Author Archives: Art Inteligencia

About Art Inteligencia

Art Inteligencia is the lead futurist at Inteligencia Ltd. He is passionate about content creation and thinks about it as more science than art. Art travels the world at the speed of light, over mountains and under oceans. His favorite numbers are one and zero. Content Authenticity Statement: If it wasn't clear, any articles under Art's byline have been written by OpenAI Playground or Gemini using Braden Kelley and public content as inspiration.

10 Questions to Ask Before Hiring a Customer Experience Audit Firm

Leave a reply

Questions to Ask Before Hiring a Customer Experience Audit Firm

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

If you’re reading this, there’s a decent chance you’ve already decided you need an outside look at your customer experience, and you’re now at the awkward stage of comparing the people who offer one. Proposals have arrived. They all use similar words. Every one of them promises “actionable insights,” a phrase that has been used so often it now carries about as much information as “best wishes.”

So here’s something more useful than another brochure: a list of questions that will tell you what you’re actually buying. Ask them of anyone you’re considering, including me. A good provider will be glad you asked. If a question makes someone defensive, that’s information too.

1. “Who will actually do the work?”

This is the question I’d ask first, because it’s the one most often answered with a shrug.

In many firms, the person who sells the engagement and the people who deliver it are different people. That isn’t automatically a problem, but you should know it going in. Ask who will conduct the research, who will do the fieldwork and who will write the findings. Ask what their experience is. Ask how much of the work the person you’re talking to will personally touch.

An audit depends on judgment: noticing what’s strange, what’s missing, what an experienced eye catches that a checklist doesn’t. If that judgment sits with someone you never meet, you’re paying for a process, not for insight.

2. “Do you actually walk the journey, or review it from documents?”

This question separates a real audit from a desk exercise.

There’s an enormous difference between analyzing the materials a company provides and experiencing the journey the way a customer does: visiting the location, going through the digital channel, making the service call, sitting through the sales cycle. The materials show you what the organization believes happens. The fieldwork shows you what actually happens, and in my experience that’s where the most valuable surprises live.

Ask exactly which touchpoints will be experienced firsthand, in which channels, and by whom. If the answer is mostly interviews and dashboards, you may be buying a more expensive version of what your team could already produce.

3. “What, specifically, will I receive at the end?”

“A report and a presentation” is not an answer. Ask for specifics.

You want to know what the deliverables actually contain: validated personas, journey maps with pain points and emotional highs and lows, an evaluation of your existing data, findings from the fieldwork, a gap analysis, a prioritized set of recommendations. And ask the question that matters most: will I be able to hand this to my team on Monday and have them start?

Better yet, ask to see an example, anonymized if need be. A provider who can’t show you what the output looks like is asking you to buy on faith.

4. “How independent are you?”

This one is subtle and important. An audit is only as credible as the independence of the person doing it.

Ask whether the provider also sells the solutions the audit might recommend: software, implementation services, a platform, ongoing consulting. There’s nothing inherently wrong with a firm that sells both, but it’s a structural conflict, and a recommendation that happens to match the provider’s product line deserves a raised eyebrow.

An independent audit has one job: to tell you what’s true. If the provider has nothing to sell you afterward, that changes the quality of the advice in ways you’ll notice.

5. “How do you decide which problems matter most?”

Any decent audit will find a lot of friction. Your customers don’t need a list of forty problems. They need to know which five to fix first.

Ask how the provider prioritizes: by customer impact, by cost, by effort, by revenue at risk? Ask whether they’ll connect findings to money. A recommendation with a rough sense of what it’s worth and what it costs gets funded. A recommendation that says “improve onboarding” gets a polite nod and a lifetime on a to-do list.

(If you want to size the problem before you talk to anyone, the CX ROI Calculator is a good way to put a number on what friction is currently costing you.)

6. “How do you handle benchmarking, and is it optional?”

Comparing your experience with competitors and best-in-class examples can be extremely valuable, particularly when you’ve been losing deals to experience, not to price. But it isn’t right for every engagement.

Ask whether benchmarking is included, how the comparison set is chosen, and what you’d lose by skipping it. A provider who treats everything as mandatory may be padding the scope. One who treats everything as optional may not be helping you decide.

7. “What does scope depend on, and what would change the price?”

Be wary of anyone who quotes a number before asking you a single question about your business. Costs in this work tend to follow the depth of the engagement: how many audiences, how many touchpoints across how many channels, how much existing data there is to evaluate, how many places need to be experienced in person, and how quickly you want it done.

A good scoping conversation will ask about all of that. It will also tell you which choices drive cost and which levers you can pull to bring it down. If the quote arrives without that conversation, you’re probably looking at a package, not an answer to your situation.

8. “How long will it take, and what do you need from us?”

Ask for a realistic timeline and for what the provider will need from your side: access to data, access to people, access to places. Audits stall when the client’s side isn’t ready. A provider who tells you plainly what they need from you, and when, is likely one who has done this before.

9. “What happens after the report?”

Some audits end with a handoff. Some include help with next steps. Neither is wrong, but you should know which you’re getting. Ask whether the provider will walk your team through the findings, whether there’s a way to ask follow-up questions as you plan, and how the recommendations are meant to be turned into action. The worst outcome of any audit is a thoughtful report that nobody acts on.

10. “Can I talk to someone you’ve worked with?”

References still matter. Ask for a conversation with a past client, ideally one with a situation similar to yours. And ask that client the question that gets the most honest answer: “What would you do differently if you were hiring them again?”

A short scorecard

If you’d like to keep this simple, you can rate each provider on five things:

Who does the work: the people you meet are the people who deliver.
Fieldwork: the journey is experienced, not just reviewed.
Deliverables: you can describe what you’ll receive in specific terms.
Independence: the provider has no stake in what you buy next.
Prioritization: findings are tied to impact, cost and effort.

A provider who scores well on all five is rare enough that you should probably hire them before someone else does.

Hold me to the same standard

I’d be a hypocrite if I wrote this list and didn’t invite you to apply it to my own work. The Customer Experience Audit page explains how an independent engagement runs, from audience research and persona validation through journey mapping, data evaluation, firsthand fieldwork and optional competitive benchmarking, and I’m glad to answer every question on this list directly. If a few of the terms are new to your team, the Experience Design Glossary is a quick way to get everyone speaking the same language before the conversations start.

Whoever you choose, ask the hard questions first. The audit you hire is only as useful as the questions you asked before you hired it.

Download the Customer Experience Audit Checklist as a PDF

Image Credits: Gemini

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area, key elements to focus on, etc. were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with a little help from Claude to clean up the article.

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Innovation or Not? Reflect Orbital and the Business of Selling Sunlight

Leave a reply

Innovation or Not? Reflect Orbital and the Business of Selling Sunlight

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

Let me tell you about the moment the town of Lone Pine, California, looked up at a pitch-black desert sky and saw two enormous beams of light where there should have been none.

No, it wasn’t aliens. It wasn’t the military. It wasn’t even a particularly ambitious Halloween display. It was a startup rehearsing how it plans to sell sunlight after dark, and the residents hadn’t been invited to the rehearsal.

Welcome to this edition of Innovation or Not.

Press Play First

Two videos to set the scene. Watch them, then come back and argue with me. (The titles below come from search results, so give both a quick play-test before publishing.)

The idea, in one sentence

Reflect Orbital wants to put big mirrors in orbit and aim sunlight at spots on the ground that the sun has left. Light on demand, from space. Its tagline is that it makes clean, abundant energy available on demand, and it calls itself “The Sunlight Company.” I admire a company that knows what it sells.

The first spacecraft, Eärendil-1 (named, charmingly, after a character from Tolkien), carries a mirror roughly 18 meters, or about 60 feet, on a side, folded origami-style and made of Mylar. It would orbit a few hundred miles up and sweep a patch of light across the ground for about five minutes before moving on. The company’s own description of that first beam is “comparable to a full moon.” An independent astronomer quoted in coverage of the FCC approval put it at about four times brighter than a full moon. Same mirror, two descriptions, which tells you something about how early this is.

The FCC has approved that demonstration satellite. It has not approved the grand plan.

The Pitch

Here’s the company’s published roadmap, and I’ll let you judge the ambition:

2026: two satellites, moonlight-level light for a few minutes
2027: around three dozen satellites, with light comparable to street lighting for a couple of hours
2028: more than a thousand, with light comparable to an indoor work area
2030: more than five thousand, with light approaching daylight for minutes at a time
2035: more than fifty thousand, with daylight-level light for hours

Who is it for? The company lists lighting for search and rescue and disaster response, construction and industrial work, agriculture, events, and, the part that gave this article its second half, boosting solar power after the sun goes down.

Does it help solar cells?

This is the claim that deserves the most scrutiny, because it’s where the economics live.

The idea is elegant. A solar farm sits idle at night, so beam light onto it just before dawn and just after dusk and watch the output rise. The company’s own published projection is more modest than the pitch, though. For 2030, it estimates roughly a 1% capacity-factor gain, and its footnote puts the production increase at 0.75% for Southern California and 1.4% for Germany. A 20% gain doesn’t appear until 2035, which is the fifty-thousand-satellite stage.

Now the arithmetic, which is mine, not the company’s, so treat it as a back-of-the-envelope estimate. An 18-meter square mirror has about 324 square meters of surface. Full sunlight delivers about a kilowatt per square meter, so the mirror intercepts roughly 324 kilowatts. Spread that over a beam about five kilometers across, around 20 square kilometers, and you get something like 16 watts per square meter added to the ground, before any losses. Direct sun at noon is around 1,000. In other words, one mirror gives a solar panel about a sixty-fifth of a sunny day’s light.

You can see why the company’s early marketing leaned on lighting. A dim, wide pool of light is perfect for helping rescuers see. It’s a lot less useful for generating megawatts.

Do clouds and fog get in the way?

Short answer: almost certainly, and nobody seems to be talking about it.

I went looking for the company’s answer and found a pretty glaring gap. Its website doesn’t address weather. Neither do the major write-ups I read. The one place the question did come up was an engineering blog that noticed the studies and marketing “never seem to mention clouds, fog or other weather events,” and pointed out that the Russian Znamya 2 space mirror test back in 1993 took place under cloud, and observers barely saw the light.

Here’s my own reasoning, flagged as reasoning. The light from a space mirror has to travel through the same atmosphere as ordinary sunlight to reach the ground. Whatever thick cloud or fog does to the sun, it presumably does to a reflection of the sun. And the atmosphere scatters light even on a clear night, which spreads the beam out and is one reason critics worry about spillover well beyond the intended spot. So a cloudy night would likely bring a very dim result, at the very time people might want the light most.

If Reflect Orbital has data on this, I’d love to see it. Until then, I’d file weather under “important questions without published answers.”

Is it cost-effective?

Not on the evidence available. Michael Brown, an astronomer at Monash University, ran numbers reported by ABC News: matching 20% of midday sunlight would take roughly 3,000 satellites with 54-meter mirrors, and since each satellite can light a given spot for only a few minutes, an hour of daylight at one location would require tens of thousands of satellites, at a cost he put in the tens of millions of dollars. His verdict: “It doesn’t stack up.” He also noted that grid battery costs have fallen by more than 20 percent since Reflect Orbital was founded in 2021, which makes the competition for storing daytime solar energy tougher every year.

A fair counterpoint: the company has raised about $35 million, has a real engineering team and has won an Air Force-related research contract, so this isn’t a napkin sketch. And lighting a disaster zone or a construction site for a few hours might be worth paying for even if lighting a solar farm isn’t. But the energy case, specifically, has more skeptics than believers right now, and the company’s own projections are modest until the very large constellation stages.

When could this be widely available?

If “widely” means a lot of people can buy light from space, not for years, and maybe never at the scale on the roadmap.

As of the most recent reporting I could find, only the single demonstration satellite has FCC approval, and the agency’s review covers radio spectrum, not environmental or ecological effects. Each larger stage needs more approvals. One recent report said the main remaining hurdle for the first spacecraft is simply obtaining a rocket. Earlier reporting named SpaceX as the launch provider, and other coverage says the company is looking at launches from India, so I wouldn’t treat the launch plans as settled.

My read: a handful of test satellites and limited customers, such as event or emergency lighting, are plausible in the next few years. Anything resembling the 2030 or 2035 rows of that roadmap depends on a long chain of approvals, launches and public acceptance that hasn’t happened yet.

What happened in Lone Pine?

Now for the mystery. Earlier this month, Reflect Orbital set up powerful mobile spotlights on Horseshoe Meadows Road, near the peak of Mount Whitney, outside Lone Pine. According to local reporting, the goal was to simulate the light spot its mirror satellites would eventually deliver, so that China Lake Mountain Rescue and other volunteers could practice grid searches, stretcher carries and equipment rigging in realistic conditions.

Here’s the part I want to underline: there was no satellite involved. Those two blinding beams were ground-based spotlights standing in for a technology that hasn’t launched yet. A rehearsal for a performance that hasn’t been cast.

The locals, who looked up from their dinners to see the dark desert sky light up, were baffled, and they weren’t the only ones surprised. According to reports, astronomers weren’t notified, and it’s unclear whether county officials were told in advance. Gaspar Bakos, a Princeton astrophysicist, called it a serious threat to ground-based astronomy. DarkSky International’s CEO, Ruskin Hartley, called the broader plan “clearly an unprecedented assault on the nighttime environment.”

And the rescuers? Phillip Cash, operations leader for the rescue group, said the light was slightly brighter than a full moon and let searchers see about three miles in every direction. But he also noted that his team already works well at night, so the system wouldn’t fundamentally change routine rescues. A useful reality check. The company’s spokesman, for his part, said the test was meant to give responders a precise, realistic simulation.

The Concerns

(briefly)

Fairness requires including the other side of the ledger. Scientists and dark-sky advocates worry about effects on astronomy, on migrating birds and nocturnal animals, on sleep and circadian rhythms, and on pilots. Astronomers have also warned that amateurs looking at the satellites through telescopes could be at risk of eye damage. The company says the light is not bright enough to start fires or harm eyes, that the beams can be dimmed, and that it avoids sensitive areas such as observatories. Some experts dispute those assurances. Whichever side proves right, you can see why a surprise test in a small town didn’t help the case.

So: innovation or not?

Is it new? Yes. Selling reflected sunlight from orbit as a service, with a roadmap and an FCC license, is a genuinely novel business, even if the idea of a space mirror is as old as science fiction.

Does it create value? For specific uses like disaster response, event lighting and temporary construction work, plausibly. For solar power at scale, the case is thin and the company’s own numbers are modest until the huge constellation stages.

Will it reach people? Slowly, and probably in a much smaller form than the roadmap suggests.

Does it have costs it hasn’t priced in? That’s the one I’d watch. If an innovation’s side effects fall on people who weren’t asked, it isn’t done being evaluated.

My verdict: an impressive invention, not yet an innovation. It earns real credit for imagination, and I’d honestly like to see the first mirror fly. But I’d want clearer answers on clouds, cost and consent before I’d call it a breakthrough instead of a very bright experiment.

Then again, a town full of people looked up at the dark and wondered what was going on. As attention-getting goes, you can’t argue with the results.

Sources:

Image Credits: Microsoft AI

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area, key elements to focus on, etc. were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with a little help from Claude to clean up the article.

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Scenario Planning for CSOs: Building Multiple Futures into One Strategic Plan

Leave a reply

Scenario Planning for CSOs: Building Multiple Futures Into One Strategic Plan

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

Ask a room of executives whether they do scenario planning and most of them will say yes. Ask to see the scenarios and you’ll usually get three slides: a good case, a base case and a bad case, each one a slightly adjusted version of the same spreadsheet.

I don’t blame them. That’s what the exercise has been reduced to, and a spreadsheet with a pessimistic column isn’t scenario planning. It’s the same future with the volume knob turned up and down.

For a Chief Strategy Officer, the real challenge is a harder one. You have to carry several genuinely different futures in your head, and then produce one strategic plan that doesn’t fall apart if the wrong one shows up. Here’s how I’d approach it.

Why three slides isn’t enough

The good-base-bad structure shares a hidden assumption: that the future differs from your forecast only in degree. A bit better, a bit worse. But the futures that actually blindside organizations are different in kind. A regulation reverses. A customer behavior flips. A competitor arrives from an industry you never watched.

You can’t see a difference in kind by adjusting a growth rate. You only see it by asking what different worlds the signals in front of you could be pointing toward.

Start from signals, not from a template

The most common mistake in scenario work is starting with the scenarios. Somebody picks two big uncertainties, draws a two-by-two grid, and fills in the four boxes with the most vivid story each combination suggests. It looks rigorous. It’s also built on whichever two uncertainties the loudest person in the room happened to pick.

A sturdier method works from the ground up, which is how the [FutureHacking™](https://bradenkelley.com/offerings/futurehacking/) approach is built:

Collect signals. Small, specific observations about what’s changing: a competitor’s strange hire, a policy shift, a customer behavior that doesn’t fit your model.
Group them into trends. The patterns those signals suggest. This is where the team has to argue about what it’s actually seeing.
Build a set of possible futures from the trends. Several, and different enough that each demands a different strategic response.
Decide which future is most probable. Not to bet everything on it, but so you know where your current plan is implicitly wagered.
Choose the future you’d prefer, and map the path. That’s the part that turns a planning exercise into a strategy.

Because every future traces back to real signals, nobody can dismiss one as someone’s pet theory. The argument is about what the evidence suggests, which is a far better argument to have.

The test of a good set of futures

Not every set of scenarios is useful. Here are the questions I’d use to check yours.

Are they different enough? If one strategy works equally well in all of them, you haven’t described different futures. You’ve described one future with different labels.

Can someone defend each one with a straight face? A scenario that’s there only to look balanced, or to scare the board, doesn’t count. Each should be plausible to a thoughtful person in the room.

Does each one change a decision? If you can’t name something you’d do differently in a given future, it’s trivia, not scenario planning.

Is it tied to evidence? Every future should be traceable to signals you can point to.

From many futures to one plan

This is the part most guides skip, and it’s the real CSO problem. You don’t get to run four strategies. You have to deliver one plan. So what does carrying multiple futures into a single plan look like?

Find the moves that work everywhere. Some actions pay off in every future you’ve described. These are your no-regret moves, and they should anchor the plan.

Isolate the bets that depend on one future. Some investments make sense only if one future arrives. Name them as bets, with the future they depend on written next to them. Sometimes the right call is to place the bet. The point is that you’re doing it knowingly.

Build options for the uncertain middle. Where futures diverge, look for ways to buy the right to act later: a pilot, a partnership, a small investment that keeps a door open. Options cost little and are worth a lot if the world tilts your way.

Set tripwires. For each future, decide in advance what you’d have to see to conclude it’s arriving: a metric crossing a threshold, a regulation passing, a competitor making a particular move. Then assign someone to watch for it. A plan that says when to change course is a very different thing from one that hopes it won’t need to.

Done well, you end up with one plan that has a spine of no-regret moves, a short list of explicit bets, a handful of options and a set of tripwires. It’s a living plan that expects to be updated, which is exactly what the annual, single-future version can’t do.

The politics of it

I’d be doing you a disservice if I left out the human side. Presenting multiple futures to a leadership team can feel like admitting you don’t know the answer. Some executives hear “scenarios” and translate it as “indecision.”

The way through is to make the plan firm and the uncertainty explicit. “Here’s what we’re doing no matter what. Here are the bets we’re making and why. Here’s what would make us change our minds.” That isn’t indecision. It’s a level of clarity most single-future plans never reach.

A way to practice

If your team has never built scenarios from the ground up, start with step one. The free FutureHacking Signal Picker helps you identify and prioritize the signals worth watching, which is the foundation everything else rests on. Run it before your next planning cycle and bring the result into the room.

What I’m building next

I’m putting the finishing touches on the FutureCanvas Picker, which takes planners through the full arc: from signals, to trends, to a set of possible futures, to your most probable future, and then to the path toward the future you’d prefer. It’s the closest I’ve come to letting you feel the whole process in a single sitting.

I’m offering early access to a select group first: CSOs, strategic planners and leaders running a planning process right now who can give me honest feedback under real deadline pressure. If that’s you, reach out and let me know and I’ll follow up personally with the select few who get in first.

The plan that survives

The goal of scenario planning was never to predict. It was to build a plan that doesn’t need the prediction to be right. If your current one only works in one future, that’s worth knowing before the future gets a vote.

Image Credits: Pexels

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area, key elements to focus on, etc. were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with a little help from Claude to clean up the article.

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

The Software Renaissance

Leave a reply

The Software Renaissance

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

For about two years now, I’ve been hearing the same prediction at conferences, in elevator pitches and at the occasional awkward dinner party: AI is going to write all the code, so the people who write code are finished. Usually the person saying it has the calm, slightly sad expression of someone delivering news about a distant relative.

I’d like to offer a different diagnosis. I don’t think we’re watching the end of the coder. I think we’re at the start of a software renaissance, and the coders are about to be more in demand than ever, just not for the reasons we expected.

The old math of software

Start with why software used to be so scarce. Building a custom application was expensive: months of work, a team, a project manager, a budget with a comma in it. That cost only made sense if you could spread it across a very large number of users or a very large number of dollars. So software got built for the big problems at big companies with big customer bases. Everyone else got a spreadsheet, a pile of sticky notes, and a heroic employee named Linda who “just knows how it works.”

Think about everything that never got built under that math. The scheduling tool for the 12-person plumbing company. The inventory app for the regional distributor. The intake workflow for the three-attorney law firm. The little internal dashboard that would have saved a department four hours a week. Not one of them was a bad idea. They were all just too small to justify the price tag. Linda kept the whole thing running on memory and caffeine.

What changes when building gets cheap

Now bring the cost of building software down by a large factor, which is what AI-assisted development is doing. The math flips. A project that was impossible to justify at $200,000 becomes an easy yes at a small fraction of that. All those never-built applications suddenly clear the bar.

Economists have a name for this pattern. When something gets dramatically cheaper, people don’t use the same amount of it and pocket the savings. They find a hundred new uses for it. We’ve seen it with electricity, with computing power, with bandwidth. Cheaper software won’t mean less software. It will mean vastly more software, built for far more people and far smaller problems.

And somebody has to build, direct and look after all of it.

The coder’s job is changing, not disappearing

Here’s the part the doom-sayers keep skipping. AI can generate code at a rate no person can match. It cannot, on its own, decide what the plumbing company actually needs, notice that the requirements contradict each other, judge whether the thing it built is safe, or keep it running when the world around it changes. That work takes someone who understands systems, who can ask the right questions, and who is willing to be accountable when it breaks at 7:00 a.m.

So the role shifts from typing every line to orchestrating: defining the problem clearly, directing the AI, reviewing what comes back, handling security and data, and maintaining the result. Call it conductor, not typist. And the conductor now has a whole orchestra to lead, for clients who never could have afforded one before.

Every company that couldn’t justify a development team last year has a reason to want at least one capable person this year. That’s a lot of newly interested employers.

What the data says (and doesn’t)

I like to check my optimism against the numbers, so I did. According to Indeed’s Hiring Lab, U.S. software developer job postings rose almost 15% between February 2025 and June 2026, while postings overall fell about 7% over the same stretch. That’s the opposite of what the “AI replaces coders” story predicted.

I’d be telling you only half the story if I stopped there. Those same postings are still about 27.5% below where they stood in February 2020, so this is a partial recovery from a low base, not a boom. And much of the recent growth is in senior roles and roles with AI in the title. Indeed also describes the link to AI tools as a correlation, not proof of cause.

I actually find that last point supports the renaissance thesis rather than undermining it. If the demand is for experienced people who can direct AI and own the result, that is exactly the orchestrator role I’m describing. The loss, at least for now, falls hardest on the entry-level, typing-focused end of the job. That’s a real problem, and it deserves its own conversation about how the next generation of developers gets trained. But it’s a shift in the work, not a vanishing of it.

The deflation angle

Now for the part I find most interesting, and I’ll flag that this is an argument, not a forecast.

The latest numbers show headline inflation at 3.7% in September, up from 3.4% in August. The Fed raised rates to a range of 3.75% to 4.00% last month, its first hike in three years, and has signaled more may follow. When the central bank’s main tool is making money more expensive, it works by slowing down demand. That’s a blunt instrument.

There’s another way to bring prices down: produce more with less. This is the oldest anti-inflation tool there is, and it has nothing to do with interest rates. Productivity.

Here’s how a software renaissance fits in. When a small distributor builds the inventory tool it always needed, it wastes less stock. When the law firm automates its intake, the same people handle more clients. When the plumbing company schedules its crews well, it makes more calls per day. Each of those is a small business doing more with the same or fewer resources. Multiply that by millions of small and mid-sized businesses, and you have a broad productivity gain that pushes the cost of delivering goods and services down, not up.

I don’t want to oversell it. Software alone won’t tame inflation, productivity gains take time to show up in the data, and the forces behind current prices are bigger than any one technology. But if cheap, custom software lets millions of organizations do more with less, that’s a quiet deflationary force working in the same direction as the Fed, and unlike a rate hike, it doesn’t require anyone to give up growth to get there.

What to do about it

If you run a business: make a list of the work in your organization that lives in a spreadsheet, someone’s head, or a stack of email. Each item is a candidate. Then find someone who can orchestrate the AI to build it and keep it healthy, whether that’s an employee, a contractor or a small firm.

If you’re a developer: lean into being the person who can define the problem, direct the tools, check the output and own the outcome. That skill set is in demand and is likely to stay that way.

If you’re worried about all this: I understand. Every technological shift feels like an ending to those standing in the middle of it. But I’ve spent my career studying what happens next, and the pattern is rarely “the work disappears.” It’s “the work changes, and there’s a lot more of it than anyone expected.”

Linda, for the record, will be fine. She’ll finally get to take a vacation.

Image Credits: Gemini

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area, key elements to focus on, etc. were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with a little help from Claude to clean up the article.

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

FutureCanvas™: A Better Way to Run Your Next Strategy Offsite

Leave a reply

FutureCanvas™: A Better Way to Run Your Next Strategy Offsite

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

I have a theory about strategy offsites. The best idea of the entire two days is usually spoken during the coffee break, by someone who then doesn’t repeat it in the room, because the room has already moved on to the next slide.

That isn’t a people problem. It’s a structure problem. Most offsites are built like a conference with homework: a sequence of presentations, a breakout or two, a ballroom full of flip charts that get photographed and then never seen again. The output is a pile of opinions with no way to see how they connect, which means the loudest opinion wins by default.

If you’re about to plan one, here’s what I’d change, and the tool I built to help you change it.

What most offsites are missing

Walk into the typical agenda and you’ll find a lot of “what should we do?” and very little “what are we actually looking at?” Teams jump to priorities before they’ve agreed on what’s changing around them. So the debate about priorities is really a hidden debate about the future, and nobody realizes they’re having it.

Two executives can sit side by side, argue for an hour about whether to invest in a new market, and never notice that one of them is picturing a world where a regulation tightens and the other is picturing a world where it disappears. They don’t disagree about the market. They disagree about the future, and nothing on the agenda gives them a place to say so.

An offsite that works needs somewhere for those hidden pictures of the future to come out into the open, be put next to each other, and be compared. That’s the job of a canvas.

Why a canvas, and why visual

There’s a reason I keep reaching for something you can see on a single surface. When people argue in words, they argue past each other, because everyone is holding a slightly different mental map. Put the map on the wall and the argument changes. “I disagree” becomes “I’d move that one over there,” which is a far more useful sentence.

That’s the idea behind FutureCanvas™, one of the tools in the FutureHacking™ toolkit. It gives a leadership team a single, shared, visual place to work through the whole arc of foresight:

Signals: the small, specific things people have noticed, laid out where everyone can see them.
Trends: the patterns those signals suggest, grouped by the team rather than handed down to it.
Possible futures: a set of genuinely different, plausible futures, not one forecast wearing a trench coat.
Your most probable future: where the team thinks things are actually heading if nothing changes.
Your preferred future, and the path to it: the one you’d like to build, and what it takes to get there.

Notice the order. Priorities come at the end, once the team has agreed on what the world is doing. By then the coffee-break idea has somewhere to live, because there’s a surface for it.

How I’d run the day

If I were building your offsite agenda around it, I’d keep it simple.

Before anyone arrives, collect signals. Ask each attendee, and a few people from outside the leadership team, to bring the three oddest things they’ve noticed this year. The free FutureHacking Signal Picker is a good way to get people thinking in signals instead of opinions, and it means nobody walks in cold.

Morning: put the signals on the canvas and let the group cluster them into trends. Expect disagreement. That’s the point. A trend the whole room sees the same way in five minutes probably wasn’t interesting.

Midday: build the possible futures from those trends. The rule is that every future has to be one somebody in the room could defend with a straight face.

Afternoon: choose the most probable future, then the preferred one, and only then start talking about the path. By this point the priorities almost write themselves, and they’re attached to a picture of the world everyone helped draw.

Leave with something you can actually carry out of the room: a canvas, not a camera roll of flip charts.

Try the next step

I’m putting the finishing touches on the FutureCanvas Picker, a tool that gives planners a real taste of that full arc, from signals to trends to possible futures to a preferred path, in a single sitting. It’s the fastest way I’ve built yet to feel what the canvas does before you commit an offsite to it.

I’m opening early access to a select group first: strategic planners, CSOs and leaders who are designing or running a planning process right now and can tell me honestly what works under a real deadline. If that’s you, reach out and let me know and I’ll follow up personally with the select few who get in first.

One more thing about your agenda

Before you finalize it, find the slot where the team is supposed to agree on what’s changing in your world. If you can’t find one, that’s the slot your offsite is missing.

Put it first. Then keep the coffee break, because I’d still like to hear that idea, only this time somewhere to put it.

Image Credits: Gemini

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area, key elements to focus on, etc. were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with a little help from Claude to clean up the article.

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Innovation or Not? The Tesla Roadster with SpaceX Thrusters

1 Reply

Innovation or Not? The Tesla Roadster With SpaceX Thrusters

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

UPDATED: October 22, 2026 at 12:40PM

I have been writing about innovation long enough to have developed a reflex. When something dazzling shows up, I ask three questions: Is it new? Does it create value for somebody? And will anyone outside the launch event ever actually use it?

Then, once in a while, something arrives that makes me forget the questions entirely and just stare. The new Tesla Roadster, unveiled in Texas on October 15 with thrusters borrowed from SpaceX, is one of those. A car that hops over other cars. A car that climbs an inverted ramp, spins, and lands. I watched the clip and thought, “Well, that is certainly a thing that now exists.”

Here’s the video. Watch it first, then come back and argue with me.

What Tesla actually showed

The Roadster comes in three versions, and the names are doing a lot of storytelling.

Performance (“road ready”). Two seats. Active aerodynamics and what Tesla calls a multi-mode suction system, which uses fans to pull air from under the car. Tesla says it does 0 to 60 mph in under 1.6 seconds. This is the one you reserve: the reservation is $50,000, and Tesla hasn’t announced a price.

Thrust (“race ready”). Two seats, plus rear-mounted cold-gas thrusters. Under 0.9 seconds to 60 mph, according to Tesla’s figures. It’s a limited release, and reporting puts its reservation at $250,000.

Rocket (“air ready”). One seat. Thrusters around the perimeter of the car give it forward and upward push and the ability to rotate. Under 0.59 seconds to 60 mph. It’s invite-only, no price has been given, and Tesla’s own Roadster page says it isn’t approved for public road use.

Tesla also quotes more than 230 mph and more than 300 miles of range, though reports differ on whether those numbers apply to every version or only the top one. Production, in Musk’s words, is “2028, actually.”

On the hardware: engineering VP Lars Moravy described ten thrusters drawing on 600 liters of compressed air to lift and spin the car. And here’s the detail from the video that I love: the supply isn’t fixed. The car recharges its own air tanks, a bit like regenerative braking. It sucks so it can blow. Tesla says the thrusters produce four to five times the force the tires can handle. In Track Mode, the car lowers itself and deploys active wings, with downforce Tesla describes as approaching F1 levels. Those are Tesla’s claims, and nobody outside the company has measured them yet.

A little arithmetic, because I can’t help myself

Zero to 60 mph is about 27 meters per second. In 0.59 seconds, that works out to an average acceleration of around 4.6 g. Under 0.9 seconds is roughly 3 g. Under 1.6 seconds is a bit over 1.7 g. These are my back-of-the-envelope averages, not Tesla’s figures, but they give you the flavor. A tire on pavement tops out well below the top of that range, which is exactly why the thrusters matter: they push on the air, not the road.

What this could mean for racing

This is where I got genuinely excited, and then immediately got to asking questions, because the interesting part isn’t the stunt. It’s the principle.

For a century, a race car has been limited by the same thing: how much grip four small patches of rubber can deliver. Engineers have spent that century finding ways to get more of it, with wings, ground effects, tire chemistry, and clever suspensions. A thruster that adds force without relying on the tires is a different category of answer to the same problem.

So the questions I’d be asking if I ran a sanctioning body:

Is it a car or an aircraft that touches the ground sometimes? Racing rulebooks are written around assumptions about what a car is. This quietly breaks several.
Does thrust help braking and cornering, or only launches? A launch is a spectacle. Lap time is what wins.
What happens to the tank on lap 20? Because the car can refill its own air supply, the way regenerative braking recovers energy, the question isn’t “how much do you have?” but “how fast can you recover it, and when do you spend it?” That turns race strategy into energy management, a trick that has made other racing formats more interesting, not less.
– Who gets to use it? The moment a technology like this shows up, either everyone gets it or nobody does, and neither answer is easy.

Don’t hold me to any of this. Tesla showed a demo, not a season. But “what does racing look like when grip isn’t the ceiling?” is a real question now, and it wasn’t last month.

And now, the dismay

I promised you surprise. What I actually feel is closer to dismay, and I want to be honest about why.

It isn’t the engineering. By every account I’ve read, the engineering is real and impressive, and I’d be a hypocrite to say otherwise. My dismay is about what, among all the things this talent and capital could have built, the answer turned out to be.

Consider the details. Tesla says it packed pressure vessels into every usable void in the car, and the same type of vessel has been tied to rocket explosions elsewhere. Musk said “safety is not the main goal,” and that if safety is your top priority, you shouldn’t buy the Roadster. The range is roughly half of what was promised in 2017. The project has slipped repeatedly since then. The top version isn’t road legal. And Musk himself says the car doesn’t move the needle much on revenue, which makes it a halo car, an object whose job is to make you feel something about the brand.

I understand halo cars. They’ve always existed. But there’s a difference between a halo that says “look what we can do” and one that says “safety is optional, and rules are for other people.” In a world where the most pressing transportation problems are affordability, safety and charging, building the most extreme thing imaginable, and then selling reservations for it, feels like a statement about priorities. There’s also a fair amount of speculation, including in CNBC’s coverage, that the event was partly about linking Tesla with SpaceX ahead of a possible merger. If that’s true, the car is as much a story as a vehicle.

So: innovation or not?

Here’s my verdict, and you’re welcome to disagree.

Is it new? Absolutely. Putting cold-gas thrusters on a car, and making them controllable enough to land a spin, is a genuine invention.

Does it create value? For a handful of people, certainly. For everybody else, the value is the attention it earns and the questions it raises.

Will it reach people? The Performance version, maybe, in 2028, if you have $50,000 to reserve. The versions that do the flying, probably not on any road you drive.

My verdict is that it’s a remarkable invention and a so-far unproven innovation. An invention becomes an innovation when it creates and captures value at scale, and nobody can say yet whether that will happen here. But the technology underneath, force that doesn’t depend on tire grip, is worth watching long after the Roadster itself has been forgotten or perfected.

Then again, I said the same thing about every flying car I’ve ever seen. Ask me again in 2028.

What do you think? Innovation or not? Tell me in the comments.

SPECIAL UPDATE – Check out the in-depth TOP GEAR interview with the lead engineer and designer walking through all of the specifics of the design, engineering, and trim levels:

Image Credits: Microsoft 365 CoPilot

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area, key elements to focus on, etc. were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with a little help from Claude to clean up the article.

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Getting Ready for Annual Planning Season? Start With Foresight, Not a Blank Template

Leave a reply

Getting Ready for Annual Planning Season? Start With Foresight, Not a Blank Template

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

Somewhere in your organization, right about now, a calendar invite is going out. The subject line says something like “FY27 Strategic Planning Kickoff,” and attached to it is a template. The template has boxes. The boxes are empty. Everyone will spend the next several weeks filling them in.

I have nothing against boxes. I like boxes. But I’d like to make the case that the single most expensive moment in your planning cycle is the one where somebody opens that blank template and starts typing, because whatever goes in first becomes the frame for everything that follows.

The blank template has a gravity problem

Here’s what actually happens. A blank template isn’t blank. It’s been filled in, invisibly, by last year’s plan, last year’s assumptions and last year’s loudest voice in the room. People don’t start from the future. They start from the previous document, change a few numbers, and call it a strategy.

That works fine if the world held still. It didn’t, and it won’t. If the biggest shift in your market is something nobody has put in a box yet, the template can’t ask about it, because the template was designed by people who hadn’t seen it coming either.

So the question I’d ask before the kickoff isn’t “what goes in the boxes?” It’s “what do we know, and not know, about the world these boxes are supposed to describe?”

What “start with foresight” actually means

It doesn’t mean hiring a futurist for the offsite (though I’m certainly not going to talk you out of it). It means doing a small amount of structured looking-outward before anyone does any planning. Think of it as the warm-up lap. Three things, in order:

Gather the signals. Not the trends. The signals. A signal is a small, specific thing you noticed: a competitor’s odd hire, a regulation that moved, a customer behavior that doesn’t fit your model. Trends are what you get when you’ve bundled signals together, and you can’t bundle what you haven’t collected. Ask your leadership team, and a few people from well outside it, to bring the three oddest things they’ve seen this year.
Sort the signals into the trends they suggest. This is where the room starts to disagree, which is the good part. Two people looking at the same pile of signals will see different trends. Better to find that out in October than in March.
Ask what futures those trends could produce. Plural, on purpose. Not the forecast. A handful of genuinely different, plausible futures, so that when the planning boxes finally get filled, they get filled with a plan that can survive more than one of them.

Then, and only then, open the template.

Why timing matters more than people think

Planning season has a quirk I’ve watched for twenty years. The moment a plan has a draft, it starts defending itself. People get attached to their numbers. Challenging the premises feels like challenging the person. So any foresight you want to influence the plan has to arrive before the first draft, not after it, when all it can do is make everyone feel bad.

That’s why I think of the weeks right before kickoff as a window, and a short one. Get the signals gathered now and the template gets filled in by people who’ve actually looked up from their desks. Skip it and you’re back to editing last year’s document with a fresh date on the cover.

A way to try it this week

If you want a low-risk way to feel what step one is like, the free FutureHacking Signal Picker walks you through identifying and prioritizing the signals worth watching, which is the foundation of the whole FutureHacking™ methodology. Run it yourself before the kickoff, then bring the output into the room instead of a blank whiteboard. You’ll be surprised how different the first fifteen minutes feel.

The next step, if you want it

I’m putting the finishing touches on a second tool, the FutureCanvas Picker, which carries you further: from signals, to the trends they suggest, to a set of possible futures, to your most probable future, and then to the path toward the future you’d actually prefer. It’s the closest thing I’ve built to the full FutureHacking™ arc in a single sitting, which makes it a natural fit for exactly this moment in the calendar.

I’m opening early access to a small group first: strategic planners, CSOs and leaders who are running a planning process right now and can tell me honestly what works under a real deadline. If that’s you, reach out and let me know and I’ll follow up personally with the select few who get in first.

Before you hit “accept” on that invite

The organizations that do planning well aren’t the ones with the best templates. They’re the ones who spent a little time, before the template appeared, finding out what the world was actually doing.

So when that kickoff invite lands, go ahead and accept it. Just make sure somebody has done the looking first.

Image Credits: Gemini

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area, key elements to focus on, etc. were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with a little help from Claude to clean up the article.

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

What is Experience Design?

Leave a reply

What is Experience Design?

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

What Is Experience Design? (Short Answer)

Experience design is the human-centered discipline of researching, mapping, measuring, and improving the end-to-end interactions people have with an organization — customers, employees, partners, and other stakeholders. It includes screens, and it also includes waiting, handoffs, policy, human help, and the backstage work that makes the frontstage possible. A finished interface is not a finished experience.

Experience design is finished when a person can succeed across the whole journey — not when a screen looks finished.

Below you’ll find what the work includes, what it is often confused with, who it is for, and how you know you are practicing it. This definition aligns with the one in my Experience Design Glossary.

What Does Experience Design Actually Include?

Experience design is a practice, not a deliverable. The work has a sequence, and skipping a step is how organizations ship polished surfaces on broken journeys.

Research the lived job. Start from what people are trying to do, in their context, with their constraints — not from an internal process diagram. Evidence beats the intended journey.
Map the whole path, including the seams. Stages, channels, emotions, waits, handoffs, and recovery. A map that only shows the happy path is a poster. The frictions people feel before the map does are catalogued in 12 Friction Points Customers Feel Before Your Journey Map Does.
Design frontstage and backstage together. What people see — interfaces, spaces, messages, human encounters — only works if tools, policy, incentives, and partner handoffs can support it.
Measure whether the job got done. Effort, completion, recontact, recovery quality, and return behavior. A relationship score can be one signal. It is not the design brief.
Improve what the evidence shows, including the operating model: who owns the seam, who has authority to make it right, and which old path still runs the place.

You can learn a great deal of that before you build. Concierge tests, service rehearsals, and recovery walkthroughs falsify a journey while it is still cheap to change — the methods in 10 Ways to Prototype Experience Without Building a Product.

If the backstage cannot keep the promise, the frontstage is theater.

What Is Experience Design Not?

Not interface design or UX by itself. Interface design shapes controls, layouts, and interaction on a surface. Experience design asks whether a person can finish the job with dignity before, during, and after that surface. The side-by-side is in 7 Differences Between Interface Design and Experience Design.
Not a journey map as the finished product. Maps align a team. They do not prove the lived experience matches the drawing. Design continues into ownership, measurement, and change.
Not a replacement word for service design. Service design aligns frontstage experiences with backstage people, processes, and partners so a service delivers reliably. Experience design is the broader discipline: it uses service design when the object is a service, and it also covers products, workplaces, partner relationships, and other stakeholder journeys. When service design optimizes internal speed while people absorb the cost, you get efficient misery — the pattern in 8 Service Design Mistakes That Create Efficient Misery.
Not a dashboard program. Listening without redesign is scorekeeping. Experience design changes the journey.

Hiring for screens, posting a map, and tracking a score can all be useful. None of them is the whole discipline.

Who Is Experience Design For?

Every relationship with an organization is an experience system. The same discipline applies; the audience changes.

Customers — whether the job gets done with dignity before, during, and after purchase. See What Is Customer Experience?
Employees — whether people can finish real work across hiring, tools, leadership, and change, because poor employee experience usually becomes poor customer experience. See What Is Employee Experience — and Why Does It Shape CX?
Partners — whether distributors, suppliers, agencies, and other ecosystem partners can onboard, deliver, get support, and get paid. From the customer’s point of view, partners are often an extension of the brand. See What Is Partner Experience — and Why Does It Matter?
Other stakeholders — patients, constituents, members, and communities, whenever a person has to succeed across time, channels, and institutional rules.

Designing one audience while ignoring the people and partners who deliver the journey pushes the failure into a seam nobody owns.

Experience design is stakeholder-specific in the research and shared in the system. One broken backstage shows up in more than one audience.

How Do You Know You Are Doing Experience Design?

Can you name the job a specific person is trying to finish, in their words, not only your process step?
Are frontstage and backstage in the same design, including policy, incentives, tools, and partner handoffs?
Does someone own the seams, not only the channels that look good alone?
Have you tested the lived path — including failure and recovery — before treating the build as the proof?
Did behavior change: less unpaid effort, fewer retellings, recovery that has power, people who come back because the job worked?

If the interface is green and the job still fails, you designed a surface. Experience design starts where that surface ends.

FAQ: What Is Experience Design?

What is experience design in simple words?

Experience design is the work of researching, mapping, measuring, and improving how people interact with an organization from start to finish. It covers screens, people, waiting, handoffs, policy, and the behind-the-scenes work that makes those moments possible. The test is whether a person can succeed, not whether a single touchpoint looks polished.

What is the difference between experience design and UX?

UX usually focuses on how people use a product or interface. Experience design covers the end-to-end journey across channels, time, human help, policy, and operations. A strong interface can still sit inside a weak experience if seams, waiting, or recovery fail.

What is the difference between experience design and service design?

Service design aligns what people see with the people, processes, and systems behind a service so value is delivered reliably. Experience design is the broader discipline of shaping interactions for customers, employees, partners, and other stakeholders. Service design is a core method inside experience design when what you are designing is a service.

What does an experience designer do?

An experience designer studies the real job people are trying to do, maps journeys including handoffs and failure, designs both the visible moments and the operating model behind them, tests the experience before a full build, and measures whether people succeed with less effort. The role is cross-functional. It is not limited to screens.

How do you know experience design is working?

People finish the job without heroics, retelling, or workarounds. Seams have owners. Recovery has real authority. Effort and recontact fall. A prettier interface or a higher survey score, on its own, does not prove the experience was designed.

Image credits: Pexels

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area, key elements to focus on, etc. were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with a little help from Cursor to clean up the article, add images and create infographics.

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

NowBuilder™: Turning Long-Term Foresight Into This Year’s Strategic Priorities

Leave a reply

NowBuilder™: Turning Long-Term Foresight Into This Year's Strategic Priorities

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

A ten-year vision and a one-year budget speak two completely different languages, and most organizations never actually build the translator between them. The vision lives in a deck somewhere, inspiring and directionally right. The budget lives in a spreadsheet, built around this year’s known commitments. Nobody owns the job of making sure the two are actually talking to each other, which is exactly how a genuinely good preferable-future exercise ends up having zero measurable effect on what gets funded next quarter.

Backcasting instead of forecasting

The specific technique that closes this gap is one most strategy teams have heard of and few actually practice with any rigor: backcasting. Forecasting starts from today and projects forward, asking what’s likely to happen. Backcasting starts from your preferable future and works backward, asking what would have to be true three years from now for that future to be arriving on schedule — and then what would have to be true one year before that, and what would have to be true starting now. It’s a deceptively simple reversal, and it’s the single most effective move for turning an inspiring but abstract future into a concrete near-term action, because it forces specificity at every step backward instead of letting the vision stay comfortably vague.

Finding the moves that survive contact with uncertainty

Not every action that would help you reach your preferable future is equally safe to commit to today, because you’re not actually certain that future is the one that arrives. This is where the idea of a no-regret move earns its keep: an action worth taking regardless of which of your mapped futures actually materializes. Building a more flexible operating model, investing in a capability your organization is clearly underweight in no matter how the market shifts, strengthening a relationship or a data asset that pays off across multiple scenarios — these are the moves to prioritize first, precisely because committing to them doesn’t require you to bet the organization on one version of the future being right.

The moves that only make sense if your probable future specifically arrives, and would actively hurt you if a different future showed up instead, need a different treatment entirely. Those belong staged as real options — decisions you’ve deliberately prepared for but haven’t yet committed resources to, triggered by specific signposts rather than locked into this year’s roadmap by default.

Why sequencing matters more than most roadmaps admit

A roadmap that lists everything as equally urgent isn’t really a roadmap — it’s a wishlist with a shared deadline. Real sequencing means being honest about dependencies (what has to happen before something else becomes possible), capacity (what your organization can actually execute on simultaneously without diluting all of it), and the specific signposts that would tell you it’s time to accelerate or pause a given initiative. Skip this step, and even a well-backcast set of near-term moves ends up competing for the same quarter’s attention with no clear priority among them.

The step most translation efforts skip: ownership

A near-term move without a named owner tends to survive exactly as long as the enthusiasm from the planning session that produced it — usually a matter of weeks. The organizations that actually execute against a foresight-informed roadmap are the ones that assign a specific person to each near-term priority before the room disbands, not afterward in a follow-up email nobody reads closely.

This is what NowBuilder™ is built to do

This is the specific job NowBuilder™ handles inside FutureHacking™: taking your probable and preferable futures and running the room through backcasting, identifying genuine no-regret moves versus future-specific options, sequencing them against real dependencies and capacity, and assigning ownership before anyone leaves — so the output isn’t another deck, it’s an actual set of near-term priorities with names attached to them. It’s the half of the methodology that turns “here’s what could happen” into “here’s what we’re doing about it, starting now.”

Where to start

If your team hasn’t run a structured foresight exercise yet, the free FutureHacking Signal Picker is the right place to begin — it’s the foundational first stage the rest of the methodology, NowBuilder™ included, builds on.

Something new I’m building

I’m also finishing a second tool — the FutureCanvas Picker — that carries a planning team through the full arc in one sitting: from signals, to the trends they suggest, to a genuine set of possible futures, narrowing to your most probable future, and mapping the path to your preferable one. It’s the closest thing I’ve built yet to running a complete FutureHacking™ session on your own.

I’m opening early access to a select group first — strategic planners, CSOs, and leaders actively running planning processes right now — because I want real feedback from people using it under real deadline pressure before it’s available more broadly. If that’s you, and you’d like to be considered for early access, reach out and let me know — I’ll be following up personally with the first few who get in.

A future worth building toward deserves more than a deck. It deserves a name next to this quarter’s first move toward it.

Image Credits: Gemini

Content Authenticity Statement: The topic area, key elements to focus on, etc. were decisions made by Braden Kelley, with a little help from Claude to clean up the article.

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

What Is the Difference Between Change Management and Project Management?

Leave a reply

What Is the Difference Between Change Management and Project Management?

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

What Is the Difference Between Change Management and Project Management? (Short Answer)

Project management delivers an output — a system, process, product, or deliverable — on time, on scope, and on budget. Change management prepares, equips, and supports people so that output is adopted and the change objectives are met in behavior. A project can finish successfully while the change still fails. Many organizations treat change management as a subset of project management. The healthier frame is the reverse: every project changes something, so project delivery sits inside a larger change effort.

Finishing the build is not the same as achieving the change.

Below you’ll find a side-by-side comparison, why the relationship is often drawn backwards, how the two disciplines work together, and how to tell which one you are missing. For the definition of change management itself, see What Is Change Management?

How Do Change Management and Project Management Differ?

	Project management	Change management
Primary question	Did we deliver the output?	Did people adopt the new way and meet the objectives?
Focus	Scope, schedule, cost, quality of the deliverable	Readiness, sponsorship, enablement, adoption, reinforcement
“Done”	Go-live, handover, or project close	Named behaviors stick after the project team leaves
Success metrics	Milestones, budget, defect rates, on-time delivery	Behavior adoption, old-path retirement, confidence, outcomes
Typical owner	Project or program manager	Change lead, sponsor, and a durable BAU owner
Risk if missing	Late, over budget, or incomplete deliverable	Shelfware, workarounds, and a “successful” project that changes nothing

Both disciplines matter. Confusing them produces the most expensive kind of success: a green project that never becomes a new way of working.

Why Do Organizations Treat Change Management as a Subset of Project Management?

Because the project is visible. It has a charter, a budget, a go-live date, and a RAG status. Change work — readiness, practice, sponsorship with real levers, retiring the old path — looks softer on a dashboard, so it gets bolted on as a communications workstream inside the project plan.

That staffing pattern is backwards. Every project changes something for someone. The project is one means of producing a new state. Change management is the discipline of making sure people can live in that state and that the objectives are met. In the Architecting the Organization for Change framing I use in Charting Change, project management sits inside the change agenda — not the other way around.

If change is a line item under the project, adoption will be a line item after the celebration.

How Should Change Management and Project Management Work Together?

Share the same objectives. Write success as behaviors and outcomes, not only as deliverables. The project plan and the change plan should both serve those objectives.
Start change work before build peaks. Impact, readiness, and sponsorship cannot wait until UAT. By then the design of the work is already frozen.
Name two finishes. Technical go-live is one finish. Adopted behavior with a BAU owner is another. Celebrate the second, not only the first.
Fund enablement like delivery. Practice time, coaching, and the stop list for the old way need budget and calendar space — not leftover goodwill.
Align metrics. Project health and change health should both be visible. A green cutover with rising workarounds is not a green change. For what to measure after go-live, see 6 Metrics That Prove Change Worked — Beyond Go-Live Day.

When tools become shelfware, the failure is usually in that handoff between delivery and adoption — the patterns in 12 Adoption Mistakes That Turn Good Tools Into Shelfware.

How Do You Know Which One You Are Missing?

Strong project, weak change: On-time go-live, training completions up, and people still on the spreadsheet. Sponsors clap; the old path stays open “just in case.”
Strong change intent, weak project: Clear case for change and engaged champions, but the deliverable slips, quality fails, or the tool never works for the median user.
Both present and aligned: Delivery dates and adoption behaviors are on the same scorecard. Someone owns the new way after the PMO leaves. The old way has a kill date.

Leaders who still treat go-live as transformation should also read 8 Change Myths Leaders Still Believe in 2026. For the method spine behind planning, leadership, management, maintenance, and portfolio, see 5 Steps of Human-Centered Change That Survive Reality.

Which Comes First — the Project or the Change?

Start with the change you need in people’s work. Then decide which projects, if any, are required to make that change possible. A project without a change objective is construction. A change without delivery discipline is a wish. You need both — with adoption as the finish line that leadership actually funds.

Manage the project so something ships. Manage the change so something sticks.

Ready to Take the Next Step?

When project plans and change plans fight for the same calendar, people lose. The fix is a shared visual approach so delivery and adoption show up on the same page — with sponsors who have real levers.

See the methodology. Explore Human-Centered Change™, my visual, collaborative approach to planning change so the people who must live it can see the whole effort and adopt the new way.

Get the toolkit. Read Charting Change, my practical guide to Human-Centered Change™, built around the Change Planning Canvas™ and 70+ visual tools for getting everyone on the same page.

Deliver the output. Design the adoption. Do not mistake one for the other.

FAQ: Change Management vs Project Management

What is the difference between change management and project management?

Project management delivers an output on time, scope, and budget. Change management prepares and supports people so that output is adopted and the change objectives are met in behavior. A project can succeed while the change still fails.

Is change management part of project management?

No. Many organizations staff it that way, but every project changes something for someone. Project delivery should sit inside a larger change effort aimed at adoption and outcomes, not the reverse.

Can a project succeed and the change still fail?

Yes. The deliverable can go live on time while people keep using the old path, workarounds rise, and no one in the business owns the new way after the project team leaves. That is a successful project and a failed change.

Do you need both change management and project management?

Yes, for any effort that asks people to work differently. Project management ships the output. Change management makes the output usable and durable in real work. Missing either one produces delay, shelfware, or both.

When does change management start relative to the project?

Change management should start when the change is defined — impact, readiness, sponsorship, and adoption design — not after go-live. Waiting until delivery is nearly finished freezes bad job design and turns change work into a late communications push.

Image credits: Pixabay

Sign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.