[I] Good to note that this process is beneficial in urgent, high stake situations. In a planning process this could prove useful for when a process may normally take a long time to get approved and worked through.

[Q] How did they ensure that the voices felt equally as heard?

[I] This counters the rigid top down structure which most strict governments are use to and instead relies on collective wisdom.

[I] I take that this means it might be harder to structure a world cafe since it is about an organic conversation that cannot be planned out as much as some of the other processes.

[Q] I wonder how different environments can change the context of the conversation/the energy based around the same topic. I think it would be interesting to examine how this plays a role in this process.

[I] I gather that this means this process is not only about gaining ideas and solutions, but also an emphasis on gaining trust/respect for your other participates which builds a different culture.

[Q] How does this differ from a town hall meeting/ in what ways does this produce a broader purpose or meaning?

[C] This makes me think about how over some of the processes we have explored so far, they seem to ask for a variety of different stakeholders in the room to create a kind of meaning behind what is unknown to each other.

[Q] How can government officials include multiple perspectives without creating too much controversy and getting overwhelmed by too many differences in perspective?

[Q] How do planners ensure that their solutions are not overaly optimistic or pessimistic scenarios?

[C] This resonates with me because of my current studio project about wildfires in Boulder County. I think that this can be applied to the thoughts around gradual climate shift and how it could prioritize resilience strategies.

[I] This part highlights a core concept about adaptability. I think it is saying that it encourages flexability within the planning field by using a process that provides you with multiple outcomes rather than just one solution to the issue.

[C] This makes me think about how many different stakeholders we needed to include in future search. The similarities between the two processes vary but I think it is interesting to see how they can create completly different outcomes based on which is used.

[C] This process makes me think of all of the backcasting we did in the planning lecture last semester. It was a very lengthy process to be able to envision a future, but if I had started from the present and tried to come up with a radical solution, I would have a completly different solution than what my group had envisioned.

[I] This makes me think about when it would be the start of a semester and our teachers would make us do an ice breaker. I think it was very effective before I knew my peers in my classes, but then once they became smaller, it was harder to play games like 2 truths and a lie or any other ice breaker in that similar form.

[Q] what is the line between how different our stakeholders view's be within the future search process?

[Q] how can new stakeholders be introduced into this process once it has begun?

[Q] How do we ensure that we have chosen the right amount of varying people in the room? What I mean is how do we know we have a diverse enough group for this process to work based on the situation or task it is being applied to?

[C] The underlying concept of focusing on the positive reminds me of appreciative inquiry. I think that even though this process is very different, (so far) I have taken away that by awknowledging our shared experiences and not what is different is a similar moral of AI.

[Q] Could this process truly be successful when including stakeholders across different generations?

[Q] I wonder how differently this process' outcome would look if there was one stakeholder group missing or if in any way it could still be sucessful.

[I] This reminds me of a teacher I previously had who spoke about the importance of being seen as each others equals. Despite her being our instructor, she saw us as equals because we each provided something that would benefit each other. She taught us the knowledge that she had learned throughout her education and in return we provide her with insight, new knowledge, students to be taught, and understanding.

[I] I think this idea of more team building/creating more personal connections is what really makes AI work in the long run. When I have done studio projects with classmates I wasnt as comfortable with, I felt my work was not as great as it could have been compared to when I work with people that I am friends/know pretty well.

[Q] What determines how successful this process is? I mean this by asking how do you set the minimum qualifications for this process to be considered useful.

[C] This is similar to the topics we talking about in class with the chart that connected the individual being to a collective. It mentioned that the individual needs to be able to adjust based on the efforts of the larger group. I think this concept is important to allow the individual adapt to the needs of a group without compromising their own beliefs.

[I] This concept reminds me to a book I read "The Subtle Art of Not Giving a Fuck", which included a chapter on the art of noticing. Basically it was about how the more I look for a certain thing or item the more I will notice it and it will eventually seem like a larger thing than it was. For example, when people say they "see angel numbers" everywhere it is simply because their brain is subconciously looking for it in everything they see.

[I] I think this whole section and chart emphasized the need for ongoing change and how it can be sustainable through new leadership development.

Journal: I think the most important insights from this reading included the significance of the individual playing their role within a group effort. This engagement within a collective role is what ensures the sustainability of sucess in the long run. Defining these conditions at the start of any given initiative is what will drive the system forward into creating change. The theme of stakeholder collaboration seems to be reoccurring within this reading and previous classes I have taken. Both emphasis the importance of finding common grounds and connections between two opposing bodies in order to create this image of a shared goal within a system. My biggest question that arose during this reading was "What criterita should we use to measure the sucess of this change and how can we use it to our benefit?" Overall, the handbook touched on a lot of different aspects of change but the themes and topics that stuck out to me the most were about stakeholders, individuals, and how they work together to create this sort of system that we need to fix.

[C I feel like this concept reminds of the topics of backcasting that we talked about in class last semester and how to really understand the solutions for the future, we first need to go back to figure out how we came to the issue to begin with.

[C] This is similar to a concept that I read in a book by Mark Manson about how people are not going to realize the subject or importance of something until it ceases to exist. It is the idea of not knowing what you are missing out until it is fully gone.

[C] This makes me think about the game we played where it took towards the last two bonus rounds for player to realize that they might have wanted to build trust in an earlier round so that they could decieve them later and gain more points.

[I] I think leaders can address these concerns in a powerful way to show their commitment to change and create sustainable motivation.

[Q] How could this distinction between organizations and communities impact the strategies used for implementing change?