User Research Strategist + Facilitator
Global Data Management Modernization
Case Study:
Mapping & Charting
Research Initiative
By Dave Feroe
03.01.2026
A mixed-methods UX research and facilitation initiative that transformed a billion-dollar aviation organization's fragmented understanding of its own workflows into a shared current state, a co-created future vision, and a committed five-year modernization roadmap.
​Overview
This case study documents a user-centered research and facilitation initiative conducted within the Mapping and Charting team of a Global Data Management (GDM) organization in a major aviation company. This initiative spanned two and half months during Q3 and Q4 of 2025.
​
Facing legacy process complexity, siloed institutional knowledge, and competing mental models of how the system actually functioned, the organization needed a grounded, evidence-based understanding of its current state before any meaningful modernization could begin. This initiative provided that foundation, and the strategic direction that followed from it.
​
What this case study covers:
-
Organizational Context – the scale, complexity, and strategic importance of GDM, why Mapping and Charting was selected as the modernization entry point, the Core Challenge we faced
-
Research Methods, Charter and Vision Framing – how the initiative was conceived and structured before research began
-
Expert Role Interviews – a sequential interview cadence engaging an expert user representative across each of six primary roles, designed to produce both qualitative and quantitative insights and individual role-level workflow maps
-
Data Aggregation and Synthesis – an AI-enabled, iterative process of transcript integration, tagging, and workflow map construction running parallel to each part of the interview program
-
Validation and Expert Nuance Sessions – targeted follow-up sessions to confirm findings and surface edge cases before final synthesis
-
Master Current-State Workflow Map – the integration of all individual role maps into a single, organization-wide view of the end-to-end current-state production system
-
Three-Day Current and Future State Workshop – a structured facilitation event bringing 20 to 25 cross-functional participants together to validate the current state, imagine a better future state, and commit to an actionable roadmap
-
Outcomes and Decisions – the strategic decisions that emerged from our research efforts, five-year AI modernization vision, and sustained momentum​​​​
Context
Global Data Management (GDM) is a complex internal organization responsible for the creation, maintenance, and distribution of internal, B2B and B2C aviation charts and data.
Following decades of growth and change, GDM had become highly specialized, deeply siloed, and resistant to change. Systems, workflows, and responsibilities were distributed across multiple teams and roles, and institutional knowledge was frequently embedded in calcified processes and legacy technology.
While modernization discussions had already been underway across GDM, its scale and complexity made full transformation efforts extremely difficult to scope or execute as a single initiative.
​
We will be focusing on the Mapping and Charting Group (one part of the larger GDM capability) which chose to spearhead its own modernization effort in hopes of guiding the larger whole to a better path, one based on user-centered design and discovery principles.
​
​
​
Strategic Entry Point: Mapping & Charting
My initial engagement with GDM began with the Mapping and Charting team, which had self-identified as an ideal strategic starting point for modernization.
Mapping and Charting offered two distinct advantages:
-
their relative operational agility compared to other parts of the GDM organization
-
the recognition that a full GDM modernization effort was too vast to tackle all at once
After a few exploratory conversations with key stakeholders, my support of the Mapping and Charting team was endorsed as an opportunity to pilot a different approach to understanding and improving their work, their processes, and their outcomes… starting with frontline users and introducing a human-centered, data-driven mindset that could scale across the crucial department, while tapping into AI potential.
​
Operational Environment
They served both internal operational users and external aviation customers.
Internal Users
Internal users primarily consisted of geospatial technicians, data analysts, and related production roles responsible for maintaining the accuracy and freshness of constantly changing aviation charting data. These roles created the charts crucial to maintain safety and compliance.
These teams:
-
use public, governmental (multi-national) and proprietary aviation data sources
-
update aviation charts according to a mandatory 28-day international aviation standard
-
manage complex workflows involving multiple tools and validation processes
-
produce authoritative charts used widely across the aviation industry
External Customers
The resulting aviation charts are distributed across aviation sectors, including General Aviation, Military Aviation, Business Aviation, Commercial Aviation, Defense and Military organizations, and our own internal Dispatch Center which operated dispatch centers for smaller airlines, companies, and governments.
Customers consumed and modified these charts using a variety of platforms, including our own applications as well as third-party tools, making interoperability and data accuracy critical.
Note: The GDM organization within this company represented over $1 billion in value, and was the leading provider of aviation navigational information, with its charts and data used by approximately 80 to 85 percent of the world’s airlines.
​
The Core Challenge
While the outputs of the Mapping and Charting team was essential to many aviation products (they created, updated, edited and customized the navigational charts and data.), the team's workflows were shaped by legacy systems and long-standing operational practices that had changed little over decades.
These legacy structures created several challenges:
-
highly complex and opaque workflows often based on paper-printing use cases and ill-fitted to the digital transformation the industry had undergone
-
multiple competing mental models among leadership about how the system actually functioned created roadblocks to change
-
technology constraints embedded in legacy tools
It was obvious that what was needed was a clear understanding of the real operational environment, its players, systems, and requirements, as well as the challenges faced by those doing the work, and those consuming the output.
Before meaningful research could occur, it was necessary to have a broad understanding of how GDM functioned as a system – including organizational structures, user types, roles and challenges, data flows and types, tools, and interdependencies between teams.
I asked. They had no shortage of technical diagrams – but no unified picture of how those systems actually shaped, and in many cases impeded, the work being done. So we set about building one.
Research Methods
Designing for Complexity – A Mixed-Methods Approach to Aviation Global Data Management
The approach was deliberately shaped by the environment itself. Mapping and Charting, despite being a single team within a larger Global Data Management (GDM) organization, encompassed multiple distinct but interdependent roles embedded in a highly complex, often manual, production workflow. Roles overlapped in ways that were not fully documented, and the workflows connecting them had evolved organically over decades rather than being purposefully designed.
My initial instinct was to use a survey to gather broad coverage quickly across the team. I quickly set that idea aside once the operational complexity became clear. A survey requires the researcher to know what to ask – and at that stage, there wasn't enough understanding of the environment to construct questions that would surface the right signal. A poorly scoped survey in a system this complex would inevitably produce misleading data and would have consumed participant goodwill better spent on richer engagements.
I could achieve representative sampling through interviews, and the workflow mapping that followed would yield the quantitative texture that a survey would provide.
The research plan was therefore designed with a phased approach, so that each step would build directly on the one before it, progressively deepening individual and organizational understanding until the full complexity of the current state could be unveiled and examined honestly.​​​
Phase 0: Research Charter and Vision Framing
Before a single interview was scheduled, the initiative had to be grounded through a structured Research Charter.
Select stakeholders from Mapping and Charting breathed life into the Charter across two one-hour sessions; this was intentionally designed to be an organic, living document. Scope and focus inevitably shift as discovery unfolds, and the Charter acknowledges that reality, rather than fighting it. Its primary purpose was to establish early alignment and actually write down what was known, and what was unknown – providing a foundation for the research plan to follow.
The Charter sessions covered:
-
research intent, problems, and opportunities
-
desired outcomes and deliverables
-
pre- and post-workshop objectives
-
identifying and defining primary, and secondary users
-
current state use cases
-
boundaries and guardrails for discussion (were there untouchable topics?)
-
assumptions (product team and leadership)
-
desired workshop and research activities
-
a first draft primary participant list
-
identifying key stakeholders with influence over the initiative's direction
One additional and non-negotiable item addressed during the Charter process: UX team staffing. It is not uncommon to discover that a team is understaffed in UX capability; in this case, they had none. For work of this complexity and importance, a dedicated design team was required as a condition of engagement – not as a peripheral support function, but as active participants embedded in the work from day one. This was a dealbreaker.
UX designers would be expected to learn alongside every other participant, contribute to pre-workshop research, and take an active role in post-workshop data synthesis, tagging, visualization, and subsequent wireframing and more. This requirement also served a secondary purpose by demonstrating the organizational value of robust UX investment in enterprise-scale product work.
Following the Charter, primary stakeholders were asked to develop two vision statements: one for the Mapping and Charting team's broader trajectory toward an AI-enabled digital charting future, and one specifically for the three-day workshop. These aspirational visions served a focusing function by articulating direction before the full shape of the work was fully understood.
The workshop vision statement in particular proved to be a durable artifact. It opened the workshop as a shared point of focus, and became a meaningful reference point afterward: Had the workshop achieved what it set out to achieve? Had the work surfaced unanticipated directions? Where had the group not gone far enough – and what might that suggest for further exploration?
​Phase 1: Expert Role Interviews
7 interviews | 6 primary roles | ≈2 hours each
The discovery effort began with semi-structured interviews with one representative from each of the six identified primary roles within the Mapping and Charting workflow. Roles targeted were geospatial technicians or data analysts responsible for gathering the data from disparate sources, creating and verifying take-off and approach charts, tailoring charts with customer data, coding teams who created the charts in digital form, and teams responsible for revision, and distribution.
The interview phase was conducted both in-person and virtually, reflecting the geographic distribution of the Mapping and Charting team and demonstrating that the research approach was not dependent on any single facilitation format.
The interview length and the limit of one user per interview were both deliberate and backstopped with the knowledge that we would have multiple opportunities to validate or adapt findings.
The interview length was chosen to be long enough to move past surface descriptions and into the real texture of the work – uncovering undocumented elements like workarounds, compensatory behaviors, and informal knowledge that kept legacy systems functioning. Further, we knew we would be adding to, and validating, findings multiple times in the days ahead.
Limiting ourselves to one expert per role was also a deliberate choice. Given the complexity of the environment, depth of understanding per role mattered more than breadth. As each interview was also designed to produce a tangible artifact (an individual role-level journey map capturing the steps, tools, decision points, handoffs, and friction embedded in that role's slice of the production process), any concerns about a single interviewee's biases being carried into the findings would be ameliorated by the subsequent validation with a second user.
Note: I later had independent confirmation of the strength of our findings… When we shared our work with UX colleagues who had been conducting parallel discovery with another GDM team (through a much larger interview program spanning six months and dozens of interviews) the two bodies of work were found to be substantially aligned. That convergence served as independent validation of the research quality and efficiency of this approach.
Interstitial: Data Aggregation and Synthesis
Between each interview and the validation phase, we conducted a structured synthesis process. This included video transcript integration with an AI-enabled research data repository (Condens), followed by cleaning, review, and tagging of the transcribed video for keywords, pain points, benchmark metrics, notable quotes, identification of moments that matter, as well as any elements that required clarification or follow-up.
Simultaneous to the interview and data synthesis processes, a service journey map was constructed for each individual role.
This process was then repeated with each of the six interviewed roles to document a wider understanding of the end-to-end journey across Mapping and Charting.
Interstitial 2: Seeing the Work
Following the interview and synthesis work, three members of the UX design team conducted observational job shadowing sessions with a GDM Approach Airport Analyst – one of the many important roles identified during the interview phase.
Interviews surface how people describe their work, but observation captures how they actually do it. The space between the two is where the most important findings live – and in a legacy environment like this one, we weren’t disappointed. The sessions yielded several concrete pain points that both validated and added texture to previous findings, reinforcing the research picture we were building toward the workshop.
Phase 2: Validation and Expert Nuance Sessions
Following each interview, findings were then reviewed with at least one additional representative of the same role in a more targeted review session (30 to 60 minutes). This served two purposes: validating that the researcher's interpretation of the workflow was accurate, and surfacing edge cases or nuances that a single subject might not have raised. Additional subject matter experts were also engaged as necessary to add depth and precision to specific workflow maps where the complexity warranted it.
This phase ensured that by the time individual journey maps were complete, they represented the role – not just one person's experience of it.
Phase 3: Master Current-State Workflow Synthesis
With all the interviews and their validation sessions complete, individual role workflow maps were synthesized into a single master current-state service journey map spanning all six roles. This document made visible, for the first time, how the full production workflow functioned as an interconnected system – including where roles overlapped, where handoffs broke down, where legacy tool constraints created cascading friction, and where workarounds had become so embedded they were effectively invisible.
This master service journey map, alongside the individual role maps, became the primary evidence base for everything that followed.
The synthesis process incorporated:
-
user and stakeholder interview findings to gather direct, role-level accounts of how the work was actually done, including workarounds, pain points, and heuristics embedded in daily practice
-
sorting findings into themes to surface patterns across roles
-
workflow and process mapping to translate qualitative accounts into structured, navigable process documentation – including operational metrics such as choke points and time-on-task estimates drawn from the work itself rather than assumptions from process requirements
-
system and ecosystem diagrams to represent the full web of tools, data sources, API dependencies, and integrations – making complexity clear and understandable to decision-makers
-
service blueprints and journey maps to explore the human experience of the workflow alongside its operational mechanics, keeping people at the center of what was ultimately a technology modernization conversation
Phase 4: The Current and Future State Workshop
The 3-day workshop (covered in depth below) brought together 20-25 participants drawn from across the extended Mapping and Charting team. Chasing a deep and wide perspective, we brought together data analysts, workflow SMEs, leaders, managers, architects, developers, regulatory and standards experts, and geospatial technicians with direct, hands-on knowledge of the individual workflow maps.
​
--------------------
From Evidence to Alignment
The research phases preceding the workshop had been explicitly designed to culminate in a collaborative and impactful workshop. All that work allowed us to gather with a shared, validated picture of the current state rather than spending days arguing about what it was.
This required strategy and oversight. A multi-day workshop of this complexity, convening 20 to 25 participants across roles as different as geospatial technician and enterprise architect, could easily collapse into unproductive debate, leadership-dominated discussion, or the kind of high-energy “feel good” session that produces nothing actionable afterward. Preventing those outcomes was as much a part of the facilitation work as running the sessions themselves.
​
--------------------
Pre-Workshop: Anticipating the Room
Some of the most consequential aspects of facilitation work happen before the workshop even begins.
In the weeks preceding the workshop, key participants – including operational managers, team leads, and senior stakeholders – were engaged individually. These conversations served multiple purposes: answering concerns about the research process, ensuring that important issues would have space in the agenda, and building the kind of psychological investment in the outcome that makes participants contributors rather than observers.
--------------------
​
Why In-Person?
This workshop was conducted fully in-person. This was a deliberate choice, not a default. While every element of this research initiative can be executed remotely, in-person facilitation removes the artificial barriers that distributed participation introduces – it enables longer, more focused working days without the accumulated impact of screen-fatigue and better creates the conditions for the kind of candid, spontaneous collaboration that complex organizational work requires. For an initiative whose central goal was genuine shared understanding across deeply siloed roles, in-person wasn't a preference, it was a design requirement.
​
--------------------
Moving the Pieces
Upon learning that a director wanted to join the workshop, I made sure to brief them on the intent and structure, and then urged them not to attend. They should join us for lunch each day instead, and then I explained my reasoning – enough presence to signal organizational support; not so much that it might shift the dynamic of our working sessions. They understood immediately.
That kind of conversation requires reading a senior stakeholder accurately, making a confident ask that could easily have landed badly, and trusting that the reasoning would be appreciated. And it was.
​
--------------------
A Commitment from Leadership
I subsequently met individually with each of the two most senior leaders who would be attending. These weren't formal briefings – they were conversations designed to take the temperature: How committed were they to genuine discovery? Did either have an agenda I hadn’t seen?
It became clear quickly that both were hungry for real data. Bias wasn't going to be the problem.
What remained was establishing roles. One leader would have a few minutes at the very start of the workshop – as part of my opening level-set – to share his perspective on why we were there and to lay out guardrails that would keep the group working productively. After that, for the next three days, neither of them would be the boss. They would be participants.
Getting that agreement required a direct conversation. I told each of them that if I felt their behavior was threatening the findings or the mood in the room, I would let them know – privately, but clearly. Both understood. Both kept their word. Over three days, they engaged as contributors, not authorities – and the room was better for it.
Workshop Day 1: Walking the Wall – Seeing the Big Picture for the First Time
Day 1 started with attendees “walking the wall” of data – we put each individual role journey map, progressively laid out, on butcher paper with the data points on taped sticky notes, sequentially along two long walls – we had over 80 feet of journey maps!
This was a participatory exploration of the actual work – role by role, step by step – with each attendee expected to engage with findings that, in most cases, extended beyond their own area of expertise. For many participants, this was the first time they had encountered a complete, evidence-based picture of how roles outside their own actually functioned, and how those roles connected to and depended upon each other.
This crucial Day 1 introduction to the work being done fueled the discussions and reviews of all six individual role workflow maps that followed. The point of the Wall Walk was…
-
validating the research – frontline participants could confirm, correct, or add nuance to what each map in turn
-
building shared context – leadership and technical participants could see the big picture with all its unintended complexity and gain context into complaints and risks they’d already received
-
surfacing hidden dependencies – seeing all six roles in sequence made visible the handoffs, overlaps, and friction points that siloed perspectives had previously obscured
-
creating a common language – by the end of the first day, every person in the room was working from the same foundational understanding
Large group discussions were interwoven with the walk, allowing observations and questions to surface in real time. After the Wall Walk, we dove into each journey map individually, dissecting and discussing each role and everything it entailed (intent vs reality, challenges, workarounds, tools used, metrics, etc.). The day closed with the full room aligned around a validated, shared picture of the current state… this was essential for everything that followed.
Workshop Day 2: Future State Visioning
With the current state established and validated, Day 2 shifted toward ideation. Working in a mix of large group and breakout formats, participants began constructing a vision of an improved future state – mapped, like the current state, onto a service journey structure.
The use of the journey map format was intentional. It kept the future state conversation grounded in the actual experience of the people doing the work, rather than drifting into abstract technology or organizational discussions.
Dedicated technology and AI tracks were embedded in the journey map specifically to bring the architects and technologists into the planning as active contributors – enabling them to envision the hardware, API connections, and new data linkages that would be required for the future vision to succeed. Features, integrations, and process changes were evaluated in the context of the workflow they would affect and the roles they would serve.
Note: A structured leadership check-in was built into the morning of Day 2. This checkpoint allowed emergent discoveries to be pressure-tested with decision-makers before the group invested further energy in them; this allowed us to hear and adapt to any hesitation or constraint early enough to incorporate them into the work rather than encountering them as obstacles at the end.
Workshop Day 3: Roadmapping and Committed Action
The last day was designed to convert vision into velocity.
The future state service journey map developed on Day 2 became the backdrop for a scoped roadmapping session in which all attendees participated – not just the product manager, but every person in the room. This collaborative ownership was deliberate: a roadmap built by one role for others to execute rarely generates the same commitment as one built together.
Actions were organized across four time horizons:
-
short-term (1–6 months)
-
medium-term (7–12 months)
-
long-term (more than 1 year)
-
undefined future (reserved for necessary work not yet fully scoped – as further information was gathered, undefined action items could be moved into their proper time slots with confidence.
One critical business requirement for the roadmap was well-defined short-term wins, asked for specifically by multiple leaders who knew that modernization efforts stall without momentum. Every short-term action needed to be specific, achievable, and owned – and by the end of the session, every person in the room had at least one action item attached to their name. Where the right owner wasn't present, or didn't yet exist on the team, the task of finding or hiring that person was itself added to the roadmap and assigned.
Note: A second leadership check-in on the morning of Day 3 ensured that the previous day’s discoveries and the upcoming roadmapping session began with organizational buy-in already secured. By the time the group began assigning names to actions, there was no ambiguity about whether leadership supported the direction.
Workshop Wrap-Up
​
The Outcome in the Room
At the close of Day 3, one of the two senior leaders who had participated throughout the workshop said that he had spent the previous six months trying to understand the intricacies of the Mapping and Charting team's workflow, without success. In three days, he said, it had all become crystal clear.
That moment captured what the entire initiative was designed to produce: not just a document, or a deliverable, but a team of people who finally understood the full extent of the system they were responsible for – and knew exactly what to do next.
Post-Workshop: Synthesis, Distribution, and Design
Following the workshop, an intensive synthesis phase translated the three days of collaborative work into a comprehensive set of artifacts housed in the Condens research repository – a centralized hub, managed by UX Research and accessible to stakeholders across the organization, many of whom had a vested interest in the initiative's direction without having been in the room.
The artifact set included:
-
current and future state service journey maps
-
individual role workflow visualizations
-
gap analysis summaries
-
insight and theme summaries
-
roadmap visualizations spanning short, medium, and long-term horizons
-
role profiles capturing the human experience of each position within the workflow
-
a notional future state architectural diagram produced independently by one of the attending architects which translated our future state vision into the technological underpinnings required to support it.
All interview recordings, transcripts, workshop artifacts, and synthesis outputs were consolidated into the research repository, ensuring that the knowledge generated by the initiative was not locked inside the heads of the people who had been present, but available to developers, geospatial technicians, product teams, and GDM leadership alike.
The UX design team also began producing early design mock-ups and PoC designs for targeted short-term use cases – working directly with geospatial technicians, developers, and architects to give the entire team visual referents for the direction they were building toward. In complex organizational change work, the ability to see a future state – however early-stage – is a powerful accelerant. Human beings respond to visuals in ways that written plans and roadmap documents alone cannot replicate.
Outcomes and Decisions
From Shared Understanding to Sustained Momentum
The measure of a research and facilitation initiative is not what happens in the room – it's what happens after everyone leaves it. By that measure, the Mapping and Charting initiative produced outcomes that extended well beyond its immediate deliverables.
--------------------
The Before: A System No One Fully Understood
Prior to this work, organizational understanding of the Mapping and Charting system was deeply siloed. Each individual understood their own role with precision – but that knowledge stopped, in most cases, at the point of handoff. Geospatial technicians initiated updates and changes, then passed them forward with minimal visibility into what happened next. The system did not invite personal responsibility or transparency across the full arc of a data change. Work was too often thrown over the wall and trusted to land correctly on the other side.
This wasn't a failure of the people. It was a symptom of a broken system – one that had evolved incrementally over decades without ever being designed to give its participants a view of the whole.
Leadership wasn't immune to this fragmentation. Mental models of how the system functioned varied significantly across organizational levels, and several previous modernization workshops – each generating genuine energy in the moment – had ultimately fizzled without producing lasting change. The organization had repeatedly experienced the frustration of effort without progress.
--------------------
The After: Alignment, Energy, and a Plan
The initiative did not immediately change the daily working conditions of the geospatial technicians. They were still operating within the same legacy systems when the workshop concluded. But something else had changed: for the first time, everyone from frontline techs to architects and senior leadership was working from the same understanding of the system, the same vision of where it needed to go, and the same roadmap for getting there.
The energy was palpable. Participants described a sense of clarity and direction that previous efforts had not produced. The Mapping and Charting team – which had been but one part of a much larger, unwieldy modernization conversation – now had a concrete, evidence-based case for how user-centered discovery could drive meaningful organizational change. Leadership saw our work as a potential model for how the broader GDM organization could approach modernization the right way: grounded in user needs, sequenced intelligently, and built to produce real impact rather than satisfying workshop experiences that left no trace.
--------------------
​
Organizational Decisions and Strategic Shifts
The most significant outcome of the initiative was the crystallization of a five-year vision for AI-integrated automated charting. Given the constraints of legacy technology, the scale of modernization and the strict regulatory environment governing aviation data, this was an ambitious goal – plotted in stages rather than through a single, disruptive transformation leap.
From within the five-year vision, two specific use cases were targeted as the most viable candidates for fast implementation as AI-enabled workflows. These were selected because the underlying data already existed, the required API connections were writable within a reasonable timeframe, and the technology updates needed were substantial but not foundational – making them potential genuine short-term wins rather than aspirational placeholders. A twelve-month target was set for demonstrating viability through these two use cases, establishing proof of concept for the broader five-year vision.
Simultaneously, a priority was established to communicate the work outward. The larger GDM modernization effort was already underway – but it had been driven primarily by business, technology, and timeline requirements, without the grounding in user needs that this initiative had produced. Leadership indicated that the Mapping and Charting findings would have a direct influence on that broader effort, introducing a user-centered lens into a conversation that had not yet fully incorporated one.
Nearly two months after the workshop, the work continued and the Mapping and Charting team remained aligned and moving forward. Other efforts within GDM were identified and I began conversations with them to replicate our process.
My Role
I served as Lead Researcher on this user-centered discovery effort within the Mapping and Charting organization and was quickly brought in to consult with teams beyond it. I initiated this role expansion quite intentionally – by sharing updates and best practices from our work across the organization I hoped to build receptivity and lay groundwork for the cultural shifts the modernization initiative would eventually demand.
Responsibilities included:
-
building organizational awareness and collaboration
-
developing and shepherding the research strategy
-
arranging logistics at every phase
-
designing workshop strategy
-
co-facilitating workshop
-
communicating across multiple stakeholders and teams
- aligning the work with long-term organizational realities and goals
​
--------------------
A Note on Timing
Approximately four months after the workshop, a company-wide “reduction in force” ended my direct involvement in the initiative. At that point, I had begun a deep-dive into the short-term roadmap elements from the workshop (a process called Capability Mapping), defining each by the needs and requirements necessary to achieve them while continuing outreach and coordination efforts.
My work was interrupted… unfinished. But the foundation had been built – a validated current state, a co-created future state vision, a committed cross-functional roadmap, and an organization newly aligned around a shared understanding of its own complexity – was solid enough to carry forward without me. That, in many ways, is the truest measure of whether a research and facilitation initiative has done its job.
​
--------------------
Any strategy is only as good as the team…
None of the above would have been possible without the tireless work of Harsh Kumar (Service Designer), Aryk Moore (Lead UX Designer), Andrea Dymek (UI Designer) and Drew Leek (Human Factors Designer and Charting SME).