Anatomy of a DesignShop® Event: Designing Pan Value Chain Support
Chip Saltsman's E-mail dated November 23, 1996
with commentary by Bryan Coffman
to sections 1 and 2
Section 3: The Design of the DesignShop
DesignShops are usually designed with reference
to one or more models from the MG
Taylor Modeling Language. The easiest model
to use is Scan, Focus, Act.
Many large DesignShops are three day events, so day one is designed
as a Scan, day two as the Focus, and day three as the Act. When properly
executed, such a design drives a positive feedback loop of both creativity
and productivity so that by the third day the participants are able
to accomplish "four times" the amount of work they did on
Because the model is fractal in nature, each
day should repeat the model as well. So day one will have its own Scan,
Focus and Act components, as will the following two days. Using such
a matrix as a rough template, even a novice facilitator can construct
a robust design to help a group achieve high levels of performance and
There are other models that overlay the DesignShop.
For example, the shop itself represents a very short-lived enterprise.
It must go through start-up, success and on to maturity. It must spawn
practical and necessary follow-on work and at the end it must "die"
or dissolve. Sometimes the death process takes place in the middle of
the DesignShop and day three is really a day of rebirth. The process
to overlay on the design is the Stages
of an Enterprise model.
Playing several models together against the Client's
situation and the DesignShop design is what we call playing a "Glass
Bead Game" (taken after Hesse's masterwork, Magister Ludi).
Day One: Scan
Getting the group to "out-of-the-box" thinking; building a common
language; energizing creativity; forming and functioning as a team.
|Module and Time
||Description and Notes
||Sponsor message, axioms, models, setting the stage.
|9:00 - 9:45 Take-A-Panel
Because it requires each participant to write on one of the WorkWalls,
the Take-A-Panel exercise gives them an OK to use the space
and gets everyone's ideas and solutions out in the open. This particular
assignment involved envisioning the future. We ran into an interesting
situation here (besides using just about every work wall in the
center). Our instruction sheet had about six questions, one of which
was a matrix they could construct and fill in. The matrix dominated
the page of instructions and therefore dominated the minds of the
participants: the other questions were ignored or treated as secondary
by most of the participants.
Note that the way an assignment is presented
on paper largely determines the manner in which the participants
will answer the questions, and also which questions will be answered
and in what order. The page itself must have an easy, loose feel
to it if you are looking for free-flowing ideas. A more formal
page will elicit a more formal response. A boring page, well....
|9:45 - 10:30 Share-A-Panel
|10:30 - 11:00 Breakout Teams
||Share ideas, begin to work in breakout teams, develop
TAP ideas into something new, recognize the diversity of ideas.
|11:00 - 1:30 Metaphors
||Read, discuss, and model the value web system instructions;
work on being open to new ways of looking at the system. How does
the diverse subject apply metaphorically to Client's system? two sets
of six teams. I looked at about 17 different metaphors before settling
on the half-dozen we used and have them all on disk for anybody that
wants them. Each metaphor was chosen for the task at hand.
|1:30 - 3:00 Dual Report
Share learning; share new ideas; not attempting to design yet.
There's a great temptation by participants
to generate a few ideas and then jump into engineering them into
solutions. But good ideas are NOT brainstormed. They must be designed
through iteration until they are robust enough to be of value
in the engineering phase of the creative process. It's not a question
of generating a certain volume of ideas, it's a question of stimulating
idea generation by allowing the participants to view their situation
through various, diverse vantage points, describing the ideas
in their future, implemented state, and then turning them back
into the "soil" of the DesignShop for another round.
The ideas dissolve, resolve and evolve until more fit varieties
are left on the table, ready to be engineered sometime on day
two of the DesignShop. This is often not a conscious, reductionist
process--there's no way to keep track of the "genotypes and
phenotypes" of the various ideas.
One of the problems with 83 participants was the time it would
take to listen to a dozen report-outs (two hours at 10 minutes each).
So we gave the same set of metaphors to each half of the participants
and had six teams each report in the two radiant rooms simultaneously.
Each had rich content to report (one of the Highways, Rivers and
Internet groups basically came up with the Business
of Enterprise Model on their own), and they finished within
minutes of each other. We moved the small radiant wall halfway along
the production room wall (all of the WorkWalls in the space are
on wheels) and had the report out there. After that, it functioned
as a breakout space. We made sure always to have three teams in
the back radiant area so nobody felt they were off in Siberia and
away from the energy of the other participants.
|3:00 - 4:30 Syntopical Readings
||The participants broke into teams and read articles,
reports and analyses from the Management
Center's knowledge base concerning competitor profiles, market
trends, top 10 brands, other big projects.
|4:30 - 6:30 Future Scenario
Breakout teams were charged to construct a vision of the future
in slices 2, 5 and 10 years out across four different domains:
- What the Client's organization will look like
- People issues
- The future history and results of the Project)
We had intended to give these segments about two hours total, but
let the timing slip because of where the groups were and what work
needed to be done.
DesignShops are managed using designs of
each day, not agendas. At this point on day one, it becomes necessary
in the facilitator's judgment to extend the time originally alotted
for this module. As the DesignShop moves on more and larger changes
will be made. Each time a change is made, the rest of the day
is redesigned and posted for the Crew to see. The participants
are rarely aware of the design of the days; we want them to be
totally engaged in the content of the work and leave the process
up to the facilitators and Crew. This is not because it's convenient
or even necessary to separate process from content, rather when
solving problems gets difficult, it's tempting for a group to
abdicate the work at hand and waste time in unnecessary wrangling
over the process and whether it's working or not. Such a distraction
in a compressed event like a DesignShop is usually fatal.
|6:30 - 8:00 Report Out
||We intended to have a synthesis conversation follow
the reports, but we ran out of time. We had the wall divided into
the matrix I described above (three time frames by four topics). Each
team had worked on one cell of the matrix, but when they put up their
tiles it got all confused (either we didn’t give clear enough preparation
instructions or some teams just couldn’t clue in that a section of
wall with their name on it was where their tiles go). This was to
have been an ‘assembling’ of the future and sharing of ideas, but
we really only got the sharing. Great ideas, though. We charged them
to list the five best ideas they heard over the evening and see you
After the participants leave, the sponsors, facilitators,
and sometimes representatives from the rest of the Crew will meet to
work in broad strokes on the design for the next day. The design, however,
is never finalized that night but early the next morning. There is a
useful and mysterious phenomenon that occurs over night; lots of things
get sorted out and the situation and best course of action usually crystallize
in the morning.
Day Two: Focus
Redefine the problem; explore ideas through modeling and
what-if; consult knowledge objects; sort and test potential solutions;
and ‘create’ the problem.
|Module and Time
||Description and Notes
|8:00 - 8:30 Large Group in the Radiant Room
||We walked the participants through the Vantage
Points Model and the Business
of Enterprise Model. They had brought up the core concepts of
these models in the first day, and Matt judged it the right time to
introduce them so the participants would have a way of framing subsequent
discussions. The models popped up many times over the remainder of
the DesignShop (as well as the "you can't get there from here,
but you can get here from there" axiom).
|8:30 - 10:30 Breakout Teams Design Round One
||Competitive Advantages. Brainstorm competitive advantages
with teams broken into value chain entities.
|10:30 - 12:30 Breakout Teams Design Round Two
||Challenging Questions. Teams traded a few members with
each other to cross-fertilize ideas. After the trade, each team shared
what they had done with the new team members. Then the teams developed
existing and created new competitive advantages. Finally, they handled
the ‘but did you consider this’ questions.
|12:30 - 2:30 Breakout Round Design Round Three
||Stress Test. Rotate some individuals between teams
and share status with new team members. The facilitators gave each
team some very gnarly problems intended to "stress" the
solutions they had crafted--in the way that steel or concrete might
be put under pressure to determine its elastic, plastic and failure
points. The teams had to describe how the Project identified and facilitated
a response to these problems (we had some good ones).
|2:30 - 5:00 Large Group Report Out
||See the range of potential competitive advantages together.
Where do they duplicate? Interfere? What’s missing? This report was
intended to go until 4, then we would have another design challenge.
Instead it went until 5, and we told them to leave and come back in
an hour with a model that incorporated all that they had heard. We
got some really rich stuff out of the report, including the concept
of ‘key suppliers’ (not just key distributors), and setting up companies
to bundle together outsourced administrative functions across the
|5:00 - 6:00 Breakout Teams: Some Assembly Required
||Build a 2D or 3D model that incorporates all that you
heard. There were some wonderful models created, including arrows
aimed at the future, whirligigs, cyclical value chains, and Mr. Potato
Head inside the tensegrity toy.
At the end of Day Two Matt and I felt that the
participants would be in one of four states:
- They "have it" and know they do.
- They "have it" but don't know it.
- They don't have it and know they don't
- They don't have it, but think they do
The first two we judged would be most likely. While the sponsors would
feel different amounts of anxiety depending on where they felt the group
was, it did not matter to the facilitators or the eventual outcome of
the DesignShop. We felt that they were in second bullet at the end of
Day Two. We had a group of knowledge workers remain most of the night
and develop a model that pulled together graphically the elements that
were in the participant’s creations. This was a beautiful helix-shaped
ascending value ribbon, held in the air by the support functions and surrounded
by a network. It had, in Joe's words, ‘a squint factor of about four.’
(The squint factor of a model - how much participants have to squint to
make sense of it, can be mapped with the sphincter factor - how tight
does the model make the sponsors feel, which can be determined by measuring
blood pressure, and the pancreas factor - how dead are the knowledge workers
creating the model.)
Day Three: Act
The biggest challenge was to integrate the President and the Chairman
(who had not been participants during the first two days), ‘solve’ the
problem, embark upon a path of explosive planning and activity.
We divide the creative process into two halves:
creating the problem and solving it. Most often groups begin the creative
process with the second half: they assume a problem and then set about
to solve it. Sometimes this is appropriate but often it means that only
the symptoms are attacked, or the real problem remains unaddressed.
The earlier comment, "solve the problem" implies that day
one and day two of the DesignShop were focused on creating the problem--building
an understanding of what the project really needed to address in order
to deliver an order of magnitude success instead of an incremental one.
Day three would focus on solving this newly discovered and well-framed
|Module and Time
||Description and Notes
|8:00 - 10:00 Synthesis Conversation
We began with the synthesis conversation. The participants grappled
with a number of issues and balance points:
- Appropriate design complexity
- Centralized or decentralized design
- Standard or customized design (order versus disorder or hierarchy
versus ‘out of control’)
- Data security versus knowledge sharing
- Level of need between the developed world and the developing
- Functionality between ‘can’t wait to have it’ and ‘can wait
to have it’
- Where does the revenue/profit come from among global accounts
to mom & pop stores?
- Data organization between ‘extract what you want’ and ‘roll-up
- Accountability somewhere between the global and local level
The conversation seemed a little flat to me. The group was very
polite and there was an absence of the ‘agonized choice’ feeling.
|9:40-11:00 Video, Speech, and Collective Design of
the Next Round
After 40 minutes or so the President and Chairman ‘heavies’ arrived,
but they came in sort of behind the participants, and I don’t think
even half of them noticed their arrival. At 9:40 we announced they
were there and showed the video that Tim S. and crew had spent all
night preparing (indeed, up until 9:39. Matt and I had been sending
out increasingly frantic messages and getting replies like ‘computer
crash, about 10 minutes’ for an hour. I finally went out bearing
a ‘NOW OR NEVER’ card to find Tim running towards me waving the
tape over his head. Talk about just-in-time.) With this, the heavies
were brought current with the participant’s experiences. The Chairman
delivered an excellent ‘here is my guidance’ sort of speech and
then we broke while they departed. This was followed by setting
of teams, voting with their feet and getting to work.
I say that the Chairman delivered an excellent speech, but the
fact that he was there at that point in time, and that the participants
knew he was coming, acted as a drag on the event. It also created
a climax before we wanted one, and the energy was uneven throughout
the rest of the event. It meant that we never really could build
the Synthesis tension to a head, or as Rob would put it, the bow
didn’t get drawn back far enough. Some really excellent work was
produced, but only periodically did I get the impression of furious,
explosive, highly productive activity.
I do not want to imply that this DesignShop was a failure, far
from it. But I feel that extra yardage that could have been gained
was not. (the President, when he was speaking to the synthesis team,
said that ‘Value not created is value destroyed.’) This would have
been a much different event had we really understood the pervasiveness
of the hierarchical culture and the weight of an unseen heavy.
|11:00-3:00 Breakout Teams
||The rest of the day was Act activity, with an interim
report out at 3:00. During the discussion after the Chairman left,
the entire group was facilitated to isolate ten or so major issues
that needed to be worked on for the rest of the day. These were posted
on Hypertiles on the Radiant Wall and the participants signed up for
whichever team they wanted to work on.
|3:00-4:30 Interim Report Out
||The teams presented brief summaries of their work to
|7:15-8:00 Circle Up
||We concluded with a circle-up at 7:15 (instead of a
report out earlier) as we wanted the teams that were building momentum
to continue until the last minute. We had each team build a stand-alone
presentation of their work, either on a wall, Hypertiles or video.
At the circle up, we asked the sponsors to tell the group what had
been accomplished, and we showed several of the videos.
Sections 4 and 5: Analysis:
What Went Right and What Needs Improvement
copyright © 1996, MG Taylor Corporation.
All rights reserved
terms and conditions