From Team

Day 1

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

• 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

Ben, Christine,Tattiana

Day 2

What went well

• Framing that David used broke the pattern and worked well
• Fluid
• 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.