[C] Video Supplemental Material its interesting to think of H2 as being a disruption such as a movement. One of the classes I'm taking this semester is on non-violent civil resistance so it's compelling to think about using movements as a way to shock change and that being H2.

[Q] what happens if the innovations you need to bridge from H1 to H3 don't exist? I imagine their are H3 visions that require interventions that cannot be seen elsewhere.

[I] This seems like a great way to categorize individual stakeholders especially through the lens of urban planning. Instead of thinking of their voices as combating you could look at them as different horizons.

[Q] do you think micro-mobility solutions could be considered a H2 intervention even though it's a different catagory of transportation?

[C] This reminds me of Bruce's first class where we learned about three horizons and practiced backcasting. I see why backcasting was taught with three horizons because they both focus on having a place you are going and the interventions that get you there.

[Q] Supplemental Reading-Micheal Herman Of the different stages that the reading describes which do you think will be the most shocking to stakeholders? I certainly think "action" could be jarring for people thinking they are going to a typical executive led conference.

[I] this is certainly one of the easiest change methods to prepare for and much less complicated than future search. However, as I am writing the plan for this session I almost find it more challenging to let go and understand that this needs to run itself, thats the whole point.

[Q] If you're running a business or a company how do you find whoever cares or know where the line is between say a part time retail employee and an executive?

[Q] How did these organizations convince citizens to take off work and do this from what I can tell as a volunteer?

[C} This reminds me of Arnsteins ladder of participation. This definitely starts to move into the citizen power section.

[C] this seems like such an interesting idea for a change method. Almost reminds me of stoicism or something like that. Curious how this plays into stakeholder engagement.

Readings Supplemental Material [C] The first reading talks about "connecting across siloes" this made me think about how in ENVD especially in the first few year the goal is to break down our siloes between our disciplines. A multi-disciplinary problem could benefit from world cafe because it helps to break down these siloes.

Video Supplemental Material [Q] The video mentioned, "the greater the participation, the greater the potential for collective wisdom" how do you spark this participation or does the world cafe do that on its own?

[Q] I would still have the question in a planning sense if this is something that could be applied to people with different views of the future could you reach collective intelligence or would everyone continually try to voice their opinion with nothing changing?

[C] Boulder county has many times where people can voice opinions and its in a very formal setting. it would be interesting for the County to try this instead.

[Q] what is collective intelligence in your opinion? does achieving it help to improve social capital?

[Q] Do you think the time to use this is when initially engaging stakeholders? for example, many planners complain that because the public are not engineers, or planners they don't know what they are talking about when they voice their opinion on projects. Do you think planners should want to "access the intelligence" of the public at this initial stage?

[I] Its a good way for an entire room of people to have a conversation without a gigantic group trying to talk to one another.

[c] the PLAN 4100 capstone has placed a lot of emphasis on story telling as a tool this semester but not with a focus on stories of the future. It is interesting to see how telling stories at all temporal scales can be useful in negotiation and change.

[q] what is an example of a problem we see in planning that wouldn't require scenarios because the answer is clear? are they're any or is planning too complicated to have problems with clear answers?

[c] I think being positioned to change in a meaningful way relates back to what we learned the first week about social, economic, and political capital within a community without high amounts of capital in these three areas you are not in this position.

[q] Do planners typically operate within one of these rings? how does operating in all 3 rings with an outside in thinking enhance the planning process?

[c] their is a bit of overlap here with future search and the example it gave of the need for stakeholders to experience the entire "elephant" you need to move outside your own lens (industry) and understand what is happening outside of it.

[c] Visioning was a key term in Bruces sustainable futures class and seems to be a key in each of these change processes we have studied AI, Future search, and scenario thinking all place emphasis at some point in the process on visioning.

[Q] Video Supplemental Material What do you think the video means when it says cause and effect have ceased to exist due to how complex our systems are?

[I] This is an interesting idea that in traditional settings or these changes methods sometime the facilitator might do more harm by participating than good

[Q] Do you think change methods specifically future search could have economic benefits within the land planning realm?

[Q] "yet a lot of what matters to us is not getting done" this made me think of the political landscape and most people despite their opinions seem to hold this idea. Could a future search be useful in breaking down political barriers?

[C] This makes me think of how in ENVD people refer to the program as being a "non-siloed" version of design. Interesting to see the connection of that to other industries.

[I] podcast supplemental material AI isn't just about focusing externally on what's working well but also about internally what role you want to have in the process.

[Q] video supplemental material how can our bias as organizers of collaborative processes change with AI like it did for the presenter in the video and why is this important?

[c] this reminds me of visioning from last semesters class giving people the freedom to dream a strong shared vision without worrying about a direct path to it while designing the vision

[Q] How do you generate this excitement and desire to participate?

[I] if you can get all of your stakeholders veto agree that involvement of the entire "workforce" as an essential factor for success it provides a solid platform for changing the system

[I] I think this would work well in a planning context because I would imagine many people would relate positive experiences in their city or built environment to things like walkability or place making.

[Q]: How could we redefine appreciative inquiry to be in layman terms so that it can be more equitably understood?

[C] This reminds me of the ground rule we made for our brainstorming session on the second day of class. All ideas are valid seems to be a common theme in participation methods and relates back to our classes goal of equity.

[Q] What role do you think video conferencing plays in this? has the prevalence of zoom today hurt our ability to connect with others or does it open up connection more by allowing more of the system to participate?

[I] just hearing data isn't going to be enough to sway people because many people may not understand how to relate that data back to their personal lives to truly care

[J] 1. The main insights that I gained from this reading were that the process of engagement not even in a planning sense can be opened up to other fields and despite the use case there is an underlying process that should be followed throughout the process. This serves as a good outline for the parameters that we should look to set for our own project and engagement protocol that we will make over the course of the semester.

1. Some of the connections that I drew out of this reading involved past instances with this class and other classes that involved a level of engagement. First, was a connection to this class when we talked about people having what they want and then moving past that to their personal interests and why understanding those interests is important. This came out of reading what drives people to use a change method and the emotional connection that follows. The other connection that I saw in the reading was understanding long term sustainability from my personal experiences in studio. We worked with a community and through the planning process defined long term maintenance goals to make sure the project sticks. The reading has a strong focus on long term performance of change and this is something I can relate too.

2. One of the questions that I had came up was trying to understand social capital and its role to a change method to merge the first two readings we have done. The introduction pointed out that most of these methods are designed to surface conflict and deal with it productively. How can an understanding of social capital in the system influence this ability to deal with conflict?

[Q] we can map the system to some extent and acknowledge stakeholders but their will always be more to the system and more stakeholders with influence on the system how do you know when to stop outreach?

[I] These are questions we will need to be able to answer for our final project since we are targeting blending methods.

[Q] How can you improve social capital to be able to move past conflict?

[C] this makes me think back to what we talked about in class on Tuesday that people need to move past their ideal changes and get to their personal interests which have an emotional attachment.

[C] in studio when we worked with a community on essentially a change effort we had to think about long term responsibilities to make sure the change effort sticks. Without maintenance the change is pointless.

monitoring adoption and implementation is a new concept for me within stakeholder involvement.

This could be an interesting way of reaching a shared vision based on scientific data If everyone can see data firsthand

how can AI image generation play a role in future community enrollment due to the ease of use for a stakeholder not familiar with conventional rendering methods?

I could see how pilot projects help with this

This could help answer why small groups are best.

I would add how can we help stakeholders overcome obstacles to participation.

it seems like it might be uncommon to see say a developer building understanding with say a resident. understandable that this is important but forgotten.

this is why visioning is important.

Not everyone will be on the same page with "holistic" understanding's of issues.

We also identified data as being a resource for collaboration.

does a community like Boulder have more political capital than a politically contested community where change is delayed by opposition.

I think most people in a community would relay this idea but in practice most people find themselves "too busy" to engage in a "strong democracy"

I think engaging people who care is important but I would also see it to be important to engage people who are uninterested as they are still stakeholders in the situations that first come to mind for me.