Received: 14 January 2021 Revised: 10 June 2021 Accepted: 25 June 2021

DOI: 10.1111/caim.12459

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Supporting innovation processes using material artefacts:

Comparing the use of LEGO bricks and moderation cards as
boundary objects

Lukas Zenk1 | Nicole Hynek1 | Stephanie A. Krawinkler2 |

3 1
Markus F. Peschl | Günther Schreder

1
Department of Knowledge and
Communication Management, Faculty of Various collaborative innovation methods are increasingly used in strategy develop-
Business and Globalization, Danube University
ment and the implementation of organizational challenges. The aim of applying them
Krems, Krems an der Donau, Austria
2
Department of Management, University of is to involve different agents of an organization and support them in generating new
Applied Sciences FH WIEN, Vienna, Austria ideas in a joint effort. For this research, an experimental field study was conducted in
3
Faculty of Philosophy and Education,
the course of an innovation workshop for 80 top managers in the public sector using
Department of Philosophy, Vienna Cognitive
Science Hub Austria, University of Vienna, a quantitative questionnaire and an ethnographic observation. A novel workshop
Vienna, Austria
format was designed using different materials to support the beginning of this inno-
Correspondence vation process. The groups used either traditional workshop materials, that is, moder-
Lukas Zenk, Department of Knowledge and
ation cards (small sheets of colored paper), or novel workshop materials, that is,
Communication Management, Faculty of
Business and Globalization, Danube University LEGO bricks. Our results show that both materials significantly influenced the human
Krems, Dr.-Karl-Dorrek-Straße 30, 3500
experience in the workshop. The use of LEGO bricks was perceived as more enjoy-
Krems an der Donau, Austria.
Email: lukas.zenk@donau-uni.ac.at able, active, and inspiring than the use of moderation cards. However, the perceived
group outcome using moderation cards was rated higher than that working with
LEGO bricks. We discuss how using novel workshop materials changes the experi-
ence of an innovation workshop, but we also highlight that additional factors, includ-
ing translation effects, trained facilitators, and specific innovation phases, must be
considered to outperform the use of traditional materials.

KEYWORDS
cognition, innovation process, LEGO bricks, LEGO serious play, moderation cards,
organizational change, strategy making, workshop materials

1 | I N T RO DU CT I O N individuals with different personal preferences and backgrounds can

Societal changes like digitalization require continuously innovative
strategies to do justice to the social and digital transformation of our
fast-paced and complex society. Such strategies are often the result
of the collaborative interaction of multiple stakeholders (Sørensen &
Torfing, 2016), which empowers complex innovation processes
(Caccamo, 2020; Roberts, 2000). However, bringing together
make the process of innovating strategies challenging if they insist on
holding onto their own points of view rather than jointly exploring
new ideas for an organization (Lempiälä & Vanharanta, 2018). The
question of how people can actually innovate in a joint effort is raised.
Roos et al. (2004) pointedly described a traditional strategy meeting
as a group of people sitting around a table, having conversations,
using documents, and suppressing emotions in favor of cognitive

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
© 2021 The Authors. Creativity and Innovation Management published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Creat Innov Manag. 2021;30:845–859. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/caim 845

846
elements. They concluded that ‘… the overall lesson for managers is
that if you are striving for innovative strategy content, then start by
innovating your strategy process’ (p. 565). They proposed to improve
the innovation process by introducing unconventional workshop
materials such as LEGO bricks as socio-material elements
(Orlikowski & Scott, 2008).
There is a plethora of definitions and perspectives on what inno-
vation is (e.g., Baregheh et al., 2009; Fagerberg, 2006; Kahn, 2018;
Schumpeter, 1934; Tidd, 2006; Tidd & Bessant, 2009). According to
their extensive literature review, Baregheh et al. (2009) proposed the
following definition: ‘Innovation is the multi-stage process whereby
organizations transform ideas into new/improved products, service or
processes, in order to advance, compete and differentiate themselves
successfully in their marketplace’ (p. 1334). More specifically, we
understand innovation as a dynamic capability of an organization
(Schoemaker et al., 2018; Teece et al., 2016) realized as a socio-
epistemic process that is embedded in a material environment. This
implies that innovation is intrinsically social and epistemological. On
the one hand, it is about creating novel knowledge (Wöhler &
Reinhardt, 2021). On the other hand, as shown by many studies
(e.g., Fagerberg, 2006; O'Connor & McDermott, 2004; Tidd &
Bessant, 2009), innovation has increasingly become a social process
as the world has evolved to be more complex and interdisciplinary: In
most cases, it is the result of well-orchestrated teams, formal but
mostly informal social networks, and interactions, as well as processes
of intense collaboration and a tradition of prior knowledge
(Weisberg, 1993).
Hence, innovation increasingly results from a team of humans
cooperating in order to negotiate and co-create meaning and new
perspectives as well as novel knowledge. As we show in theoretical
detail in the following section, these processes of conversations
between team members can be supported by making use of material
objects, such as, in our case, moderation cards or LEGO bricks. These
boundary objects, which Star and Griesemer (1989) defined as
‘… objects which are both plastic enough to adapt to local needs and
constraints …, yet robust enough to maintain a common identity’
(p. 393), are used as mediators and enablers for these socio-epistemic
processes.
Although a high diversity of possible approaches to innovation
and innovation methodologies exists (Baregheh et al., 2009;
Kahn, 2018), one can identify a pattern of stages or phases that can
be found in almost all types of innovation independently, whether it is
ZENK ET AL.
a stage-gate process (Cooper, 2014), an innovation process driven by
design thinking (e.g., Brown, 2009), or an open innovation process
(Chesbrough et al., 2006). In one way or another, most innovation
processes comprise a phase of (1) creation and discovery, (2) develop-
ment and prototyping, (3) delivery and, in certain cases, (4) some kind
of feedback loop to restart a new circle of innovation. Each of these
stages requires different knowledge processes, social interactions,
process/workshop formats, and potentially supportive and enabling
materials.
Although different workshop materials for experience-based
learning processes are used in creativity and innovation workshops,
for example, using design thinking (Hölzle & Rhinow, 2019;
Johansson-Sköldberg et al., 2013; Primus & Sonnenburg, 2018), the
‘… research on the influence of objects on creativity has largely been
overlooked’ (Chen et al., 2020, p. 481). Thus, the aim of this study is
to investigate two different workshop materials in the first phase of
an innovation process as part of an experimental field study focusing
on (1) the perception and experience of the usage, (2) the perceived
mutual understanding between group members and (3) the self-
assessed outcome of the individuals in a group. For this purpose, an
innovation workshop for top managers from the City of Vienna was
conducted. The overall goal of the workshop was to innovate the digi-
tal open data strategy of the city as part of the ongoing transdisciplin-
ary project ‘Governmental Laboratory’. In the workshop, participants
conducted group innovation tasks either with moderation cards, that
is, small, rectangular pieces of colored paper that can be written on
and pinned to metaplan boards and are traditionally used in work-
shops, or LEGO bricks, that is, small, colorful plastic interlocking build-
ing blocks that were originally designed for children's play, as novel
workshop materials (see Figure 1).
In addition to comparing the use of these two material objects
(moderation cards vs. LEGO bricks), in this paper we are interested in
the following question: Assuming that an innovation process com-
prises a series of socio-epistemic processes, to what extent can they
be supported by these material artefacts in a conducive way?
In the next section, relevant theories and selected empirical stud-
ies are outlined regarding the use of different workshop materials,
especially LEGO bricks. Then, the methods are described and, subse-
quently, quantitative and qualitative results are summarized. Finally,
the results are discussed with regard to theoretical contributions and
further research questions, and practical implications for how similar
workshops can be conducted in the future are highlighted.
F I G U R E 1 The used materials for the
working environment after the innovation
workshop: On the left, a table with moderation
cards; on the right, a table with LEGO bricks
[Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
ZENK ET AL.
2 | T H E US E O F L E G O B R I C K S A S A N
U N C O N V E NT I O N A L W O R K S H O P M A T E R I A L
2.1 | Thinking with objects
According to Roos et al. (2004), the process of developing innovative
strategies is constrained by the media and mode used. The media
comprises all documents and materials used (e.g., PowerPoint slides,
documents, Post-it Notes, moderation cards and LEGO bricks), and
the mode includes the human experience during the interaction
(e.g., thinking, analyzing, reflecting, playfully exploring). In the mid-
1990s, researchers conducted studies to investigate these constraints
both theoretically and practically and initiated an applied research
project in collaboration with the International Institute for Manage-
ment Development in Switzerland and the LEGO Group. LEGO, a
family-owned enterprise, experienced the impact of the first indica-
tions of a digitized world, which led to a decrease in sales after steady
growth (Kristiansen & Rasmussen, 2014). Although LEGO's business
strategy focused on creativity and imaginative toys for children, the
company had to admit that their strategy meetings were rather
unimaginative and non-innovative regarding their digital strategies.
The idea that they could use their own product as a novel medium for
their strategy meetings was born. Instead of two-dimensional and
text-based artefacts like documents that are traditionally used in such
meetings, they introduced LEGO bricks as three-dimensional, tactile
artefacts to enable participants to construct physical representations
of their ideas and concepts (Roos & Victor, 2018).
A founding philosophy in the use of LEGO bricks is the idea that
‘… participants can unlock their creative thinking through play and
“thinking with objects”’ (Wengel et al., 2021, p. 10). This assumption
is based on Papert's theory of learning called ‘constructionism’
(Harel & Papert, 1991). The basic idea of constructionism is ‘learning
by making’ and is based on Papert's observations that the learner ‘is
guided by the work as it proceeds rather than staying with a pre-
established plan’ (Harel & Papert, 1991, p. 6). According to Papert's
theory, learning and thinking are situated and are not detached from
the learner's context or personal goals. A very similar approach that
emphasizes ‘thinking through making’ can be found in Ingold (2013),
who was inspired by the ecological psychology of Gibson (see
Withagen & Kamp, 2018). According to Ingold (2013), most cognitive
theories of creativity are based on a ‘hylomorphic’ approach, that is,
novel ideas originate in the mind at the beginning of a creative pro-
cess. The physical body imposes this novel form on the material, and,
as a result, the material (i.e., the artefact created) embodies the origi-
nal idea. Consequently, the idea and the constructed object are iso-
morphic, that is, the original idea is manifested in the shape of the
physical object/material. Contrary to these traditional views on crea-
tivity, Ingold described the creation of a new object as an ongoing
interaction between the crafter and the material. The object responds
to the action of its maker, who reacts to this response with a new
action, and the process continues in a feedback loop of mutually
influencing each other. From this perspective, novel objects are not
created by an isolated and form-giving mind; instead, they emerge in a
847
process of mutual form-giving and form-receiving as the mind inter-
acts with its artefact (Chen et al., 2020; Orlikowski & Scott, 2008).
These theoretical positions stress the notion that physically external-
izing ideas encourages an exploratory mode of thought and creation as
opposed to following and executing a pre-existing plan.
2.2 | The 4E approach to cognition
In a broader context, in this paper, we propose to approach our work
from the still fairly recent cognitive perspective on innovation (Sund
et al., 2018). The activities described in our workshop design are
closely related to what, in the field of cognitive science, is called the
4E approach to cognition. This is a relatively new approach where ‘4E’
denotes an embodied, embedded, extended, and enactive approach to
cognition (e.g., Chemero, 2013; Clark, 2008; Menary, 2010; Newen
et al., 2018; Rowlands, 2010; Varela et al., 2016). In short, this means
that (1) cognition always involves the body and is not limited to the
functions of the brain (‘embodied’). Furthermore, (2) every cognitive
system is embedded in its external environment at all times and inter-
acts with it (‘embedded’), and (3) cognition itself extends to this envi-
ronment; in other words, the external environment is part of and
constitutive of cognitive processes (‘extended’). Finally, (4) cognitive
systems do not only interact with their environments via their cogni-
tive/neural processes and bodies; they actively engage with and co-
create both their (internal and external) environments and themselves
as living organisms in a closed feedback loop. Hence, they shape their
environment, and thereby, their cognition and experiences are shaped
by the environment by being closely coupled with it (‘enactive’).
This is in stark contrast to earlier approaches to cognition
(e.g., Clark, 2001; Friedenberg & Silverman, 2012) that have focused
on understanding it as an information process manipulating and oper-
ating on abstract representations of the external world or as a process
of neural activities and changes in the neural architecture driven only
by the brain.
For the context of our study, these ‘4Es’ play a major role as they
describe how cognitive systems interact with their environment by
creating artefacts (e.g., using LEGO objects) and utilizing them as tools
for supporting their own cognitive activities as well as sense-making
and creative processes. As suggested by Ingold (2013), cognitive sys-
tems are using the artefacts not only to externalize their knowledge
but also to learn from them and make sense of them for their own
cognitive processes. By enacting their (built material) environment,
they engage in a co-creative process in which both their creativity and
the latent ‘creative potential’ of the materials used (e.g., possible ways
to connect bricks and potential emerging shapes) enter into a process
of co-shaping each other and inspiring the creative agent. Beyond
this, it is not a single cognitive system that is involved in such an activ-
ity but a whole group of systems interacting with each other and their
artefacts, leading to a process of participatory sense-making
(Jaegher & Paolo, 2007) and co-creation.
According to Ingold (2013), this process of co-shaping can be
characterized as an activity of mutual form-making and form-taking in
848
which both the cognitive and creative agents and the environment
and artefacts are engaged in a process of creating novelty. Material
engagement theory suggests that ‘… there can be no a priori separa-
tion between what is ‘out there’ and ‘in here’ with respect to the
boundaries of skin and skull. The skin cannot act as a barrier between
the mind and the material world’; instead, ‘… it lies in the ability of the
brain to connect, to attend, to respond, to attune, and relate to
the world using its extraordinary plasticity and sensitivity. In other
words, brain operations are inseparable from those of the rest of the
body and its surrounding relevant environment’ (Malafouris, 2019,
p. 5f). The entire process is a ‘socio-epistemic-material’ practice of
cognitive becoming in which the mind transforms and moves together
with, as well as following, its environment.
Schön (1992) pointed in a similar direction when he described
design processes as reflective conversations with the material. The
material artefacts being co-created act as boundary objects functioning
as mediators and objects of sense-making for the participating
cognitive agents (Star, 1989). They have ‘interpretive flexibility’
(Caccamo, 2020; Star, 2010) so that their meaning has to be negoti-
ated, perspectives have to be changed, and, in the course of these
conversations and material interactions with these artefacts, novelty
might emerge.
2.3 | LEGO bricks in contrast to a conventional
workshop material
Using LEGO bricks as a novel workshop material, Roos and Victor (1999)
expected to transform the mode of operation from a purely cognitive
activity into an exploratory and multidimensional mode of material
socio-epistemic engagement with the environment in the format of seri-
ous play: Cognitive, emotional, and social aspects, as well as bodily
interactions with the environment, are integrated to address and sup-
port complex issues such as strategy and innovation processes. In this
context, play is understood as the ability to create new solutions in an
exploratory, playful, and imaginative way that is crucial to ideate, inno-
vate, and develop future scenarios (Roth et al., 2015; Statler
et al., 2011). In this sense, play is not used as pure amusement,
i.e., ‘frivolous play’, but rather as the purpose and structure of a philo-
sophical dialogue following Plato's ‘serious play’ (in Greek, spoudaious
paidzein; see Roos et al., 2004). It emphasizes an exploratory mode that
enables autotelic behaviour in which participants experience a sense of
curiosity that may even lead to a highly creative mental state
(Nakamura & Csikszentmihalyi, 2014). The developed method was,
accordingly, named LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY® (LSP) as a facilitated meet-
ing, communication, and creative problem-solving process.
In the context of LSP, the use of LEGO bricks is not about making
a physical representation of what something looks like but about
building a metaphorical model that can aid in presenting a story to the
group (Bab & Eriksen, 2014). These models should help participants to
construct new knowledge as well as to share meaning, support collab-
oration, and reach a shared understanding (Geithner & Menzel, 2016;
Roos & Victor, 1999). Making and exchanging representations of one's
ZENK ET AL.
knowledge and understanding enables others to anticipate distinct
ways of understanding. Once these personal representations of
knowledge, ideas, and perspectives are made available for communi-
cation, a basis for mutual understanding emerges (Boland &
Tenkasi, 1995).
LSP has drawn attention to using unconventional materials for
workshops and has recently gained traction as an increasing number
of studies have attempted to analyze its potential benefits (Roos &
Victor, 2018). Empirical evidence supports the claim of the positive
effects of using LEGO bricks and serious play in relation to idea devel-
opment (Ashton & Giddings, 2018), greater creativity (Harn &
Hsiao, 2018), and better academic performance (Hussain et al., 2006).
In the study by Bulmer (2011), participants agreed that the LSP
method created a playful environment in which to interact with their
team and that the workshop helped them discover more about the
other participants' knowledge. Bulmer also found that teams using
LEGO bricks demonstrated improved team performance in the con-
text of innovation compared to teams that did not use them. Similarly,
Cherapanukorn and Jintapitak (2017) found that their use created a
fun and relaxed atmosphere that enabled LSP workshop participants
to share their ideas and express their thoughts.
Nevertheless, theories on more-conventional workshop materials
should not be underestimated. Dove et al. (2018) investigated the use
of 3M Post-it notes with design teams and analyzed this material in
terms of possible cognitive benefits. Based on Dix and
Gongora (2011), they described four specific functions of design
materials as externalizations of thoughts and feelings: (1) informa-
tional: to communicate ideas to reach a similar understanding;
(2) formational: to form an idea through the act of writing it down in
contrast to merely representing an existing idea; (3) transformational:
to augment thinking and interacting with the externalized ideas, for
example, when modifying a given note; and (4) transcendental: to
group and structure the ideas, which can lead to new insights. These
functions are very similar to the characteristics attributed to LSP as
described above. In light of these theoretical considerations, the ques-
tion raised is whether LEGO bricks do, indeed, contribute new quali-
ties to a workshop or merely share the benign properties of a whole
range of established workshop materials.
3 | DE VE L OPME N T O F H Y P OT H ES ES
Although various studies have supported the positive effects of using
LEGO bricks, they are, to some extent, limited. In several studies, the
participants were mostly students, and consequently, the results are
not easily comparable to senior managers who are socialized in their
organizations and familiar with different ways of working
(e.g., Dann, 2018; Geithner & Menzel, 2016; James, 2015). While
other studies have investigated stakeholders and managers, they used
mostly small sample sizes and, thus, have focused on qualitative
methods without testing hypotheses (e.g., Fletcher et al., 2016;
Grienitz & Schmidt, 2012; Wengel et al., 2016). Therefore, most stud-
ies do not have a design that allows for comparing the use of LEGO
ZENK ET AL.
bricks with other workshop materials in a quantitative manner. Based
on the previous theoretical discussion and earlier empirical studies,
three hypotheses were formulated for the present empirical study.
Perception and experience: The use of a novel workshop material,
i.e., LEGO bricks, changes the experience from a purely cognitive
interaction to a more playful exploration (Roos & Victor, 1999);
thereby, the evolving mode of serious play integrates, in addition to
cognitive interactions, emotional and social aspects of collaboration.
Various studies have highlighted the positive atmosphere of work-
shops that use LEGO bricks (Gridley, 2018), and Nerantzi (2018) even
described LSP workshops as an ‘affective experience’ (p. 294). In sum-
mary, using LEGO bricks seems to have an effect on positive emo-
tions. In contrast, the use of a traditional workshop material,
i.e., moderation cards, does not necessarily have such an effect on the
perceptions and experiences of participants. Accordingly, the follow-
ing hypothesis is formulated:
H1. Participants perceive and experience the use of
LEGO bricks with more positive emotions than they do
with the use of moderation cards.
Mutual understanding: Referring to Roos et al. (2004), it appears
that the medium is also able to influence the way in which group
members interact with objects and with each other. Thus, it is con-
ceivable that, depending on the material used to represent personal
knowledge and ideas, there may be differences in the development of
a mutual understanding (Boland & Tenkasi, 1995). In the context
of the first phases of innovation processes, initial ideas are exchanged
that may not yet be developed as definite concepts. Based on tacit
knowledge, preliminary visions and the potential for new possibilities
need to be discussed. The use of LEGO bricks enables a metaphorical
representation of such ideas that can better express implicit knowl-
edge and the first fragile ideas than single words written on cards.
Thus, according to the current literature, LEGO bricks, as a three-
dimensional and tactile material, seem to contribute to a better under-
standing of one another's tacit knowledge compared to two-
dimensional and text-based materials such as documents (Geithner &
Menzel, 2016; Roos & Nilsson, 2020; Wengel et al., 2021). Therefore,
in the current study, it is hypothesized that the use of LEGO bricks
will lead to better mutual understanding in the first phase of innova-
tion processes than will the use of moderation cards.
H2. The perceived mutual understanding of group
members is higher in the condition with LEGO bricks
than in the condition with moderation cards.
Perceived group outcome: From a constructivist perspective
(Harel & Papert, 1991), learning is situated and supported by physi-
cally constructed ideas. Likewise, Ingold (2013) described the cogni-
tive approach of making new objects and emphasized that new ideas
emerge while interacting with these objects. The use of LEGO bricks
might, therefore, support the creation of ideas (Gauntlett, 2018), and
several empirical studies have shown increased innovative
849
performance using LEGO bricks (Ashton & Giddings, 2018; Harn &
Hsiao, 2018; Hussain et al., 2006). For example, Brown and
Collins (2018) described workshops with students using LEGO bricks
and found that this material fostered their creative and playful explo-
ration within the complex and solitary experience of PhD research.
Also, Bulmer (2011) reported a greater innovative performance for
teams using LEGO bricks compared to teams that did not use these
artefacts. Accordingly, the following hypothesis will be tested:
H3. The group outcome is perceived as more valuable
in the condition with LEGO bricks than in the condition
with moderation cards.
4 | RE SE AR C H ME T H OD
In the present work, an innovation workshop with top managers was
conducted in order to study the workshop material in the field. In con-
trast to research conducted in a laboratory, such real-world settings
can introduce confounding variables that are beyond the control of
the researchers (Podsakoff & Podsakoff, 2019). This could lead to
reduced reliability and replicability of the results, but the benefit is a
higher ecological validity of the empirical data, which is still lacking in
this applied research area. In order to consider potential difficulties, a
quantitative questionnaire was complemented by an ethnographic
observation to further enrich our data qualitatively, as suggested for
sociomaterial-based studies (Moura & Bispo, 2020).
4.1 | Setting and procedure
The innovation workshop was conducted in Vienna's Town Hall and
was designed for 80 top managers to study collaborative innovation
processes in an experimental setting. Of the 80 participants, 50 com-
pleted the questionnaire in full. For the purpose of the workshop, five
major topics were defined as relevant to innovating the digital strat-
egy (i.e., motivation, obstacles, organizational culture, internal use and
external collaboration of open data). The participants were randomly
divided into 10 groups with the aim of collaboratively developing new
ideas for open data strategies. Five groups used a traditional work-
shop material (moderation cards), and five groups used a novel
workshop material (LEGO bricks) (see Figure 1). Thus, five tables were
equipped with standard 10  20 cm moderation cards (about 4  8
in.) with the same shape but different colors and black flipchart pens;
the remaining five tables were each equipped with a large pile of
LEGO bricks (about 5 kg or 11 lbs) in various colors, shapes, and sizes,
similar to the ‘Identity and Landscape Kits 2000430’ by the LEGO
Group.
Each table was prepared for the participants, and one facilitator led
the process. All 10 facilitators (six researchers and four public-service
staff) conducted a short preworkshop training and were briefed by the
main facilitator, one of the researchers who is also a certified LSP facili-
tator. The facilitators were given worksheets comprising a detailed
850
schedule and guidelines, including the exact questions they were to
pose to their groups. Due to limited time resources, a rigorous schedule
was developed. The workshop lasted 3 hours, including presentations,
collaborative innovation processes, and the development of measures
(see Table A1). This study focuses on the first part of the collaborative
innovation process, which lasted 1 hour and in which three iterations
took place. In the first iteration, the facilitators asked for the partici-
pants' personal perspectives on open data (e.g., ‘What motivates you
personally to publish open data?’). In the second iteration, facilitators
asked about the perspective of the department on open data (e.g., ‘What
motivates your department to publish open data?’). In the final itera-
tion, participants were asked about the perspective of the city
(e.g., ‘What strategies should the City of Vienna use to increase the
motivation to publish open data?’).
Following the core process of LSP according to Kristiansen and
Rasmussen (2014), every iteration consisted of a short introduction to
the topic followed by a specific question for the group. Subsequently,
all participants had 5 minutes to independently write their answers on
moderation cards or to build a model with LEGO bricks, depending
on which material was available at their table. Immediately afterward,
every person had a maximum of 2 minutes to share his or her findings
with the group at the table. Finally, the whole group reflected on their
findings by grouping the cards on the table or by putting the LEGO
constructions together to illustrate their group outcomes.
4.2 | Questionnaire
Directly following the empirical phase of the collaborative innovation
process, all participants completed a questionnaire that included
semantic differential and multi-item as well as single-item scales as
described below. For the semantic differential scale, the measure-
ments ranged from 1 (a left-side adjective is well-matched,
e.g., ‘enjoyable’) to 7 (a right-side adjective is well-matched, e.-
g., ‘boring’), and for the focal constructs, seven-point Likert-type
scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) were
used. The internal consistency (Cronbach's α) was calculated for all
the scales developed in the questionnaire.
The study included three dependent variables according to the
formulated hypotheses. Regarding the first hypothesis, a semantic
differential scale was used to assess how the participants perceived
and experienced the workshop material. They were asked to sponta-
neously evaluate the material using 13 adjectives paired with their
respective antonyms that were presented in the questionnaire. The
selection of adjectives was partly oriented to insights from user-
experience studies to capture the perceived hedonic and pragmatic
qualities of the workshop methods (e.g., Hassenzahl, 2018). Two main
factors were extracted using principal component analysis and used
for hypothesis testing. Their Cronbach's α was .81 and .72.
Regarding the second hypothesis, the group members' perceived
mutual understanding was captured with a four-item scale with
Cronbach's α of .93. The statements on the scale addressed perceived
mutual understanding by asking whether the participant felt
ZENK ET AL.
understood by the others or was able to understand the others
(e.g., ‘With the method used, I was able to communicate my point of
view to the other group members’; ‘The other group members were
able to communicate their point of view to me, thanks to the method
used’) (see Table A2).
To test the third hypothesis, the group members' evaluations of
the perceived group outcome were assessed with a four-item scale
with Cronbach's α of .79. Self-perceived measures of the group out-
come instead of performance-based measures were chosen because
self-perceived measurements can provide more insights
(Hocevar, 1981; Zhou et al., 2008) as creative behaviours are goal-
oriented and intentional (Shalley, 1991).
Moreover, the questionnaire covered items on the perceived
quality of the group discussion process, measured with a seven-item
scale with a Cronbach's α of .72, and additional questions (single
items) were posed to assess the perceived group climate and discus-
sion as well as satisfaction with the method and the facilitator's
moderation.
4.3 | Ethnographic observations
An anthropological perspective was further incorporated in regard to
the interaction between participants and how they experienced the
workshop material in situ. This permitted an open observation of
the situation in the innovation workshop in order to complement the
quantitative data and to give readers deeper insight into the interven-
tion from a practical point of view. One author of the present paper
observed the workshop from about 15 minutes before it formally
began to the same amount of time after it ended; she also had oppor-
tunities to engage in brief conversations with the participants. During
the workshop, she moved freely and visibly among the tables, holding
a notepad and making notes without verbal interaction with the work-
shop participants. Using an ethnographic approach where ‘everything
counts’ (Goodall, 1989, p. xv), the aim was to consider as many
‘things’ as possible; therefore, none of the previously mentioned
hypotheses were applied.
Participating ethnographically means being immersed in the infor-
mants' realities for a certain amount of time and observing, listening,
questioning, and ‘… in fact, collecting whatever data is available to
throw light on the issues that are the focus of the research’
(Hammersley & Atkinson, 2007, p. 1). The applied observer role,
according to Bernard (2006), signifies that the researcher follows the
informants and notes their behaviours. Interaction with the infor-
mants occurs as situations allow it. The result of this ethnographic
observation is an observation protocol that will be reflected in the
discussion.
5 | RE SU LT S
First, the results of the questionnaire and the statistical analyses
regarding the three main hypotheses are reported. Subsequently, the
ZENK ET AL. 851

ethnographic observation protocol is presented in a condensed form,
and the observations that were not connected to the research ques-
tion are omitted.
5.1 | Questionnaire
In total, 50 participants filled out the questionnaire completely, 23 per-
sons in the condition with moderation cards (male: 13; female: 10)
and 27 persons in the condition of LEGO bricks (male: 19; female: 8);
80% of the participants were between 41 and 60 years old.
F I G U R E 2 Results of the semantic differential sorted by size of
difference and including 95% CI: Mean values of the perceptions and
experiences of participants who used either moderation cards (blue)
or LEGO bricks (green) [Colour figure can be viewed at
wileyonlinelibrary.com]
According to the first hypothesis, it is assumed that participants
perceive and experience the use of LEGO bricks in a way that differs
from how they perceive and experience moderation cards. To test this
hypothesis, a semantic differential scale was used to measure the par-
ticipants' attitudes towards the material used. On a seven-point rating
scale, participants rated their perceptions and experiences using con-
trasting adjectives (e.g., ‘classical’ vs. ‘creative’). In Figure 2, the mean
values of the two kinds of workshop materials show the perceived
quality.
The largest difference was observed between the adjectives well-
known/new, classical/creative, and factual/emotional. A principal
component analysis with varimax rotation was further used to identify
the factors underlying the 13 components of the semantic differential
scale. The factorability was deemed adequate. The Kaiser–Meyer–
Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was .71, which is well above the
recommended value of .6. Bartlett's test of sphericity was significant
(χ2 [78] = 336.86, p < .01). The communalities of most items were
rather high, showing that each item shared some common variance
with other items.
Three main factors with initial eigenvalues above one were
identified, and they explained 32%, 25% and 11% of the variance
(see Table 1). The first factor was labelled ‘playful’ and comprised
the items enjoyable, interesting, pleasant, active, and inspiring. The sec-
ond factor was labelled ‘serious’ and comprised the items serious,
well-known, organized, and factual. The third factor comprised only
the item complex and was, therefore, excluded from further analysis.
The numbers in Table 1 indicate the extent to which the adjectives
are loaded to the specific factor. A positive number indicates the
loading of the first adjective and a negative number the loading of
the second adjective. For example, in the first row, a value of .87
means the adjective ‘enjoyable’ loads highly to the factor ‘playful’; in
the fifth row, .65 means the adjective ‘classical’ loads highly to the
factor ‘serious’.

T A B L E 1 Factor loadings and

Factors
communalities based on a principal
components analysis with varimax Items Playful Serious Complex Communalities
rotation for the 13 items of the semantic Boring/enjoyable .87 .77
differential
Uninteresting/interesting .84 .70
Passive/active .75 .57
Obvious/inspiring .73 .33 .64
Classical/creative .63 .65 .20 .87
Bad/good .51 .61 .35 .76
Superficial/deep .51 .36 .60 .75
Unpleasant/pleasant .51 .29 .36 .48
Well-known/new .46 .70 .71
Factual/emotional .36 .57 .46
Chaotic/organized .83 .71
Unserious/serious .78 .65
Simple/complex .28 .80 .71

Note: Factor loadings <.2 are suppressed.

852 ZENK ET AL.

The items bad/good, classical/creative, and superficial/deep were
also excluded as each had high loadings on more than one factor.
However, regarding the excluded items, two interesting observations
were made. First, the item creative had a high factor loading on the
first factor, ‘playful’, and its opposite item, classical, loaded high on
the second factor, ‘serious’, and was, therefore, not included as one
of the main factors. Second, the item good loaded high on both fac-
tors, which means both factors can contribute to a generally positive
evaluation of a method.
We computed composite scores for each of the remaining two
factors (‘playful’ and ‘serious’) based on the mean of the items, which
had their primary loadings on each factor. The scores were close to a
normal distribution and had high internal consistency (see Table 2).
Finally, independent samples t-tests with composite scores were cal-
culated to compare the two materials used in the workshop. The
experience with LEGO bricks was evaluated slightly more on the fac-
tor ‘playful’ than the experience with moderation cards (t [47] = 2.37,
p < .05). Moderation cards were assessed as far more ‘serious’ than
LEGO bricks (t [47] = 10.39, p < .01). Therefore, the first hypothesis
is supported.
According to the second and third hypotheses, the perceived
mutual understanding differs depending on the workshop material
used (H2), and the outcomes of the groups using LEGO bricks are per-
ceived as more valuable than those of the groups using moderation
cards (H3). The main variables were assessed for normality of distribu-
tion separately in each group using the Shapiro–Wilk test (see
Table A2). Depending on the result, the unpaired Student's t-test or
Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare the difference between
conditions. The assumption for the Mann–Whitney U test of non-
normal distributions was also tested in a similar manner. Whenever
the test statistics were significant, the analysis was complemented by
a Holm–Bonferroni multiple comparison post-test.
The second hypothesis could not be confirmed. No significant dif-
ferences between the groups using LEGO bricks (M = 5.28,
SD = 1.04) and those using moderation cards (M = 5.65, SD = 1.01)
were observed regarding mutual understanding (t [47] = 1.27,
p = .21). Testing the third hypothesis regarding differences in the
evaluations of the outcomes, a significant result was observed but in
the opposite direction, as hypothesized. The group outcomes were
rated higher in the condition using moderation cards (M = 6.43,
SD = .42) than in the condition using LEGO bricks (M = 5.64,
SD = .79; t[48] = 3.09, p < .01). Therefore, the second and third
hypotheses are rejected. All results of the between-group statistical
comparisons are reported in Table 3.

T A B L E 2 Descriptive statistics for

No. of items M (SD) Skewness Kurtosis Cronbach's α
the two factors of the semantic
Factor 1: ‘Playful’ 5 5.23 (1.02) .48 .54 .81 differential
Bricks 5.54 (.94)
Cards 4.88 (1.01)
Factor 2: ‘Serious’ 4 4.88 (1.36) .21 .79 .72
Bricks 3.82 (.82)
Cards 6.08 (.68)

TABLE 3 Results of the group comparisons

t test
Condition
Bricks Cards
Variable Mean (SD) n Mean (SD) n Statistic Df p
Perceived mutual understanding 5.28 (1.04) 27 5.65 (1.01) 22 1.27 47 .21
Evaluation of the outcome 5.64 (.79) 27 6.43 (.42) 23 3.90 48 <.01**
U test
Condition
Bricks Cards
Variable Mean rank n Mean rank n Statistic Df p
Evaluation of the discussion 21.87 27 29.79 23 212.50 50 .05
Perceived group climate 23.02 27 28.41 23 243.50 50 .16
Satisfied with moderation 26.19 27 23.55 22 265.00 49 .47
Satisfied with method 24.82 25 24.15 23 279.50 48 .87
Method supported the discussion 23.89 27 26.36 22 267.00 49 .52
ZENK ET AL.
5.2 | Ethnographic observation protocol
At 1:37 PM, group activities start. Each table has a facilitator, and the
anthropologist is positioned close to L3.1 The facilitator opens
the session by introducing himself/herself. There are five participants
at the table, three men and two women. Two of the men hold LEGO
bricks in their hands while the facilitator is talking. The key question
at this table is: How do you personally experience the organizational
culture? One of the participants asks the facilitator to define organiza-
tional culture, and the facilitator provides support but no definition.
The second time the facilitator is asked about the definition, he replies
briefly and then elaborates on the design of the next 60 minutes.
During the next 15 minutes, there is silence at the table, and the
only sounds that can be heard are those made by hands browsing
through a pile of LEGO bricks. While participants at L3 work with
LEGO bricks, participants at M2 use moderation cards. The different
aspects of organizational culture are written on cards, and the facilita-
tor supports the participants equally. Participants are writing on the
cards, and their facial expressions are earnest. During the presentation
of their ideas at the table, several continue to write on their cards. At
L3, very friendly faces are observed; participants are leaning into the
table, obviously curious about what their fellow members' construc-
tions signify.
The work atmosphere in the room is calm and concentrated,
whereas the working methods differ. While the facilitator at L2 takes
photos of the constructions, the pile of LEGO bricks on L1 is signifi-
cantly smaller, and there are rather large constructions on the table.
The pile of bricks on L5 is the most jumbled in comparison to the
other tables using the same material. The participants at M2 mount
their cards on the metaplan boards, and they are all standing at the
wall discussing how to arrange the cards. The participants at the other
tables are not using the boards, for example, at M5, all the cards are
lying on the table, facing in the same direction.
Overall, the atmosphere at the tables with LEGO bricks seems
more relaxed and friendlier. The participants are engaged in the topic,
and faces show smiles; some participants share laughter.
Exactly 20 minutes later, the main facilitator announces the sec-
ond phase. At L2, all the constructions are aligned, and the facilitator
poses the next question: ‘What are the cultural factors in your depart-
ment?’ The participants start building items immediately, some more
abstract, others more realistic. There is interaction; people share the
bricks they have with others at the table, and one of the participants
starts explaining what his construction represents.
The second round is coming to an end, and now M1 and M3 are
starting to use their metaplan boards. At the tables with cards, the
participants' facial expressions remain more earnest, whereas those at
the tables with LEGO bricks continue to look more relaxed and happy,
and participants constantly hold bricks in their hands.
Another 20 minutes later, it is time for phase three as announced
by the main facilitator. At L3, people have completed their tasks, and
there is some socializing. They are still playing with LEGO bricks,
and they discuss the differences in the haptic attributes, weight, and
other factors between LEGO and DUPLO blocks. Very soon, they are
853
talking about family, kids, and other personal topics. It seems that
LEGO bricks and their association with play facilitate a discussion
about these topics more readily than a more traditional work setting
does. Other topics covered are creativity, the current process, and the
differences between children playing and building with LEGO bricks
compared to adults building and playing with the material.
The main facilitator announces that 5 minutes remain. The partici-
pants at M2 are still engaged with the task; the participants at L3 are
returning to the main topic of the workshop. At M3 and L2, they
are engaged in discussions. At L4, large constructions are visible on
the table. At M4, the facilitator starts to pin the cards on the board. At
M1, the board has been moved directly next to the table. Everybody
is facing the board, and they are discussing their results. At M2, they
point towards their board, which is placed farther away during the dis-
cussion. At M5, the facilitator is pinning the cards to the board. The
main facilitator terminates the round, and the participants start filling
out the questionnaires.
6 | DI SCU SSION
More rapid transitions, digital transformations, increases in complexity
and speed, and unpredictability in society and technology demand the
continuous adaptation and innovation of strategies. Understanding
and changing complex systems requires creative and innovative min-
dsets and making use of different perspectives as well as novel ways
of sense-making and knowledge creation. The aim of this study was
to analyze an innovation workshop on digital strategies with top man-
agers in the public sector to investigate two different workshop mate-
rials as boundary objects in an experimental field study. Following the
research question asking to what extent these material artefacts
support innovation processes, the setting was designed as a material-
mediated and process-oriented workshop, which was very well-
evaluated overall, regardless of the material the participants used. The
strict process schedule, in which participants were asked specific
questions, then individually generated and presented ideas, and,
finally, reflected on their findings, seemed to fulfil their expectations
of a collaborative innovation workshop (see Chapter 4.1). Compared
to less structured meetings, this core process emphasizes that partici-
pants have time to individually ideate using a specific workshop mate-
rial, share their insights in the group, and be equally involved in the
discussions.
6.1 | Perception and experience of the material
In relation to our first hypothesis regarding the extent to which man-
agers perceive and experience the workshop material, differences
between the use of LEGO bricks and moderation cards could be
found. The main factor ‘playful’ (consisting of the items enjoyable,
interesting, pleasant, active, and inspiring) had a slightly higher primary
loading for participants who used LEGO bricks. The main factor
‘serious’ (consisting of the items serious, well-known, organized, and
854
factual) had a far higher loading for participants who used moderation
cards. The two factors were equally evaluated as ‘good’ (compared to
‘bad’), showing that both have characteristics that can be desirable
for creativity and innovation workshops. However, the item ‘creative’
had a high loading on the factor ‘playful’, and its opposite, ‘classical’,
loaded high on the factor ‘serious’. These results demonstrate the dif-
ferent experiences of managers and are consistent with the qualitative
findings, in which a friendlier atmosphere and more laughter were
observed at the tables where LEGO bricks were used. Similar to Roos
et al. (2004), our findings support that the medium has an effect on
the mode, that is, the use of the socio-material workshop elements
significantly influences the human experience in the workshop. This
playful experience can support an open atmosphere in which to
collaboratively imagine new scenarios, create innovative solutions,
and develop and adapt strategies (Celestine & Yeo, 2021; Roos &
Victor, 1999).
In the ethnographic study, it was observed that having something
haptic and playful in their hands engages people and builds interper-
sonal connections. In this case, the participants were familiar with
LEGO bricks, but the bricks were offered in an unexpected environ-
ment and with a different purpose. As derived from overheard con-
versations, it seemed that, for most of them, this was the first time
they had used LEGO bricks in a professional context. Before the
workshop started, there was uncertainty as to how well the managers
would receive the use of workshop materials of any kind. Neverthe-
less, the observation showed that all workshop materials were used
appropriately and according to the aim of the workshop. However,
the LEGO bricks received more attention than the moderation cards
from the moment the participants arrived until the moment they left
the workshop. The atmosphere at the tables where LEGO bricks were
used appeared to be friendlier: There was a more amicable tone in
these conversations, participants laughed together, and they seemed
curious to learn about the LEGO constructions created by other group
members.
6.2 | Required factors for effective
implementations
Regarding the second and third hypotheses, the scales of mutual
understanding and the evaluation of the outcome were both rated
highly. However, for mutual understanding, no significant differences
could be found and the material did not have a significant effect on
this scale. In contrast to the third formulated hypothesis, the rating
for the moderation cards was, in fact, even significantly higher than
the bricks regarding the perceived group outcome. Based on the theo-
ries underlying the use of LEGO bricks or similar haptic materials
(Harel & Papert, 1991; Ingold, 2013; Malafouris, 2019; Newen
et al., 2018), we had expected to find a more positive rating of the
outcome of the workshop in the LEGO groups than in the moderation
card groups, as well as a more positive rating of perceived mutual
understanding. Why did we not find these expected benefits of LEGO
bricks? We must once again emphasize that, while we investigated
ZENK ET AL.
different workshop materials using the LSP core process, we did not
conduct a full LSP workshop. LEGO bricks seem to provide a good
basis for a playful mode, but additional factors are required for effec-
tive implementation.
Cognitive effort. Our workshop participants know how to use
moderation cards and are familiar with the method, and it seems to be
easier for them to put ideas into written words. While the results of a
workshop with moderation cards are rather clear, the meaning of the
objects created with LEGO bricks are only fully understandable to
the people who built them. Bonneau et al. (2017) found that working
with LEGO bricks requires participants to externalize abstract ideas
using metaphors, which can be quite difficult. Participants have to
translate the metaphorical objects back to a verbal meaning by expla-
nation or storytelling. Consequently, the bricks may affect thinking
more strongly than the moderation cards do and, thereby, foster the
generation of new ideas; however, at the same time, more cognitive
effort, time, and skills are needed to work efficiently with them. This
means that workshops with LEGO bricks should provide enough time
and further guidance to adapt to the unfamiliar situation and to
explain, discuss, and interpret the built objects.
Time and translation effects. Existing recommendations from
empirical studies and practice highlight the importance of having suffi-
cient time to get used to the new material, and that it is entirely sensi-
ble to include a skill-building phase at the beginning of the workshop
(Kristiansen & Rasmussen, 2014; Primus & Sonnenburg, 2018). In our
study, we also see that there was not enough time for participants to
become fully immersed in this new medium. This factor is essential as
time is a precious commodity in top management. However, skill-
building at the beginning of such a workshop and sense-making at the
end should not be left out when translating ideas into metaphors and
retranslating them to gain valuable insights. Future research and prac-
tice could take this translation effect into consideration in depth.
Trained facilitators. Although the moderators for this workshop
followed a clear structure, they were not trained in facilitating the
entire process, including the sensitive process of ideation and imagi-
nation. Without clear guidance, participants in the test group
observed a table full of LEGO models and new ideas but lacked writ-
ten measures for adapting their strategy. Trained LSP facilitators
appear to be essential to guide participants through the process and
support them to build models and formulate metaphors (Dann, 2018;
Kristiansen & Rasmussen, 2014; Wengel et al., 2021). As described
above, translating ideas into a different medium may have a positive
effect on the experience of interacting and generating new ideas; nev-
ertheless, a retranslation for organizational compatibility may be of
particular importance and should be guided by a facilitator.
Embedding in innovation phases. Following our initial perspective
on innovation as a socio-epistemic process, the experiences from our
workshop design add an important element: material objects play a
major role as mediators and enablers for such processes. While mate-
rial objects, such as moderation cards, are commonly used for exter-
nalizing the participants' knowledge and, thereby, making it available
and accessible to other members of the team, we suggest going one
step further and extending the role of material objects. As shown in
ZENK ET AL.
our theoretical considerations of 4E cognition, material engagement
theory, and boundary objects, such objects may play a key role in the
processes of creating knowledge, negotiating and creating meaning,
developing new perspectives and exploring future potentials. The use
of LEGO bricks in such workshop settings has proved particularly fer-
tile for these kinds of socio-epistemic processes (Patrício et al., 2018;
Zenk et al., 2018).
6.3 | Future research
In future studies, innovation phases in which different socio-material
workshop elements are used could be analyzed separately to investi-
gate the extent to which they support specific tasks. In laboratory
experiments, it would be possible to use systematic observations and
the think-aloud method to uncover thinking processes during interac-
tions with physical objects. Additionally, external judgments could be
used to clearly measure the outcome of the group tasks, which we did
not include in our study. Individual differences should also be consid-
ered regarding how to create and interact with such objects. It might
well be that participants tend to prefer different cognitive strategies,
for example, they attempt to find ideas without interacting with the
material and then attempt to convey these ideas with LEGO bricks.
Others might interact with them from the beginning and successively
create new ideas in the way Ingold (2013) described. Such individual
differences could explain the findings that some participants struggle
with LSP. For field research, the ethnographic methods proved to be
highly valuable. It would be interesting for anthropologists to partici-
pate at the tables to follow the moments of construction and sharing,
hence being able to observe the moments of creation and innovation.
This would allow collecting the stories and lead to understanding at a
deeper level of how group members view the current challenges and
ideas for new strategies.
7 | C O N CL U S I O N
In a volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA) world
(Baran & Woznyj, 2021; Bennett & Lemoine, 2014), it has become
critical not only to respond to the increasing rates of change, uncer-
tainty, and complexity of the market but also to develop the capacities
to proactively shape it in innovative ways. In order to address these
challenges of an uncertain future, completely new skills and methods
(OECD, 2018; Peschl, 2019b; Teece et al., 2016) such as the
approaches discussed in this paper are necessary. Moreover, the com-
plexity of organizations has increased as well. As a result, it is no lon-
ger sufficient to employ a single long-term strategy that is developed
by individual managers; rather, the expertise and collaboration of dif-
ferent perspectives are needed to develop creative and innovative
strategies that can be adapted to constantly changing environments.
For this purpose, seeing one's own organization with fresh eyes and
from different perspectives is indispensable. One strategy for
supporting this endeavour is to change the constraints of creativity
855
and innovation workshops, for example, by using different socio-
material workshop elements in order to collaboratively generate and
discover new ideas.
7.1 | Theoretical implications
One key insight from our study is that it is not (only) the creativity of
a single cognitive agent or group of cognitive agents that is responsi-
ble for generating novelty or innovation. As shown by Ingold (2014)
and Peschl (2019a), creativity is a process of ‘undergoing’, that is, the
environment plays a central role as a source of creativity and novelty.
It is not so much our own creative act but our ‘submission’ and open-
ness (Ingold, 2013, 2014) to the environment that produces novelty in
an emergent process of constant interaction and mutual form-giving/
shaping and form-taking apart from our social interactions. We are
enacting novelty or innovation in close cooperation with our environ-
ment. The environment (e.g., a specific configuration of LEGO bricks)
offers both ‘interpretive flexibility’ or richness in interpretation
(Star, 2010) and a high level of potentiality to be changed or trans-
formed (e.g., a reconfiguration of LEGO bricks).
Such objects (e.g., LEGO bricks) not only offer different meanings
to different participants or trigger different perspectives in them; they
also actively engage the participants in a process of participatory
sense-making (Jaegher & Paolo, 2007) and ‘thinking through doing’
(Malafouris, 2019). They shape our minds by being shaped by our
environments/artefacts (themselves being the results of our cognitive
activities) in a circular creative process. The LEGO setting in our study
employs exactly these mechanisms for an innovation process. Our
results demonstrate that the LEGO bricks setting particularly support
the development of alternative perspectives, the reinterpretation of a
specific question or problem, and the exploration of possibilities in
a playful manner, as well as the discovery and creation of new solu-
tions to problems. More generally, the bricks seem to support diver-
gent thinking more than convergent thinking (Patrício et al., 2018;
Zenk et al., 2018). Hence, the LEGO setting seems to be more appro-
priate, especially for the phases of ideation, creation, and discovery in
an innovation phase. Therefore, several studies (e.g., BenMahmoud-
Jouini & Midler, 2020; Houde & Hill, 1997; Yu et al., 2018) suggest
that such an approach might be useful for an initial phase of innova-
tion and design processes (Primus & Sonnenburg, 2018). For conver-
gent thinking that is more apparent in the final phases of an
innovation process, moderation cards may be beneficial to structure
and for fully comprehending the outcome of a workshop.
7.2 | Managerial implications
In our study, we used LEGO bricks as an unconventional workshop
material compared to moderation cards as a traditional material. At
the beginning of the workshop, it was observed that managers were
skeptical about using ‘children's toys’, but once they started using
the LEGO bricks, curiosity prevailed, and they immersed themselves
856
in the process. As we were able to show, the use of LEGO bricks
was perceived as more enjoyable, active, and inspiring than the use
of moderation cards. However, the perceived group outcome using
moderation cards was rated higher than that using LEGO bricks.
Depending on the objective of the workshop, the materials show
different results. If the intervention aims to activate and inspire the
participants, LEGO bricks will be the workshop material of choice,
especially in the initial phase. If the perceived group outcome is the
highest priority, moderation cards will better serve this purpose, in
particular in the final phase. From an innovation perspective, it
appears that LEGO bricks are more suitable for supporting creative
activities during the ideation phase, while traditional moderation
cards are more appropriate for the later stages of an innovation pro-
cess (e.g., implementation, concrete project specification, planning
and budgeting, etc.). The whole workshop was designed in a similar
way. As shown in Table A1, measures for new strategies were
derived and presented in the last two workshop activities. For these,
only moderation cards were used. This allowed for a more appropri-
ate organizational retranslation by photographing the written ideas
for documentation purposes to be used in subsequent innovation
phases.
In general, we would not recommend merely changing the
medium for an innovation workshop. Instead, the entire process
should be meticulously designed to uncover the potential of different
workshop materials, and there is no reason to use only one specific
material. As Chen et al. (2020) stated, managers should rather provide
‘… physical environments populated with objects that can stimulate
and maximize the out-of-the-box thinking that typically characterizes
creativity’ (p. 491). A different medium could serve equally well to dis-
rupt established cognitive and organizational patterns and enable new
perspectives. However, sufficient time must be allowed for partici-
pants to become accustomed to the new medium and to translate
emerging ideas into this new form.
In addition to the workshop design, trained facilitators are critical
to accompany the process. Compared to their functions in other
workshops, they not only introduce the setting but also support diver-
gent thinking and encourage participants to explore and play with
new ideas. At the end of the workshop, the insights gleaned from the
unconventional material should be retranslated to the existing organi-
zational language to generate benefits for the organization. For this
convergent phase, more conventional methods such as moderation
cards can bring the different ideas to the forefront. When these
aspects are taken into consideration, different workshop materials
offer an important potential to fundamentally change and innovate
strategies. The project managers in our case study also recognized this
advantage in practice and applied the workshop design together with
LEGO bricks and moderation cards for their subsequent international
workshops.
ACKNOWLEDGEMEN TS
We are grateful to Prof. Gerald Steiner for reviews and further
suggestions. We also recognize the contribution of the Department
for E-Governance at Danube University Krems and the City of Vienna
ZENK ET AL.
for co-organizing the field study and allowing the authors to conduct
a scientific study during their innovation workshop on digital strate-
gies. The study was funded by The Austrian Research Promotion
Agency (FFG) (Collective Mind; Grant Number: 858535).
LEGO, SERIOUS PLAY, IMAGINOPEDIA, the Minifigure, and the
Brick and Knob configurations are trademarks of the LEGO
Group, which has not sponsored, authorized, or endorsed this
academic work.
DATA AVAILABILITY STAT EMEN T
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the
corresponding author upon reasonable request.
OR CID
Lukas Zenk https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8354-1747
Nicole Hynek https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8391-2352
Stephanie A. Krawinkler https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6364-5856
Markus F. Peschl https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0876-6663
Günther Schreder https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3034-5195
ENDNOTE
1
The tables equipped with LEGO bricks were labelled L1 to L5, and the
tables with moderation cards were labelled M1 to M5.
RE FE RE NCE S
Ashton, D., & Giddings, S. (2018). At work in the toybox: Bedrooms, play-
grounds and ideas of play in creative cultural work. The International
Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation, 19(2), 81–89. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1465750318757157
Bab, M., & Eriksen, M. (2014). Build & Share Introduced—Explore positive
®
psychology with LEGO . http://buildandshare.net/wordpress/wp-
content/uploads/Build-Share-Whitepaper.pdf
Baran, B. E., & Woznyj, H. M. (2021). Managing VUCA. The human dynam-
ics of agility. Organizational Dynamics, 50(2), 100787. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.orgdyn.2020.100787
Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., & Sambrook, S. (2009). Towards a multi-
disciplinary definition of innovation. Management Decision, 47(8),
1323–1339.
BenMahmoud-Jouini, S., & Midler, C. (2020). Unpacking the notion of pro-
totype archetypes in the early phase of an innovation process. Creativ-
ity and Innovation Management, 29, 49–71. https://doi.org/10.1111/
caim.12358
Bennett, N., & Lemoine, G. J. (2014). What a difference a word makes:
Understanding threats to performance in a VUCA world. Business Hori-
zons, 57(3), 311–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2014.01.001
Bernard, H. R. (2006). Research methods in anthropology: Qualitative and
quantitative approaches (4th ed). AltaMira Press.
Boland, R., & Tenkasi, R. (1995). Perspective making and perspective tak-
ing in communities of knowing. Organization Science, 6(4), 350–372.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.4.350
Bonneau, C., Bourdeau, S., & Sergi, V. (2017). Up to what point can work
dissolve in a serious game? A participant perspective on the LEGO
Serious Play method. Proceedings of the 33rd EGOS Colloquium, Copen-
hagen, Denmark, 6-8 July.
®
Brown, N., & Collins, J. (2018). Using LEGO to understand emotion work
in doctoral education. International Journal of Management and Applied
Research, 5(4), 193–209. https://doi.org/10.18646/2056.54.18-014
Brown, T. (2009). Change by design. How design thinking transforms organi-
zations and inspires innovation. Harper Collins.
ZENK ET AL.
Bulmer, L. (2011). The use of LEGO serious play™ in the engineering
®
design classroom. Proceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education
Association (CEEA). https://doi.org/10.24908/pceea.v0i0.3699
Caccamo, M. (2020). Leveraging innovation spaces to foster collaborative
innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 29(1), 178–191.
https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12357
Celestine, N. A., & Yeo, G. (2021). Having some fun with it: A theoretical
review and typology of activity-based play-at-work. Journal of Organi-
zational Behavior, 42(2), 252–268. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2444
Chemero, A. (2013). Radical embodied cognitive science. Review of General
Psychology, 17(2), 145–150.
Chen, S., Chandler, J., & Venkatesh, A. (2020). The influence of objects on
creativity. Creativity and Innovation Management, 29(3), 481–494.
https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12379
Cherapanukorn, V., & Jintapitak, M. (2017). An organization learning with
® ®
LEGO Serious Play . In 2017 11th international conference on soft-
ware, knowledge, information management and applications (SKIMA)
(pp. 1–8). https://doi.org/10.1109/SKIMA.2017.8294103
Chesbrough, H. W., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (2006). Open innovation:
Researching a new paradigm. Oxford University Press.
Clark, A. (2001). Mindware. An introduction to the philosophy of cognitive
science: Oxford University Press.
Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind. In Embodiment, action, and cognitive
extension. Oxford University: Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:
oso/9780195333213.001.0001
Cooper, R. G. (2014). What's next?: After stage-gate. Research-Technology
Management, 57(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.5437/08956308X
5606963
Dann, S. (2018). Facilitating co-creation experience in the classroom with
Lego serious play. Australasian Marketing Journal (AMJ), 26(2),
121–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2018.05.013
Dix, A., & Gongora, L. (2011). Externalisation and design. Proceedings of
the Second Conference on Creativity and Innovation in Design—
DESIRE'11, 31. https://doi.org/10.1145/2079216.2079220
Dove, G., Abildgaard, S. J., Biskjaer, M. M., Hansen, N. B.,
Christensen, B. T., & Halskov, K. (2018). Grouping notes
through nodes: The functions of post-it notes in design team cogni-
tion. Design Studies, 57, 112–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.
2018.03.008
Fagerberg, J. (2006). Innovation. A guide to the literature. In J. Fagerberg,
D. C. Mowery, & R. R. Nelson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of innovation
(pp. 1–26). Oxford University Press.
Fletcher, G., Greenhill, A., Griffiths, M., Holmes, K., & McLean, R. (2016).
Creatively prototyping the future high street. Production Planning &
Control, 27(6), 477–489. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2016.
1147094
Friedenberg, J., & Silverman, G. (2012). Cognitive science. In An introduc-
tion to the study of the mind (second). Sage: Publications.
Gauntlett, D. (2018). Making is connecting: The social power of creativity,
from craft and knitting to digital everything (second expanded edition).
Polity Press.
Geithner, S., & Menzel, D. (2016). Effectiveness of learning through experi-
ence and reflection in a project management simulation. Simulation &
Gaming, 47(2), 228–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046878115
624312
Goodall, H. L. (1989). Casing a promised land: The autobiography of an orga-
nizational detective as cultural ethnographer. Southern Illinois University
Press.
® ®
Gridley, A. (2018). Building LEGO models to teach three-dimensional,
mechanical concepts in optometry. International Journal of Manage-
ment and Applied Research, 5(4), 238–244. https://doi.org/10.18646/
2056.54.18-018
Grienitz, V., & Schmidt, A.-M. (2012). Scenario workshops for strategic
® ®
management with Lego serious play . Problems of Management in the
21st Century, 3, 26–34.
857
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice
(3rd ed.). Routledge.
Harel, I., & Papert, S. (1991). Constructionism. Ablex Publishing.
®
Harn, P.-L., & Hsiao, C.-C. (2018). A preliminary study on LEGO -based
® ®
workplace stress reduction with six bricks and LEGO serious play in
Taiwan. World Journal of Research and Review, 6(1), 64–67.
Hassenzahl, M. (2018). A personal journey through user experience. Jour-
ney of Usability Studies, 13(4), 168–176.
Hocevar, D. (1981). Measurement of creativity: Review and critique. Jour-
nal of Personality Assessment, 45(5), 450–464. https://doi.org/10.
1207/s15327752jpa4505_1
Hölzle, K., & Rhinow, H. (2019). The dilemmas of design thinking in inno-
vation projects. Project Management Journal, 50(4), 418–430. https://
doi.org/10.1177/8756972819853129
Houde, S., & Hill, C. (1997). What do prototypes prototype? In M.
Helander, T. Landauer, & P. Prabhu (Eds.), Handbook of human-
computer interaction (2nd ed., pp. 367–381). Elsevier. https://doi.org/
10.1016/B978-044481862-1.50082-0
Hussain, S., Lindh, J., & Shukur, G. (2006). The effect of LEGO training on
pupils' school performance in mathematics, problem solving ability and
attitude: Swedish data. Educational Technology & Society, 9(3),
182–194.
Ingold, T. (2013). Making: Anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture.
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203559055
Ingold, T. (2014). The creativity of undergoing. Pragmatics & Cognition, 22
(1), 124–139. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.22.1.07ing
Jaegher, H. D., & Paolo, E. D. (2007). Participatory sense-making.
An enactive approach to social cognition. Phenomenology and the Cog-
nitive Sciences, 6(4), 485–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-007-
9076-9
James, A. (2015). Innovating in the creative arts with LEGO. https://www.
heacademy.ac.uk/knowledge-hub/innovating-creative-arts-lego (date
of download: 04.06.2020)
Johansson-Sköldberg, U., Woodilla, J., & Çetinkaya, M. (2013). Design
thinking: Past, present and possible futures. Creativity and Innovation
Management, 22(2), 121–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12023
Kahn, K. B. (2018). Understanding innovation. Business Horizons, 61(3),
453–460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.01.011
Kristiansen, P., & Rasmussen, R. (2014). Building a better business using the
LEGO serious play method. Wiley.
Lempiälä, T., & Vanharanta, O. (2018). Rethinking the control–freedom
paradox in innovation: Toward a multifaceted understanding of crea-
tive freedom. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 54(1), 62–87.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886317727458
Malafouris, L. (2019). Mind and material engagement. Phenomenology and
the Cognitive Sciences, 18, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-
018-9606-7
Menary, R. (2010). The extended mind. MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.
7551/mitpress/9780262014038.001.0001
Moura, E. O. d., & Bispo, M. d. S. (2020). Sociomateriality: Theories, meth-
odology, and practice. Canadian Journal of Administrative
Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, 37(3),
350–365. https://doi.org/10.1002/cjas.1548
Nakamura, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). The concept of flow.
In M. Csikszentmihalyi (Ed.), Flow and the foundations of positive psy-
chology: The collected works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (pp. 239–263).
Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9088-
8_16
®
Nerantzi, C. (2018). LEGO serious play as an affective experience in doc-
toral researchers' support: Tensions and new freedoms. International
Journal of Management and Applied Research, 5(4), 290–303. https://
doi.org/10.18646/2056.54.18-022
Newen, A., de Burin, L., & Gallagher, S. (Eds.). (2018). The Oxford handbook
of 4E cognition. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/
oxfordhb/9780198735410.001.0001
858
O'Connor, G. C., & McDermott, C. M. (2004). The human side of
radical innovation. Journal of Engineering and Technology Manage-
ment, 21(1–2), 11–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2003.
12.002
OECD. (2018). The future of education and skills: Education 2030. OECD.
https://www.oecd.org/education/2030/E2030%20Position%20Paper
%20(05.04.2018).pdf (date of download: 04.06.2020)
Orlikowski, W. J., & Scott, S. V. (2008). Sociomateriality: Challenging the
separation of technology, work and organization. Academy of
Management Annals, 2(1), 433–474. https://doi.org/10.5465/
19416520802211644
Patrício, R., Moreira, A. C., & Zurlo, F. (2018). Gamification approaches to
the early stage of innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management,
27(4), 499–511. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12284
Peschl, M. F. (2019a). Design and innovation as co-creating and co-
becoming with the future. Design Management Journal, 14(1), 4–14.
https://doi.org/10.1111/dmj.12049
Peschl, M. F. (2019b). Unlearning towards an uncertain future:
On the back end of future-driven unlearning. Learning
Organization, 26(5), 454–469. https://doi.org/10.1108/TLO-11-
2018-0192
Podsakoff, P. M., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2019). Experimental designs in
management and leadership research: Strengths, limitations,
and recommendations for improving publishability. Leadership
Quarterly, 30(1), 11–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.
11.002
Primus, D. J., & Sonnenburg, S. (2018). Flow experience in design thinking
and practical synergies with LEGO serious play. Creativity Research
Journal, 30(1), 104–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2018.
1411574
Roberts, N. (2000). Wicked problems and network approaches to resolu-
tion. International Public Management Review, 1(1), 1–19.
Roos, J., & Nilsson, V. O. (2020). Driving organizational readiness for
change through strategic workshops. International Journal of Manage-
ment and Applied Research, 7(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.18646/
2056.71.20-001
Roos, J., & Victor, B. (1999). Towards a new model of strategy-making as
serious play. European Management Journal, 17(4), 348–355. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0263-2373(99)00015-8
® ®
Roos, J., & Victor, B. (2018). How it all began: The origins of LEGO serious
®
play . International Journal of Management and Applied Research,
326–343. https://doi.org/10.18646/2056.54.18-025
Roos, J., Victor, B., & Statler, M. (2004). Playing seriously with strategy.
Long Range Planning, 37(6), 549–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.
2004.09.005
Roth, S., Schneckenberg, D., & Tsai, C.-W. (2015). The ludic drive as inno-
vation driver: Introduction to the gamification of innovation. Creativity
and Innovation Management, 24(2), 300–306. https://doi.org/10.1111/
caim.12124
Rowlands, M. (2010). The new science of the mind. From extended mind to
embodied phenomenology: MIT Press.
Schoemaker, P. J. H., Heaton, S., & Teece, D. (2018). Innovation, dynamic
capabilities, and leadership. California Management Review, 61(1),
15–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125618790246
Schön, D. A. (1992). Designing as reflective conversation with the
materials of a design situation. Research in Engineering Design, 3(3),
131–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01580516
Schumpeter, J. A. (1934). The theory of economic development. Harvard
University Press.
Shalley, C. E. (1991). Effects of productivity goals, creativity goals, and
personal discretion on individual creativity. Journal of Applied Psy-
chology, 76(2), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.76.
2.179
ZENK ET AL.
Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2016). Co-initiation of collaborative innovation
in urban spaces. Urban Affairs Review, 54(2), 388–418. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1078087416651936
Star, S. L. (1989). The structure of iII-structured solutions: Boundary
objects and heterogeneous distributed problem solving. In L. Gasser &
M. N. Huhns (Eds.), Distributed artificial intelligence (Vol. 2, pp. 37–54).
Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-1-
55860-092-8.50006-X
Star, S. L. (2010). This is not a boundary object: Reflections on the origin
of a concept. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 35(5), 601–617.
Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations”
and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley's
Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. Social Studies of Science, 19(3),
387–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001
Statler, M., Heracleous, L., & Jacobs, C. D. (2011). Serious play as a prac-
tice of paradox. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(2), 236–256.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886311398453
Sund, K. J., Galavan, R. J., & Brusoni, S. (2018). Cognition and innovation:
A framework and invitation to explore. In K. J. Sund & others. (Eds.),
Cognition and innovation (new horizons in managerial and organizational
cognition (Vol. 3, pp. 1–11). Emerald Publishing Limited. https://doi.
org/10.1108/978-1-78769-431-620181001
Teece, D., Peteraf, M., & Leih, S. (2016). Dynamic capabilities and organi-
zational agility: Risk, uncertainty, and strategy in the innovation econ-
omy. California Management Review, 58(4), 13–35. https://doi.org/10.
1525/cmr.2016.58.4.13
Tidd, J. (2006). A review of innovation models. Imperial College. http://
web.iaincirebon.ac.id/ebook/indrya/Bandura/inovasi/innovation_
models.pdf
Tidd, J., & Bessant, J. (2009). Managing innovation. Integrating technological,
market and organizational change (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (2016). The embodied mind: Cogni-
tive science and human experience (rev.). MIT Press.
Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. Freeman.
Wengel, Y., McIntosh, A. J., & Cockburn-Wootten, C. (2016). Con-
structing tourism realities through LEGO serious play. Annals of Tour-
ism Research, 56, 161–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2015.
11.012
Wengel, Y., McIntosh, A., & Cockburn-Wootten, C. (2021). A critical con-
®
sideration of LEGO serious play methodology for tourism studies.
Tourism Geographies, 23(1-2), 162–184. https://doi.org/10.1080/
14616688.2019.1611910
Withagen, R., & Kamp, J. (2018). An ecological approach to creativity in
making. New Ideas in Psychology, 49, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
newideapsych.2017.11.002
Wöhler, J., & Reinhardt, R. (2021). The users' perspective on how creativ-
ity techniques help in the idea generation process—A repertory grid
study. Creativity and Innovation Management, 30(1), 144–163. https://
doi.org/10.1111/caim.12424
Yu, F., Pasinelli, M., & Brem, A. (2018). Prototyping in theory and in prac-
tice. A study of the similarities and differences between engineers and
designers. Creativity and Innovation Management, 27(2), 121–132.
https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12242
Zenk, L., Hynek, N., Schreder, G., Zenk, A., Pausits, A., & Steiner, G.
(2018). Designing innovation courses in higher education using
® ®
LEGO serious play . International Journal of Management and
Applied Research, 5(4), 245–263. https://doi.org/10.18646/2056.54.
18-019
Zhou, J., Shin, S. J., & Cannella, A. A. (2008). Employee self-perceived
creativity after mergers and acquisitions: Interactive effects of threat—
Opportunity perception, access to resources, and support for
creativity. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44(4), 397–421.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886308328010
ZENK ET AL. 859

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHI ES
Markus F. Peschl is Professor of cognitive science and philosophy
of science at the University of Vienna, Department of Philosophy.
Lukas Zenk is Assistant Professor for innovation and network
His areas of research and expertise include innovation, cognitive
research and Deputy Head of Research at the Department of
science, organizational theory and strategy, design, and spaces for
Knowledge and Communication Management at the Danube Uni-
knowledge and innovation work (Enabling Spaces). He is one of
versity Krems. In his research projects, he investigates how people
the founders of the Vienna Cognitive Science Hub.
collaboratively solve complex problems and how creative and
innovative processes can be supported. Günther Schreder is a Researcher at the Department of Knowl-
edge and Communication Management at Danube University
Nicole Hynek is a Researcher at the Department of Knowledge
Krems. His research focuses on how technology can support the
and Communication Management at the Danube University
cognitive processes of individuals and groups. He is teaching
Krems and is specializing in collaborative problem-solving in com-
quantitative methods, user-centred design, and cognitive
plex real-world problems research. Her specialized competences
psychology.
lie in the statistical evaluation of data and creating experimental
or mixed-method studies.

Stephanie Krawinkler is a Business and Organizational

How to cite this article: Zenk, L., Hynek, N., Krawinkler, S. A.,
Anthropologist. She is a researcher, lecturer at various academic
Peschl, M. F., & Schreder, G. (2021). Supporting innovation
institutions, and an author. She is an expert in the field of organi-
processes using material artefacts: Comparing the use of
zational ethnography and her research focuses on organizational
LEGO bricks and moderation cards as boundary objects.
culture, alternative modes of organization and management (new
Creativity and Innovation Management, 30(4), 845–859.
management paradigm), trust, and diversity & inclusion
https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12459
management.

APP E NDIX A: WORKSHOP SCHEDULE AND QUESTIONNAIRE

TABLE A1 Workshop schedule TABLE A2 (Continued)

Keynotes: Open data strategies (30 min) Scale Questionnaire items

Workshop (experimental field (65 min) —The other group members were able to
study) communicate their points of view to me,
thanks to the method used.
Iteration 1 Personal perspective (20 min)
Evaluation of the outcome —The different opinions were equally taken
Iteration 2 Department (20 min)
into account in the group result.
perspective Cronbach's .79
—I am satisfied with the results of the group.
Iteration 3 City perspective (20 min) α
—The results of the group offer a valuable
Quantitative questionnaire (5 min) M (SD) 6.04 (.63) contribution to the topic.
—My personal opinion is similar to the group
Present findings (15 min)
result.
Derive measures for new (20 min)
Evaluation of the —The discussion contributed to mutual
strategies
discussion understanding in the group.
Present measures (20 min) —My opinion was taken into account in the
Cronbach's .72
α discussion.
—One or a few people dominated the
M (SD) 6.35 (.63) discussion.
TABLE A2 Scales and questionnaire items —Each person had equal opportunities to
share their opinions.
Scale Questionnaire items
—There was constructive discussion in the
Perceived mutual —With the method used, I was able to group.
understanding understand the views of the other group —I had the feeling that the other group
members. members had listened to me.
Cronbach's .93
—I believe that the other group members —I am satisfied with the course of the
α
were able to understand my point of discussion.
M (SD) 5.45 view, thanks to the method used.
(1.02) Perceived group climate I found the group climate pleasant to work
—With the method used, I was able to
with.
communicate my point of view to the Cronbach's .84
—In my opinion, we were able to talk openly
other group members. α
and freely in our group.
M (SD) 6.45 (.92)
(Continues)