What went well
- Both speakers were engaging
- They were committed to the group – in conversation with us rather than a show
- Members were engaged in the break out – practical group less theoretical (how do you identify and break patterns)
- More questions for the discussion groups
- Lots of post it notes
- Learning round for NASA was very productive. Daniel thought it was poor – too many people and we didn’t really help them much.
- For Parexel, Michele reminded them about the content of the morning and suggest we might bring it into the conversation
- Engagement in the first hour was high
- Jim and Mary were coherent: structure of talk
- Wondering how new people would impact the pattern. The energy was high and it seems to add to the energy
- Ask Mary to address definitions especially about patterns
- Lunch options
What went well
- Framing that David used broke the pattern and worked well
- The exercise worked well and it was hard to really do as a participant
- Micro-moves: Mary to use Sita’s drawing for her talk. Sita could do it because she knew what the exercise was
- Jim’s presentation was a narrative. Personal story, unfolded the narrative, brought back the story. Anchoring ideas around simple metaphors, that are repeated
What to do differently
- Check with facility to resent up the room on day 2
- Internet was very spotty
- Booking space for next year
- Under utilizing artifacts – find out more about how members are using them. What structural piece could be used.
- Document impact of learning round from Jim Martin.