Design Team Collaboration

How do we move from just designing solutions to facilitating real change? It’s one thing to come up with an idea, but it’s another to bring that idea to life in a way that makes a lasting impact. This is where design meets facilitation, where creativity truly flourishes. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, the psychologist who coined the term flow, had an important insight: creativity doesn’t exist within disciplines, but between them. It’s in those intersections, where different perspectives come together, that real innovation happens. Take Theory U, for example, a framework developed by Otto Scharmer. This process helps groups set aside old ways of thinking and embrace new possibilities. Imagine a room full of people from different backgrounds—designers, social scientists, engineers—working together. Theory U guides them through shedding old patterns and reaching a moment of clarity where fresh ideas can emerge. From there, the group doesn’t just dream up solutions; they make them real, moving from vision to prototype to action. This isn’t just theory. It’s a proven process for tackling society’s toughest problems. One of the key takeaways from Theory U is the importance of collaboration. When people from different disciplines come together with a shared goal, they create solutions that are more holistic and sustainable. The most fascinating part? The more often groups succeed in this process, the easier it becomes. It’s like learning to ride a bike—at first, it’s challenging, but with practice, it becomes second nature. This shift, from unconscious incompetence to unconscious competence, is how we start to make sustainable thinking a habit, not just a goal. So, how can we as designers—or anyone interested in social change—facilitate that shift? It’s not just about creating products or services; it’s about fostering the right conditions for new ideas to grow. It’s about being open to collaboration, embracing diverse perspectives, and guiding conversations toward meaningful outcomes. Have you experienced this kind of collaboration in your work? What challenges or breakthroughs did you face?

Cross-disciplinary learning works because principles that solve problems in one field often solve similar problems in another. The challenge is recognizing the pattern underneath the different context. If you need better focus, look at surgeons or pilots. Better collaboration? Orchestras or sports teams. Better systems for managing complexity? Look at how air traffic control coordinates multiple moving parts without central command. Pick one book this quarter from an unrelated field. Read with a question in mind: "What principle here could I test in my work?" Talk to someone whose expertise differs completely from yours. Ask what makes something work in their domain. Listen for the underlying principle, not just the surface practice. When something works well elsewhere, ask what makes it effective and test whether that principle addresses your challenge. The solution might already be proven… just not in your field yet.

Cross-disciplinary science teams are being asked to solve increasingly complex problems—but many of our leadership habits are still built for a simpler world. I’ve been re-reading Dr. Gemma Jiang’s 2023 paper on collaborative leadership in team science, which frames these teams as complex adaptive systems and then asks a practical question: how do we actually lead when outcomes are emergent, not predictable? The article highlights three recurring pitfalls: 1. Perpetual sensemaking with no real decisions or actions 2. Decisions made by a small inner circle without inclusive sensemaking, undermining both quality and buy‑in. 3. Rigid adherence to initial plans even as context shifts, treating the project plan as “the bible.” To move beyond these traps, Gemma brings together three conceptual frameworks that, in effect, act as lightweight operating systems for collaborative leadership: >> Theory U – Encourages teams to go “down the left side of the U” into deep, inclusive sensemaking before committing to action, linking the depth of inquiry to the quality of outcomes. >> Divergence–Convergence Double Diamond – Makes visible the oscillation between divergence and convergence in both sensemaking and action, including the inevitable “groan zone” where integrating diverse perspectives feels hard but is essential for innovation. >> Strategic Doing – Replaces long, hierarchical planning cycles with fast iterations and “pathfinder projects,” integrating thinkers and doers in short loops of sensemaking, deciding, and acting. What I find especially useful is how these frameworks shift leadership from a person to a process: distributed leadership becomes the disciplined practice of structuring conversations so that coherence, decision making, and actions continually inform one another. For those working in large, multi-institutional projects—or building innovation platforms and ecosystems—this paper offers a practical way to design the rules of engagement so that adaptive behavior can emerge without generating chaos or reverting to the rigidities of command‑and‑control practices.

What Most People Get Wrong About Field Engineers When I first came up in construction, the best builders I knew all had one thing in common: They were exceptional Field Engineers. --They knew how things actually went together. --They understood layout, control, sequence, and flow. --They didn’t guess where work went—they knew. And they earned trust from foremen because they worked shoulder-to-shoulder in the field. Somewhere along the way… the role got minimized. “Just an assistant.” “Just survey.” “Just a stepping stone.” "Just something to get through.” That narrative is wrong. And it’s hurting our industry. Here’s what Field Engineers really are: • They own where the work goes—through lift drawings, layout, and control • They support foremen so work gets installed right the first time • They clear roadblocks so crews can flow • They manage safety and quality at the front line • They prepare work—not react to problems • They build the foundation for future superintendents • They reduce risk instead of pretending it can be outsourced • They train as builders, not button-pushers Field engineering is not optional. ...It is the most reliable way to grow real builders. People argue with me about this. But I’ve trained tens of thousands of people. And every time—every single time—the ones who go through Field Engineering have an edge. They’re all smart. They’re all capable. But the experience makes a difference. That’s why every time I hear someone say, “I got hired as a Field Engineer at Hensel Phelps,” I breathe a little easier for them. What a great decision, I think. They’re going to be trained as builders. Every time someone becomes a Field Engineer, an angel gets their wings. If you’re in the role right now—don’t rush it. If you’re leading teams—don’t skip it. If you’re building companies—protect it. Field Engineers don’t just support the work. They protect the future of the industry. What’s the best Field Engineer you’ve worked with taught you? Love, Jason

FEED (Front-End Engineering Design): where good projects are decided — and where pipefitter experience actually matters FEED is often treated as a “purely engineering” phase: simulations, datasheets, P&IDs, line lists, stress assumptions, cost estimates. Clean. Theoretical. Office-based. That view is incomplete. In reality, FEED is where construction success is either designed in or designed out. This is where pipefitter experience becomes a competitive advantage. A pipefitter understands things FEED models routinely underestimate: • Whether a routing that looks elegant on a P&ID is installable in the field • Realistic tolerances for alignment, welding access, and bolt-up • What “standard” spool dimensions actually mean under site constraints • How material selection, wall thickness, and joint types affect fabrication time • Where maintenance access will be compromised years later When FEED ignores constructability, the consequences are predictable: • Rework during detailed engineering • Change orders during construction • Schedule slips and cost overruns • Tension between engineering and field teams A professional who has pipefitting experience feeding into FEED decisions bridges the most expensive gap in industrial projects: the gap between design intent and physical reality.

𝐎𝐧𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐦𝐲 𝐛𝐢𝐠𝐠𝐞𝐬𝐭 𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐡𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐚𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐜 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐮𝐧𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧. Since CMF communicates emotive values through physical materiality, it's fascinating how material stories mean different things to different people - embedded in their experiences, aspirations, and imagination. When an engineer sees a finish, they think about manufacturability. When a marketer sees it, they imagine lifestyle stories and competitive advantage. When a user sees it, they look for lifestyle fit and aspirational value. 𝐄𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐩𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐯𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐝, 𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐡 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐥. Magic happens when we translate these experiences across different wavelengths of understanding. Not convincing anyone to see it your way, but building bridges between different ways of experiencing the same thing. The key is to first listen and comprehend what is being said; not just their words, but their concerns and viewpoints. Only then can you assess how it impacts the design work. This understanding shapes how you communicate, making ideas easier to accept because they're presented in a way that resonates with each person's perspective. 𝐁𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐂𝐌𝐅 𝐝𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐠𝐧 𝐠𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐛𝐞𝐲𝐨𝐧𝐝 𝐬𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐀 𝐨𝐫 𝐁; 𝐢𝐭'𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐛𝐚𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐮𝐟𝐚𝐜𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐟𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐭 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐜𝐭 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐬. The success of CMF design goes beyond the final preference; oftentimes the success lies in the collective journey of understanding and alignment that got us there. #CMFDesign #MaterialDesign #Design #ProductDevelopment #Innovation #Communication

I'm excited to share a new publication co-written with an amazing team of collaborators from the National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded Wasted Food Research Network. In the paper, "Whither Convergence", we explore the role of #Design in helping to facilitate #ConvergentResearch, and wrestle with emergent tensions. Design played an important role in cultivating a culture for convergent research, one that centers people’s diverse identities, perspectives, and creativity, not just combining their technical skills and expertise. Five design capabilities were essential: (1) convening and connecting people, (2) orientation and visioning collective efforts, (3) storytelling and visualizing activities, (4) making and prototyping tools and insights, and (5) abductive reasoning to devise feasible hypotheses and interventions using practice-based evidence. Design also helped to create space for examining important tensions that arose, such as prioritizing discrete tasks and limited time for engagement vs building authentic relationships; navigating cycles of convergence vs divergence; allowing time for deeper, critical and reflexive thinking; and need for open-ended forms of inquiry vs conventional research outputs. We believe that there is an important opportunity to more effectively utilize design, beyond #designthinking, by seeing it as a discipline with its own people-centered and systems-centered theories and methods that are valuable for conducting convergent research. Networks can support convergence by dedicating resources to emergent, especially divergent, multi-disciplinary ideas, and creating enabling environments that encourage playfulness, experimentation, failure and opportunities to learn and grow. Azra Sungu, Lee Davis, Vidisha Agarwalla, Meg Burke, Estela Duhart Benavides, Steffanie Espat, Kaitlyn Harper, Ariella Knight, Nicole Labruto, Maura Shea, Susan V., Norbert Wilson

🔹 Interdisciplinary Data Integration in 3D Plant Design 🏗💻 In modern process plants, no discipline works in isolation. Every model element — a pipe, cable tray, or foundation — has an impact on other systems. That’s why seamless integration of Piping, Structural, Civil, Electrical, Instrumentation, Process, and Safety is the backbone of EPC project success. 💡 With tools like SP3D, E3D, CADWorx, Civil3D, STAAD, ETAP, Navisworks, SmartPlant Review, engineers achieve clash-free, accurate, and constructible designs. 🔹 Discipline Interfaces 📌 Piping ↔ Civil → Pipe racks, foundations, trenches, culverts, and underground utilities aligned to equipment locations. 📌 Piping ↔ Structural → Platforms, access ways, ladders, and supports coordinated with pipe routing. 📌 Piping ↔ Electrical → Cable trays ⚡, grounding, and lighting positioned without clashing with piping or supports. 📌 Piping ↔ Instrumentation → Control valve stations 🎛, junction boxes, impulse lines, and analyzers integrated with piping runs. 📌 Piping ↔ Mechanical / Process → Nozzle orientation, exchanger tube pulling, and reactor connections verified early. 📌 Piping ↔ Safety → Firewater lines 🧯, safety showers 🚿, gas detectors, and escape routes 🛑 included in model reviews. 🔹 Benefits of Interdisciplinary Integration ✅ Early clash detection → reduces costly rework at site. ✅ Better constructability → smoother handover to construction. ✅ One source of truth → consistency across all disciplines. ✅ Stronger safety compliance → NFPA / OSHA clearances maintained. ✅ Fewer project delays → EPC workflows run on time. 🔹 Codes & Standards 🌍 • ASME B31.3 – Process Piping flexibility & alignment • AISC / IS Codes – Steel structures supporting piping • NFPA / OSHA – Fire protection & safe access • IEC / NEC – Electrical clearances & interfaces • ISA S5.1 – Instrumentation standards 🔹 Designer’s Pro Tips 🧑💻 🔍 Run clash checks at 30%, 60%, 90% model reviews (Navisworks, SmartPlant Review, E3D Review). 📊 Maintain a discipline coordination matrix to track interfaces. 🏗 Always share 3D model snapshots in review meetings → improves visibility for stakeholders. ⚡ Validate nozzle orientations, access, and lifting clearances before IFC release. 🔄 Ensure revision control & version management across disciplines to avoid data mismatch. ⚡Successful plant design is not about individual discipline excellence but about integration, collaboration, and coordination. The 3D model is the digital twin where all disciplines meet, clash, and finally merge into a constructible and safe plant. #PipingDesign #3DModeling #SP3D #E3D #Navisworks #SmartPlantReview #PlantDesign #OilAndGasEngineering #ProcessPlant #CADDesign #PipingEngineer #EPCProjects #StructuralEngineering #ElectricalEngineering #Instrumentation #MultidisciplineIntegration #ASME #NFPA #ISA #OSHA #Hexagon #Civil3D #ETAP #STAAD

I was asked today what principles and best practices are recommended when working broadly with organization design efforts. I suggested the following principle+practice list: - Design with strategy in mind: Establish clear design principles and criteria aligned with the strategic intent before making structural changes. (Contingency Theory) - Make the design responsive: Embed sensors and feedback loops to continually sense and respond to gaps between the intended and realized organization design. (Dialogic change management) - Design outside-in: Design and staff layer by layer to ensure congruence, alignment to design criteria, and clarity of roles. (Purpose-driven systems design theory) - Lateral before vertical: Focus on building strong lateral processes and incentives to integrate efforts across the organization's structure. (Information flow & Division of Labor) - Respect the interconnected parts: Avoid optimizing individual elements like structure or rewards in isolation. All the major design policies must be congruent. (See: Galbraith Star model) - Hats, not heads: Ensure roles, decision rights, and information flows actually align with the capabilities of the people in those roles. (Role definition =/= Job description)

🚧 What’s the REAL cost of skipping pre-construction coordination? (Hint: It’s not just money — it's time, trust, and reputation.) Too often, I walk onto jobs where design clashes weren’t caught early, trades are stepping over each other, and developers are burning daylight (and budget). It’s avoidable — but only when boots on the ground are part of the conversation from day one. As someone who lives this every day — coordinating subs, solving problems before they become RFIs, and keeping the build on track — I can tell you: early alignment between field and design isn’t a "nice to have." It’s critical. ✅ Field-first coordination ✅ Constructability reviews ✅ Real-time feedback loops These are what keep schedules tight and clients happy. If you're an architect, GC, or developer — are you bringing your field teams in early enough? Would love to hear how others are handling this on complex builds. #CommercialConstruction #FieldFirst #ConstructionLeadership #BuildSmarter #Architects #Developers #GeneralContractors #Constructability #PreConstruction #ConstructionManagement