November 17, 2015 – by Brianna
The end of year (EOY) spend season is upon us. The calls and emails flood in daily. Each has a similar tone and message. “I’ve got money. I want to do a project about . It has to be done by the end of the year.” At this point, we have ~4~ working weeks left of the year.
Being on the receiving end of these requests is a dance of internal negotiation. I have a choice in how I wish to engage with this request. I either choose to connect with this request with a scarcity mindset or with consciousness of abundance. The mindset with which I choose to enter into this request, ultimately defines that scope of work’s ability to impact the team or initiative in which its been commissioned by.
Let me share a couple stories to help bring this concept to life …
Assume I’ve just received this request. Four working weeks of the year remain.
It’s great to connect with you. Not surprising, we’ve got end of year money to spend. I’d like to do a global study to support understanding around product category X. We need to have full results by Dec. 31.
Let me know if you have availability to make this happen.
My internal dance begins. It looks a little bit like this, “OMG! This isn’t possible. We don’t have a proposal in place (may not even have a Master Services Agreement (MSA)). We have four working weeks left of the year. This ask isn’t possible.” (NOTE: My heart is full of anxiety!)
In this example, I’m operating with a scarcity mindset. The constraints are finite. X budget, an impossible scope of work, and four weeks to accomplish the project. If I choose to respond to this client with the scarcity mindset engaged one of two things are going to happen: I will just turn the project away saying, “Sorry, I can’t help you.” Or, I will push to make that impossible task possible (if that’s even humanly feasible) and end up producing a piece of work that does a great job at spending end of year budget money, but does a terrible job at aligning to the core needs of the team for which the work is being conducted on behalf of. Why? Because the client also doesn’t have time for this project right now. They want to enjoy their Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays, as they should. They’re trying to finish off work that is doable to complete before year-end, so they can begin 2016 with a clean slate. Essentially, the stakeholder team for the project doesn’t have time to engage in its design. Everyone in this scenario is in “pushing” mode, which means everyone is thinking tactically and no one is thinking strategically. The project outcome will likely fall flat in terms of truly shaping 2016 work efforts.
Now, let’s view this same scenario through the lens of abundance consciousness …
What usually happens in my internal dance of negotiation is this: I freak out about the impossibility of the end of year spend ask. And, then, I catch myself falling down the rabbit hole of a scarcity mindset. It’s at that moment that I check myself and ask, “How can we?” And then, I feel resuscitated.
I understand the need to spend the end of year money. I understand the requirements to have deliverables generated to a scope of work for accounting purposes. What I don’t accept is doing crap, ineffective work to align to arbitrary end of year spend constraints.
Just by shifting the perspective to “How can we?” vs. “this is not possible,” the conversation shifts. The focus becomes what it should be. The teams engaged in conversation start discussing goals for the scope of work and what that scope of work is intended to inform. The team is able to reflect on what “success” looks like for the initiative.
This consciousness of abundance gives the team the time and space to think strategically. They’re able to chart how this scope of work ladders to their priorities for 2016, how this work is intended to build upon previous work conducted, etc. The focus of the conversation is on the meaning, value and impact of that scope of work vs. the tactical logistics of how to get it done (which is the only conversation happening when a scarcity mindset is activated).
Now, it’s important to note that choosing to engage with a consciousness of abundance does not necessarily mean that more time is needed. In fact, the initial conversation might be 100% equal in duration. Yet the outcomes are dramatically different. With a scarcity mindset, the teams choose to execute with heads fully down, nose to the grindstone. A sense of urgency and achieving the impossible is what is fueling the work. It’s 100% tactical from day one. With a consciousness of abundance, you feel like you have more space and time in which to play and engage (regardless of whether you do or not). You consider ways that you can make the impossible, possible, without necessarily killing yourself in the process.
With the ask of “How can we?,” creative ideas start to flow. For instance, maybe you break one big project into two? Project Part 1 is paid for with 2015 money. Project Part 2 is paid for with 2016 money. Maybe you leverage previous work to get you halfway there from a learning perspective? Maybe you pay for the whole project in 2015 and finish it at the start of 2016? The possibilities are endless. But, these possibilities will not come to mind if you choose to engage with a scarcity mindset with your end of year requests.
So, I challenge each and every one of you to check in with yourself. How are you choosing to engage with end of year spend requests? I’d love to hear from you. What resonates about this concept of consciousness of abundance vs. a scarcity mindset for you? How might you apply this learning to your life over the next few weeks?
November 17, 2015 – by Jean McDonnell
Here at Sylver, we’re big proponents of online research communities as a method for driving customer insights (and thus a customer-centric mindset) throughout an organization. Indeed, we’ve had more and more occasions this past year to recommend this methodology than ever before.
Part of the reason for this is simply that our clients’ need for such robust, timely and actionable insight keeps getting stronger and more urgent. The other equally important factor is that the technology and marketplace for this particular methodology has truly and finally “arrived”.
But first, what do I mean by “online research community”? There’s still a lot of confusion around the term as this approach can go by different names (MROC’s, Insight Communities, etc.) and often includes different formats (e.g. branded vs. unbranded, short-term vs. long-term). The important distinction is that an online research community is NOT a panel or a database. It’s a community of people with common and/or shared interests where two-way conversations take place and where deep insights and actionable feedback are possible because members are engaged as co-partners in the exchange and not just research participants.
Online research communities and other so-called “new technology” research methods have been in existence for years. The early architecture for online qualitative research was built nearly a decade ago and the landscape has been slowly and gradually expanding ever since. But in the past few years the situation appears to have reached “critical mass” – the point where client need and technological capabilities are finally converging in such as way that large-scale adoption (and thus the promise of a greater return on investment) is now possible.
In particular, online research communities have benefitted from the global shift towards increased participation in social networking. The mass adoption of social media by consumers of all ages (not just early adopters of technology) and the advancements made in users’ experience of social media has caused a revolution in the way that information is shared and utilized. The appeal of online research communities as a methodology is that they now take full advantage of the power of social networks, of consumers’ familiarity with them and of the advanced technology capabilities that drive them.
The net effect is that, compared to just a few years ago:
–Online research communities is now the fastest growing methodology in market research today – and its growth is expected to continue to rise over the next several years. (Source: 2014 Market Research Industry GRIT report).
–Many more feature-rich community-based research platforms, tools and services have been introduced into the marketplace by new and emerging research providers.
–More and more companies have begun to invest in these new technologies as a way to drive growth and deliver more impact – either by bringing these functions in-house, by outsourcing these functions to research providers or via a combination of the two.
Driven by advancements in Web 2.0 technologies, online research communities are demonstrating a whole new way to do and think about research – and to involve customers as “partners” and co-creators in the organizations’ decision-making process. The impact of this kind of approach can be profound on an organization – often enabling them to make the shift from a constant state of “reaction” to one of “pro-action”.
I’d love to hear your feedback and thoughts. How might your organization utilize – or better utilize – this evolving methodology for driving bottom-up customer insights?
November 17, 2015 – by Matthew
Reflecting on the current year, my immediate emotions are happiness and excitement; 2015 was a year of fun and challenging research due to the diversity of projects and within projects (client, scale, topic, problem to solve, approach, etc.) that I was a part of. Adding to the excitement was the copious amount of participants I was exposed to throughout 2015 – so many different people, each experiencing the world from a point of view different than my own. From an online snack food preferences study to understanding the role of scent amongst C and D class consumers in India, I had the pleasure to meet and engage with interesting people that challenged (and changed) my everyday thinking.
Looking ahead into the new year, I spy glimpses of an equally exciting 2016; new clients, all new participant groups to meet and interesting spaces to explore. On the subject of new people to meet and learn from, I am most excited to get to know Rob Maihofer, our newest member of the research team!
Good luck Rob and Happy Holidays to all.
October 20, 2015 – by Brianna
Many years ago, I wrote an article entitled, “What Does Innovation Really Mean?” And then based on that article, I was asked to speak and give a few workshops on the topic.
One of those workshops was for a client, Marriott International. One of the exercises I had put together to facilitate the workshop required that participants define, in a phrase, their organization. This definition set the boundaries for what would be within vs. out-of-scope for the team from an innovation perspective.
I remember being impressed in that workshop that the team defined Marriott as a hospitality organization, not a hotel and resorts organization. Likewise, Sylver is working with a healthcare insurance company right now. They define themselves as a healthcare services company vs. a healthcare insurance company.
To some, these differences in identity may seem small and insignificant. But, in reality, they are HUGE! A broader definition of identity gives opening to change and transformation that would not be there if the organization defined itself by the physical representation of their offering alone – or by what they’re known for today. By choosing an identity within the realm of their offer — hospitality for Marriott and healthcare services for the healthcare insurer — they can more easily change and evolve to stay relevant in the marketplace.
Now, I’d be willing to bet that most people who are reading this have a company mission statement that is more broad in nature — defining the realm of their offering, not just the offer itself. But, I challenge you to ask yourself, “Are the people within my organization embodying the realm of our company’s offering or is their scope of identity for the organization limited to the offer itself?”
In other words, let’s assume you’re a bike manufacturer. Do your people define the organization as a maker of bikes or as an organization that gives freedom to those who want to hit the road?
Innovation — and consequently transformation — comes from stepping outside the box, granting yourself some leniency to explore within the realm of your offering vs. the offer itself. It’s this freedom to explore the realm of your offer that ultimately supports the surfacing of new opportunities to become meaningful and relevant to your current and future consumers.
I’d love to hear your feedback and thoughts. How does your organization’s identity — the definition leaders and employees carry with them — support or hinder transformation?
October 20, 2015 – by Brianna
I am often asked as an entrepreneur, “What’s your 10-year plan?” I truly loathe this question as it comes with so many unspoken expectations.
People expect you to have an answer that involves financial targets, numbers of employees, numbers of offices, numbers of countries in which you’re located or some combination or derivative of those metrics. Targets like these are not bad. Heck — most organizations throughout the world are managed and operated by them. Yet, metrics like these just do not resonate with me as a leader. They feel too impersonal and therefore too intangible. And progress against them can’t be measured on a daily basis, which makes it way too easy to go off course.
Rather, my long-term goal — and consequently the daily measure of progress against that goal — has always been “happiness.” Am I feeling energized, excited, engaged and consequently “happy?” When the answer is consistently “yes,” I know that I am on the right path — that the business is on the growth trajectory that is intended. When the answer is consistently “no,” then the reflection goes inward to determine where and how do I — or we as a team — up level. “Where do we look next to get the excitement, energy, engagement and consequent “happy” spirit back?”
Now, there are a couple truths that I’ve come to know — that not only define me, but the staff at Sylver as a whole. “Happiness” for each of us is a combination of discovery and community. When we feel like we’re being challenged and contributing — in an impactful way — to a community (our client organizations, the industry as a whole or the Sylver team), we’re excited, energized and engaged, and thus “happy.”
It’s this daily check-in of happiness that has supported the continual transformation of Sylver Consulting through the years. We do have the metric credentials to put behind our name. I founded Sylver back in 2003, in a studio apartment with a team of one (me). Today, 12 years later, we have a freestanding office in the Chicagoland area of the U.S.A., a physical presence in Brazil and a staff of 7. We’ve done research in 23 countries throughout the globe (multiple times in many of those countries). And consistently, year after year, we’ve seen financial growth in the revenues of the company.
But, it’s truly the target of happiness and the daily check-in of “Am I ‘happy?’ (i.e., excited, energized and engaged)” that has enabled the growth that has been realized throughout the years. And while to some this goal of “happiness” may seem “woo woo” in nature, to me as a leader it is tangible, real and forever present. It’s impossible to lose sight of, as your internal happiness meter demands to be acknowledged as soon as a consistent pattern of unhappiness emerges.
My position is this: We have one life to live on this planet. Hence, it is our personal responsibility to make the most of that life. “Happiness” — and the daily measure and sustainment of it — is how I take charge to know that I am on the right path personally and professionally.
I’d love to hear from others. What types of measures — metric- or spirit-driven — do you use to guide your personal and professional transformation?
October 19, 2015 – by Perry Shaffer
We all know that change is inevitable. Industry shifts and new technologies/methods come into play, for instance, that results in first a pause … and then a shift.
Sylver Consulting operates at the intersection of market research, user experience, and strategy. Each of these industries have seen major shifts in the past 10 years. In light of these shifts, Sylver’s business has also had to flex and change.
Sylver is currently going through such transformations. A shift in our focus, environmental growth, and a sharpening of our instincts about the needs of our clients are all factors that have been swirling around the office for the past year. However, all of this change has led less to a sense of standing on shifting sands, and more as if we have unearthed a vast foundation on which to keep building.
That foundation has been crucial in our process of transformation. Yes, we have developed new techniques and tools. Yes, we have focused on different problems to solve and new directions to explore. But the basis of the work that we do has never shifted. We know what we do here and we know how we do it. What we have been exploring — and better articulating — is why we do it.
Think of it like a Rubik’s Cube. The key to a quick solution is rotating the whole puzzle around one block that doesn’t move. In the case of Sylver, that foundation block is the sense that our work, our research, has not changed. We’re just continuing to explore how we can change to better fit the evolving needs of our clients.
From my position, this is incredibly apparent to me. Inward facing, we are constantly discussing new possibilities and philosophies. But outward facing, we are operating as usual. As someone who thrives on processes and formulas, this is incredibly comforting to me. I know that the foundation of who we are and what we do is remaining the same, expectations and results are remaining steady. We are just expanding the uses of that foundation. Change is inevitable, but if approached in a thorough and thoughtful manner, it should never mean uncertainty.
October 19, 2015 – by Matthew
Sylver is in continual transition and better for this. Permanent team members join and then eventually leave, shaping Sylver along the way. Contract workers come and go, come back. Some stay (myself included). Our physical space is also experiencing a shift from our current rented studio/office to a new building (2016) that will be designed and owned by us!
In addition to full-time and contract team members, we host two to three full-time interns from Northwestern University each year. Interns arrive from the same scholastic program and with the same set of “interview questions” to ask us during their first week. That – and a lack of almost any professional experience – is where similarity among the interns ends. Each intern is a unique combination of gender, race, ethnicity, life experience, desires, and youth that adds a fresh perspective to our everyday routines not inherent in our professional staff.
One benefit of our intern program to students is that they are assigned to a live project where they are expected to be active participants. At the conclusion of a recent three day workshop, a client brought our intern to the side and said that he was impressed by his participation and thought of him as a full member of the team, not “just an intern.”
This kind of reaction is true because our interns have consistently brought more than a helping hand to the office; they bring curiosity and have questions – many questions. More often than not, their observations and questions help us see our own work (and ourselves) from new perspectives.
Our responsibility to our interns is to facilitate a meaningful experience with the expectation that they try their best and complete assignments. But, to truly leverage the full potential of an intern is to be open to learning from them, not just teaching to them. This is possible because we take pride in treating interns as “real” members of the team, meaning that we view them as peers, with something meaningful to contribute to the culture of Sylver, not just the workload.
As sad as we are to see interns depart after their 10-week practicum (or for a permanent, full-time team member to leave or for a contractor’s gig to come to a close), each departure becomes an opportunity for a new point of view to be welcomed through the door and quietly disrupt and challenge us all, ultimately pushing the team to its next level of perspective.
August 26, 2015 – by Jean McDonnell
Some months ago I shared my perspective on how innovation research (the kind practiced here at Sylver Consulting) is different from market research. I noted four key points of difference – one of which is Syler’s use of process-oriented activities, particularly collaboration and co-creation.
I understood then that a well-structured process is essential as the means to drive success. But I’m not sure I had a very deep or well-grounded understanding of just how and why our particular brand of process is so unique . . . and so valued by clients.
Recently, Brianna Sylver (our President) has been making a concerted effort to ask Sylver’s clients for their feedback as to why they chose to work with us initially and, afterwards, how their experience of working with us compares to their experience of working with other service providers. Inevitably, clients tell us that it’s the quality of the experience they get when working with us that makes all the difference. They point to Sylver’s unique way of structuring the engagement so that it not only yields rich and actionable outcomes, but also delivers an experience so efficient and transformative that it continues to drive momentum and change well after the project has ended.
In view of this feedback, all of us here have been digging into the question of . . . “how is Sylver’s approach to process unique and what about it helps to deliver such a positive client experience”?
I believe the answer lies in the “spirit” and structure we bring to the mix.
Here is what I mean by that:
We provide an “evolved” form of collaboration. Most companies treat collaboration (and co-creation too) as a functional action step that gets plugged in at specified points in the process. Their focus is on the “end-prize”. We see a higher purpose and value to collaboration. Our process is based on two key principles and priorities: 1) that the needs, wants and concerns of people (meaning all project participants) come first – at least initially – before the project and the organization it’s meant to serve and 2) that every individual involved in the initiative (including all clients, consumers, and Sylver team members) is an equal and essential partner in the process. This partnership recognizes the unique contribution each individual has to make, all of which are necessary pieces to the puzzle we are trying to solve. On a personal level, this show of respect for individuals and their contributions goes a long way in terms of gaining people’s trust, inspiring their commitment, and involving them in the process. We all know how important this level of personal and group engagement is to the success of innovation and growth initiatives – and also how hard it is to actually achieve. By putting people first and enabling collaborative sharing among equals, our process elevates and accelerates the team’s ability to “get things done” and to feel great pride and ownership in the work that’s been created. We call this effect “up-leveling collaboration to co-creation”.
We take away the pain and inefficiencies of client involvement. Those clients who are most excited to work with us are those who truly value this kind of equal collaborative experience. Given the high-stakes nature of the projects these clients come to us for, they know that they and others on their team need to “get their hands dirty” and be integrally involved if the project is to be a success. However, a very real challenge these clients face is the lack of time and resources they have to devote to any single initiative. As strategic consultants, we understand their pain and work hard to develop a process where clients’ limitations of time and resources are fully respected and honored. Indeed, a key strength of Sylver’s is our ability to create highly efficient “collaboration points” across the process. This allows clients to dip in and get their hands dirty at the most important and opportune times, but not have to spend time wallowing in the details or more mundane aspects of the project. The net result is a highly efficient process that keeps clients appropriately engaged and involved without overburdening them.
We make our process transparent. Our structured process is not a “magic bullet” for solving problems nor is it a proprietary secret that we are reluctant to share. Rather it’s a highly-structured and customized roadmap of the journey we’ll all be on together. Everyone is introduced to the roadmap early and is encouraged to follow it, reflect on it, and collectively refine it as we proceed thru the project touch points. This kind of structure and transparency, clients tell us, is extremely helpful to them. It brings clarity and focus to the project scope and to the reframed “problem to be solved”. It describes the action steps we’ll be taking to solve the problem and shows how each step contributes to and ladders up to the solution. It provides a detailed schedule and description of the outputs/deliverables this effort will produce. And importantly, it communicates very specifically the requirements for each team members’ involvement and areas of responsibility.
We eliminate steps. One of the most unexpected and appreciated aspects of our process is the added efficiency and productivity it yields. Our clients tell us that the Sylver process is so focused and efficient that it allows them to shave weeks, even months, off their end-to-end project schedule. We do this by:
Clearly defining and reframing the problem to be solved. As part of our process, we spend a good deal of time up-front with clients understanding the background and context of the project request. Oftentimes time-strapped clients come to us with a highly specific request from an internal client and/or only a partial view of the issues involved. By clarifying and reframing the problem, we are able to design a more appropriate, focused and efficient path of inquiry. The result is that we are typically able to eliminate a whole or partial phase of consumer/customer inquiry that the client was expecting to need (i.e. formal secondary research, exploratory qual, quant market scoping, etc) which might have yielded some interesting related insights, but may not have gotten the team much closer to their final objective.
Taking out the additional “rework” effort that clients have come to expect. The need for “rework” happens only when there is a disconnect between the client and their provider. Since all outcomes of the project work are created in full collaboration with the client team, then there is no need for the client to have to re-interpret and repackage the final deliverables for people inside their organization. Moreover, because all key client team members are present and engaged in the process, there is no need to circle back to team members after the fact to build consensus and generate support for the project’s outcomes.
Many organizations claim they do collaboration and co-creation well. But, in my experience, unless these processes are embedded deep into the culture and practiced skillfully from a people and partnership perspective, they are not likely to generate the level of power (and empowerment) needed to create real and lasting change.
August 26, 2015 – by Jen Gzesh
One of Sylver’s strengths is supporting organizations that need to grow and evolve, because for some reason the way they currently do business is not sufficient. It could be that the market landscape is shifting, or that the current way they operate cannot support their aggressive growth goals. Whatever may be causing the shake up, we provide a structured yet nurturing process through which these organizations can envision their future.
This past year we had a project that catered to a situation just like that, and it has become one of our success stories. This particular client needed to explore the market acceptance, technological feasibility, and customer desirability for a different type of product than what they typically produce as a result of major shifts occurring in the industry and the widespread national attention this topic is receiving.
The project had three phases. It began with a “meeting of the minds” – members of the Sylver team brought their knowledge from past project work done for this company and in the industry, while the client team brought their unique perspective on where they could provide differentiating value. We worked together to understand how to use this prior knowledge to shape the rest of the project. The second phase consisted of a quantitative survey taken by practitioners and users of the category to gain insight into the market acceptance of different ideas and to gain an understanding of how to move forward with the remaining phase. The final phase brought together key stakeholders from different business units with subject matter experts in the relevant field in order to co-create a vision for what shape this new offering could take.
The co-creation workshop took place over two consecutive days, and was one of the most productive sessions I have ever witnessed. Brianna, Jean, and I took a few minutes to reflect on why that session was so powerful. Below you can read each of our thoughts on three questions concerning the success of this workshop. We hope that by reading our thoughts you will get a better understanding of our process, and what it’s like to experience Sylver’s “co-creation magic!”
Question 1. Why was this co-creation session different from others you have led in the past? What made it special?
We gave the session the time that it needed and deserved to support the whole team (composed of clients, educators and the Sylver team) in developing the trust and respect required of one another to create something truly great! We weren’t trying to “pack it all in” to a couple of hours.
Also, we approached the session as a whole as something much deeper than ideation (which generally is the industry standard). From the session, we sought an “experiential blueprint,” a vision for what this new education software could become. The two-day timeline of the session gave us the time and space in which to comfortably create that blueprint. The session was structured, but not pressed. Everyone could breathe, have fun, debate and create all-in-one.
The level of engagement and cooperation among participants was greater, better than I think I’ve ever experienced before. Part of this was due to the critical, high-stakes nature of the subject matter. Everyone, regardless of the stance they viewed the topic from, was deeply committed to finding a common solution to this problem. Additionally, it could not have been possible without two things: 1) the structure, facilitation and support that Sylver provided and 2) the client team’s spirit of cooperation, humility and respect for the opinions of its invited guests — the expert practitioners. This set the tone, I believe, for the experts to let down their guard, trust in the process and in the motives of everyone there, and get excited by the notion that a real solution to the problem can realistically be achieved if everyone works together.
This was the first co-creation session I have done where the invited “experts” have had such deep, professional knowledge of the subject matter. It was so wonderful to hear the discussion from both sides of the same coin. It made for high engagement and participation, as the participants truly expressed their deep, passionate feelings on the subject matter, and, possibly for the first time, were able to hear how passionately someone may have disagreed with them and why.
Question 2. What was your favorite moment from the 2 day workshop?
Oh … there are so many! But, probably the parting comment from one of our experts and practitioners has stuck in the forefront of my mind most. She said as she was saying her goodbyes to the group, “I feel like it’s the last day of summer camp.” That sentiment of bitter-sweetness sums up what that experience felt like for everyone involved. We had fun. We grew personally and professionally in those two days. We made new friends that we felt bonded with after that experience. This statement speaks mounds to the trust, respect and energy that pumped through the room those two days.
I loved all of it — but I also especially loved the final moments when everyone shared what they were taking away from the two days together. This was where I realized how truly powerful the experience was for everyone — on both a personal and professional level. This made me feel great about the effectiveness of our process — and also excited and appreciative for how much I personally gained from the experience.
Aside from the amazing collaboration and incredible outcome, my favorite part was actually the introductory exercise. On a very long table, there were about 30 random objects – including a yo-yo, a whisk, a little bell, a toy Bat Mobile, a slinky, a traditional Ecuadorian doll, a stuffed parrot – and as each participant entered the workspace, they were asked to choose an object from the table that they felt represented who they were. As we all settled in on the first day, each person introduced themselves, their role and why they were there, and then showed us the object they had chosen and explained why they felt it represented them. For example, one gentleman who had chosen the whisk as his object said that he felt it represented the way he liked to “stir things up” during conversations by playing “devil’s advocate” and challenging other’s thoughts and ideas in a collaborative and constructive way.
I loved this exercise for two reasons. First of all, it was a really fun way to get to know a small tidbit about each person in the room, and a great way to “break the ice” in a playful way. Second, how people described themselves in the beginning had a great way of coming back throughout the workshop and helped with personality dynamics that potentially could have threatened the spirit of collaboration and co-creation. But because we knew from the beginning that one person liked to stir things up, we as moderators – and the other participants as well – knew it was ok to take the spotlight away from that one person when necessary, and hand it over to someone else who was more on the shy side, or hadn’t had an opportunity to share their thoughts. This simple, fun exercise that we used as an icebreaker had a ripple effect that helped promote and foster the sense of collaboration and co-creation that the whole session was based upon.
Question 3. Pick a moment from the session that exemplifies how Sylver does co-creation differently and explain why.
I think the moment that exemplifies how Sylver does it differently actually started way before the session actually happened. It began at the proposal phase of the project and continued through to the creation of the session agenda and the materials crafted to support the session. The way we plan and structure these sessions is what makes how we’re doing them differently. And, specifically, I think it’s three things that set us apart:
1. We do not consider a co-creation session an ideation. The output we seek is not an idea. It goes much deeper than that. In the case of this project, the resulting artifact of the project was an experiential blueprint for what this new offering experience could become.
2. We involved clients and consumers in the same session and each came into the session on equal footing. No one’s role was better or worse or more powerful or less than anyone else’s role. There is acknowledgement that each attendee is bringing their own resident knowledge into the equation and creating something powerful and new as a result of that combined knowledge.
3. We provided the right amount of time and space for the session, so that people could effectively build relationships, think through and debate the different questions that emerged and have fun too!
The “Experience Boarding” exercise and how perfectly structured it was to yield great discussion while at the same time focusing the team on getting to the solution in a timely manner.
I think the way we set it up to have all three of us from Sylver moderating different exercises and discussions throughout the day. Also the way we heavily relied on our participants to take the lead at times as well. While Sylver may be the experts when it comes to planning the session and figuring out the activities that will get the group to where they need to be, the real experts in any good innovation process are the business team members and the consumers. By allowing all the different roles to “take charge,” you really get the best possible outcome of something that is innovative, solves the problem at hand, and is viable.
August 26, 2015 – by Jen Gzesh
As we have been preparing for this “co-creation”-themed newsletter, I have thought a lot about what I personally believe co-creation is. It is a term that is used so often in the innovation industry, and a word we use to represent many meanings. I read many articles about what other people believe the term means, and have heard what my colleagues believe it means. I keep coming back to one simple thought.
Co-creation, in its most pure form, is creating something together.
I have long believed that my best work is an amalgamation of ideas and thoughts that can be challenged and built upon by others I am working with. I think back to something as simple as playing “pretend” with my brother and sister when we were young – I would suggest that we were a family, a mom, dad, and child. My brother would chime in with, “Let’s be Native Americans living in a teepee!” And my sister would throw in that we were out gathering our food for the coming winter. Hours of fun playtime would ensue.
Co-creation is not something I aspire to do, it is an ingrained, natural part of how I work and think (and play pretend). And I believe that is true for all us here at Sylver.