Author Archives: Braden Kelley

About Braden Kelley

Braden Kelley is a Human-Centered Experience, Innovation and Transformation practice lead at HCL Technologies, a popular innovation speaker, and creator of the FutureHacking™ and Human-Centered Change™ methodologies. He is the author of Stoking Your Innovation Bonfire from John Wiley & Sons and Charting Change (Second Edition) from Palgrave Macmillan. Braden is a US Navy veteran and earned his MBA from top-rated London Business School. Follow him on Linkedin, Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram.

Turning Foresight Into an Actual Strategic Roadmap

Leave a reply

From “What If” to “What Now”

Turning Foresight Into an Actual Strategic Roadmap

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

I have seen more beautiful scenario maps gather dust than I can count. Gorgeous work — well-researched signals, genuinely thoughtful trends, three or four possible futures mapped out with real rigor, presented to an engaged room that nodded along and felt smarter walking out than they did walking in. And then, six months later, nothing about how the organization actually operates has changed. The binder is still on someone’s shelf. This is the single most common way foresight work dies, and it has nothing to do with the quality of the thinking.

“What if” is the fun part. That’s the problem.

Exploring possible futures is genuinely engaging work. There’s something almost playful about it — imagining how the market could shift, what technology could disrupt, which future would be exciting to build toward. Rooms come alive during this part of a planning session in a way they rarely do during budget reviews. That energy is valuable, and I’d never want to dampen it. But it’s also exactly why so much foresight work stalls right there: the “what if” conversation is satisfying enough on its own that it can feel like the destination, when it was only ever supposed to be the on-ramp.

Nobody’s job is the translation

Here’s the structural reason this happens, and it’s not about laziness or lack of follow-through. In most organizations, nobody’s actual job description includes turning a set of possible futures into this year’s specific strategic priorities. The strategy team’s job, as usually defined, ends at “here are the scenarios and here’s the probable one.” Execution teams’ jobs start from wherever the strategic plan already tells them to begin. The translation step — the actual “so given all that, what do we do differently starting Monday” — falls into a gap between two functions that both assume the other one owns it.

What “what now” actually requires

Turning a preferable future into a real roadmap means doing something more specific than restating the future in more urgent language. It means identifying the near-term moves that make sense regardless of exactly how the future unfolds — the no-regret moves, the ones that pay off whether your probable future arrives on schedule, arrives differently than expected, or gets overtaken by one of the other futures you mapped. It means sequencing those moves against a realistic timeline instead of listing them all as equally urgent. And it means naming specific owners for each one, because a strategic priority without a named owner is, in practice, nobody’s priority at all.

It also means building in signposts — specific, observable things you’ll watch for that would tell you your probable future is actually arriving, or that one of the other futures is starting to look more likely instead. Without signposts, “what now” plans quietly calcify into exactly the single-future thinking foresight was supposed to prevent in the first place. With them, the roadmap stays genuinely responsive instead of becoming next year’s version of the plan that goes stale by Q2.

This is exactly why I built a specific step for it

This translation gap is precisely why FutureHacking™ doesn’t stop at mapping possible futures. The methodology includes a dedicated step — I call it NowBuilder™ — built specifically to take the output of the “what if” work and force the room through the “what now” conversation before anyone leaves: near-term moves, sequencing, ownership, and the signposts that tell you when to adjust course. It exists because I watched too many organizations do genuinely excellent scenario work and then have no structured way to turn it into anything that showed up on an actual roadmap the following Monday.

You can learn more about the full methodology at FutureHacking™ — it’s the art and science of getting to the future first, and getting there requires both halves: the imagination to genuinely hold multiple futures, and the discipline to convert that thinking into something your organization actually does.

Where to start

The free FutureHacking Signal Picker is the right first step if your team hasn’t run a structured foresight exercise yet — it walks you through identifying and prioritizing real signals, the foundation everything else in the methodology builds on, at no cost.

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 scenario map tells you what could happen. It’s still just a very well-organized guess until something in your organization actually moves because of 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.

Auditing Customer Experience Before and After a Systems Migration

Leave a reply

Auditing Customer Experience Before and After a Systems Migration

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

Every systems migration I’ve ever seen gets sold internally with some version of the same reassurance: “nothing will change for the customer.” I understand why people say it — it’s meant to calm nerves and keep the project moving. It’s also almost never entirely true, and the gap between that promise and reality is exactly where a lot of quiet, expensive customer experience damage happens.

Migrations are measured by the wrong success criteria

A CRM cutover, a new billing platform, a support tooling replacement — these get judged by IT and project management on a specific set of criteria: did the data migrate correctly, is uptime where it should be, did the go-live happen on schedule. Those are the right questions for a systems team to ask. They’re the wrong questions, or at least an incomplete set, for understanding whether the customer experience survived the transition intact. A migration can hit every technical success metric on the project plan and still quietly degrade the actual experience a customer has, because nobody on the technical side was specifically measuring for that.

The silent regression problem

The most expensive migration failures I’ve seen aren’t the dramatic ones — the outage, the data loss, the system that won’t come back up. Those get noticed immediately and fixed fast, precisely because they’re loud. The expensive ones are silent regressions: a new billing platform that technically works but changes the invoice format customers had built internal processes around, so now their AP department has to redo reconciliation manually every month. A new CRM that migrates the data correctly but changes how support reps see a customer’s history, so reps start asking questions customers have already answered before, over and over, without anyone flagging it as a problem because each individual instance looks like a minor inconvenience rather than a pattern.

None of that shows up in a migration status report. All of it shows up, eventually, in retention numbers that took a hit for reasons nobody traced back to the systems change that happened two quarters earlier.

Why you need a real baseline before you touch anything

You can’t know what changed for customers after a migration if you don’t have an honest picture of what their experience actually looked like before it — not the technical specs of the old system, but the lived experience of using it. That means validated personas, a current journey map across the specific touchpoints the migration will touch, and a firsthand walkthrough of those touchpoints as they exist today. This is the step migrations skip most often, because the old system is about to be replaced anyway and it feels like wasted effort to study something on its way out. It isn’t wasted — it’s the only way to tell the difference between “the migration caused this” and “this was already broken and we just never noticed.”

What to actually check after cutover

Once the new system is live, the audit isn’t finished — it shifts to verification. This means walking the same touchpoints again, deliberately, rather than assuming success because no one’s complained yet. Complaints are a lagging indicator; most customers adapt to a worse experience quietly before they ever formally report it. It also means comparing the same data points — response times, resolution rates, whatever mattered in the baseline — against the pre-migration numbers specifically, not just against general benchmarks, since the question that matters is whether this specific change made things better, worse, or invisible.

The teams that get this right treat it as one audit, not two

The most effective version of this isn’t a rushed pre-migration check plus a separate, disconnected post-migration review commissioned only if something goes wrong. It’s a single audit designed from the start to bracket the migration — same personas, same touchpoints, same evaluation criteria, measured before and after, so the comparison is actually apples to apples. That structure is also what makes the business case afterward credible: “here’s exactly what improved, what regressed, and what stayed flat” is a far stronger position than a vague sense that the migration “went fine.”

Where to start

If you have a systems migration coming up and want a credible before-picture while there’s still time to establish one, a Customer Experience Audit scoped to bracket the migration is exactly the right tool — and if you’re trying to build the case for why that baseline is worth the investment before the project timeline locks in, the CX ROI Calculator is a fast way to put a number on what a silent regression could actually cost you.

Download the Customer Experience Audit Checklist as a PDF

Image Credits: Pixabay

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 Chief Strategy Officer’s Guide to Strategic Foresight Without a Foresight Department

Leave a reply

The Chief Strategy Officer's Guide to Strategic Foresight Without a Foresight Department

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

Every CSO I talk to agrees, without hesitation, that strategic foresight matters. Almost none of them have a foresight team. That’s not a contradiction — it’s a budget reality. Foresight sounds like a function you’d staff if you had unlimited headcount: a few analysts, a research subscription or two, maybe a futurist on retainer. Most organizations don’t have that, and most CSOs I’ve worked with have quietly concluded that means real foresight is out of reach for now. It isn’t. What’s actually out of reach is foresight-as-a-department. Foresight-as-a-method is a completely different proposition, and it’s one you can run yourself, starting with your next planning cycle.

The department was never the point

Here’s the thing dedicated foresight teams are actually good at: running a repeatable process for collecting signals, testing them against trends, and building out possible futures in a structured way. That process is genuinely valuable. The team that runs it is not the value itself — it’s just one way of executing the process, and an expensive one. If you can borrow the process without hiring the department, you get most of the value at a fraction of the cost, and you get it fast enough to actually use before your next planning cycle rather than after a hiring search.

What the process actually needs to include

Any real foresight process, department or no department, has to move through the same core stages, whether or not anyone calls it that explicitly:

Signals. Real, specific, early evidence of change — not opinions about the future, not trade press headlines repackaged as insight, but the actual raw material: a shift in customer behavior, a regulatory rumbling, a technology crossing from experimental to viable. Most organizations are already collecting fragments of this informally, scattered across different people’s inboxes and conference notes. The first job of a lightweight foresight process is simply gathering it into one place and being disciplined about separating real signal from noise.

Trends. What do multiple signals, taken together, actually suggest is happening? This is where a lot of informal foresight efforts quietly fail, because it’s tempting to jump straight from one interesting signal to a confident prediction. A trend needs more than one data point behind it, and it needs the room to genuinely disagree about what it means before converging.

Possible futures. Not one future — several, genuinely held as plausible at the same time, even when they contradict each other. This is the step organizations without a formal process almost never do at all, because it feels inefficient to build out three futures when you’re only going to act on one. It isn’t inefficient. It’s the entire point — holding multiple futures seriously is what keeps you from betting everything on the first plausible story anyone tells convincingly in the room.

The probable future, and the preferable one. Eventually you do have to narrow down — most organizations can’t operate against three futures simultaneously forever. But narrowing to your probable future is only half the job. The other half is identifying your preferable future and building a deliberate path toward it, rather than just passively waiting to see which future arrives and reacting once it does.

Building this into your existing calendar, not a new one

You don’t need a standing foresight function to run this. You need a recurring slot on a calendar you already have. Most CSOs I’ve worked with fold this into the run-up to quarterly business reviews as a lightweight signal-check, and run the fuller version — trends through preferable future — as a structured session ahead of annual planning. The key discipline is treating it as a process with defined inputs and outputs, not an open-ended brainstorm, because open-ended brainstorms are exactly what devolves into “opinions about the future” instead of genuine foresight work.

Who actually needs to be in the room

Resist the temptation to run this solo, or with just your immediate strategy team. The signals worth catching often live with the people furthest from the strategy function — sales hearing objections in real deals, support seeing friction firsthand, product watching usage patterns shift. A cross-functional group, even a small one, catches signals a strategy team working in isolation will miss entirely, and it builds organizational buy-in for whatever future the group eventually converges on, which matters enormously when it’s time to actually execute against it.

This is exactly what FutureHacking™ was built to be

I built FutureHacking™ to be precisely this — a structured, visual, collaborative methodology that takes a cross-functional team through signals, trends, possible futures, your probable future, and a real path to your preferable one, without requiring a dedicated foresight function to run it. FutureHacking™ is the art and science of getting to the future first, and it’s built for CSOs running lean, not for organizations with a research budget to spare.

Where to start

The free FutureHacking Signal Picker is the fastest way to run the first stage of this process before your next planning cycle — identifying and prioritizing real signals, at no cost, with no department required.

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 to running an entire FutureHacking™ session on your own.

I’m opening early access to a select group first — CSOs and strategic planners 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.

You don’t need a department to see what’s coming. You need a process, run consistently, with the discipline to hold more than one future until you’ve genuinely earned the right to narrow it down.

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.

Why Net Revenue Retention Pressure Should Trigger a CX Audit

Leave a reply

Why Net Revenue Retention Pressure Should Trigger a CX Audit

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

If you’ve sat in a board meeting in the last few years and watched Net Revenue Retention go up on the screen, you’ve probably also watched the room’s mood shift with it, one way or the other. NRR has become the number investors ask about before almost anything else, and for good reason — it tells you whether the business you already won is actually getting bigger or quietly leaking. What it doesn’t tell you is why. That part gets left to whoever’s in the room to explain, usually on the spot, usually with less certainty than the number itself implies.

NRR is a symptom, not a diagnosis

Net Revenue Retention bundles together expansion, contraction, and churn into one tidy percentage, which is exactly what makes it useful to a board and exactly what makes it useless as a diagnostic on its own. A dip in NRR could mean your onboarding is failing, your support experience is fraying, your product isn’t delivering on renewal-time expectations, or three unrelated things happening in three different customer segments at once. The number tells you something’s wrong. It has nothing to say about what.

Why finance-driven pressure produces finance-shaped answers

Here’s the pattern I see constantly once NRR pressure shows up: the response comes from wherever the pressure originated, which is usually finance or the exec team, not from a customer-facing diagnosis. That means the first instinct is often pricing adjustments, packaging changes, or a renewed push on the renewal playbook — all reasonable moves, and all aimed at the revenue mechanics rather than the experience actually driving the number. You can restructure pricing all you want. If a customer’s day-to-day experience with your product is the real reason they’re not expanding, the pricing change just delays the same conversation to next quarter.

The expansion problem nobody’s diagnosing

Contraction and churn at least generate a paper trail — a downgrade request, a cancellation, a support escalation. Missed expansion is quieter and, in my experience, the more expensive half of an NRR problem. A customer who never asked about the add-on module, never expanded seats at renewal, never became the internal champion pushing for more — that’s not a data point anywhere. It’s an absence. And an absence born from friction they quietly worked around, or an onboarding that never got them to real product value, doesn’t show up in a churn dashboard. It shows up nowhere, until someone finally asks why expansion revenue has been flat for three quarters running.

Why the board wants a story, not just a fix

There’s a specific reason NRR pressure is a better trigger for a full audit than a targeted pricing tweak: a board that’s pushing on this metric usually wants to understand the mechanism, not just see the number move. “We adjusted pricing and NRR improved” is a fragile story — it invites the follow-up question of whether the improvement will hold once the pricing novelty wears off. “We diagnosed exactly where customers were hitting friction before expansion or renewal, and fixed the specific gaps” is a story that survives scrutiny, because it’s causal, not correlational. An audit is what gets you the second story instead of the first.

What this actually means to walk through

Diagnosing an NRR problem properly means treating it as a customer experience question first and a revenue question second: validating who your expanding customers look like versus your flat or contracting ones, mapping where the journey actually breaks down for each, and — critically — walking the onboarding and ongoing product experience firsthand rather than trusting a dashboard that was never built to explain expansion behavior in the first place. Benchmarking against what “good” onboarding and expansion experiences look like elsewhere in the market rounds this out, since a lot of NRR erosion in SaaS specifically comes from customer expectations that were set by a completely different product, not your direct competitors.

Where to start

If NRR pressure is the reason this is on your desk right now, the fastest way to get a real number to bring into that next board conversation is the CX ROI Calculator — it’ll give you a defensible estimate of what the underlying experience gaps are actually costing in retained and expansion revenue. And when you’re ready to find out exactly where those gaps live, a Customer Experience Audit scoped to your onboarding and expansion journey is how you turn “NRR is down” into an actual, fixable answer instead of another quarter of pricing experiments.

Download the Customer Experience Audit Checklist as a PDF

Image Credits: Pixabay

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.

Why Your Strategic Planning Offsite Needs a Foresight Exercise, Not Just Another SWOT

Leave a reply

Why Your Strategic Planning Offsite Needs a Foresight Exercise, Not Just Another SWOT

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

I’ve sat in more strategic planning offsites than I can count, and I can predict the SWOT exercise before it starts. Someone draws a four-quadrant grid on the whiteboard. The room fills in Strengths and Weaknesses quickly, because those are about the company as it exists right now, and everyone in the room already agrees on most of them. Then it gets to Opportunities and Threats, and the energy noticeably drops — because now the exercise is quietly asking the room to predict the future, and SWOT gives them no actual tool for doing that. So they default to whatever opportunities and threats came up in last year’s version of the same exercise, lightly reworded.

SWOT was never built for what you’re using it for

SWOT is a genuinely useful tool for organizing what you already know about your current position. It was never designed to help a group reason about an uncertain future — there’s no mechanism in the exercise for surfacing real signals, testing which trends they suggest, or imagining more than one way things could unfold. When a room uses it to fill in “Opportunities” and “Threats,” what actually happens is everyone reaches for whatever future feels most familiar or most recently discussed in the trade press, and the exercise quietly becomes a confidence-building ritual around a single assumed future rather than genuine strategic thinking.

The offsite is the right room. It’s the wrong exercise.

Here’s what I’d push back on if someone suggested dropping the offsite structure entirely: getting your leadership team in a room together, away from daily operations, is exactly the right container for this kind of thinking. The problem isn’t the offsite. It’s that the exercise running inside it isn’t built for the actual question a strategic planning session needs to answer, which isn’t “what do we already know about ourselves” — it’s “what’s actually changing around us, and what should we do about it before it’s obvious to everyone else.”

What a foresight exercise does differently

A structured foresight exercise starts somewhere SWOT never goes: the real signals your team is picking up from the market, technology, customer behavior, and adjacent industries — not opinions about the future, but the actual early evidence of it. From there, it asks the room to genuinely work through which trends those signals suggest, and to hold more than one possible future seriously rather than converging immediately on whichever one the most senior person in the room already believes. Only after that does it narrow toward a most-probable future and, critically, a preferable one — the future you’d actually choose to build toward, and the specific path to get there. That’s a fundamentally different exercise than filling in a quadrant, and it produces a fundamentally different kind of strategic plan.

Why this matters more in the room than anywhere else

The offsite is where organizational alignment either happens or doesn’t. A room that’s just filled in a familiar SWOT grid leaves with a comfortable, mostly unchanged view of the future — which feels productive in the moment and shows up as a strategic plan that’s already outdated within a couple of quarters. A room that’s worked through real signals together, disagreed about what they mean, and built a shared view of multiple possible futures leaves with something SWOT structurally can’t produce: genuine, tested alignment on what’s actually likely to happen and what the team is going to do about it either way.

Bringing this into your next offsite

This is exactly the gap FutureHacking™ was built to close — a structured, visual, collaborative foresight methodology any leadership team can run in a room together, without needing a dedicated foresight function or an outside futurist facilitating every session. FutureHacking™ is the art and science of getting to the future first, and the fastest way to feel the difference is to bring it into the room where your planning conversations already happen.

Where to start before your next offsite

The free FutureHacking Signal Picker is a genuinely useful way to arrive at your next offsite with real signals already identified and prioritized, instead of starting the room from a blank whiteboard. It’s the foundational first step of the full methodology, and it’s free.

Something new I’m building

I’m also finishing a second tool — the FutureCanvas Picker — that carries a planning team further into the full arc in a single sitting: from signals, to the trends they suggest, to a genuine set of possible futures, narrowing to your most probable future, and then mapping the path toward the future you’d actually prefer to build. It’s the closest thing I’ve built yet to running a full FutureHacking™ session in miniature.

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 offsite 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.

Your next offsite is going to happen either way. The only real question is whether the room leaves with a shared view of one comfortable future, or a genuine head start on several possible ones.

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 Hidden Cost of Strategic Planning Built on a Single Future

Leave a reply

The Hidden Cost of Strategic Planning Built on a Single Future

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

Nobody puts a line item in the budget for “cost of assuming we knew what was going to happen.” And yet, if you looked honestly at what a single-scenario strategic plan actually costs an organization when the future doesn’t cooperate, it would be one of the largest hidden expenses on the books. It just never gets counted, because it’s spread across a dozen decisions that never get traced back to the plan that caused them.

The cost of defending a plan past its expiration date

Once a strategic plan is approved, it develops a kind of institutional gravity. Budgets are allocated against it. Teams are staffed against it. Leaders have put their names on it in front of the board. When early signals suggest the assumed future isn’t materializing quite the way the plan predicted, the natural organizational instinct isn’t to update the plan — it’s to defend it, because updating it can feel like admitting the original thinking was wrong. I’ve watched organizations spend months, and real budget, propping up a strategy that the market had already started to move past, simply because nobody wanted to be the one to say so first.

The cost of the resources you didn’t allocate to what was actually happening

This is the harder cost to see, because it’s a cost of omission rather than a line item you can point to. Every dollar and every hour committed to executing a single assumed future is a dollar and an hour not available to the future that was actually starting to emerge in the market signals your team either didn’t collect or didn’t take seriously. You don’t see this cost in a budget review. You see it eighteen months later, when a competitor who built in flexibility is suddenly in a category you didn’t think was coming yet.

The cost of strategic surprise

There’s a specific, expensive kind of organizational chaos that happens when a shift arrives that the strategic plan gave leadership no framework for anticipating. It’s not just the scramble to react — it’s the credibility cost inside the organization when leadership is visibly caught off guard by something that, in hindsight, had been signaling for a year. Teams notice. Boards notice. The plan’s failure to hold more than one possible future becomes a trust problem, not just a strategy problem.

The cost of decision paralysis when the single future finally, visibly breaks

Counterintuitively, some of the most expensive moments I’ve seen come after a single-scenario plan visibly stops working. Leadership, having built no muscle for holding multiple futures at once, doesn’t know how to respond except by freezing — commissioning study after study, delaying decisions that can’t actually wait, because the organization has no established process for reasoning under genuine uncertainty. A team that’s practiced foresight moves faster in exactly this moment, not slower, because they’ve already done the work of imagining more than one path.

Why the fix isn’t more analysis — it’s a different structure

None of this means the answer is spending more time forecasting, or hiring more analysts to build a more detailed single prediction. A more detailed wrong future is still wrong. What actually closes this gap is a structured way of holding multiple possible futures at once — genuinely mapping from the real signals in your market, to the trends they suggest, to a real set of possible futures, then identifying which one is most probable while still building a deliberate path toward the future you’d actually prefer. That’s the specific gap FutureHacking™ was built to close — a structured, visual, collaborative methodology any leadership team can run, without needing to build an internal foresight department first. FutureHacking™ is the art and science of getting to the future first, and the organizations that practice it don’t avoid uncertainty — they get better at moving through it faster than everyone still defending last year’s single-scenario plan.

Where to start

If your team has never run a structured foresight exercise, the free FutureHacking Signal Picker is the fastest way to find out what it feels like — it walks you through identifying and prioritizing the real signals worth watching, at no cost, and it’s the foundational first step of the whole methodology.

Something new I’m building

I’m also finishing a second tool — the FutureCanvas Picker — that carries you further into the full arc: from signals, to the trends they suggest, to a genuine set of possible futures, narrowing to your most probable future, and then mapping the path toward the future you’d actually prefer to build. It’s the fastest, clearest way I’ve built yet to feel the full power of FutureHacking™ in a single sitting.

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 doing this work 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.

The organizations that get to the future first aren’t the ones who guessed correctly. They’re the ones who stopped betting everything on a single guess.

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.

How to Learn Fast — and Kill Weak Bets Early

Leave a reply

The Experiment Canvas™: Five Gravity-Control Innovation Experiments Visualized

How to Learn Fast — and Kill Weak Bets Early

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

What Is The Experiment Canvas™? (Short Answer)

The Experiment Canvas™ is a one-page innovation tool for structuring experiments that prove or disprove the feasibility, viability, and desirability of a potential innovation — before you burn capital on the wrong bet. It forces a clear hypothesis, helpers, resources, risks, assumptions, barriers, a three-phase experiment plan (setup → execution → wrap-up), and learning metrics that can falsify the idea.

Below: why the canvas accelerates innovation speed and success rates — and five filled examples for a hypothetical gravity control appliance, showing how a radical idea can be broken into sequenced experiments that cull likely failures early.

Why Innovators Need to Instrument for Learning — Not Hope

Most innovation waste is not bad imagination. It is unfalsified imagination: teams fund prototypes, labs, and roadmaps without a written hypothesis, kill criteria, or a learning metric anyone would defend in a budget meeting. Activity photographs well. Learning does not — unless you design for it.

I created The Experiment Canvas™ as part of the Human-Centered Innovation Toolkit™ to help teams instrument for learning fast in iterative new product or service development. The canvas makes the experiment visual and collaborative — so alignment, accountability, and outcomes improve together. Specs can follow. Hope should not lead.

Used well, the canvas helps you:

Accelerate speed — by sequencing the questions that matter (physics before scale; safety before market theater; cost before Series B fantasy).
Raise odds of success — by naming helpers, resources, assumptions, and barriers before the first dollar of build.
Cull likely failures early — with fail-fast gates and learning metrics that can say “no” while the bet is still cheap.

How The Experiment Canvas™ Structures a Bet

Each canvas asks the same disciplined questions, in roughly this flow:

Zone	What it forces
Hypothesis	The question, feasibility/viability/desirability angles, fatal flaws, adoption blockers
Who can help / resources / risks	Real people, real tools, real downside — not a slide of optimism
Phases 1–3	Setup, execution, wrap-up with evidence, insight, and next gate
Assumptions & barriers	What must be true — and what can stop you
Learning metrics	Three measures that can falsify the bet

To show how this works on something intentionally extreme, I recently built five Experiment Canvas examples (CLICK THEM to get the big version) for a hypothetical gravity control appliance. The point is not sci-fi cosplay. The point is method: even a moonshot becomes manageable when you break it into experiments that can fail honestly.

Example 1 — Physics Feasibility: Is There Any Measurable Effect?

Core hypothesis: Can we create >0.1% weight reduction on a 1kg mass — or is there any measurable effect at all?

This first canvas attacks the fatal question: is there a signal, or are we chasing EMI / magnetic tricks and reputational risk? Helpers include a chief scientist, a gravimetry lab, metrology, and an external skeptic reviewer. Learning metrics demand delta-G, signal-to-noise (>3 sigma), and repeatability. Next gate: if yes → energy test; if no → pivot or kill.

The Experiment Canvas example 1 — physics feasibility for a gravity control appliance testing measurable weight reduction — Example 1 — Physics feasibility: measurable effect, SNR, and repeatability before any product story.

Example 2 — Energy Efficiency: Is the Cost Per Newton Survivable?

Core hypothesis: Can we achieve >1 Newton of lift per kW — and modulate ±2% for 60 seconds — without an energy cost that makes the product impossible?

Prerequisite: Example 1 success. This canvas puts power electronics, thermal management, and fail-fast gates on the page (>5 kW/N kills the path). Metrics: watts per Newton, modulation accuracy, thermal stability. Insight: is the curve linear — or a cliff? Soft landings for radical tech start with honesty about energy economics.

The Experiment Canvas example 2 — energy efficiency and modulation for a gravity control appliance — Example 2 — Energy efficiency: cost per Newton, modulation, and thermal limits with a fail-fast gate.

Example 3 — Safety Envelope: Is Exposure Safe Enough to Sell?

Core hypothesis: Is 8-hour exposure at 0.5G at 1 meter safe — for cells, electronics, and humans?

Prerequisite: a stable Example 2. Here feasibility, desirability, and viability collide: bio impact, EMC, nausea, regulatory classification, liability. Metrics include cell viability (>95% vs control), bit-error rate / EMC compliance, and human symptom reports. Next: define a safety manual and exclusion zone — or stop before market theater begins.

The Experiment Canvas example 3 — safety and exposure envelope for a gravity control appliance — Example 3 — Safety: biological, electronic, and human-factor metrics that define the operating envelope.

Example 4 — Market Desirability: Who Has Gravity Pain Worth Paying For?

Core hypothesis: Which segment has ~$10M gravity-related pain — and will they sign LOIs at real price points ($120k+ / $520k+), or is this cool tech nobody wants?

Prerequisite: safety envelope from Example 3. This is the desirability canvas — interviews, pain scores, willingness to pay, and traction via pilot LOIs. Done when you have enough contact evidence for a go or a clear no-go. Building without a segment that hurts is innovation theater with better physics.

The Experiment Canvas example 4 — market desirability, pain scores, and LOIs for a gravity control appliance — Example 4 — Market desirability: segment pain, willingness to pay, and LOI traction before beta spend.

Example 5 — Manufacturing Viability: Can We Build 10 Betas Under $50k BOM?

Core hypothesis: Can we build 10 beta units at under $50k bill of materials — with a real path through supply chain, yield, and compliance?

This viability canvas asks whether the existing supply chain works, whether FCC/OSHA/product safety is a path or a wall, and whether cost or yield kills margin. Fail fast if BOM exceeds $100k. Metrics: unit cost, manufacturability (yield and hours), compliance blockers. Next: if cost and path are clear → fund the next round; if not → redesign before you scale a fantasy.

The Experiment Canvas example 5 — manufacturing BOM, yield, and compliance for a gravity control appliance — Example 5 — Manufacturing viability: BOM, yield, and compliance path before you scale.

What These Five Canvases Teach About Speed and Success

Read the five examples in sequence and a pattern appears:

Sequence the fatal questions. Physics before energy. Energy before safety. Safety before market. Market before manufacturing scale.
Write the kill criteria in advance. Null result, >5 kW/N, unsafe exposure, no LOIs, BOM blowout — each canvas names how to stop.
Make learning metrics falsifiable. Three metrics per canvas beat a hundred vanity KPIs.
Surface helpers, risks, assumptions, and barriers. Innovation fails politically as often as it fails scientifically.
Treat wrap-up as a decision, not a report. Evidence → insight → next gate. No cemetery of unfinished experiments.

You do not need a gravity appliance to use the method. You need a bet you are tempted to fund on enthusiasm alone — and the discipline to instrument learning before the money gets loud.

Download The Experiment Canvas™ and Run Your Next Bet

The Experiment Canvas™ is available as a free, premium 35″ × 56″ scalable PDF — suitable for wall-sized workshops, 11″ × 17″ (A3) printing, or as a background in Miro, Mural, Lucid, Microsoft Whiteboard, and similar tools. It is one of the optional components of the Human-Centered Innovation Toolkit™.

Go download The Experiment Canvas™ here:
https://bradenkelley.com/product/experiment-canvas-35″-x-56″-poster-size/

Write the hypothesis. Name the metrics that can kill the bet. Run the experiment. Soft landings for innovation are designed — one falsifiable canvas at a time.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is The Experiment Canvas™?

The Experiment Canvas™ is a free innovation tool by Braden Kelley for structuring experiments that test feasibility, viability, and desirability. It covers hypothesis, helpers, resources, risks, setup/execution/wrap-up phases, assumptions, barriers, and learning metrics.

How does The Experiment Canvas™ accelerate innovation?

It forces teams to write a falsifiable hypothesis, sequence fatal questions, name kill criteria and learning metrics, and decide next steps based on evidence — so weak bets die early and strong bets get clearer gates before capital scales.

What are feasibility, viability, and desirability in innovation experiments?

Feasibility asks whether it can work technically. Desirability asks whether humans want it enough to hire it. Viability asks whether it can be made, sold, and sustained economically and legally. The Experiment Canvas™ helps you instrument learning across all three.

Where can I download The Experiment Canvas™?

Download the free 35″ × 56″ poster-size PDF from Braden Kelley’s product page: https://bradenkelley.com/product/experiment-canvas-35″-x-56″-poster-size/

Why use a gravity control appliance as an Experiment Canvas example?

An intentionally extreme hypothetical shows the method under stress: physics, energy, safety, market, and manufacturing each get their own canvas with kill criteria. If the tool works for a moonshot-style idea, it works for the bets already on your roadmap.

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 Cursor to clean up the article.

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

Why Your Annual Strategic Plan is Obsolete by Q2

Leave a reply

Why Your Annual Strategic Plan is Obsolete by Q2

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

Every January, I watch the same ritual play out inside otherwise well-run organizations. Leadership spends weeks, sometimes months, building a strategic plan for the year ahead: a single narrative about where the market is going, what the company will do about it, and how success will be measured twelve months from now. By the time Q2 closes, half of that plan is already quietly out of date, and everyone in the room knows it. Nobody says so out loud, because saying so would mean admitting the process itself is the problem, not the plan.

The plan was never wrong. It was just singular.

Here’s what I’ve learned after two decades of helping organizations navigate exactly this moment: the plan usually wasn’t badly built. The people in the room were smart, the research was real, the logic held together. The failure isn’t in the thinking, it’s in the structure. A traditional strategic plan describes one future and commits real budget, real headcount, and real organizational attention to it. When that one future doesn’t materialize exactly as modeled, and it never does, not exactly, the plan doesn’t bend. It breaks, quietly, and everyone starts working around it instead of updating it.

Strategic planning and strategic foresight are not the same discipline

This is the distinction most planning processes skip entirely. Strategic planning asks: given what we believe about the future, what should we do? Strategic foresight asks a prior question: what do we actually know, and don’t know, about the future we’re planning for? Skip that second question, and you’re not really planning for uncertainty, you’re planning for a single scenario and hoping it holds. Most organizations skip it not because they don’t value it, but because nobody on the team has been trained to do it, and hiring a dedicated foresight function feels like a luxury reserved for companies with a research budget most teams don’t have.

Why I built FutureHacking™

That gap, real demand for foresight, no accessible way to practice it, is exactly what I built FutureHacking™ to close. It’s not a framework that asks your team to become professional futurists. It’s a structured, visual, collaborative methodology that takes a cross-functional leadership team from raw signals in the market, through the trends those signals suggest, to a set of genuinely possible futures — and from there, to identifying which future is most probable and building a real path toward the future you’d actually prefer. “FutureHacking™ is the art and science of getting to the future first” isn’t a tagline I use lightly. It’s the whole point: the organizations that see a shift coming, and start moving before it’s obvious to everyone else, are the ones who get to shape what happens next instead of reacting to it after the fact.

Where to start before your next planning cycle

If your team has never run a structured foresight exercise, the fastest way to feel what this actually looks like is with the free FutureHacking Signal Picker — it walks you through identifying and prioritizing the real signals worth watching, the first and most foundational step in the whole methodology, at no cost. Run it before your next planning offsite, and bring the output into the room instead of starting from a blank whiteboard.

Something new I’m building

I’m also putting the finishing touches on a second tool, the FutureCanvas Picker, that goes a step further than signal identification. It’s designed to give planners a genuine taste of the full arc: moving from signals, to the trends they suggest, to a real set of possible futures, then narrowing to your most probable future, and finally mapping the path to the future you’d actually prefer to build. It’s the clearest, fastest way I’ve built yet to feel what FutureHacking™ makes possible in a single sitting.

I’m not opening this one to everyone right away. I’m looking for a select group of strategic planners, CSOs, and leaders running planning processes right now to get early access before it’s broadly available — partly because I want real feedback from people doing this work under real deadline pressure, not from a general audience. 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 select few who get in first.

The organizations that get to the future first aren’t the ones with the biggest planning budgets. They’re the ones who stopped mistaking a single confident narrative for genuine foresight, and built a process that can hold more than one future at a time.

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.

Losing Deals to a Competitor’s Experience, Not Their Price

Leave a reply

Losing Deals to a Competitor's Experience, Not Their Price

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

There’s a specific kind of loss that stings more than losing on price, and it’s becoming more common: a deal you were competitive on, with a product that stacked up well, lost anyway — and the reason, when you dig into it, wasn’t the product at all. It was how easy the competitor was to do business with.

Why this loss is harder to see coming

A price loss shows up cleanly in a deal review. Someone quotes a lower number, the math doesn’t work, everyone understands what happened. An experience loss is messier — it rarely gets stated in those terms. The prospect says something vague about “fit” or “timing,” and the real reason (a confusing proposal process, a slow response to a technical question, friction in the trial) never makes it into the CRM note at all. Sales teams are generally good at capturing price objections and bad at capturing experience ones, because experience friction often isn’t recognized as the actual cause even by the prospect who felt it.

The tell that this is happening to you

If your win-loss reviews keep landing on soft, hard-to-pin-down explanations — “they went with someone who felt more aligned,” “the timing wasn’t right on our side” — that vagueness is itself a signal. A genuine timing or budget loss usually has a specific, nameable cause. A persistent pattern of vague ones often means the real cause is something nobody on your team experienced directly enough to name: the prospect’s experience of your process, compared to a competitor’s.

Where these losses actually happen

They rarely happen at the final pricing conversation. They accumulate earlier — in how quickly a technical question gets answered during evaluation, in how many people the prospect has to loop in to get a straight answer, in whether the trial or demo experience felt like something built for them or something generic run through for everyone. By the time price comes up, a prospect who’s had friction throughout the process is already primed to see a competitor’s slicker experience as the safer bet, even at a similar or higher price.

Why your team usually can’t self-diagnose this

The people running your sales and onboarding process are, understandably, not well positioned to evaluate whether that process creates friction — they’re used to it, they know the workarounds, and what feels like a minor extra step to someone who does it daily can feel like a real obstacle to a prospect experiencing it for the first time. This is a case where walking the actual prospect journey firsthand, the way an outside evaluator would, tends to surface friction that’s become completely invisible to the people running it.

What to do once you suspect this is the pattern

The instinct is usually to ask sales for more detail in win-loss interviews, and that helps, but it’s limited by the same problem — you’re asking people to accurately recall and report friction they may not have consciously registered as friction. A more reliable approach is auditing the actual buyer and evaluation journey directly: walking it the way a prospect would, mapping where friction lives at each touchpoint, and benchmarking specifically against how the competitors you’re losing to run their own process.

If this pattern sounds familiar — technically competitive deals lost for reasons nobody can quite pin down — a Customer Experience Audit scoped to your sales and evaluation journey, including direct benchmarking against the competitors you’re actually losing to, is built for exactly this. And if you want a rough sense of what those losses are costing before scoping an engagement, the CX ROI Calculator is a fast way to start putting a number on 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.

Future Vision XPRIZE: The Top 50 Optimistic Futures

Leave a reply

$2.6M+ to Film a Future Worth Building — And Why You Should Vote Now

Future Vision XPRIZE: The Top 50 Optimistic Futures

by Braden Kelley and Art Inteligencia

Innovation Shows Up First as a Story

Innovation almost always shows up first as a story. Someone writes down the submarine, the moon landing, the video call — and decades later we build it. Culture dreams of a destination. Engineering finds the path.

That is the remit of the Future Vision XPRIZE: a global competition — with a $3.5M+ prize pool and a $2.6M+ grand prize path to turn a short vision into a feature film — asking creators to show an optimistic, abundant, technology-enabled future worth wanting. Not a utopia without stakes. Not dystopia as the only imagination we fund. A future where humanity faces real danger and still figures something out — or at least believes it can.

The assignment was clear: a trailer of up to three minutes, plus a treatment of up to twelve pages, depicting a compelling hopeful future. Tools were wide open — traditional filmmaking, animation, AI, hybrids. The spirit was Star Trek’s deeper bet: that humanity can evolve intellectually, ethically, and socially toward greater understanding, possibility, and purpose. Judges for the competition include voices such as Neil deGrasse Tyson, Neal Stephenson, Mira Lane, and Rod Roddenberry. Finals land live at Moonshots LIVE in Los Angeles on September 25, 2026.

Why This Competition Matters Beyond the Prize

Incentive competitions are how XPRIZE has long pulled breakthroughs into the open. Future Vision flips the lens: the breakthrough here is collective imagination. Cautionary tales still matter — they help us navigate risk. But builders also need a north star. Soft landings for technology are designed. Soft landings for culture start with stories that make a better Tuesday feel real enough to pursue.

That is why this prize can inspire more than filmmakers and futurists. When the public watches fifty short visions of progress — climate and cities, longevity and memory, oceans and robotics, first contact and consciousness — people are not only entertained. They are rehearsing what “good” might look like. They are practicing hope with craft. Innovators get a richer brief than a white paper. Citizens get permission to want a future that is not only less bad, but more human.

Key Themes Across the Top 50

From more than 2,500 submissions, Range, XPRIZE, and Google selected fifty official films. Browse them and a pattern emerges — not a single prescribed future, but a cluster of human-centered themes:

Connection and consciousness — how we stay human to each other when tools get intimate with mind and dream.
Memory, biotech, and longevity — what we inherit, repair, and refuse to treat as disposable.
Nature, climate, oceans, and energy — technology solving real planetary constraints, not escaping them in costume.
AI, robotics, and cities — intelligence and infrastructure as partners in thriving, not only engines of extraction.
Space and first contact — exploration as shared purpose, not only conquest theater.

The competition’s own brief says it well: technology solving problems, humanity thriving (not merely surviving), a future worth building, and stories that move people emotionally. The Top 50 are the proof that creators worldwide answered that brief with ambition.

Trailers Beat Paper Scripts — And AI Changed Who Can Compete

For decades, “vision” in innovation and entertainment often traveled as a PDF: treatments, decks, and scripts that only a small room could feel. A trailer is different. In three minutes you either earn belief or you do not. You show the stakes, the texture, the emotional residue. Creative teams get to demonstrate their thinking — world, tone, character, craft — over and above the traditional paper scripts that usually get circulated and politely ignored.

AI did not invent storytelling. It did change the cost of a compelling, professional-looking trailer. Small teams can now prototype cinematic language that once required budgets only studios could touch. That is not a guarantee of soul — fluency without contact is still decoration — but it is a genuine opening. More than 2,500 submissions is not a marketing slogan. It is evidence that the barrier to showing a future dropped, and the world answered.

Used well, AI becomes a soft landing for creation: glue and production friction absorbed so human judgment, taste, and meaning stay in the frame. Used poorly, it becomes dystopia cosplay at higher RPM. The Future Vision XPRIZE rewards the former — visions with craft and hope that still feel earned.

Pairwise Voting Is Open on the 50 Finalists

Right now the public gets a real job. The SPECS Audience Choice Award puts $100,000 behind crowd favorites — $50K for first, $30K for second, $10K for third, and $5K each for fourth and fifth — decided entirely by vote. Crowdvoting is powered in partnership with SIV.org, and the experience is built as a simple, human question: Which future do you prefer?

That pairwise framing matters. You are not ranking fifty titles in the abstract. You are choosing between living visions — side by side — the way culture actually chooses what it wants more of. Watch. Compare. Vote. On September 25, the Top 5 also screen live in Los Angeles, with the grand prize path aimed at producing the winning feature with Range Media Partners and a $2.6M+ package ($100K cash for screenplay development plus $2.5M equity investment toward production), alongside runners-up and Top 10 prizes across the wider pool.

How to Vote — and a Preview of My Top 3

You can watch the Top 50 and cast your Audience Choice votes at https://vote.futurevisionxprize.com/. It takes about a minute to start — and every pairwise choice is a small act of futurology: telling the culture which north stars deserve oxygen.

Here is a preview of my Top 3 from the fifty. These are not the only films worth your time — watch widely — but they are the three I keep returning to:

1. PROVENANCE — Chris Winterton

Themes: Memory · Biotech · Connection. In 2160, ancestral memory is inherited through craft, and a young ceramicist starts inheriting the one memory she cannot hold. Human-centered sci-fi at its best: technology intimate with identity, dignity still in the room.

Watch PROVENANCE on YouTube · Official selection page

2. Somewhere Past Midnight — Felix Roumagnac

Themes: Consciousness · Connection. Two teenagers meet inside on-demand lucid dreams and go looking for the boundless world childhood promised. A reminder that optimistic futures are not only about machines — they are about what we still long for when the tools get powerful.

Watch Somewhere Past Midnight on YouTube · Official selection page

3. Rock Rider — Christof Vonbank

Themes: Space · First Contact. A space trucker hauling a town-sized asteroid to an Earth he’s never touched finds a stowaway carrying proof we were never alone. Exploration with grit, wonder, and a future that still has room for surprise.

Watch Rock Rider on YouTube · Official selection page

Then go vote for the futures you prefer: https://vote.futurevisionxprize.com/. Learn more about the competition at futurevisionxprize.com.

Stories shape what we fund, what we build, and what we forgive ourselves for wanting. Future Vision XPRIZE is a rare chance to put public imagination on a scoreboard that still has money, stages, and makers attached. Watch the fifty. Prefer a future on purpose. Soft landings for humanity start with north stars we can feel.

I’m curious! Please SHARE YOUR TOP 3 in the comments.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Future Vision XPRIZE?

Future Vision XPRIZE is a global sci-fi film competition from XPRIZE (with partners including Google and Range) inviting creators to submit up to three-minute trailers of optimistic, abundant futures. The prize pool is $3.5M+, with a $2.6M+ grand prize path to develop the winning vision into a feature film.

How do you vote in the Future Vision XPRIZE Audience Choice Award?

Go to https://vote.futurevisionxprize.com/ and compare finalist visions in a pairwise “Which future do you prefer?” experience. The SPECS Audience Choice Award distributes $100,000 based entirely on public voting. You can also browse all 50 official selections at https://fvxp.moonshots.com/.

How many submissions did Future Vision XPRIZE receive?

More than 2,500 films were entered worldwide. Fifty were selected as official finalists for public voting and the path toward live finals in Los Angeles on September 25, 2026.

What themes appear in Future Vision XPRIZE finalists?

Finalist themes span AI, biotech, cities, connection, consciousness, energy, first contact, longevity, memory, nature and climate, oceans, robotics, and space — unified by the remit of technology solving problems and humanity thriving in a future worth building.

Can AI be used to create a Future Vision XPRIZE trailer?

Yes. Competition guidelines allowed any production tools — traditional filming, animation, AI, or hybrids. AI lowered the barrier to professional-looking trailers and helped enable the scale of 2,500+ submissions, while human craft and hopeful storytelling remain what the remits reward.

Image Credits: Cursor

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.

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