Chicago Camps

Jared Spool at Prototypes, Process & Play 2017 (Podcast)

This podcast features Jared Spool, Founder of User Interface Engineering & Co-founder of Centre Center, and his Keynote, “Design is a Team Sport” from the design leadership conference Prototypes, Process & Play on August 11th, 2017.

Prototypes, Process & Play presentation podcasts are sponsored by Balsamiq – with Balsamiq Mockups, anyone can design great software.

Jared Spool - Keynote

Founder of User Interface Engineering & Co-founder of Centre Center

Jared Spool is the founder of User Interface Engineering (UIE), the largest usability research organization of its kind in the world. If you’ve ever seen Jared speak about usability, you know that he’s probably the most effective and knowledgeable communicator on the subject today. He’s been working in the field of usability and design since 1978, before the term “usability” was ever associated with computers.

For more, keep up with Jared at or on Twitter as @jmspool.

Design is a Team Sport

Every seasoned designer has fallen into the trap. They see the bad design in front of them. They can’t help but see how bad it is. And they want to redesign it. Show the world how it could be done. How it should be done.

Well-intentioned as the desire to rid the world of this bad design is, their approach often is a disaster. It pushes their allies away, accidentally giving off the air of superiority filled with the smells of arrogance and contempt.

An alternative is a well-designed process for creating your designs. The secret sauce in that well-designed process is a realization and inclusiveness of everyone on the team. It’s infused with an understanding of how people contribute to the design process, even when they aren’t trained in design skills. And it opens up opportunities to give everyone—not just your trained designers—the superpowers necessary to rid your products and services of bad design.

This talk will inspire you and your team to:

  • Realize the reason everyone thinks they are a designer is they are a designer, however unskilled
  • Learn that our design processes need to be designed, with intention and thoughtfulness
  • Focus on helping every contributing influencer of your designs become a consciously competent designer themselves

Presentation Transcript

Please note:

Podcast transcript below.​ Please note: Transcription was recorded live; there may be errors (typographical and contextual), as well as omissions or other content gaffes.

​Additionally,​ there was microphone feedback that happened in the room from time to time, and we did our best to minimize it in the podcasts. We apologize for any disruptions to your listening experience that this may cause.

Jared Spool:

Putting on a conference like this is a lot of work. Make some noise if you enjoyed it.

[Cheers and Applause]

Okay. So yesterday Scott Berkun asked a question “What is good design?” So let’s talk about what is good design. And let’s do that by starting with this. This is not something that Tyler designed. It’s a boarding pass that he received at JFK one day as he was on his way. He had a designer reaction to it. The reaction was so visceral that he decided to write a little story of what it must be like to be this boarding pass. And his story goes like this.

Hello there. Thanks for flying Delta. I’m sure you are no doubt trying to figure out what the fuck to do with this paper you have in your hand right now. You just want to get on your flight. It’s cool. We don’t really care. We sure as hell don’t want to make this process enjoyable for you. We hired a parakeet to hold onto your boarding pass.

He didn’t stop there. He decided he was going to take this challenge into his own hands and he was going to reimagine what the Delta boarding pass could be like. And this is it. And it’s awesome. And is a wonder of good layout, good information architecture, good visual priority, everything about this pass is fantastic.

He’s not the only one who has run into this problem. Another designer named Dustin Curtis around the same time encountered the American website.

He too took to the air waves and create add public let tore the CE, of American Airlines. If I were running a company with the distinction and history of American Airlines, I would be embarrassed and ashamed to have a website with the customer experience as terrible as the one you have now.

And he, too, chose to redesign the website and came up with something that is quite delightful, quite beautiful and really set a sort of thoughtfulness going forward in terms of design.

Now for the last few days we’ve been using this word “design” quite a bit. Without really defining it. And the definition that I have found, that I like the most, is that design is the rendering of intent. And both Tyler and Dustin have the intent to do better. They wanted to create better design. They wanted to create good design. And that’s what they did.

But in Dustin’s case, the story doesn’t end there. Because it turned out after he had posted his new design and his screen on how awful the old design was, a member of the American Airlines design team wrote him an e‑mail. And in that e‑mail that person described what the constraints were, what the issues were, and why Dustin’s reimagined website could never, ever happen at American Airlines.

Dustin thought the letter was really thoughtful, really good. So he turned off the person’s name and posted it. There weren’t that many people in the American Airlines design department.


It was pretty easy to figure out who it was. And they fired him. Design is the rendering of intent. What was Dustin’s intention? Was it to get someone fired? Because that was the outcome he got. By designing a website that didn’t have any realistic approach to the constraints that actually happen in a large company like American Airlines.

The problem that Dustin ran into was different. He ran into the problem context. Context is where design happens. Every time we design we design in a context. We have to understand that.

So let’s look back to the boarding pass that Tyler created. Again, a beautiful piece of design. Tyler designed this. He took this on because he’s a designer. That’s okay. Everybody thinks they’re a designer. But Tyler has some amazing design skills. Let’s take this thing apart.

First, this is a four‑color printing. That’s really an important point. Because the last one was just black and white. And it also has green edging. For those of you who did not study print design, that means the ink goes right up to the edge of the paper. There’s only two ways to accomplish that in life. You either have to have a pre‑cut page or you have to have a very expensive printer that knows how to print to edges.

Similarly, it also uses 300 DPI, which is what you want for a laser‑printed text. But laser printers are more expensive than other types of printers. And finally, there’s no way you can get white text and black background without a white stock. And you need clean paper and the ability to print that way.

So in order for this boarding pass to come to life, Delta would have to replace the 10,000 boarding pass printers they have in the world, none of which can print this boarding pass today. They’re almost all thermal printers. They don’t have ink. That means that they would have to outfit those printers which means unusual paper sizes and some sort of cutting mechanisms. And they would have on top of that create an entire supply chain to make sure that every one of those printers always had the colors it needed all the time.

This is not a small change. This is a huge, expensive change for one of the world’s largest airlines. So that begs the question. Which of these is really the better design? Which one is more perfect? The one that looks fantastic? Or the one that meets the business needs today?

So we’ve talked about good design. Let’s talk about poor design. What makes poor design poor? How does that happen? If design is the rendering of intent. Poor design happens either because we have the right design, but it was rendered poorly, or we have a poor intention that was rendered right.

Either of these can cause what we would refer to as poor design.

So that means that we have to look at both the intention and how we render it in order to succeed. This is a map of Magic Mountain Themepark outside San Diego. Six Flags Magic Mountain.

What’s fascinating about this map is it’s designed to help people make their way through the park. Making sure they get all of the value for the very expensive tickets that it cost to go to Magic Mountain. And the fascinating thing about this theme park, or this map, is that it is designed to move you in the order they want you to go.

Basically you come in from the bottom and you take a left and you just move your way through the park. They have this habit that you want to make. First, they want you to go stand in very long lines. And then you ride on a very short ride. And then you get off the ride and you throw up for hopefully a very short moment. And then you get on another ride. And you repeat that process 70 times while you’re in the park. And that’s the experience that they want you to have.

And this map is designed to make sure that happens. You basically can check off everything you do in numeric order because each thing is numbered. And they tell you explicitly what each thing is so you will not miss one item in the park.

Now compare this to the map for Walt Disney World’s Magic Kingdom. And the first thing you’ll notice is hardly anything is labeled. In fact, the rides are not visible at all.

Sure, if you understand some of the architecture of Disney, you might recognize Space Mountain or Memory Square, the other elements. But for the most part they don’t tell you what’s there. And it’s not because they don’t have rides. They’ve got great rides. They’ve got really wonderful rides. But they don’t tell you this because it’s not the point. It’s not why we’re there. That’s not what we’re trying to do. Instead, they have a very different way of thinking about it.

If you go to Walt Disney World Magic Kingdom with say a 6‑year‑old, there’s a good chance that one of the days you’re there with a phenomenon there known as the character breakfast. It’s an opportunity for you and your 6‑year‑old to get up close and personal with what is essentially a creepy guy in an animal suit.


And you and your child and the creepy guy in the animal suit will then collaborate to make what will become the most expensive breakfast you will ever have.


And you will love it. You will love it because your kid loves it. And even the creepy guy in the animal suit seems to enjoy it.


And that’s how your day starts.

And then you move from there into the park and you go from adventure to adventure to adventure. And before you know it the day has come to an end and you know this because the skies erupt with a firework show. What will seem at that moment to be probably the longest fireworks show you have ever sat through. And it’s completely synchronized with music.

And no matter where you are in the park you can clearly see the fireworks and you can clearly hear the music. They have timed both of them using an algorithm that allows them to actually play the music out of the speakers in different ways depending on exactly how far you are from the fireworks.

They control all of that. I’m getting the hint.

So the fireworks goes on. And then it comes to its natural end. And you pick up your now exhausted 6‑year‑old and you put them on your shoulder and you head back to not your hotel, because Disney does not have hotels. They have resorts. You go back to your resort. You go to the door to your room and you discover that while you were gone someone has been there and made oragami animals out of all your towels.


And if your child has left their Disney characters around on the floor because they’ve been playing with them, someone has picked them all up and put them with the orgami animals and makes them look like they were playing together until they all fell flat when someone opened the door. Because that’s how Disney thinks. Disney thinks like that.

We can sort of sum this up and say okay Six Flags, they think in terms of activities. You have a ride, go on the ride. You have another ride, go on the ride.

It’s time to eat.

Eat. Go on another round. It’s very discreet. Very discreet activity.

Whereas Disney thinks completely in terms of experience. Experience includes activities, but it also thinks about what happens in between each activity. What happens before the activity. What happens at the end of the activity. All of the parts of the experience are taken as a whole. It’s a design process that thinks about the whole.

So when I talk about design process, in itself is not a set of discreet activities.

A design process is in fact an experience.

We have to treat it that way.

Now we have lots of design processes. In our field we are very good at rendering images of design processes. Almost always they involve either guidance or loops. Every design process is either diamonds or loops and in some cases it’s both diamonds and loops.

We have adopted the jewelry phrase of the design world because we’re either doing diamonds or loops. But there are many design processes to choose from. You can use this one, the old double diamond from the design management institute. But this isn’t the one that Tyler and Dustin were using. The process that they were using has a different name. I call it “I’m pissed off and I’m going to show you how to do it right.”

This is another type of design process. It’s one that we employ a little too frequently. Now if we’re going to design our design process, we have to start asking some important questions. For example, we might ask who do we put on a design team? How will we make sure that they contribute in a valuable way? How do we introduce the design process? Who will get the credit for any successes that this process has? And most importantly who is going to take the blame if the process doesn’t do what it’s supposed to? These questions are critical because the design process is no longer just designers. It includes all people who actually end up working. This idea that we need to bring everybody into our process and make sure that they are all part of it is key because we cannot, we absolutely can cannot design things without the people who aren’t designers in our organization. They are just as critical.

Yet while we give that lip service, we still have a problem.

Back there the ’60s, a couple of researchers. Guys named Rosenthal and Ball conducted an experiment not on designers, but on rats. It was a very popular time for conducting experiments on rats and psychiatrists did this all the time.

It was published in a journal in 1963. And the way the experiment worked was like this. Rosenthal went off to his local rat supply store and he bought himself a whole bunch of fresh experimental rats. A couple dozen of them. Brought them back to his lab and divided them at random into two cases.

In one cage he labeled them “smart rats.” And in the other cage he labeled them “dull rats.” And then he invited in the real subjects of the study, the design students, or his psychology students, his Ph.D.s. And he asked them to grab a rat out of one of the cages and run them through a battery of tests that they had been using all semester long to test rats. They were completely familiar with the tests.

And what they found was shocking. It turns out that every rat that came out of the smart rat cage outperformed every rat that came out of the dull rat cage by an order of magnitude. Substantial difference.

Now remember he put them in the cages at random. He actually had no idea which rats were truly smart and which ones were not. The students grabbed a rat out of one of the cages and that determined the outcome. He actually ran this experiment with different students multiple times, every time got the same results.

This experiment has been repeated over and over again and continues to produce the same results. Something about the experimenters were causing the rats to change their performance. It could be that they were standing too close to the rats in some way or they were backing away. It could be that they were emitting some sort of things that caused them the rats to change their behavior. They were able to change the rats’ behavior just by thinking they were smart or done.

This famous experiment has been conducted not just on rats, but they were also conducted on school children. Their told teachers that students with brown eyes were smarter than children with blue eyes. And sure enough the students with brown eyes started to outperform students with blue eyes and became better students overall.

They went to the workforce and told employers that employees with brown eyes performed better. Sure enough they were getting better performance reviews and getting more promotions.

And this has become known in the field as expectancy bias. You set up the expectation that someone or something is better than something else. You believe that. To the point where your perception of what they do will change how you report what they do.

So what happens when you walk into a conference room and in the conference room we immediately identify some people are expert designers and some people are not a designer. How does expectancy bias play into that interaction? If we are asking our collaborators to help us solve complex challenges, who do we pay attention to? Who do we believe is capable of helping us solve that problem?

So our expectations can change the outcomes of a project. And so we must make sure that we understand that our expectations also change the team’s outcome. And we have to be able to ensure that we are getting the best outcome from our team by make suring our expectations are what they need to be.

This woman, until last October, had a really interesting job at the U.S. Digital Survey. Absolutely amazing product. This is her in front of her office. This is her boss. And his boss was a guy named ‑‑

And at the Digital Service, she had a particular project that she was working on. It wasn’t a sexy project. It was actually quite bland. Basically what she was doing for the two years that she was there, for most of the two years that she was there is she was converting paper documents to online documents. An application process. We both fill out a form and it’s currently on paper. We’re trying to make it digital. How hard can that be? It turns out that this particular application, which was for citizenship and immigration, they looked at 6 million of these applications a year. Each application can be between 10 and a 1,000 pages. And the person to review them to see if the person applying for immigration benefits gets it, there are 3,000 of them. And each application is reviewed approximately 6 times in 6 different places in the world.

The budget for moving these documents around the world comes to about $300 million a year. So converting this to an online process where you’re looking at PDFs instead of paper is a big deal. And it turns out really hard. And so hard that the team that was involved took a hundred developers. It also had 12 technical leads, 10 business analysts, 6 project managers, 2 product owners, and 1 designer.


Named Dana. And Dana’s job was to make sure that this process was the most usable, most efficient design process ever. She couldn’t do it by herself. So her design team had to involve everybody else.

Anybody who influences the outcome of a design is part of the design team. Anybody who influences the outcome of a design is a designer. And our design teams are no longer filled with trained designers. Most of the people on our teams are influencers who are not trained in design. So how do we get the outcome?

To understand this is to understand how anybody learns anything. Any time we take on something new, something that we have never done before, something that we don’t know anything about, we start at a particular stage of understanding. Unconscious incompetence. We are unconscious about our ability to do this. And almost always people who are in this stage of unconscious incompetence are completely unaware of how bad they are at this thing. They are bad because they are incompetent. Maybe occasionally they do something good because of a chance. But chance almost always works against them. So that means that most of the time they produce something that’s crappy. They don’t know it.

And the only time they find out is when some close friend or co‑worker takes them aside and says “Please stop.”


And at that moment they learn the difference between good and bad quality. Up until that point they had no knowledge between the difference good and bad quality. As far as they were concerned everything they were doing it was good until it turns out it wasn’t. Now they know. And at that moment they enter the second stage which is called conscious incompetence. And at conscious incompetence, you now know the difference between good and bad and you know what you do is pretty much bad.

And most people give up here. This is why many people stop drawing at the age of 7 or 8. This is why people pick up an instrument and stop playing it. These are all the reasons why we quit. Because suddenly we become consciously incompetent. This is a very depressing stage.

Unconscious incompetence is a very blissful, happy stage. You’re just producing stuff, it goes on the fridge, you’re happy! That’s wonderful! That’s awesome! At some point you become consciously incompetent. You’re done.

But some people persist. And as they persist they start to realize that if they practice, if they follow the recipe, if they do the steps the same way each time, they can actually produce good outcomes. And at that point they become consciously competent.

When we are consciously competent we can produce the work, but we have to think about every step we make. We have to think about the process. We have to think about where we put our fingers on the instrument. We have to think about how we hold the pen and how we draw the thing. We become very conscious of every movement, every step. We can cook the thing, but we have to follow the recipe.

We can get the results as long as we have good process, good procedure.

But then there becomes a point where we no longer need those. We actually now can start to work in situations where we’re not familiar. And from that point we can actually produce outcomes without really giving it much thought. And at that point we have now entered unconscious competence. Unconscious competence is that stage where we can walk into a situation, assess where it’s at, and even though none of the things have appeared in our life before. We can see how to solve this problem. Just take a little bit of this, a little bit of that.

My wife and I play this game off and on the ride to the house in the evening. We work in the same building. So we go home together. And we often will play this game where one of us will mention an ingredient for dinner that we’re short on. And the other one’s job is now, it’s some sort of mini Iron Chef competition to come up with a meal based on this ingredient without having a recipe prepared, without necessarily having gone shopping specifically for that thing. Just be able to throw it together and come up with something. We’ve gotten quite good. That’s unconscious competence. Being able to deal with just what you have and make it good without having to follow a recipe, without having to follow a procedure.

So here’s the deal with Dana and her 130 design team. Which is that Dana has 130 unconsciously incompetent designers.


That’s what happened on day one. And her job became not to create screens, but to take those 130 unconsciously incompetent designers and at least get them to be conscious. That’s where she needed to be. If she could get them that far, this design could turn out awesome, at least much better than anything else.

And to do that, she had to think about the transitions between the stages. It turns out when you go from unconscious incompetence to conscious incompetence, it’s all about literacy. It’s about understanding the difference between good and bad and being able to express why the things are good and why the things are bad.

If you can’t do that, you can’t do any of this. So you have to be able to do at least that. But to get to the next stage, the transition is different. That’s about fluency. That’s when you actually understand the building blocks. You know what the pieces are. Now you can start to put them together. You can start to assemble them.

And yes, you need a recipe, you need a way to do that, but you now become fluent in the mechanics, in the language, the tools of the work.

And if you need to, there are people who will rise to the occasion. She can help them enter the next stage, which is between conscious incompetence and unconscious competence. And that transition is mastery. That transition is when we really get to master our craft. When we talk about mastering our craft, we’re talking about that transition from conscious incompetence to unconscious competence. And it turns out that the way to approach this is very situational. So the way we like to think about it is using a sports ball metaphor. When the sports home team running out onto the tennis court. Or the basketball team, wherever they go.


They don’t have a giant plan. They don’t have a double diamond process. They don’t have a bunch of charts that say exactly which player is going to score exactly how many minutes into the game. They don’t have any of that. But they do have something. They have a playbook. And the playbook is filled with plays. And they choose the play in the moment based on the situation to decide what they need to do.

And so if you’re going to move people through these different situations, you need to have plays. And we actually identify 130 plays for UX professionals to help transition between these stages. These are just a small subset of the 130.

The play that Dana picked is a great play. Her play that she picked is called “immersive exposure” and what you do is you basically just get every team member to watch people use the design. Watch them the current design. Watch them use the new design. Usability testing is a technique. Field research is another. There’s lots of way to do this. But they actually have to see the person use it. They can’t read a report or watch the video. They have to go and be there.

So she started taking the field officers into the field to actually start working, start watching how they interview the applicants who are going through the immigration process.

And she’s starting with a small group of designers or developers and she brought them with her. Took a little while to convince the development managers that when they weren’t coding they were still being productive. Got them into the field. And had them watch. And they came back and were so excited about what they had seen that other developers wanted to go. So she started taking them to the field. And they came back and that spread to others and others. And she could tell because she would have these meetings where she would have during standups, they would have to bring screen shots of the work that they were doing and they would have to put them on the wall next to the last one that they had just put on the wall the day before. And they would have to explain the differences and why they made them. And that was her stand‑up with these teams.

And as they were explaining, she noticed that the people who had been in the field were the ones producing better designs than the ones who hadn’t. She hadn’t taught them anything about design. She didn’t give them any instruction. All she did was take them into the field and have them come and explain why they were making a decision. And the ones who had been in the field produced better outcomes. And the ones who hadn’t been in the field started to notice that the other ones were producing better outcomes.

At one point she had a sign‑up sheet on her door for the next field visits. And it was filling up so fast that she had to actually get another door.


She was able to change the culture of design with one single play. Immersive exposure.

Daryl is currently the chief of staff of 18F inside the federal government. She was at Code for America before that. And at Code for America she was teaching people who worked in cities and states basic usability practice. One of the people she taught was this guy named Jonathan. He had never heard of usability before. He was an I.T. director for the city of Asheville, North Carolina. He never thought of making something usable.

And he and his team sat in on a workshop at the Code for America conference. It was a one‑day workshop where she basically taught them usability testing by having them make animals out of orgammi. It turns out if you print instructions off of the internet and give them to people who have never done it, it’s as good a usability testing thing as anything.

She would teach them incredibly, for lack of a better term, sloppy research methodology. Didn’t follow any standard protocols. Didn’t follow any standard processes.

Just barely enough. Because all she needed them to do was to watch. They took that one‑day course, they went back, and they created this, which is called “Simplicity.” Simplicity. It’s an app that runs on a phone that will tell you anything you want to know about what the city of Asheville knows about any address inside the city of Asheville. It will you tell you where your trash pick‑up is and your sewer lines. What your tax payments are. How much crime is in your neighborhood. Anything they can get off of any public data source, it will tell you all of those things. The residents love it.

They built it by conducting really sloppy, really unprofessional usability tests. First on people in your own office and then on the citizens of Asheville, North Carolina. And every time they did it, they learned something they didn’t know about design and they fixed it.

And so she did this with basically guerilla usability testing.

This is Bill Scott. Bill Scott is vice president, senior vice president at Paypal. And Paypal is having a process with the checkout process. So any time you go to a website that saying do you want to pay with Paypal. And it was running on old mainframe architecture and it was horrible and didn’t run on phones very well. And it was just this miserable thing.

And he convinced the executives at Paypal to do something that was probably the hardest thing you could do. He got a handful of people who were the top developers and designers at Paypal. That wasn’t the hard part. He sequestered them to be on this project for 10 months together and not work on anything else. That wasn’t the hard thing. The hard thing was he got a conference room for ten months.


Not only that, it was the CEO’s conference room. He took over the conference room from the CEO because that was the only one he could get to do this. And they sat there for ten months and he brought in someone to teach them a two‑day workshop on lean UX. And they practiced it for ten months and produced a completely redesigned, redeveloped checkout process not using any of the old technologies that outperformed and eventually out‑revenued the existing one by an order of magnitude and became the standard for how everything got designed at Paypal. He did that with a single play.

These are not complicated things. We know these things. They are things in our toolbox.

But what is different about them is they are involving everyone. They are involving the whole team. And they are helping the team members become consciously incompetent. And that’s what these folks did.

They came in with an expectation that everybody they were working with could produce great designs. And they gave them the tools with some simple plays to make that happen.

So the school that we’re creating is called Centre Center in Chattanooga, Tennessee. And I looked back at the curriculum that we had created and realized that more than half of the courses involved team skills, team conference, working with teams. We cannot produce designers anymore that don’t know how to work with teams. That is the most important thing we can do.

So we needed to embrace the idea that everyone is a designer. Because they are. We need to help every team member become a better one.

That’s what I came to talk to you about. This idea that everybody we work with is a capable designer. They just may not know it. And the processes we use have to be designed to make them use their fullest potential as capable designers. We are in charge of designing those processes. We have to be very, very careful about our own expectation. We have to make sure we’re not devaluing talent that’s available to us because we believe they are incapable.

We have to understand that the skills necessary to work with a team of what we call facilitated leadership at the school is the primary skill that designers really bring. It’s not drawing. It’s not knowing the difference between a check box and a radio. It’s being able to take a team and move them through a process and help them bring the true value.

And finally, we have to make conscious competency the goal for every member of that team.

If by some reason you found this to be the least bit interesting, I’ve got a lot more stuff about this on our website at If we are not connected on LinkedIn, please connect on LinkedIn with me. It’s a good way for us to talk and chat. So that’s a good thing. And you can follow me on Twitter. It’s where I tweet about design, design strategy, design education, and the amazing customer service habits of the airline industry.


Russ mentioned the school. It is a two‑year program. It’s for UX designers. In Chattanooga, Tennessee. Our first cohort is 10 months in. We’re looking to start our second cohort. We have some great applicants, but we’re always looking for more. As soon as we start the second one, we’re going to be starting the third one. If you know someone, our school is aided at career shifters. For people in a career where they want to learn something new. There’s plenty of room for UX designers right now in the world. So anyone who that you know who is at a point where they might want to change their career, this may be a program for them.

Send them our way.

And we’re also looking for projects to give to students because they spend 66% of their time working on real production for projects and services. If you have a project that is a good one. If you think about something that is a thousand‑hour project, it might be perfect for our students. So let me know about that.

And finally, the plays that I mentioned are part of a workshop that we put together called “Creating a UX Strategy Playbook” and these plays work in an organizational level, they work at a team level, and an individual level. Many of the topics that we talk about today are things that we project on in the plays. And you walk out of this workshop with a playbook that is unique to their teams. I’ve done this with hundreds of teams and no two teams have ever had the same playbooks.

It’s really an interesting workshop. And so we have one that’s going to be at the school in Chattanooga. So you can come and see the school while we do the workshop in October. Or we can bring it to a company conference room near you. So happy to do that, too.

And if you come to the one in October, use this code, and you get $200 off. And that’s what I came to talk to you about. Thank you very much.


About Chicago Camps

Chicago Camps, LLC ( was founded in 2012. They plan multiple low cost, high-value events primarily in Chicago.

About this Podcast


“In the Basteal” music written, produced, and performed by Christian Lane.

Publish your podcasts the easy way at

Chicago Sponsors Camps

  • Rosenfeld Media
  • Simplecast
  • Lead Honestly
  • Columbia College Chciago

Code of Conduct

All attendees, speakers, sponsors and volunteers at our conference are required to agree with the following code of conduct. Organizers will enforce this code throughout the event. We are expecting cooperation from all participants to help ensuring a safe environment for everybody.

The Short Version
Full Version

Our conference is dedicated to providing a harassment-free conference experience for everyone, regardless of gender, gender identity and expression, age, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance, body size, race, ethnicity, religion (or lack thereof), or technology choices. We do not tolerate harassment of conference participants in any form. Sexual language and imagery is not appropriate for any conference venue, including talks, workshops, parties, Twitter and other online media. Conference participants violating these rules may be sanctioned or expelled from the conference without a refund at the discretion of the conference organizers.