CASE 01 / ORGANIZATIONAL EXPERIENCE DESIGN

Walking the Path

Walking the Path

An Immersive Look at the Braven Accelerator

Story creates proximity.

CONTEXT + PURPOSE

Bringing people close to the system through human perspective.

This immersive organizational learning experience was designed within Braven to help cross-functional staff encounter the Accelerator program through human perspective rather than explanation alone.

The experience created space to better understand backstage systems, delivery challenges, stakeholder experiences, and the relationship between individual roles and Fellow experience.

WHAT I DESIGNED

A sequence that moved from story to system.

The experience used story to create proximity before asking participants to analyze systems.

The experience used story to create proximity before asking participants to analyze systems.

MONOLOGUE → CONTEXT → GALLERY WALK → STAKEHOLDER SIMULATIONS → STAFF REALITIES → REFLECTION

HEART

CONTEXT

PERSPECTIVE

EXPERIENCE

SYSTEM

REFLECTION

ACTION

EVIDENCE + ARTIFACTS

Material traces of an immersive room.

Fourteen survey responses offer a limited view of how participants encountered the experience.

Fourteen survey responses offer a limited view of how participants encountered the experience.

3.93 / 5

UNDERSTANDING PREVIOUSLY UNSEEN EXPERIENCES

4.00 / 5

UNDERSTANDING PAIN POINTS

3.71 / 5

CONNECTION TO OWN ROLE

8.93 / 10

LIKELIHOOD TO RECOMMEND

FACILITATION COMPETENCIES

Choices that held the experience.

PURPOSED

CRAFTED

INCLUSIVE

ADAPTIVE

LOOKING BACK, DESIGNING FORWARD

Designing immersion around distributed participation.

WHAT I UNDERSTAND NOW


Immersion comes from the arc, not any single activity. Moving from humanity to context, perspectives, simulation, reflection, and action created the conditions for participants to explore complexity together.


WHAT I WOULD PRESERVE


The monologue created an emotional entry point. Context created shared language. Multiple stakeholder perspectives revealed how the system could be experienced differently depending on where someone sat.


WHAT I WOULD CHANGE


Live Q&A revealed genuine gaps in organizational understanding around roles, systems, training, execution, and how teams connect to the Accelerator. Responsiveness had a cost: portions of the designed experience had to be shortened or skipped. I would add assessment points, manage cognitive load more deliberately, strengthen connective tissue, and distribute participation through structures such as 1 2 4 All and Café Conversations.



WHAT I’M PRACTICING NEXT


Curiosity needs a container. I can acknowledge an emerging question, preserve it, and create an intentional opportunity for the group to explore it without immediately shifting the entire learning journey. The throughline is designing immersion around distributed participation.

RETURN TO PRACTICE

NEXT CASE

104 Learning Labs →

104 Learning Labs →

LATREL CRAWFORD

FACILITATION + LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT