Working note 02 — Serious Play
Why put objects on a boardroom table?
The object is not the answer. It is a way to make a perspective visible enough for someone else to question it.
An idea becomes examinable
A phrase such as “get closer to customers” can win agreement across a room while meaning different things to each person. Representing that closeness requires people to specify relationships, distances or roles. The model becomes a focus for questions.
Metaphor needs an explanation
A construction does not speak for itself. Its maker explains its meaning. The facilitator then invites questions rather than letting others impose their own interpretation. The distinction matters: the aim is understanding, not diagnosis.
Objects do not remove power dynamics
Putting objects on a table does not guarantee equal participation or a better decision. The sequence, rules and remit still matter. Individual work before group discussion can give less immediately expressed perspectives a place.
Return to the decision
The construction needs to reconnect with the question that prompted it. What does it reveal? What disagreement deserves attention? What information is missing? What can this group decide, and what belongs elsewhere? Without that return, the object remains an interesting but isolated experience.
A design option, not a universal promise
Tangible approaches are possible design choices. Their usefulness depends on the situation, participants and brief. Opopoï chooses methods from those conditions rather than assuming one tool suits every question.
Sources & context
These links identify the original source URLs, archived in the project’s migration record.
You bring
the question.
We give it form.
A question to clarify. A team to bring together. An idea to put to the test. Let’s start with a conversation.
Discuss your next workshop