Peer-To-Peer Innovation Networks

How often do we design with people, instead of for them? It’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking that creativity is something only designers hold the key to. But when we pause and engage with communities, we realize something powerful: Creativity thrives within the community itself—it just needs the right conditions to flourish. Take, for example, the Collective Action Toolkit (CAT) by Frog. It’s not just a tool; it’s a framework that empowers communities to solve problems by tapping into their collective strength. Through a series of activities—like clarifying goals and imagining new ideas—small groups around the world have used this toolkit to not only share their thoughts but to take decisive action that addresses their concerns. The beauty of this approach is in its adaptability. It’s not a one-size-fits-all model. Each group can mould it to fit their unique needs, ensuring that everyone’s voice is heard and valued. But collaboration, as we know, isn’t always easy. There’s often discomfort, sometimes even conflict, when differing ideas meet. Yet, as designers, navigating these challenges is where true progress happens. As Otto Scharmer and Peter Senge, leaders in organizational development, have shown, it's in this space of tension that new solutions are born. A recent contribution from @Design Impact offers a set of guiding principles for designers to keep in mind when working with communities. One of these, “Value me for who I am, not who I’m told to be,” resonates deeply. It’s a reminder that behind every design is a real person, with history, emotions, and passions. When we acknowledge that, we move beyond simply gathering feedback—we tap into real leadership within the community. At the end of the day, Social innovation isn’t just about creating a product or service. It’s about co-creating, about building alongside communities rather than handing down solutions. It’s about fostering a space where everyone’s creativity can shine, and where long-term, sustainable change is possible. Have you been part of a design process that values community leadership? What challenges—and opportunities—did you encounter along the way?

🌐 Interdisciplinary Research & Complex Problems 🌐 The international issues we face today are rarely contained within neat disciplinary or sectoral boundaries. Climate change, conflict, digital governance, pandemics, migration—all of these are complex, interconnected, and global. That’s why interdisciplinary research matters so much. No single field can offer the full picture. 🔬 Climate change requires climate science, economics, political science, and social psychology to understand not only the data but also how societies and governments respond. 💻 Digital governance needs technologists, ethicists, lawyers, and policymakers working together to address both the innovation and the risks of AI, cyber security, and data flows. 🕊️ Peacebuilding and conflict resolution draw on history, sociology, law, and diplomacy—because conflicts aren’t just political, they’re social, cultural, and deeply human. What unites these examples is that international problems demand international thinking, but also interdisciplinary collaboration. By weaving knowledge across fields, we gain a clearer picture of the challenges—and more innovative, workable solutions. 💡 In the end, interdisciplinary research isn’t a “nice to have” for global affairs. It’s a necessity. #Interdisciplinary #GlobalChallenges #ResearchImpact #InternationalRelations #Collaboration

How do organizations integrate knowledge and technology to develop AI-based solutions in healthcare? Together with Grzegorz Leszczyński, Piotr Gaczek, and Jędrzej Kociński we explored this question in our latest paper "Integration of Knowledge and Technology in the Co-production of AI-based Solutions for the Healthcare Sector", published in the Central European Management Journal. What did we examine? ✅ The process of integrating medical knowledge into AI-based healthcare solutions, ✅ The role of interdisciplinary collaboration in AI co-production, ✅ How AI can bridge the gap between tacit medical expertise and digital innovation. Key take-aways from our research: ➡️ AI-based healthcare solutions require deep collaboration between medical experts, IT specialists, and designers to translate tacit knowledge into actionable AI insights. ➡️ The success of AI in medical applications depends on balancing predictive accuracy with user experience and trust. ➡️ Regulatory constraints shape AI’s role in healthcare—once certified, AI models cannot continue self-learning, impacting their adaptability. Practical implications for healthcare innovation: 🔹 Developing tools to transform expert medical knowledge into structured AI-ready data, 🔹 Involving interdisciplinary teams early in the AI design process, 🔹 Ensuring user-friendly interfaces that enhance doctor and patient trust in AI-based diagnostics. A huge thank you to my co-authors and to StethoMe® for providing a fascinating case study on AI-powered stethoscopes! 👉 Read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/dpu8p45s #AI #Healthcare #Innovation #MedicalAI #KnowledgeIntegration #CoProduction #Research #CentralEuropeanManagementJournal

Group brainstorming kills more ideas than it creates. If you lead teams, you’ve seen it. Someone starts to speak, then stops. An idea dies in silence. The loudest voices dominate. The quiet ones disappear. Conformity kills creativity. 🧠 Brainwriting first. Talk later. Start with silence. Everyone writes ideas for 5–10 minutes - alone. Then post, cluster, and build together. This protects creative flow before group discussion shapes it. 🔬 Why it works Across 800+ teams, including Harvard studies, the same pattern shows up: ❌ Two people do most of the talking. ❌ Everyone else disengages. Brainwriting reverses that. It removes production blocking and ego threat. It surfaces ideas from quieter minds. 🗂️ The 3M lineage This isn’t new. 3M pioneered the “Post-it workflow” to turn silence into systems. That same DNA powers today’s design sprints and innovation labs. 🧭 How I run brainwriting sessions 🗒️ My process: 1. Frame the challenge. ↳ No clarity = no creativity. 2. Silent writing (5–10 mins). ↳ Ideas flow freely. 3. Share and rotate. ↳ Anonymise if helpful. 4. Read and build. ↳ Inspiration through osmosis. 5. Cluster and refine. ↳ Combine, challenge, improve. 6. Iterate again. ↳ The second round always surfaces gems. By the time the group talks, the thinking’s done. 🚀 The shift Traditional brainstorming creates collective performance loss: groups perform worse than individuals. Brainwriting flips that. It scales originality and participation. Extroverts resist it. Introverts thrive on it. Results speak louder. Silence isn’t awkward. It’s where real ideas hide. 💭 What if your next innovation sprint started in silence? Would your team’s ideas get louder - or smarter? Have you tried brainwriting before? What happened? Save this if your next workshop deserves bigger ideas. 🔔 Follow Si Conroy and ♻️ Share this if your team needs quieter genius. 📩 Weekly sanity in my ‘Progressive Group Therapy’ newsletter: https://lnkd.in/eTZq6A5D

Ever since I learned brainwriting—a method that’s far more superior than brainstorming—I’ve been hooked, I’ve used this game-changer with my team, especially when screening a group of young interns. It’s a quiet, inclusive way to spark creativity, and it’s transformed how we could collaborate. 🧠 I stumbled on brainwriting years ago, and it’s a structured twist on brainstorming’s chaos. The star method? 6-3-5 Brainwriting, crafted by German marketing pro Bernd Rohrbach in 1968 for Absatzwirtschaft magazine. Picture this: 6 people jot down 3 ideas each in 5 minutes, passing their sheets to build on others’ thoughts. It’s a creative sprint that can churn out 108 ideas fast, without the shouting matches of a brainstorm. Personally, I find it way superior then Brainstorming, popularized by Alex Osborn in the ‘50s, sounds fun but has it's flaws. Loud voices dominate, shy folks clam up, and you lose ideas waiting for your turn. But, Brainwriting fixes all that: - Everyone Shines: Silent writing lets every voice—especially newbies—hit the page, no matter how quiet they are. - You write as ideas flow, no pausing to listen or forgetting your spark or brain stuck! - Fear-Free Zone: Writing feels safer than blurting out ideas, so creativity runs wild. - Diverse Vibes: Independent input keeps ideas fresh, dodging groupthink’s trap. I’ve seen it work magic with my team. When a new person joins, brainwriting gives them a safe space to share, building confidence from day one. It’s like handing everyone a pen and saying, “Your ideas matter.” Since Rohrbach’s 6-3-5, brainwriting’s evolved. Teams tweak it—try 4-4-4 for smaller groups, use sticky notes, or go digital with tools like MURAL or Google Docs for remote collabs. I’ve run sessions where my Singapore crew and global teammates toss ideas into a shared doc, sparking brilliance across time zones. Studies back it up: brainwriting often delivers *more* and *better* ideas than brainstorming. No wonder it’s a hit in marketing, design, and even classrooms. Brainwriting’s like giving every customer a notebook to share their tale—it’s inclusive, equitable, and builds community. It’s humanity’s quest for better ways to create, from clay tablets to cloud docs. Next time if you are facing challenge or onboarding someone, give it a whirl—grab paper, set a timer, and watch the sparks fly. Tried brainwriting or got a team ideation hack? Drop a comment—I’m all ears for your creative tips! I’m #andrewyip, a LinkedIn Open Networker (L.I.O.N.)—click below to connect! https://lnkd.in/gc_AgcMu Tap the 🔔 for my next learning adventure! #AdultLearningJourney #Brainwriting #TeamCreativity #FoodAnthropology #AndrewYFlavorHouz #SkyHighTower #LBFAlumni *Sources: Absatzwirtschaft (1968/69), Creativity Research Journal, Innovation Management Blogs*

Have you ever wondered about the magic that happens when design and development come together? Let's dive into it. In my years of experience as a CTO, I've seen firsthand how the fusion of design and development can transform a project. Here's how to make it work seamlessly: Collaboration is key → Designers and developers should work handinhand from the start. → Regular brainstorming sessions can bridge gaps and spark innovative ideas. Clear Communication → Use tools like wireframes and mockups to visualise the end product. → Consistent updates ensure everyone is on the same page. Respect Each Other's Expertise → Designers bring aesthetic and user experience insights. → Developers focus on functionality and feasibility. → Both perspectives are crucial for a successful project. Iterative Process → Adopt an iterative approach with regular feedback loops. → This allows for tweaks and improvements along the way. User Centric Mindset → Always keep the enduser in mind. → Design should enhance usability, and development should ensure performance. Embrace Flexibility → Be open to changes and adjustments. → The best solutions often come from unexpected directions. Remember, it's not about design vs. development. It's about design development. When both teams collaborate effectively, the result is a product that not only looks good but also works flawlessly. What strategies have you found effective in merging design and development? Share your experiences below.

An earlier version of this study appeared in pre-agentic #AI time. The implications are worth rethinking now that we are developing AI agents. The Why and What: ideation and deliberation across large groups of people, for instance, large organizations or decentralized political systems - our current models, from asynchronous threaded conversations to synchronous "assemblies," don't scale well. AI can help her, acting as a conduit between the human groups, in a swarm model. The How: Conversational Swarm Intelligence (CSI), is an AI-facilitated method for enabling real-time conversational deliberations and prioritizations among large human groups. CSI is inspired by biological Swarm Intelligence, like the decision-making dynamics of fish schools. It addresses the problem that traditional large group conversations quickly lose effectiveness by dividing the large group into a network of small subgroups (ideally 4-7 members). Within these subgroups, AI agents called "Conversational Surrogates," powered by Large Language Models, observe discussions, distill key points, and pass insights and ideas between subgroups. This process weaves the subgroups into a single, larger conversation where ideas can emerge and propagate efficiently. CSI allows large groups (from 50 to potentially thousands) to brainstorm, debate, prioritize, and converge on solutions in real-time. Prior studies showed CSI can increase participation, foster more balanced dialog, and amplify collective intelligence, even achieving "gifted" status in an IQ test setting. The results from 147 participants showed a significant majority preferred brainstorming with the CSI structure over traditional chat. Participants reported that the CSI method felt more productive, more collaborative, and better at surfacing quality answers. They also felt more heard, had more ownership, and more buy-in in the final answers using CSI.

8 hours of circular debate. 90 minutes to strategic clarity. The difference? A technique called "together alone." I've watched leadership teams burn entire days in circular discussions. Smart people. Clear goals. Yet they spin in circles while the clock runs out. The loudest voice wins. The introverts check out. Politics trumps logic. And you leave more confused than when you started. Together alone changes the game completely. Here's how it works: 𝗦𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗙𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 (20 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝘂𝘁𝗲𝘀) → Everyone writes their strategic options independently → No talking. No influencing. No groupthink → Each person captures their unfiltered perspective → Ideas emerge from expertise, not volume 𝗦𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗦𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗥𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱 (30 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝘂𝘁𝗲𝘀) → Each person presents their top 3 options uninterrupted → 2 minutes per person, no debates allowed → All ideas go on the wall, visible to everyone → Patterns emerge naturally without forcing them 𝗦𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗩𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 (10 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝘂𝘁𝗲𝘀) → Everyone marks their top priorities individually → No lobbying. No politics. No persuasion → The quiet genius has equal weight to the loud executive → True priorities surface, not just popular ones 𝗙𝗼𝗰𝘂𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗰𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 (30 𝗺𝗶𝗻𝘂𝘁𝗲𝘀) → Only discuss the top-voted items → Build on convergence, not conflict → Questions before opinions → Seek understanding, not agreement Why this beats traditional brainstorming: Traditional sessions reward the confident, not the correct. The person who speaks first anchors everyone's thinking. By minute 90, you're debating personalities, not possibilities. Together alone flips the script. Introverts contribute equally. Ideas compete on merit. Politics can't hijack the process. You discuss what matters, not what's loudest. I learned this while watching a leadership team waste 2 days on endless debates. Zero decisions. Pure frustration. We tried together alone on day 3. 90 minutes later: Three strategic priorities. Full alignment. Clear next steps. The Director’s reaction? Why didn't we start with this? Because most facilitators don't trust silence. They fill space with exercises and frameworks. But silence is where clarity lives. Together protects psychological safety. Alone protects independent thinking. Combined? They unlock your team's collective intelligence. Your next strategy session doesn't need more time. It needs better design. 8 hours of debate or 90 minutes of decision? What would you choose?

My first hybrid workshop in 2017? Not great. In-person participants? Buzzing, chatting, sketching. Remote participants? Left out, frustrated. I still remember their faces. 🥵 Since I crafted a simple dynamic that changes everything. Imagine: 👥 40 people in a room, seated in discussion circles of 6. 🌐 10-15 participants online. 🎥 A video-conference software with breakouts. 📲 Your preferred digital collaboration tool - (Stormz, maybe?). Let's say they need to come up with solutions to a challenge. Here is how I would do it: > Step 1: Solo Brainstorm Think. Jot down ideas on paper. > Step 2: Share in Trio Breakouts of 3 (remote), two groups per table (room) Discuss. Converge to 3 ideas. > Step 3: Circle Talk (6 people) Breakout of 6 (remote), tables of 6 (room). Discuss. Submit 3-5 original ideas on the digital platform. Bonus! Assign a sneaky spy in each circle. Their mission? Check out others' ideas on the digital board. > Step 4 (Optional): Plenary Pitch Each circle showcases its favourite idea to the others. > Step 5: Individual Voting Browse ideas on phones (room) or laptops (remote), vote and comment. > Step 6: Debrief Session Everyone gathers. Display voting results. Reflect, discuss. > Step 7: Idea Development Mix up participants in new circles/breakouts. Assign one top-voted idea per group. Develop into a concept. Submit on the digital platform. > Step 8: ... So what are the key takeaways? 1/ Collaboration happens in small groups of people with identical setup 2/ Their insights are instantly shared using a digital platform. This creates cross-pollination. 3/ Debrief are facilitated in plenary. Other thoughts: - Facilitators: you'll need support - one remote and one per room. - My go-to design technique: dot (1) / Triangle (3) / Circle (6-9) / Rectangle (everyone). I created it for large groups, and it's perfect for hybrid setups. - Quality tech (mics, cams) are CRITICAL for the plenary steps (4 and 6). Stormz? It's perfect for hybrid events. Whiteboard apps are difficult to manipulate on a phone, Stormz is responsive. Engagement tools like Mentimeter are limited when it comes to collaboration; Stormz has all the features you need for ideation, selection, and concept development. No, I am not biased. 😊 Want to dive deeper? Hector & Fernando's Summer Camp Session on Hybrid is next week! Plus, 'hybrid' is one of the 2023 focuses of my newsletter, "Facilitator Fuel".