Collaboration Tools Tips

The AI ecosystem is becoming increasingly diverse, and smart organizations are learning that the best approach isn't "open-source vs. proprietary"—it's about choosing the right tool for each specific use case. The Strategic Shift We're Witnessing: 🔹 Hybrid AI Architectures Are Winning While proprietary solutions like GPT-4, Claude, and enterprise platforms offer cutting-edge capabilities and support, open-source tools (Llama 3, Mistral, Gemma) provide transparency, customization, and cost control. The most successful implementations combine both—using proprietary APIs for complex reasoning tasks while leveraging open-source models for specialized, high-volume, or sensitive workloads. 🔹 The "Right Tool for the Job" Philosophy Notice how these open-source tools interconnect and complement existing enterprise solutions? Modern AI systems blend the best of both worlds: Vector databases (Qdrant, Weaviate) for data sovereignty, cloud APIs for advanced capabilities, and deployment frameworks (Ollama, TorchServe) for operational flexibility. 🔹 Risk Mitigation Through Diversification Smart enterprises aren't putting all their eggs in one basket. Open-source options provide vendor independence and fallback strategies, while proprietary solutions offer reliability, support, and advanced features. This dual approach reduces both technical and business risk. The Real Strategic Value: Organizations are discovering that having optionality is more valuable than any single solution. Open-source tools provide: • Cost optimization for specific use cases • Data control and compliance capabilities • Innovation experimentation without vendor constraints • Backup strategies for critical systems Meanwhile, proprietary solutions continue to excel at: • Cutting-edge performance for complex tasks • Enterprise support and reliability • Rapid deployment with minimal setup • Advanced features that take years to replicate What This Means for Your Strategy: • Technical Teams: Build expertise across both open-source and proprietary tools • Product Leaders: Map use cases to the most appropriate solution type • Executives: Think portfolio approach—not vendor lock-in OR vendor avoidance The winning organizations in 2025-2026 aren't the ones committed to a single approach. They're the ones with the most strategic flexibility in their AI toolkit. Question for the community: How are you balancing open-source and proprietary AI solutions in your organization? What criteria do you use to decide which approach fits each use case?

🚩 Misunderstandings come from wrong assumptions and unrealistic expectations. Here are the key points I always discuss for every design project — to avoid frustration and confusion down the line ↓ ✅ This is how we understood the problem. ✅ This is what we think the solution requires (steps and tasks). ✅ These are the assumptions that we’re making. ✅ This is how we work, and how we will work together. ✅ This is where and when we’ll need a (timely) input by stakeholders. ✅ These are the milestones, the timeline and deliverables. ✅ That’s the delivery date we commit to (for that scope of work). ✅ That’s the total cost of the work and how it will be paid. ✅ Late scope changes are expensive and cause delays. ✅ All scope changes are estimated and billed separately. Every UX task is different. But every task requires a shared understanding about the process, the people involved and the expectations that come with it. To get there, I typically prepare a one-pager with 10 sections listed above — statement of work that typically includes only bullet points, and nothing else. Just before heading into a project, we set up a call to discuss if we understood the problem correctly, if the process is clear and if we've overlooked something critical. I mention twice the role of UX research and evidence-driven decision making, and that late scope changes are expensive and cause delays. The goal of that meeting is to iron out anything that might cause confusion or frustration later — and to get a sign off on that 10-sections document. We don’t know how our stakeholders work. We don’t know their constraints, their budgets, their timelines. So we shouldn’t expect them to know our design process either. Instead, we should explain how we work, what is important to us, and why last-minute changes are expensive and cause delays. Stakeholders don’t want to make our lives difficult. They want us to succeed. We want the same. Ask them what is important to them, and tell them what is important to you. It won’t always work, but when it does, you get stakeholders on your side, supporting you and respecting your process from start to finish. #ux #design #process

Before I codified this, one loud voice could hijack my whole session. Now? I handle resistance without losing the room (or my authority) I used to let “just one comment” slide. Until it derailed the agenda. What started as a “quick comment” turned into a 40-minute detour. I watched the energy drain from the group. And from the client’s face. I was bringing my personal baggage Back then, I believed being “tough” made you less likeable as a facilitator. But I wasn’t being kind, I was avoiding discomfort. And that made me unclear. And unclear loses the room. Here’s my 2M framework, I wish I had years ago to protect focus and relationships. 𝗠𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗴𝗮𝘁𝗲 (set yourself up for success): • Pre-session comms to set expectations • Co-create working agreements at the start • Introduce a ‘Parking lot’ early • Ask for permission to re-direct when needed 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲 (when things go off-track): • Notice and name the disruption, neutrally • Refer back to the group’s agreements • Add off-topic ideas to the Parking lot • Check: “Is this moving us closer to our outcome?” This approach earned me a long-term client who brings me back to facilitate strategy days with their global brand leaders. Why? Because I kept big personalities on track without making anyone wrong. And even had execs thank me for shutting them down. Turns out, clarity earns trust. Fast. And the tougher I’ve been as a facilitator, the more I’ve been respected. ♻️ Share if you’ve ever had to wrangle a room 👇 What’s your go-to move when a session goes off the rails?

Here’s one reason you can’t rely on external vendors to prioritize security in your environment. Two weeks ago, security researchers identified a vulnerability in Microsoft Teams. It allows a hacker to send malware to Teams users. A security researcher then automated that vulnerability into a nifty tool. Great for pentesters and evil hackers alike. Microsoft's response to this was…subpar... They said: "We're aware of this report and have determined that it relies on social engineering to be successful. We encourage customers to practice good computing habits online, including exercising caution when clicking on links to web pages, opening unknown files, or accepting file transfers." While they get one point for showing up with decent advice, this just leaves the door open for hackers to take advantage of. But, let's not despair. You can still mitigitate this risk yourself. Here’s how: 1. Don’t allow communication to your users from external domains. 2. If the first option is not viable (e.g. you need to collaborate with other companies), create an allow list so that only approved external domains can communicate with your users. Remember, security starts with you. You can’t rely on third party vendors to do everything in your best security interests. This is why defense in depth is so important. Something in your stack will fail. It’s up to you to build a resilient enough security program that can withstand multiple failures without experiencing a total catastrophe. ------------------------------ 🤓 Hi, I’m Jason, the “TeachMeCyber” guy 💡I simplify cyber security to help you learn faster 🔔 Follow me for daily cyber security posts #teachmecyber #cybersecurity #phishing #socialengineering #microsoft

Most failed projects never lacked a plan — they lacked agreement. A project charter isn’t paperwork. It’s the invisible contract that aligns every stakeholder before chaos starts. It defines: - Why this project exists (purpose) - Who owns what (accountability) - How success will be measured (outcomes) I’ve seen teams skip this step because “we need to start fast. ” They end up starting twice — once to build, once to fix. But too often, teams skip this step because “ we need to start fast. ” The truth? They end up starting twice — once to build, once to fix. If you want to lead with clarity, start with alignment. Your first deliverable isn’t the Gantt chart — it’s shared understanding. Here are 3 ways to make your project charter actually work: ✅ 1. Make it outcome-driven, not output-driven. Most charters focus on what will be delivered — timelines, budgets, tasks. Shift to why it matters. Define the problem it solves and what success looks like in behavior or adoption. - Instead of “Deliver new CRM,” say “Increase user adoption by 25% within 3 months.” ✅ 2. Co-create, don’t delegate. A charter written for stakeholders dies fast. A charter written with stakeholders lives. Run a short alignment session before writing — get your sponsor, users, and leads to co-own the “why” and the “how.” - The goal: fewer sign-offs, more buy-in. ✅ 3. Keep it human-readable. If people can’t skim it, they won’t follow it. Use one page, plain language, and visuals (timeline, ownership chart, success metrics). A charter is not a report — it’s a roadmap for humans. - Ask yourself: “Could my team summarize this in 30 seconds?” If not, simplify. Because in the end — a good charter isn’t about process. It’s about clarity, ownership, and trust. 📈 Start with alignment. Delivery gets easier from there. #ProjectManagement #WGU #PMP #Leadership #ProjectCharter #Delivery

Teams often implement solutions that do not fix the problem they were trying to address. That's because the issue wasn’t framed correctly in the first place. This is especially true in complex or unfamiliar situations, where quick conclusions feel comforting but are often wrong. When I work with teams on decision-making, I turn to a framework developed by Julia Binder and Michael Watkins. Their E5 approach helps leaders define the right problem before trying to solve it. Phase 1: EXPAND Suspend early judgments and deliberately broaden how the challenge is understood. By exploring multiple interpretations of the issue, teams uncover hidden assumptions, surface blind spots, and create the conditions for more original thinking before jumping to answers. Phase 2: EXAMINE Shift from scope to depth. Teams analyze the problem rigorously, moving beyond visible symptoms to identify behavioral patterns, structural drivers, and underlying beliefs that reveal what is truly at play. Phase 3: EMPATHIZE Center on the perspectives of those most affected by the issue. Through (real) listening and reflection, teams gain insight into stakeholders’ motivations, emotions, concerns, and behaviors, often uncovering needs that data alone cannot reveal. Phase 4: ELEVATE Step back to see how it fits within the broader organization. Viewing the challenge through lenses such as structure, people, power, and culture exposes interdependencies and systemic tensions that shape outcomes. Phase 5: ENVISION Articulate a clear future state and map a path to reach it. Working backward from a shared definition of success, teams prioritize initiatives, sequence efforts, and align resources to move from understanding to execution. I've found that when leaders take the time to frame problems well, they increase the likelihood that those solutions will actually matter. #decisionMaking #leadership #perspective #learning #problems Source: The model is described in more details in this Harvard Business Review article: https://lnkd.in/gAeBb5uT

Sharing an approach I’ll be using to kick off the facilitation of an HSE Leaders Forum tomorrow that I hope others might find valuable. Instead of starting with the usual introductions (name, job role etc), I want to focus on the reason we are there: discussing innovative ways to solve the challenges participants are facing in their workplaces or industries. Each participant will introduce themselves by sharing a challenge framed as a "How Might We?" (HMW) statement. This simple method encourages participants to: 1️⃣ Clarify the Challenge: Turning a health and safety challenge into an opportunity helps focus the conversation on possibility. 2️⃣ Spark Collaboration: Open-ended, opportunity-focused challenges invite diverse perspectives and ideas. 3️⃣ Create Immediate Value: Sharing key challenges helps everyone see where they can contribute and connect meaningfully - on the things that matter. "How might we better communicate critical risk management expectations with subcontractors?" "How might we reduce working at height activities in our business?" "How might we assure critical risk controls in real-time?" I’ve found this approach aligns discussions with what really matters, and leaves participants with actionable insights. If you’re planning a collaborative session, this could be a great way to shift from introductions to impactful conversations right from the start. Feel free to adapt this for your own forums or workshops; I’d love to hear how it works for you and if you have any other facilitation tips. #SafetyTech #SafetyInnovation #Facilitation #Learning

A few weeks ago, after setting up the room for a workshop, I stepped out to make a quick phone call. By the time I returned, a bunch of participants had  arrived, found their seats, and pulled out their laptops—ready to watch something happen. Then, one participant approached me. “Where’s the screen?” she asked. “There aren’t any slides today,” I replied. She frowned slightly, as if to say, 'Then what am I here for?' It’s a familiar script: ✅ Someone calls the meeting. ✅ Someone holds the space. ✅ Everyone else sits back, listens, and waits to be led. I reckon the best leaders 'flip the room'. They break the passive, hierarchical default and generate real engagement. For as long as people are sitting back, waiting to be led, their true genius will never emerge. Flipping the room isn’t about taking control. It’s about giving it back. Here are 3 things to think about... 1. Don’t Command Attention—Create Shared Tension If you start by talking, you reinforce the ‘audience’ mindset. Instead, spark curiosity and involvement from the start: ❓ Ask: “What’s the biggest challenge on your mind today?” 💬 Start a conversation: “How are we feeling about X?” 🧩 Present a puzzle: “If something was missing from our strategy, what would it be?” 2. Pass the Mic How do you decide who speaks? Rank, charisma and forthrightness are dangerous reasons. In thriving teams, leaders build teams that generate the best ideas. So break the pattern: 🔄 Instead of answering a question, throw it back: “What do you think?” 🛠️ Instead of presenting a plan, ask them to build one: “How could we tackle this?” 🤔 Instead of being the one to pass the microphone, invite others to invite people to speak: “Who else do you want to hear from?” 3️⃣Perhaps try the 'rule of 3 passes' - something I shared in this LinkedIn post. 3. Set Shared Expectations Early If people assume they’re supposed to be in ‘receive mode,’ they’ll act like it. Change the expectation from the start: 🚫 Remove slides and tables—design a space for co-creation. 🔄 Frame the session differently: “This isn’t a presentation from me—it’s a session to co-create X.” ❓Ask: “By the end of this, what does each of us need to move forward?” Flipping the Room = Flipping Your Mindset To flip the room, you need to check your own expectations. Leadership isn’t about commanding attention—it’s about energising people to think, contribute, and make great progress. So next time you step into a room, don’t ask: How do I lead this meeting? Ask: How do I flip it? Over to you: What are the best ways to flip the room? (This photo is from a different room I worked in last week, with an executive leadership team. As you can see, flipping a room starts with the space you create. It was a very cool spot for meaningful conversation.) PS. If we haven't met before and you'd like to stay in touch, I welcome your connection request. #Leadership #Facilitation #Teamwork #Meetings

I've attended 6 webinars/virtual events in the last 2 weeks. These have been hosted by very small teams/early-stage startups to billion $ companies whose brand names are synonymous with B2B SaaS. A few things I see across these events that are problematic: - Not enough context was given before the event - beyond the title and speakers, I don't know what to expect from a flow of the session perspective. - I have the event on my calendar but the pre-event reminder email frequency is super low. My recommendation is to use the 7-1-4-1 approach. 7 days out, 1 day out, 4 hours out and 1 hour out. Build excitement and drop hints on discussion points, value to the audience and who is attending in these emails. - Speaker and host energy - this is a big one. If the people on stage aren't excited about being there, your audience isn't going to be either. One Slack DM, one WhatsApp notification or an email and you've lost their attention. You need to think of your event as a captivating show on your favourite OTT. They need to be gripped as a result of your energy and the value you are bringing to the event. - Engage outside of the stage - Whether it's summarizing points from the stage to replying to chat or sharing resources in real-time. The chat better be active AF. - Always start with housekeeping - Run through the agenda and flow, and let people know about the assets they can expect, and what will they be able to learn and apply after. Getting them there IS NOT ENOUGH! - Post-event follow-up - every single event host sent out a follow-up email but only with the recording link. You need to share key takeaways, the assets and resources shared during the event and give them something they can engage with further. One and done is not going to drive your results here. What did you think of these observations? Is there something else you feel virtual events for marketers should have? Let me know in the chat. This is a topic close to my heart! LFG! #virtualevents #webinars #marketing

🤔 How might you infuse more experiential elements into even the most standard Q&A session? This was my question to myself when wrapping up a facilitation course for a client that included a Q&A session. I wanted to be sure it complemented the other experiential sessions and was aligned with the positive adjectives of how participants had already described the course. First and foremost - here is my issue with Q&As: 👎 They are only focused on knowledge transfer, but not not memory retention (the brain does not absorb like a sponge, it catches what it experiences!) 👎 They tend to favor extroverts willing to ask their questions out loud 👎 Only a small handful of people get their questions answered and they may not be relevant for everyone who attends So, here is how I used elements from my typical #experiencedesign process to make even a one-directional Q&A more interactive and engaging: 1️⃣ ENGAGE FROM THE GET-GO How we start a meeting sets the tone, so I always want to engage everyone on arrival. I opted for music and a connecting question in the chat connected to why we were there - facilitation! 2️⃣ CONNECTION BEFORE CONTENT Yes, people were there to have their questions answered, but I wanted to bring in their own life experience having applied their new found facilitation skills into practice. We kicked off with breakout rooms in small groups to share their own experiences- what had worked well and what was still challenging. This helped drive the questions afterwards. 3️⃣ MAKE THE ENGAGEMENT EXPLICIT Even if it was a Q&A, I wanted to be clear about how THIS one would be run. I set up some guidelines and also gave everyone time to individually think and reflect what questions they wanted to ask. We took time with music playing for the chat to fill up. 4️⃣ COLLABORATIVE LEARNING IS MOST IMPACTFUL Yes, they were hoping to get my insights and answers, however I never want to discredit the wisdom and lived experience in the room. As we walked through the questions, I invited others to also share their top tips and answers. Peer to peer learning is so rich in this way! 5️⃣ CLOSING WITH ACTIONS AND NEVER QUESTIONS The worst way to end any meeting? "Are there any more questions?" Yes, even in a Q & A! Once all questions were answered, I wanted to land the journey by asking everyone to reflect on what new insights or ideas emerged for them from the session and especially what they will act upon and apply forward in their work. Ending with actions helps to close one learning cycle and drive forward future experiences when they put it to the test! The session received great reviews and it got me thinking - we could really apply these principles to most informational sessions that tend to put content before connection (and miss the mark). 🤔 What do you think? Would you take this approach to a Q&A? Let me know in the comments below👇 #ExperienceLearningwithRomy