early and often. That is the mechanism that leads to effective innovation and good product or service design.

Additional format/references

The movie recorded at TED2010 with Tom Wujec can be accessed at

https://www.ted.com/talks/tom_wujec_build_a_tower_build_a_team/transcript

Field of application

Sensitising students and academics that everybody comes into a certain context with his or her own perception of the world. A world view is a fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual, such as a student or an expert. World views are often shaped by cultural and professional mindsets, and learning experiences. The World View Game can be used in group settings with a wide range of stakeholders, e.g. academics and students who, through the exercise, get a taste of the impact of different world views.

Collaboration

Resume / Brief description

The World View Game has the objective to sensitise the participants about how they are shaped by their predefined but often unconscious and pre-coded mindsets. During the game the group of participants has to draw a picture together that has a dual interpretation. The joint drawing brings to the surface very different  points of departure. These different points of departure are then the centre of reflection. What does the exercise tell us about our work, our way to follow our own perspective of how things have to be realised, planned and followed up?

Target group

1. Students and graduates that should become sensitised on the fact that our world views and mindsets are shaping our search for solutions and behaviour patterns.
2. Members of the university or research departments or institutes with very different specialisation fields.
3. For the facilitation of workshops and cooperation projects with outside stakeholders (e.g. businesses, support organisations)

Objectives

The World View Game has the objective to sensitise the participants about their own preset world views and patterns of interpretations. Being aware about these patterns is the starting point to also realise them in the process of further information collection.

Key objectives of the World View Game are the following:

• To open the opportunity for students and academics to reflect  on patterns of interpretations on how we perceive the world.
• To sensitise on our own often unconscious way how we interpret certain information and how we process them.
• To become aware that each person and expert comes with their own interpretation based on perceptions and information.
• To open space for communication on the complexity of interpretations.
• To emphasise that the different patterns of our interpretations have to be brought into the room instead of leaving them outside. It provides the opportunity to better and deeper understand some root causes of failed understanding and failed projects with good intentions but weak results and buy-in of the respective stakeholders.

Requirements

Material

• A room where the participants can be separated into two groups and where, at a later stage, there are enough tables where the two separated groups can meet with two persons at one table
• Print-outs of the pictures of the ambiguous images (Man and Mouse)
• Pin boards where the final results of the drawing can be pinned
• Markers in two colours according to the number of participants (one half of the group gets one colour, the other half of the group gets a different colour)
• A 4 white paper

The 3 print-outs for the game:

Man                             Mouse                        Joint version

Time

•  45 minutes

Implementation - Overview

The activity is realised in four main phases.

Implementation - Guidelines

1.      First round of individual drawing

• The exercise starts without an introduction to the term “world view”.
• The large group (e.g. a class of students) gets separated into two groups, one of the left side of the room and the other on the right side of the room.
• Every participant gets two white A 4 papers in front of them. Each of the persons on the right side gets a marker in black, each of the persons on the left side gets a marker in blue (colours can also be different, but they have to be different for each group)
• The moderator should have printed out the mouse and the man images and attached it on the two sides of an A 4 paper.
• The moderator then stands in front of the right side of the group and shows them the image of the man.
• He or she introduces to the participants: “Look at this image and try to keep it in mind to be able to draw it.” (10 seconds)
• Then the moderator turns around to the other group. While he or she turns to that group he or she also flips quickly around the A 4 page and shows the visualisation of the mouse to the other group on the left side.
• Again, they get the instruction to look at the images and to keep in mind.
• The moderator then hides the two images and asks the participants to draw individually the visualisation they saw on the A 4 paper in front of them with the marker they got.
• When everbody has drawn their picture, they are asked to fold the sheet of paper and to put it into their pocket or bag.

2.      Joint round of image drawing in pairs of two

• The moderator asks the two groups to find a partner from the other group and to sit jointly at a table. No words are allowed to be exchanged.  
• When the pairs of two are sitting the moderator explains the next task: They jointly have to draw now the picture they saw together, each with his or her colour of marker.
• They get 4 minutes to draw their joint picture with the rule to not talk any word.  Normally confusion emerges at the tables because the one is drawing the mouse, the other on the same A4 paper wants to add the man´s face (or vice versa).
• When the time is over, the participants are asked to stop their joint effort.

3.      Reflections on observations and resolutions

• The moderator asks the large group: "Now you are allowed to talk. What has happened?” Participants share their confusion.
• “What do you think was the reason for the confusion?”, asks the moderator and the group reflects on it in the plenary. The moderator does not yet give an answer.
• The moderator then asks the participants to present their joint drawing and then to pin it on the pin board. Normally, the group is laughing about the outcomes of the images.
• Finally, the moderator puts the merged visualisation of the man and the mouse on the top of the pin board. “This is the picture you have drawn together. Is that right? Some participants might recognise the double interpretation, others not.
• The moderator resolves the whole exercise and puts the mouse visualisation on the right side of the pin board and the man drawing on the left side of the pin board. What normally happens at that moment is an “Aha-effect”. All participants realise the reason for the confusion.

4.      Co-Reflection on world views and its impact

• The moderator asks the participants: “What does this exercise tell us about our work? What can we take from that?" Comments are documented on a flipchart.
• Then the moderator explains the term world view and the fact that we all do never start from the same point of departure. The two graphics below provide a good overview about aspects that influence our world view (see also links for further information below). How we interpret the context of our work is never the same, since it is shaped by our values, behaviour, culture, and interpretation patterns.

Source: Choice Baptist Church (https://choicebaptist.org/2020/06/07/nofilter/) and Oregon State University (http://web.engr.oregonstate.edu/~funkk/Personal/worldview.html )

• The moderator asks again the participants: "How is our world view shaping our work? Where do you become aware of different world views? What do you have to take into consideration when being aware of different world views of the stakeholders we are working and living with?"
• The final reflection ends with the explanation that we are all bound to our system in which we grow up and work. Being conscious about our own patterns and open to talk about the patterns of others with whom we work is an important element for successful joint development efforts and solutions.

Example of application

World View Game in a training with economic development experts from different countries to emphasise criteria for systemic search processes

Description of the context

The experts and practitioners came to the training to better understand the importance of systemic development efforts versus isolated economic activities. They are all coming from very different cultures and they are presenting different roles in their regions (like businesses, R&D, support organisations, policy). Starting a training with the World View Game opens the floor to directly sensitise on our different points of departure and the complexity of aspects to consider.

Starting point

Preparing the location and separating tables so that the participants do not realise that you show different visualisations. In the case of the event, participants were sitting at round tables and the moderator himself separated the group mentally into two.

Impressions from the process

Room constellation and 1st round of individual drawing.

Drawing round 2: Joint drawing

Documentation of results of joint drawing and resolution.

Final reflection

What has just happened? How does it make you feel? How does it relate to our work?

The reflection with the team after the game is the most relevant aspect of the whole approach. We provide here some answers from participants on the questions above:

What has just happened?

• We still see what we know.
• Different perceptions matter.
• Compromise requires communication.
• Being dominated by perception.
• I am locked in my world view.
• Perception negotiation and acceptance.

How does it make you feel?

• I felt inferior because I could not express myself.
• Feeling frustration.
• Confusion because of not knowing where this leads to.
• The feeling that I have to let go.
• Tendency to dominate the process to “get it right”.

How does it relate to your work?

• Not to push my experience and expectation to the front.
• Ask the partner: "What is the picture you have in mind?"
• Providing space for communicating perceptions and world views.
• You have to take efforts to really see the other perspective.
• We need to increase real communication.
• Put yourself into the shoes of the other.

Support

The World View Game requires no detailed moderation capabilities. The moderator needs to make sure that the process and the rules are followed. It can be facilitated by one moderator.

The three main relevant aspects for the success of the game are:

1. Making sure that the two groups do not realise that they see two different visualisations (man and mouse) 
2. Assuring that the persons do not talk to each other during the drawing exercise
3. Assuring that the final reflection is realised. The game is not just an energiser but a valuable reflection exercise about the complexity of our work

Templates, Graphics for download

The visualisations the man and mouse are attached (2 Man and Mouse.jpg // 3 Man and Mouse.jpg). More templates are not necessary.

Additional format/references

The game is not based on information in the internet. It was used by Mesopartner, a knowledge firm that specialises in economic development, competitiveness and innovation. It is the first time that this World View Game is documented.

Resume / 

Brief description

The goal of this team exercise is to transport a ball from point A to point B and then set the ball on top of the pedestal. Team members must cooperate while being very focused and organised during moving the ball. The exercise checks if the team has a strong leader among its members. The challenge should be performed in a large room or space.

Target group

Students

Lecturers

Entrepreneurs

Colleagues of the same company or work team

Professionals of different areas

To work in a  team

To collaborate within a short time

Requirements

Plastic ping-pong ball

Metal ring (e.g. bolt pad)

Cylindrical pedestal

Scissors

Stopwatch

Video projector S

Sound system

Prize

Implementation -Overview

Start with creating teams and showing the start and destination points. Define and describe the rules. Remember that this is a time-limited contest with a prize. Ask for possible questions. Perform the challenge using a stopwatch. Do not disturb the team during the competition. Other teams should keep their distance from the performing team. When the time counts down or the team is successful in ball transportation, write down the time results in a visible place (e.g. black board, projector). Prepare the prize for the winning team. Do a summary, draw the conclusions to show that this challenge is related to having a good leader who will be the warranty of success. The time needed to finish this exercise is about 6 minutes for each team. Additional time is needed for the summary (approx. 15 min).

Implementation -Guidelines

1. Assemble sets of materials for the teams. Prepare at least one set of materials. If you are time-limited, the exercise can be done in parallel, but it demands additional supervisors (one for each team). The set includes  a plastic ping-pong ball, a metal ring (e.g. bolt pad) with an internal diameter ca. 40% smaller than the diameter of the ball, a cylindrical pedestal with a diameter few millimetres smaller than the internal diameter of the metal ring and strings. Make sure the path the participants take is clear of obstacles. Other important tools needed for the exercise are:  
   • Scissors – to cut the string on equal pieces,
   • Countdown application or stopwatch – there are plenty on the web or the one in the smartphone can be used,
   • Video projector and sound system – projector for rules presentation and showing the stopwatch.
   • Sound system for an effective communication with the audience, especially during the challenge,
   • Prize – can be a ticket, a book or a small amount of cash.
2. Create teams. There will be interesting results both when teams are formed randomly or when teams are created by people who know each other. The size of the team should be 4 to 6 members.
3. Present everyone the rules. The ollowing rules apply for the contest:
   • Each participant gets one string to operate,
   • Participants must hold only the end of the string,
   • Participants must stay at a distance of a length of a stretched-out string (very important),
   • If the ball falls off the steel ring, the group must start again,
   • If the ball falls three times, the team must leave the competition,
   • If the pedestal falls over, the group must start again,
   • The team is successful when the ball is balanced on the pedestal and the ring is freely resting on the ground with no one holding or stretching a string,
   • The time for the challenge is 4 minutes for the distance of about twenty metres from point A to B,
4. Ask for questions before the start of each team.
5. Start the challenge. Set up the team members in the positions and ensure that every string is stretched. Answer the questions if there are any. Let the team members balance the ring in a horizontal position, then place the ball in the steel ring. Indicate clearly the start of counting the time. Remind the teams about time (e.g. every 30 seconds).
6. Finish the challenge. All results must be written down in a well seen place. Identify the winning team – ensure they get a standing ovation and a give them a prize.
7. Draw conclusions. Discuss with the teams their feelings related to the contest. What was easy, what was challenging? Focus on leadership, cooperation, strategies, and surprises. Draw conclusions after the competition and discuss them with the group. When a group works together to complete a task, the impact each person has can be profound. In this activity, the ball can be caused to drop if even one person does not do their job well. A team working on a given solution, especially in the case of time-limited tasks, must rely on each other. The team must have a well-defined leader. This person will tell other members of the team what to do, especially during the last phase of transportation, that is putting the ball on pedestal.

Additional format/references

A short video sequence shows the main idea of the Focus Ring.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh0Urp9Yjpg

Cynefin is used for decision-making in different system realities.

Cynefin is considered a sense-making framework, which means that its value is not so much in logical arguments or empirical verifications as in its effect on the sensemaking and decision-making capabilities of those who use it. The Cynefin framework is used to understand and take action in different types of systems confronting decision makers. It is often used for strategic decisions and the reflections on how to intervene in complex systems or complex contexts. It differentiates leadership roles between areas where we can concretely find out what to do (the ordered reality) and where we do not know what to do (disordered reality). Accordingly, the framework defines 4 domains and leadership requirements to intervene in a system:

Clear context (the domain of best practice): We see the situation and it is very clear what has to been done. Interventions can be used that are based on best practice and existing knowledge. This is also called the realm of “known knowns”. The job of the leader is to make sense (possibly with colleagues, employees, and partners), categorise and decide what has to be done, and assure that proper processes for the intervention are in place. Then, tasks can be delegated, and intensive communication is less necessary. The motto  here is: "Let us just implement it now!"

Complicated contexts (the domain of experts): More expertise and knowledge is needed in a certain situation to make a decision or to promote an intervention. The problem can be understood and solved with more deeper insights (“known unknowns”). The leader´s role with his or her teams or partners is to deepen the analysis, to identify experts with different solutions and to decide for a solution (or intervention). Planning steps and monitoring have to be assured. The motto is: "Let´s get the experts do their work according to plan, do follow up and assure that the issue is solved!”

Complex contexts (the domain of emergence): In most human and relationship-based systems we are dealing with complex contexts, in which cause and effect are impossible to trace back (“unknown unknowns”). A linear leadership style and expertise do not help in such a situation. Multiple causes and effects influence each other and it is important to provide space for experimentation and exploration. Small interventions or safe to fail experiments can help to identify patterns of responses. The patterns identified then provide ideas for further careful steps of action. The role of leadership here is to follow the logic of probe-sense-respond with other stakeholders. An environment has to be created that allows experiments and patterns to emerge. Identifying patterns and reflecting on experiment results require strong interaction and communication skills. The motto here is: “Let us experiment, open up discussions with dissent and variety, identify patterns and jointly design a variety of experiments to better judge the playing field and opportunities for further interventions!”

Chaotic contexts (the domain of rapid response): In these contexts, the situation is that unstable that cause and effect as well as patterns are totally out of any predictability and shifting constantly ("unknowable knowns"). Dave Snowden, the author of Cynefin, mentions here. “In the chaotic domain, a leader’s immediate job is not to discover patterns but to stanch the bleeding. A leader must first act to establish order, then sense where stability is present and from where it is absent, and then respond by working to transform the situation from chaos to complexity. Here hierarchical leadership styles come into play, which are not helpful in the other domains but are necessary here. The motto is: “Let's stop the crisis, reestablish order, decide top-down!” (Snowden & Boone, 2007, p.65f.)

The cliff between the simple and the chaotic domain: The Cynefin model draws a cliff between the two domains (see visualisation). While there are soft or so-called liminal areas between the domains, this liminal domain does not exist between the simple and the chaotic domain. Here you find a cliff. This means that if you mistakenly treated a system or intervention as simple or clear, but it would actually require complex or complicated patterns of action, the system can fall over the cliff and spontaneously lead to chaotic reactions.  This cliff emphasises the importance and risk at the same time to not come up with simplistic answers to more complex problems.

Considering these different system realities, decision-makers have to be able to make use of different management and leadership strategies to overcome one-size-fits-all behaviour models in complex realities or, according to Snowden & Boone (2007), engage in “contextual decision-making”.

1. Decision-makers in the university or in an organisation that wants to identify more diverse and more successful styles of interventions.
2. Students that require leadership skills in complex living systems.
3. Professionals that want to coach and consult public or private organisations to improve their strategic decision-making processes. 

The objective is to

• Identify different ways to intervene in a living system
• Learn about decision-making and leadership roles
• Learn about different realities in the system that require different ways to understand and intervene in the system
• Teach students and professionals about the dynamics of complex living systems and sensitise them to understand better how to approach their complexity without running into too simplistic solution models

Material

• A pin board (virtual or real) with the Cynefin framework
• Cards and markers

Time

• 2-3 hours

The activity is realised in 3 phases. 

1.      Reflection on topics that require decisions

1.1.  Reflection with a team on key decision topics

The starting point of a Cynefin workshop is the question of the topic or theme that the workshop should focus on. It can be rather open or more focused. It can focus on key decision topics that have to be made (e.g. decisions to make in regard to the organisation) or are related to one theme or issue of concern (e.g. How to develop a new product? How to increase income? How to tackle the support of businesses in our region?). The focus of the workshop has to be defined in advance.  

Everybody in the team writes their key inputs on relevant aspects that have to be considered (topics, answers, ideas for solutions, suggested steps forward) on each card. Everybody can write several cards so that a critical number of cards are written. 

1.2.  Differentiating and structuring the cards along the ordered, unordered and confused domain

The facilitator draws the horizontal line of the Cynefin framework with its three areas on the pin board: on the right the “ordered side” and on the left the unordered side, and in the middle the domain “confused”. He or she also has designed the same line on a flipchart for the table.

The facilitator puts the flipchart table with the line on the table and gives the following instruction: “Please order your cards now on the flipchart line where you think solutions can either be identified relatively easily or identified with some more expertise (under the ordered area), where you think we need more experimentation and exchange or clear decisions from the top (on the right side under unordered) or where I am not sure yet what is needed (under confused).

2.      Application of Cynefin

2.1.  Explanation of the Cynefin framework

The facilitator adds the horizontal line into the framework and explains all four domains (clear, complicated, complex, chaotic, and the cliff) on a pin board.

2.2.  Cynefin energiser for better understanding (optional)

There is the option to make use of an energiser to better grap the idea of the Cynefin logic. Once the Cynefin has been explained the energiser can be integrated:

• The facilitator asks the group of participants to stand up and then gives the first instruction: "Sort yourselves according to your heights!” When they have done, the facilitator asks them in which domain this might fall (clear/obvious one).
• The facilitator then gives the second instruction: “Sort yourselves according to your ages, birth months and birthdays!” When they have done, the facilitator asks them in which domain this might fall (complicated one).
• The facilitator asks then the group to play the first round of the Systems Game: “Stand in a circle, choose two persons (secretly) in the circle, as soon as I am saying “Go!” you position yourselves in between these two persons. Keep your position even if the others are moving. Afterwards, the facilitator asks them in which domain this might fall (complex one).
• This reflection will help to better understand the logic of the Cynefin in a playful way.

2.3.  Organising cards along the domains

• Participants are then asked to organise their cards according to the domains (on the pin board). In many areas they have to write more differentiated cards because some answers for solving the issue might be rather simple, others rather complex. Unclear cards can be left in the confused area.
• Organising the cards along four questions can be helpful in that respect:
  1. We know what to do but have to assign it and get it done (clear domain),
  2. If we analyse it well and find the right expertise, we can solve it (complicated domain),
  3. We have not fully grasped what is going on here and it seems not as easy to solve it straightforward (complex domain),
  4. We have to decide quickly not to run into real problems (chaotic domain).   

2.4.  Final reflection on cards and adding new cards if necessary

• A reflection in the team about the main findings and insights follows: Questions like "What do you observe? What have you identified?" help to encourage the joint reflection.
• The cards will be presented and their position discussed. Unclear cards will be redefined if necessary, duplications will be taken out.

3.      Reflection on initiatives

3.1.  What can be done for each topic/card?

• Each card requires certain decision-making and the definition of interventions or actions. According to the domain, the intervention or decision requires different approaches.
• The team reflects together:
  • In the simple domain: "What are concrete steps forward?"
  • In the complicated domain: "What additional analysis or information and expertise is required?
  • In the complex domain: "What safe-to-fail experiments can we promote to better understand what is going on?"
  • In the chaotic domain: "What kind of concrete decision is needed now to stabilise the situation?"
• It might be that some of the cards require reconsideration. They might move e.g. from the complex to the complicated dimension.

3.2.  Select main steps forward

• Based on the differentiation of decision-making requirements and intensive reflection, the team selects the main field of action they want to take: "With which initiatives and actions to start?" is the key question here.
• Having selected some starting initiatives it will be relevant to define concrete next steps, fix responsibilities and clarify which stakeholders need be involved in the further process.

3.3.  Documentation of results

A Cynefin workshop is work in progress. It might be that only a few issues can be taken up. It might also be that some initiatives that were interpreted as e.g. complicated finally turn out to be complex. The pin board provides the opportunity to reorganise the cards. In that way, the first Cynefin workshop results can become a continuous process tool which helps to make sense about the process. In that respect, visualising it on a pin board or digital mural board helps to come back to it.   

Cynefin workshop in a development project

Description of the context

The development project is focusing on the economic development of a region in an East European country. The consultancy company Mesopartner did a workshop with the team to reflect about different kinds of initiatives that can be promoted to improve the competitiveness and sustainable development of especially the regions and certain value chains like agri-processing and IT in the region.

Starting with a reflection on topics and issues and structuring them along the three horizontal domains (see phase 1)

Explanation of the Cynefin framework (see phase 2.1.)

Before introducing the Cynefin framework the cards are turned upside down so that they can be revealed and explained one by one when explaining the framework. 

Organisation of cards along the domains on the Cynefin pin board (phase 2.3.)

Reflections on concrete initiatives that can be promoted (phase 3)

Findings and outcomes

The workshop revealed many insights, some of which are listed in the following:

• In some areas we have delayed concrete activities that are holding back certain activities. We just have to realise them (clear domain).
• In many intervention fields that are planned in the project there is a need for much more network and knowledge sharing work with the local partners to better understand what is really needed and who is really interested (complex domain).
• There is a need for more “safe to fail experiments” to identify what really works and where people and interest groups are buying in and are supporting the process.
• There are areas where we need deeper analysis with the partners (understanding the value chain linkages in the two value chains and the key challenges). Here we need participatory field analysis and the involvement of experts in the agricultural and IT sector (complicated domain).
• We were starting with a grant scheme for certain projects without a clear definition and without having clear what the criteria for this grant were. It led to the handing out of funding support to projects that were not really innovative. The decision was taken to stop the grants for the moment to not create the wrong expectation in the community that the project is active (chaotic domain).
• Other activities and decisions in the workshop increased the awareness of the project team on the realm of the complex domain. The team realised that many planned initiatives in the project require much more involvement and partnership with the local stakeholders. Testing and experimenting with the partners requires more work and a more participatory approach but it finally leads to stronger ownership and stronger system awareness for all parties involved. It also provides the chance to learn about and within the system with the partners.

The Cynefin Company is the author of the framework and provides much information on the Cynefin model.

https://thecynefin.co

Reading

Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007): A Leader´s Framework for Decision Making, Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making 

Videos

Dave J. Snowden and Mary E. Boone introduce the Cynefin model: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7oz366X0-8

Podcast with Dave J. Snowden: https://systemicinsight.libsyn.com/an-interview-with-dave-snowden

Introducting new members to a team

Teambuilding

This activity helps to get to know each other when people are joining a new team. It highlights the commonalities between team members in order to strengthen the team spirit.

The activity works in every setting (adults, young people, in a work context or in seminar groups).

The group size should be 6-21 persons (the number of participants should be divisible by 3). Alternatively, a quadrangle with 4 participants per group could be arranged as well.

• To identify commonalities between people
• To get to know each other
• To build a team
• To strengthen team cohesion

Material

One flipchart paper

One moderation marker per person per group

In an online setting the Template_Triangle of Commonalities can be shared with all participants.

Time

20-60 minutes

1. Small groups of three participants each are formed. They are each given a large sheet of paper and three pens.
2. Each group draws a large triangle on the paper and the participants each write their names, age and other identifying information near the corners.
3. At each corner there is one participant. Now the participants look for commonalities. These are written either in the centre if all participants share them, or on one of the sides of the triangle if there are commonalities between two people. Special characteristics of each person can be written at the corners.
4. Finally, the groups can present their posters to each other. For example, one person can introduce another person from his or her group to the whole (work or seminar) group.

The template can be downloaded and shared with workshop or seminar participants.

Template_Triangle of Commonalities

Some more information on the Triangle of Commonalities are available at:

https://methopedia.eu/posts/triangle-of-commonality/triangle-of-commonality/

Field of application

Introduction to a wokshop

Setting the scene for a workshop

Resume / Brief description

HELLO! is suitable as an introduction to workshops and as a teambuilding activity. Its strategy contrasts with the typical other introduction or teambuildinggames, which are mostly fun but have no link to the topics being covered in the workshop.

Target group

Students

Lecturers

Entrepreneurs

Colleagues of the same company or work team

Professionals of different areas

Group size

Participants

• Min. 8
• Max. 52
• Ideal: 12-32
• Participants are divided into teams of 4

Objectives

• To collect expectations from participants
• To explore previous experience with the topic with participants
• To develop alternative definitions and possible applications related to the topic 

Requirements

Materials

• Set of playing cards
• Flipchart paper
• Marker
• Stopwatch
• Whistle

Time

• 20-40 minutes

Implementation - Guidelines

1.       Preparation

• Take a set of playing cards.
• Determine the number of participants and divide the number by 4 (round up if necessary).
• The number of participants corresponds with the number of cards that are sorted from each of the four suits of cards.
• Shuffle the sorted cards and use them to divide the participants into teams.

2.       Process

2.1. Instruction of the participants about the goal of the game:

• Collect useful information about each other and share it
• Introduction of the four topics expectations, experience, current project, and definition.
  • Expectations: "What do you expect from this workshop?"
  • Experience: "How much experience do you have regarding the workshop topic?"
  • Current project: "On which tasks are you currently working and would you like to apply the new skills and knowledge learned in this workshop in your current project?"
  • Definition: "How would you define the workshop topic?"

2.2. Instruction to the activity:

• Participants are divided into four group.
• Each team is assigned one of the four topics.
• Teams should collect information about the assigned topic.

2.3. Time schedule:

• The groups plan how to collect information (3 minutes).
• The groups collect information from everyone (3 minutes).
• The groups document and analyse information on flipchart paper (3 minutes).
• The groups present the information and draw conclusions (1 minute).

2.4. Group classification

• Clubs: expectations
• Heart: experience
• Spades: current project
• Diamonds: definition of the workshop topic

3.       Debriefing

• Debriefing of the results with the participants.

Additional format/references

Another introduction to HELLO! by Sivasailam Thiagarajan (1996) is available at: https://thiagi.net/archive/www/game-hello.html

Thiagarajan, S. (2006). Thiagi´s 100 Favorite Games. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

Field of application

The workshop model can be applied when

• Working with students on the development of strategies in regards to several potential future scenarios related to one vision. It could be used for different areas, such as career choice or business models.
• Working with organisations on their future orientation and reflection on possible future scenarios that have to be taken into consideration.
• Reflection with students and faculty on how to make sure that e.g. business models, university courses, and organisations are preparing themselves for the future.

Resume / Brief description

The workshop on future scenarios is oriented toward defining different scenarios how the future may evolve under different circumstances. Different possible future scenarios will be developed from the perspective of an organisation, a university programme, a region or a business model. It can be applied to each area which is related to strategic development. The future scenario workshop identifies with the group of specific stakeholders critical uncertainties for future development and based on that defines four possible scenarios. The scenarios are assessed according to their possible implications for a business, a sector, an organisation or a region. The purpose of the future scenario workshop is to become aware and prioritise possible activities according to the different scenarios that might emerge.

Target group

Larger group of students, organisational representatives, CEOs, managers and employees (beyond 10 persons) that want to learn or reflect on how to design different visions for the future and to act with higher sensitivity in the process.

Objectives

• To understand that there is more than one possible and plausible future
• To think outside the box when dealing with strategic issues and when solutions are unclear
• To develop early warning indicators
• To help to choose options that are robust under different circumstances
• To create reference points for discussion and planning
• To generate a joint and long-term vision and ultimately a strategy in a locality, business or organisation

Requirements

Material

• Pin board (virtual or real)
• Cards
• Markers

Time

From 90 minutes up to a complete day (depending on intensity and detail)

Implementation - Overview

The activity is realised in three main organisational steps. 

Implementation - Guidelines

Before the start of the scenario writing, the facilitator and the participants need to define well the topic on which the scenarios should be written. For example, this can focus on students and the business model that they have to develop in their study programmes or on a university that wants to further develop their study programmes.

1.        Setting the scope

1.1.  Identification of key factors and key uncertainties

The participants are introduced to the future scenario writing exercise, its objectives and perspectives.

The logic is transferred that there is more than one possible future that has to been taken into consideration for strategic development. The difference between a traditional trend scenario and other possible scenarios has to be explained (see figure below) 

1.2.  Rules of the exercise

The session starts with a reflection of future factors that are given and that are certain. For that the facilitator asks the participants to write cards on the following question: "What are the factors related to the topic that are given and certain, and that will guide the behaviour of people and the evolution of things in the future?" This includes not only laws and policies, but also megatrends, such as globalisation, digitalisation, and technological innovation. 

The cards are pinned on the pin board and clustered according to topics.

The facilitator then asks the participants to write cards on the following question: "What are the factors that will impact your focal area and where we are not sure how they will evolve in the future?"

The cards are pinned on the pin board and clustered according to topics.

2.        Creation of scenarios

2.1.  Creation of four-field-matrix

Participants prioritise the cards on the pin board with key uncertainties according to

• possible impact and
• likelihood of occurrence.

For that they discuss first the cards and then vote e.g. with dots or different coloured markers on the cards to identify the factor with the highest possible impact and the factor with the highest likelihood of occurrence.

The group then agrees on the two factors that score highest on each area and finds two opposing expressions for them. This is then the basis of a matrix that might look like in the following example from tourism.

Source: Example from GIZ/Mesopartner Genesis Manual, p. 39.

2.2.  Check scenarios and compare them

Participants look at the scenarios and reflect: "Are these the ones with the highest impact and the most probable occurrence?"

The facilitators lead to the four scenarios without judging them. They all might have positive elements on the future of the specific business or organisation, just under different factor conditions.

3.        Writing and presenting scenarios

3.1.  Writing scenarios

The participants create four working groups. Each of them elaborates on one scenario. The scenario is supposed to be a future event or development, e.g. ten years from now. This encourages a creative thinking process where participants do not extrapolate from the present into the future but rather put themselves into the future and trace back how they got there. Participants are encouraged to come up with a creative title for their scenario.

The instruction for each working group are as follows:

• Put yourself into the perspective of a future year and look back into the past.
• Develop strings of causally to linked events that might have happened.
• A useful approach is to identify events as a series of dated newspaper headlines.
• Weave the process together in the form of a narrative.
• Develop a short description of the scenario and visualise your description.
• Find an appropriate and catchy title.

3.2. Presenting scenarios

Each group is presenting the scenario to the others and asks questions to the other group to encourage deeper reflection.

Groups can add headlines and titles to substantiate their story.

4.       Final reflection

The participants look at the complete matrix and all the scenarios and reflects on the question: "How can we anticipate future trends? What are indicators that provide us with first signs of information?"

The second reflection goes around the following question: "What can we do now to prepare for the future with knowing that there are different possible scenarios? What actions can be taken in the short and medium-term?

Templates, Graphics for download

n/a

Additional format/references

More information on scenario writing can be accessed at:

http://www.foresight-platform.eu/community/forlearn/how-to-do-foresight/methods/scenario/

Creativity

Brainstorming

This technique is used to focus on a specific aspect of your writing. This promotes concentration and attention. It is about letting your thoughts flow on a certain topic within a set time. The activity also encourages participants to not get bogged down on certain ideas.

Writing Sprints are suited for anyone who likes

• to take a deeper look at individual focal points of content.
• to become familiar with aspects of a certain writing topic.
• to write down everything about this aspect first.
• to deal with own thoughts and ideas in writing.

The activity can be applied to individuals and groups. If working with groups, the facilitator needs to decide in which way the results will be shared (or not).

• To concentrate on a certain topic
• To activate and collect all possible thoughts, opinions, and memories related to the topic
• To focus on the essential

Material

• Paper
• Pen

The activity can also be implemented online with a word-processing programme.

Time

• 5 minutes for writing
• 1 minute for reflecting on the the focus sprint (or alternative time slots)

• The facilitator presents a headline or prompt to direct the focus.
• The participants
  • Write down any thoughts that come to their mind about this heading.
  • Do not pause.
  • Reread the headline if they get stuck or digress, 
  • Stop writing after 5 minutes (or alternative time).
  • Mark keywords and statements in the writing sprint that are important for you to further elaborate on.

The facilitator formulates a headline or prompt to direct the focus. The headline can be a question, a quote or a sentence starter. Participants can also formulate their own headlines, should a facilitator not be available.

Participants spend five minutes (or an alternative time) writing down their thoughts as quickly as possible without pausing - as close as possible to their inner language, exactly as their thoughts form in their head.

While they write down their thoughts, new thoughts arise, which they in turn write down. Then they immediately reflect on the text by reading it and marking everything that is important. Below the text they then write one key sentence that sums up the most important points.

This will develop other ideas, help find core ideas and practice a new thinking strategy: Over time participants get used to thinking thoroughly and purposefully. In doing so, participants also set a counterpoint to the fast speed of thinking in everyday working life.

More information on writing sprints are available at:

https://www.millcitypress.net/blog/writing/writing-prompts-writing-sprints/

https://thewritepractice.com/writing-sprints/

https://www.ik-blog.de/ipp-fuer-das-arbeiten-mit-einem-internen-kommunikationskonzept/

(in German)

The facilitation technique is used in situations where groups of people have defined solutions and ideas for steps forward (e.g. projects, initiatives, concrete action plan) but they want to get critical feedback to improve their solutions and adopt them better to the circumstances. The technique can be used when:

• Students have to develop a business idea and want to get critical feedback
• The CEO or a department team want to come up with concrete initiatives and project ideas for a specific solution but still want to discuss the prototype idea before going forward
• When a group of local business representatives or local stakeholder networks want to promote certain development initiatives for the development of the business network or community but want to know what the other group of stakeholders think about it.

Ritual Dissent is a workshop technique designed by Dave J. Snowden (The Cynefin Company - formerly known as Cognitive Edge) to test and enhance proposals, stories, ideas or other content by subjecting them to ritualised dissent (challenges) or assent (positive alternatives). It offers a formalised way to share criticism and disagreement for the purpose of learning and increased resilience. Essentially an individual or a group develops and presents a proposal, idea or initiative to another group and then have it subjected to ‘ritual dissent’ by this group. During the time of the feedback the presenter turns his back to the group who then provides comments on the presented ideas. The presenter is only allowed to listen and to take up critical comments to improve the proposal afterwards. The ritual dissent is normally done in several rounds.

• A class of students that develops certain initiatives ranging from essay proposals to business models or plans
• Strategy departments in the university or in an organisation to intensify their reflection on concrete planned steps forward
• Stakeholders who have the tasks to design certain proposals for action and that want to get a constructive feedback 

• To increase critical feedback for learning and adjustment
• To better think through certain ideas and proposals and make them more substantial
• To learn from other perspectives
• To evaluate the robustness of a certain move forward
• To learn by active listening and reflecting on one's own position and arguments

When to use

• In group contexts where critical feedback and deeper reflection can be useful
• The format works in smaller groups but also in large groups

Material

• A number of tables with at least two tables and groups of chairs
• Notebooks for the presenters, listeners and commentators to take notes
• A flipchart or pin board for explaining the technique and summarising observations and learning

Time

• Presenting sessions of approx. 3 minutes
• Time depends on the number of feedback rounds

The activityis realised in four main phases. 

The activity works best with a larger group of participants who want to adjust their proposals or ideas and are interested to help each other out. In this way the groups can work in parallel in several groups to present and give feedback to each other.

1.      Clarification on why feedback is needed

• The groups reflect on the ideas or proposals they want to get feedback on. These can be proposals where the participants still have some doubts, but also proposals where they are quite sure about and think they are well developed.
• The group decides what they want tp present and how far they need to go into detail during the presentation to the others.
• The presentation should be focused. In should be an oral presentation more understood at bouncing main ideas or proposals to the others instead of long PowerPoint presentations. The idea is to present key elements within a time frame of approx. 3 minutes.
• The group has to choose the presenter. It is also possible that several persons of the group present their ideas to different other groups in parallel. This depends on the total number of participants and groups.
• An alternative is that one group member goes to another group to present. The others in the group become listeners and commentators of a person presenting their proposals from another group.

2.      Presentation of proposal, story or idea 

• The presenter goes to the listening group and presents the proposals or ideas he or she and the group have worked out. The listening group receivges the ideas in silence.
• At the end the space is opened just for some clarification questions.

3.      Feedback from group of listeners

• The presenter then turns his or her chair, so that his or her back faces the audience. He or she then listens in silence while the group either attacks (dissent) or provides alternative proposals (assent).
• The ritualisation of not facing the audience de-personalises the process and the group setting. The attacks or alternatives are not personal, but supportive.
• Listening in silence without eye-contact increases at the same time listening for the presenter.

4.      Presentation of comments to own group-adjustment of proposal 

• The presenter goes back to his or her group after all comments were made.
• The presenter provides a summary of the comments to the group.
• The group reflects on the value and significance of the comments.
• If the approach needs to be adjusted, it will then be adjusted.

It is possible to have several rounds of ritual dissent between different groups to get even more comments on (adjusted) proposals. This depends very much on the number of participants. 

Ritual dissent on local economic development (LED) initiatives after an analysis of a local economy and local value chains

Description of the context

Together with a group of local stakeholders from the tourism sector in the city of Korca, the GIZ with the support of Mesopartner did a value chain analysis of their local tourism chain. The objective of this analysis was to promote very concrete local development initiatives that could be implemented within the next 3 to 6 months. The ritual dissent was used to verify the local economic development initiatives if they comply with the 3 criteria for the initiatives. They should be able to be visible in the end, should be able to be realised with joint network forces and financial and motivational resources. It should be realised in max. 6 months.

Different groups came up with different initiatives that were presented to each other using the ritual dissent technique.

Starting point

Group of stakeholders from the tourism value chain analysed the main strengths and weaknesses in the tourism chain with moderation cards.

Reflection on short term initiatives and quick wins

After having identified and prioritised key challenges in the value chain the participants divided into 3 groups. Each of the groups had to come up with some initiative ideas according to the criteria mentioned above.

Presentation of initiatives to the others using ritual dissent

The presenters of the three groups presented their defined development initiatives

to the other groups using the ritual dissent technique. Three rounds of presentations were made and after each round, the groups were able to adjust their proposals according to the reflection process they went through due to the comments from the other groups.

Finally, the revised initiatives were presented to the plenary and final decisions were made jointly on which quick win initiatives should be promoted in the next months.

Contribution of the ritual dissent to the findings

• Good initiatives were substantiated and defined in a more outcome-oriented way.
• Some initiatives were dropped because they did not apply to the 3 criteria.
• Infrastructure projects and initiatives with a lack of real interest of the local stakeholders in the chain were dropped due to the lack of real support.
• The ideas were discussed and different opinions considered

Support requirements

The ritual dissent is often a real encouraging and dynamic way to discuss proposals and ideas. Everybody has to listen for a period of time as well as to present. The process itself encourages also reflection which provides also a dynamic way of improving proposals.

The facilitators role in this process is to manage the time well and to assure that the rules are followed (no discussion, no defence, only clarification questions allowed).

There are several instructions or guides available. The tool was developed by Dave J. Snowden and his company, The Cynefin Company (formerly known as Cognitive Edge).

• The Cynefin Company - Ritual Dissent: https://cynefin.io/wiki/Ritual_dissent
• SDC learning and Networking - Ritual dissent: https://www.shareweb.ch/site/Learning-and-Networking/sdc_km_tools/Documents/Ritual%20Dissent.pdf
• Pearl language - Ritual dissent and ritual assent: http://pearllanguage.org/Ritual_dissent_and_assent

Videos

The video shows the tourism value chain workshop in Korca, Albania: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3N7utVu-fU

The appreciative approach can be used as a complete analytical framework involving a variety of interviews. The latter can span over a longer period of time with intensive field work. This description focuses on a workshop format that can be used

• To reflect and guide students on the improvement of learning networks between faculty and students and between students
• To improve a university course with faculty
• To develop strategies for recultivating a region or a location with its stakeholders
• To include stakeholders like employees in decision-making processes regarding strategic development of an organisation

The Appreciative Inquiry has been developed and used as an alternative to a problem-based approach of process analysis, intervention design and vision building. It is strongly based on appreciation of what is already there and on what can be strengthened (“What gives life”). It starts with an understanding of the organisation's or individual´s potential strengths by looking at its experience and its potential. From there an envisioning process starts on how a possible future could look like (“What might be”) and how this future can be co-constructed, and its process maintained as a dynamic and sustainable process.

• Students
• University departments
• Organisations
• Businesses

• To increase the buy-in of stakeholders in strategy process
• To build on what is there already (e.g. experience, structures, motivation, past efforts)
• To overcome a problem-solving strategy approach and focus on opportunities
• To create a strategy that is implementable and co-constructed in the team (e.g. students, management and employees, organisation, location)
• To assure a process which takes key motivational aspects of stakeholders serious and use its energy

Application

• A workshop format can be used when the main relevant stakeholders are present in the room. The workshop format is suitable for up to 20 participants.

Material

• 4 pin boards
• Markers
• Tables

Time

• The time depends on the intensity of the workshop. It can range from 3 hours until up to a day.

The activity is realised in four main phases. 

1.       Discovery: What gives life (Appreciating)

“What is the development and change focus we want to take in this workshop?” is the question that needs to be clarified in the beginning. The group of participants has to define the topic. Is the reflection related to future cooperation between students and faculty, the improvement of cooperation between the university department, an organisation or a territory?

Then, the group is asked: “Please share your best and most encouraging and “life-giving” experiences on the change topic of the workshop?”

Personal and organisational high points, as well as the participants' values, hopes and wishes related to the enhancement of their organisation’s social, economic and environmental vitality are discovered.

The experiences are documented on cards on the first pin board by the facilitator. They are clustered in the two areas "experiences" and "values".

There are two alternatives to speed up the process:

• The participants write cards on “experiences” and “values” in two rounds of exercises.
• The participants leave the room in pairs of two for 30 minutes to come back with cards on the main positive experiences and positive values they experienced.

2.       Dream: What might be (Envsioning)

The facilitator asks the participants (using the second pin board): "What can you envision as a possible motivational ideal status when things would work at their best?

There are two alternatives on how to start:

• In small groups of three, the participants visualise their main answers on a flip chart, expressing their main aspects.
• In groups of three or four, the participants write down their aspects when it “works at its best" on cards and present them in the plenary afterwards.
• The cards with findings are clustered in the plenary according to similar “dreams”.

3.      Design: How it can be (Co-constructing)

The focus at this stage of the workshop is to look at the clusters of dreams expressed in the earlier step.

The question the facilitator asks: “What activities can we realise that contribute to our envisioned change? Please reflect about activities that create enthusiasm with you and to which you want to contribute.”

Participants then reflect on concrete activities necessary to reach these specific dreams.

The card exercise should be done in groups of 4 or 5 to encourage joint reflection. Cards are written by the groups.

Groups present their findings and cards on the third pin board. Duplicated cards are taken out, similar ones are clustered.

The participants then prioritise activities through reflection and voting.

4.       Destiny: What will be (Sustaining)

The destiny phase is focusing on the concrete planning of the activities and to “embrace the solutions”. The assurance that these activities are also really implemented and monitored is understood as a deep interest of the organisation itself.

The logic is that the outcomes of the Appreciative Inquiry are building on the strengths of the individuals in the organisation, on internal resources, relationships, past positive experiences and the extension of these positive experiences.

The workshop can be concluded with an action plan. As an alternative, a first draft of an action plan is developed by a group of participants and will be presented to the other participants.

The workshop closes with an appreciation of the success.

Description of the context

The Appreciative Inquiry method was used in a workshop from the consultancy company Mesopartner with a German district development agency to reflect about future steps of action. At the same time, the workshop was an organisational development workshop. The objectives were threefold:

• To involve the team of employees stronger in the further strategy planning process and to motivate them
• To define key areas for the next three years
• To reflect on and improve things and network relations  in an appreciative way.

Starting point

The workshop started with a joint rating on different circumstances:

• Relations with colleagues in the team
• Relations with clients (businesses in the district)
• Relations with other partner organisations in the district to get a common understanding of the status quo.

"Discovery" and "Dream" process

The team of the agency started to share their positive experiences along the differentiation of experiences and values. Some examples of relevant outcomes included:

• Close contact with businesses improves my motivation and also the relationship with them.
• Being involved in some leading projects provides a much better overview for me and makes me feel being part of relevant activities.
• Working in tandem in projects with persons from different departments provides much better knowledge sharing and integration of different perspectives.

In regards to values the following aspects were mentioned:

• Feeling integrated
• Close Networking
• Being close to client.

In the "Dream" process relevant aspects included:

• We have regular contact with businesses and learn from them about new opportunities for support projects.
• We always work in changing teams and are informed on each other´s tasks.
• We promote projects that are really focused on business demands.

"Design" and "Destiny" process

In the "Design" and "Destiny" process some of the outcomes were mentioned:

• Everybody has a discovery meeting with an entrepreneur on future cooperation opportunities in the district every two weeks.
• Impressions from interviews will be in the team meeting every second week.
• The leading team participates in some leading project activities.
• An idea wall in the centre of the agency will be the space to collect ideas from everybody for further activities that emerge out of daily practice and work.

Support requirements

The workshop took place from 9 to 12 am (3 hours). The pin boards were prepared in advance and the role of the facilitator was mainly to guide the group through the process and to provide a space where team members were able to express their emotions and motivations.

Visualisations for Appreciate Inquiry Workshops are available at: https://www.centerforappreciativeinquiry.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/AI_CaseStudyExamples_HeatherMartinez_20170212.pdf

Videos

• The founder of the  method,  David L. Cooperrider,  introduces the innovative philosophy of Appreciative Inquiry:
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JDfr6KGV-k
• An introduction video to Appreciative Inquiry and its difference to problem solving approaches is available at:
• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzW22wwh1J4
• The Appreciate Inquiry method in a nutshell is available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX3nlMVWj9o

Reading

• The David L. Cooperrider Center provides information about how to get connected with Appreciative Inquiry experts: https://www.champlain.edu/appreciativeinquiry
• An introduction to the Appreciative Inquiry method is available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276093904_Introduction_to_Appreciative_Inquiry

Field of application

The Four Types of Regions workshop could also be defined as Four Types of Different Local Realities workshop. Fields of application can be the following:

• To reflect with students on their business plans in relation to their target markets or target areas
• To reflect with businesses from the local area (e.g. the area of the university's location) on different strategies for improving business opportunities
• To work with development organisations responsible for the promotion of businesses and regions on the identification of different intervention strategies for strengthening the local economy

Resume / Brief description

The Four Types of Regions workshop differentiates between four economic and dynamic realities in locations, suburbs and regions. It helps to identify declining, marginalised, emerging and dynamic spaces (in a city or in a region) and defines typical characteristics of these spaces with the participants. Based on the differentiation of a location along these four realities, it provides the chance to define and reflect on business models, network initiatives and concrete support interventions to support the development of these spaces according to their conditions and development dynamics. The key message of the method can be framed as “Context matters and requires differentiated interventions or business models”.  In detail, the method helps to identify different strategies accordingly. 

Target group

Students

Lecturers

Consultants

Development agencies

Businesses

Objectives

• To define business and intervention models according to different contexts and dynamics in local areas.
• To promote reflection on target markets or regions for a business and identify new market opportunities.
• To realise that different regions are driven by different dynamics. These dynamics also shape the business landscape and the opportunities to develop this place in a sustainable way.

Requirements

Application

• A workshop format can be used with students, businesses or development organisations. The number of participants should not extend 20 persons.

Material

• 1 pin board
• 1 flipchart
• Markers
• Moderation cards

Time

• The the workshop requires 2-3 hours time.

Implementation - Overview

The activity is realised in 3 phases . 

Implementation - Guidelines

1.       Defining context and different realities

1.1.  Explaining two key development indicators

The 4 types of Regiony matrix emerged out of observations from geography and local development experience. It uses two key critical factors that shape the development of a location or space:

1. The development of its physical and institutional infrastructure, and
2. The dynamics of the leading business sectors. Institutional infrastructure involves regulations, values, and norms but also the availability and quality of support organisations and services.

The first step of reflection with businesses and other participants focuses on the question: "What are key success factors for a region to keep a dynamic development path?"

1.2. Design and explanation of the 4 types of region matrix

The facilitator presents the two critical factors and has prepared two opposing expressions for them with which the matrix is created on a pin board.

The facilitator then asks the participants for each quadrant: "How would you call this place under these circumstances?" The differentiation between declining, marginalised, emerging and thriving territories, or regions is explained to them. The quadrants are named with cards (see example below).

2.       Identifying different dynamics in a place

2.1. Exercise on different dynamics and characteristics in a place

Students or other participants reflect on which quadrant best describes their birthplace (declining, emerging, marginalized, dynamic?) when they were born.

After a short reflection on the results, they are then asked to reflect on which quadrant best describes the same place today.

What becomes obvious is that the development dynamics of a place are changing over time. Very dynamic regions can fall into crisis, decling ones can newly emerge. Being aware of changing dynamics and about the logic of the matrix is key in this exercise.

After this first reflection the participants are asked to define in groups the main characteristics of the Four Types of Regions. In the four groups, each participant writes on moderation cards the main characteristics of one of the regions (one group for identifying the main characteristics of a declining region, one group for identifying the main characteristics of a marginalised region, and so on).

The cards are then presented on the pin board and pinned on the different quadrants. Further characteristics are discussed and added in the plenary.  

2.2. Reflections on requirements for different realities

The facilitator asks the participants: "If you look at the different dynamics and characteristics in the regions, what comes to your mind? What is required to change the regions on the left and on the right side?"

After this reflection the facilitator presents two main observations.

One of the key observations that the facilitator is pointing out is that the regions on the left side require change initiatives. They also ask for new business models that provide support to these changes and that offer new products in demand. Places on the right side are rather requiring further upgrading and coordination to improve continuously the institutional and physical infrastructure. This involves also the creation of innovative networks of businesses and support organisations.

3.       Reflection on intervention and business models

3.1. Identification of key considerations and influential factors

Depending on the target group the facilitator asks the participants about where they want to start their business and their business to be located (with students, businesses) or where they want to promote economic development (with support organisations, such as development agencies or clusters)

Then the group reflects on the different influences that local conditions have on their intervention or business model.

3.2. Identification if concrete business model or intervention initiatives

The final step of the workshop is oriented towards identifying concrete activities according to the participant’s group. This can include developing new business opportunities in the different regions according to relevant context requirements, adjusting or innovating business models or reflecting on development initiatives (e.g. skills development, business network initiatives or service provision) to promote the development of these locations.

The initiatives that come out of this process can be substantiated through action plans to move forward.

Example of application:

Description of the context

The Four Types of Regions workshop was used in a setting with representatives of development organisations that wanted to identify more differentiated interventions within different locations and their different contexts. The workshop was held during an academy on local economic development organised by Mesopartner.

Starting point

The participants reflected on critical success factors that define the dynamics of a region. Based on these factors the facilitators presented the Four Types of Regions on the panel (see the image of the basic matrix above).

Sensitisation on the logic of the matrix

The following two photos show two SEPT seminars on regional competitiveness in a Master's course in Vietnam. In this case the matrix was designed with tape on the floor and the students had to position themselves first in the quadrant where their birthplace was located when they were born and then where this place finds iteself today in its development. It showed the dynamics of Vietnam as an emerging country in the rural and city areas. Most of the locations where students were born moved from a declining or marginalised place towards an emerging and dynamic place within the last 20 years.

Identification of characteristics

The identification of characteristics of the different locations was the next step in the process. The following pin board demonstrates the results of local development agency representatives that reflected on characteristics of a region in Mexico.

Some examples of results included:

• Declining regions were characterised by uncertainty, frustration, holding to the past, an expectation of improvement, unbalanced situation, traditional thinking, traditional infrastructure, and strong traditional lobby groups.
• Marginalised regions were characterised by hopelessness, angst, pessimism, resignation, vicious circle, and stagnation.
• Emerging regions were characterised by positive uncertainty, mentality to try out, new possibilities emerging, and the hope of progress. Moreover, the organisation of businesses and stakeholders was starting.
• Dynamic regions were characterised by modern organisations, strong networking, and continuous adjustment of professional organisations.
  

Identification of development initiatives

As a final step, the participants reflected on first possible initiatives, some of which are mentioned in the following:

• Declining regions: Reorientation services for transitional businesses, promotion of new start-ups in potential sectors, promotion of the organisation of new business networks with progressive businesses.
• Marginalised regions: Basic entrepreneurship trainings, life quality improvement, working with the willing and younger generation, improving the attractiveness of the locations.
• Emerging regions: Promotion of organisations of networks and newly demanded services, promotion of new business models, improvement of regional actors, such as infrastructure, network governance and platforms for business meetings.
• Dynamic regions: Cluster promotion, specialisation of businesses and services.

Templates, graphics for download

Handouts for a Four Types of Regions workshop (with focus on the development of regions) are available at:

Handout 4 Types of Regions.pdf

AR2018_ENG_Art2.pdf

Additional format/references

Reading

Mesopartner (2018): Typology of regions and meso organisations, Mesopartner Annual Reflections 2018, p.12. https://www.mesopartner.com/fileadmin/media_center/Annual_Reflections/AR_2018_ENG.pdf

The Facilitating Change method can be used in various situations. It can be promoted to

• Increase the awareness of students about the complex requirements for initiating change
• Develop strategies and approaches for individuals, businesses and organisations to promote change from within
• Understand the importance of facilitating a change process

The Change Facilitation workshop starts with a self-assessment on the change characteristics of the participants before change processes are explained and key change promotion steps are provided. John Kotter´s 8 steps of change are then used to identify opportunities for promoting change processes in different situations.

Students

Lecturers

Consultants

Development agencies

Businesses

Group size

The Change Facilitation method is suitable for a maximum of 20 participants.

• To provide knowledge on change facilitation
• To provide some instruments for a workshop that encourage reflection on change
• To identify entry points for change promotion
• To make use of the Change Facilitation method for students in their own situation but also in relation to their business ideas

Material

• 2 pin boards
• 1 flipchart
• Markers
• Moderation cards

Time

• The workshop requires 2-3 hours time.

The activity is realised in 4 phases   

1.       Self-assessment and reflection on change

As a first step, the facilitator reflects with the participants on two questions:

1. Why do we need change?
2. What does change require?

In a second step, the facilitator unfolds the following matrix on a pin board with the different types of characters. 

The facilitator puts the panel around and the participants can indicate with a marker in which area they would see themselves in regards to their openness for change.

2.       Reflection on requirements for promoting change

The pin board is turned around again and the participants reflect on several questions. Answers are documented on cards. The questions are as follows:

1. What do we know about the people's perception of the proposed change?
2. How do we best respect the different people´s needs, concerns and circumstances? 

Answers will be put on cards on the quadrant of the matrix.

3.       Presentation of John Kotter's 8 steps to promote change

Very often, there is resistance to change, which has to be anticipated.

The illustration below demonstrates that there are concrete interventions necessary to promote change.

Source: Mesopartner

John Kotter´s 8-steps is a well-defined process to promote change. In the workshop these 8 steps are presented to the participants.

Source: https://cio-wiki.org/wiki/images/6/65/Kotters_Change_Model.png

4.       Reflection on ways to promote change along the 8-step approach

For each of Kotter´s change steps the participants reflect on concrete activities that can be promoted to realise these steps. Participants can also divide into four groups to reflect on at least two change steps.

A final presentation of results on the second pin board provides good entry points for the change to be promoted.

Description of the context

Mesopartner provided training on Change Facilitation in local economic development processes to students from Central Asia. It was a capacity-building initiative on the topic of change facilitation (see some students below presenting results).

Starting point: Self-assessment after introduction

The facilitator presented the matrix and the participants made a self-assessment. The results of the self-assessment were very diverse and created a good opportunity for reflection.

Reflection on possible reasons for change behaviour

In a second round, the students reflected on questions regarding

1. The reasons for resistance to change, and
2. How to best respect the different people´s needs, concerns and circumstances of the different characters to find a common direction

  Answers were written on cards and put on the quadrant of the matrix. 

Some examples of results include:

• People resistant to change need stability and thus fear change. Future visions and the demonstration of advantages related to change might result in an increased willingness for new processes.
• People in favour of change are generally not satisfied with the status quo and want to change it. They are often driven by a certain motivation and vision that requires explanation and reasoning. Meetings and communication between the different parties are highly relevant to provide better explanation but to also take into consideration the fears that are in place.

Presentation of Kotter´s steps of change and reflection on possible activities

The results of the reflection on possible activities can also be documented in an action plan. It provides concrete starting points.

A handout on change facilitation (from Mesopartner) is available at: Handout Change.pdf

Reading

• Kotter, J. (2006). Our Iceberg is Melting, Changing and Succeeding under Any Conditions. London: Macmillan.
• Kotter, J. (2012). Leading Change. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

Field of application

Identifying key stakeholders is relevant in different situations:

• Identifying key stakeholders in a local economy that can promote or undermine the process of local or social development efforts
• For students, identifying the main stakeholders relevant in their target markets or areas
• For an organisation, such as a university, identifying strategic partners that they want to involve in a process
• For a support organisation that wants to prioritise the stakeholders with which they are connected

Resume / Brief description

The CLIP Analysis stands for Cooperation, Legitimacy, Interest, and Power. After brainstorming on relevant stakeholders in a certain context, the collected stakeholders are grouped according to the three criteria Legitimacy, Interest and Power. While some of the stakeholders comply with none of the criteria, others comply with one, two or all three criteria. The CLIP framework provides an opportunity to structure stakeholders, which can be dominant, vulnerable, respected, marginalised, dormant or influential. Accordingly, this analysis provides an indication of who to integrate in a strategic process.   

Target group

• A maximum of 25 participants from different backgrounds, such as students and  representatives from businesses and support organisations
• The tool can also be used individually to brainstorm on possible stakeholders relevant for your own business, organisation or objectives

Objectives

• To identify strategic partners and stakeholders that should be integrated in a process
• To identify the stakeholders who might not have interest in a certain development but who are powerful to undermine the efforts
• To identify a coalition of stakeholders that is relevant to keep an eye on to assure that the process is making progress

Requirements

Material

• 2 pin boards
• Markers of 3 colours
• Moderation cards

Time

• The workshop requires 1,5-2 hours time.

Implementation - Overview

The activity is realised in 3 phases  

Implementation - Guidelines

1.       Identification of relevant stakeholders

The workshop starts with the definition of the objectives. The question is: "On what issue do we want to identify key relevant stakeholders? Is it about identifying relevant business partners, a group of people with whom to create a network, stakeholders relevant to promote a local economy, a cluster or a business network, etc.?"

Then the group (or the individual) starts to reflect on the relevant stakeholders that come to their mind. Here the focus is on brainstorming and not about discussing which stakeholders are more or less important.

The group is writing each of the stakeholders that come to their mind on a moderation card. The participants use one moderation card for each stakeholder. On average this leads to 15-30 cards.

All cards are pinned on one pin board or laid out on the floor so that all participants can see all cards and think about additional relevant stakeholders.  

The process of brainstorming does not involve a discussion. The idea is that participants bring in their different perspectives and ideas about relevant stakeholders.

2.       Differentiating between characteristics of each stakeholder

After the brainstorming, the joint reflection starts on the characteristics of each of the mentioned stakeholders.

The facilitator explains that the stakeholders are now differentiated between stakeholders that have only one of the three criteria power, interest, legitimacy, two of these characteristics or all three. 

Assessing the characteristics of each of the identified stakeholders is  a subjective process to a certain extent. Nonetheless, the collective impressions will give a good overall picture. Thus, the assessment process will be organised in a way that everybody can give his or her opinion.

Then, the facilitator hands out a marker in one colour (e.g. blue) and asks the participants to indicate the stakeholders they think are powerful. Participants go to the board and make their assessments. At the end of the first assessment, the facilitator will, jointly with the participants, count the number of indications to find out the most powerful stakeholders. The facilitator writes a P on the cards with the most indications.

Then, the facilitator hands out a marker in another colour (e.g. black) and asks the participants to indicate the stakeholders that they think have an interest in the topic. Participants go to the board and make their assessments. At the end of the second assessment, the facilitator will again, jointly with the participants, count the number of indications and identify the most interested stakeholders. Some of them might also be powerful ones. The facilitator writes an I on the cards with the most indications.

Then, the facilitator hands out a marker in another colour (e.g. red) and asks the participants to indicate the stakeholders that they think have legitimacy in the topic. Participants go again to the board and make their assessments. At the end of the third assessment, the facilitator will again, jointly with the participants, count the number of indications and identify the most legitimate stakeholders. The facilitator writes an L on the cards with the most indications.

Finally, the group will assess the results together.

3.       Documentation and prioritisation

After the assessment, the facilitator will show the Venn diagramme (see below) and explain it. The Venn diagramme needs to be drawn on the second pin board before the workshop.

Together with the participants, the facilitator will group the cards of the stakeholders according to the letters on the card. Cards with a P, an I and an L will be put into the centre of the circles. Such a stakeholder is clearly a dominant actor (and so on).

Once all the cards are located in the diagramme, the group will have the chance to reflect on the outcome. There are several questions that will be reflected on: "What are the dominant partners we have to involve in our process? What are the dormant ones that are powerful and might undermine the whole process? What are the marginalised and vulnerable ones that we want and need to integrate? Who are the influential and respected ones?"

Apart from structuring the different stakeholders, a last round of reflection is necessary: "Whom do we want to get more involved in the process? How can we do this? Which stakeholders might undermine the whole process? What can we do to overcome that risk?"

The overall process of structuring stakeholders along the Venn diagramme provides a good overview and opportunities to define next strategic steps.

Example of application:

Description of the context

Mesopartner made use of the CLIP Analysis in many contexts related to local economic development and regarding the identification of main stakeholders relevant to promote certain clusters and sectors. In this example, we worked together with Romanian colleagues from World Vision that wanted to promote the development of a suburb in Bucharest.

Identification of main stakeholders

The CLIP Analysis started with a reflection on main stakeholders in smaller groups. For a first group brainstorming, they used flipchart paper. The findings were then presented on a pin board and the main stakeholders identified were written on cards.

Assessment of main stakeholders

Main stakeholders were then documented on a pin board and the assessment process started.

Documentation of findings on the Venn diagramme

The assessment was then transferred to the Venn diagramme. The latter was drawn on a pin board.

Final reflection

With the structuring of the different stakeholders and with the visualisation of the assessment the team observed several relevant aspects:

Several highly interested but marginalised groups were not included in the considerations of the team.

The team realised that two stakeholders that were not involved in the process could become a real danger for the process due to their strong power and lack of interest.

Some of the powerful players that in general also have an interest to become involved have not really been asked how the team could involve them more and what their ideas are

Some ideas for the promotion of the suburbs will also create resistance (e.g. greening places, including parking places). Some stakeholders and even politicians might oppose some of the planned initiatives. The team has to be aware about that because these stakeholders can become dormant risks if they are not getting integrated from the beginning.

Templates, graphics for download

An explanation of the method in its original version (including graphics for download) is available at: Social Analysis Systems, Concepts and Tools for Collaborative Research and Social Action, Social-Analysis-Systems-from-P-Faid-Aug-2006-3.pdf

Additional format/references

Reading

A slightly adjusted approach to the CLIP Analysis that substitutes "interest" with "urgency" as characteristic is available at:

https://i2insights.org/2021/10/28/selecting-stakeholders/

Field of application

Online exercise in video conference call

Getting to know each other

Activation

Finding similarities

Resume / Brief description

Target group

Students

Lecturers

Entrepreneurs

Colleagues of the same company or work team

Colleagues working in intercultural contexts

Professionals of different area

Group size

This exercise can involve a variable number of participants.

Objectives

The Animal Exercise has the objective

• To get an overview and impression of a group
• To do team building via similarities (same answers)
• To activate reflection of participants (questions related to the topic).

Requirements

Material

• (coloured) paper or sticky note or other (e.g. also own hand) to cover or uncover camera

Time

• Flexible
• usually 3-4 questions or 5-10 minutes

Implementation - Overview

1.       Preparation

• The moderator has prepared several questions to which the participants can answer with yes or no.
• The participants have something to cover or uncover their cameras.

2.       Roll-out

• The moderator reads out loud one questions after another
• The participants respond to the question by covering or uncovering their cameras:
  • If they can answer the question with "yes", they uncover their camera by taking away the paper or sticky note or other object
  • If they can answer the question with "no", they cover their camera with a paper or sticky note or other object.

Templates, Graphics for download