Hey fellow sprinters, For a while now, I've been thinking about how to measure something I see happening in every process I facilitate: the power of collaboration. How do you objectively quantify the energy generated when several people think and create together toward a shared goal? That's how my latest experiment/hallucination came to life: BrainPower — a collaborative power calculator. Designed in Miro and prototyped in Coda, this is my first adventure into the wild lands of vibe coding. Far from a one-shot prompt, it took a lot of back-and-forth to refine the logic and build out the visuals I designed in Figma. Finally, the thing is done and is live for everyone to use. I think it turned out pretty easy and intuitive — just plug in 4 variables, hit calculate, and get your results instantly. Available in Portuguese and English, free and responsive. INPUT - Time: process duration in hours - People: number of participants - Mode: in-person, remote, or hybrid - Participation: whether participants will be split into sub-groups (Y/N) OUTPUT - BrainPower: the process's potential collaborative power - BrainWork: total collective intelligence applied throughout the process - BrainOps: total brain operations performed - Process Efficiency: a quick assessment of the process quality - AI Equivalence: number of top-tier GPUs and time needed to match the same BrainWork - Energy: metabolic consumption of all brains involved, and how long that would power a 4-person household - Amplification: the time it would take one person to do the same work alone (in hours and working days) - Intellectual Output: number of pages and books written with the same intellectual effort Want to know more about how all of this holds together? Why did I choose each unit of measurement and comparison metric? How do the amplification and efficiency degradation factors work? It's all laid out in the About section of the calculator, complete with interactive charts.

“This is a safe space.” - the wrong thing to say as a facilitator if you want psychological safety in difficult rooms. Especially in AI workshops. Because people don’t feel safe just because we announce it. They feel safe when the see the proof. When someone can challenge a senior stakeholder. Ask a basic question without being judged. Admit they don’t understand x,y,z or the tech. Say, “I don’t think this AI use case makes sense.” That’s when you know. That's when you also know difficult discussions can happen, debates will take place, decisions will get made, and people will stand behind them. I wrote an article what psychological safety actually looks like in AI sessions and what facilitators can do to create the conditions for it. Curious to learn your thoughts :) https://danavetan.substack.com/p/nobody-in-your-ai-workshop-is-willing

Clients often arrive asking for "Design Thinking" when what they need is a sprint that fits inside their quarter. Or they ask for a Design Sprint when the problem is too broad and ambiguous to scope into four days. Both are common, and both produce work that disappoints. Here's the full breakdown — including when each one is the right call: https://www.designsprint.academy/blog/design-sprint-vs-design-thinking

Sharing this one because it's a question that comes up a lot when you're scoping work with a client. They ask for a Design Sprint. Sometimes that's exactly right. Sometimes what they actually need is Problem Framing — and running the Sprint anyway produces a fast, well-prototyped answer to a question nobody asked. Sharing a useful article if you're shaping a proposal or pushing back on a client who's already locked in on the format:https://www.designsprint.academy/blog/should-you-run-problem-framing-or-a-design-sprint-heres-how-to-tell