v0.5 Mindsets Updates

Okay, I've taken a first pass at assigning the mindsets values. First, I revised the spreadsheet as @rebeccapetzel suggested, making each value a column. I added sums that allow us to easily see how many cards are in each value and how many values are assigned to each card.

I then completed the categorization that @amywu, Rebecca, and I started using our original brainstormed list of values. I then added a few values that I thought were important and missing.

I looked at the values that didn't have many cards, and determined whether or not to merge it with another value or to eliminate it altogether. Then I looked at values that had a ton of cards, and I tried to be more judicious in the categorization.

I went through the mindsets and tried to make sure each card only had three at most values.

Finally, I iterated, double checking the lists to make sure they felt reasonably good.

The results? I got everything boiled down to 10 values:

Accountability
Collaboration
Courage
Diversity
Empathy
Innovation
Learning
Performance
Resilience
Trust

Diversity and Innovation are on the bubble, since they're relatively scarce, and "Innovation" could be thought of a cross between "Learning" and "Performance."

I'm also on the bubble with "Collaboration" and "Performance," because they're very general. The numbers validate this — they both have lots of cards.

I love performance as an addition. I think it gets at something that was missing in the first pass, but I couldn't put my finger on. Same with collaboration. So my vote is to keep them both this time around, along with the bubble categories. This looks really, really strong, and will see what we see in the next round of prototyping!

Re: mindset prep I sorted all the cards into ones I thought were good, meh, I'd throw out, or important but not mindsets. I'd love to take a stab at convering those "important but not mindsets" into some mindsets tomorrow when I'm reacquainted with my cards. I think the way I'll do this is to add a subcell on the existing card, as I'd tinker with a few different iterations.

Sorry I can't do this till tomorrow (I'm stuck at Aaron's without a car and a bum foot so not feeling adventurous enough to go get the work I already started, or start from scratch). I'll most-likely do this in the 2-3 hour tomorrow, but suspect it's not worth waiting for this coming round. I already told Amy I'll just add in some other framings by hand for our SIFT iterations that will allow us to test those additional mindsets.

Thanks Eugene! Looking good!

Thanks, @rebeccapetzel! Based on the work you're doing in the spreadsheet right now, I feel pretty good about where we'll be by tomorrow morning, even without your cards.

If you and I are careful about versioning and assuming our list will be in a pretty good state by tomorrow morning, we should be able to make tweaks tomorrow afternoon when you have access to your notes without screwing up Amy's schedule. Let's coordinate.

OK, got through as many as I could tonight before making dinner. I both added additional lines under things when I thought the suggestion was totally different as well as added suggestions in the "suggested updates". I assume something will be noted in history when those suggestions are either incorporated or denied? I guess there's a piece of the process between where the list is now towards making this the new master (ie deciding which ones to actually change or not) that's a bit mysterious to me. Oh, which makes me think we need some more mindsets around uncertainty!

We have a stub design doc which had some of these answers. I went ahead and fleshed the section on criteria based on what we currently understand, and made the doc publicly commentable:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/11SX0dbK7lO19u0De-HUof9NyN3Lad6c9Fr2IsMgL6jo/edit?usp=sharing

Here's the current criteria:

1. Be minimally redundant. Each mindset should have a uniquely distinct nuance. Our goal with this deck is to seed conversation, not to accurately capture all of the possible nuances of every different mindset.

2. Be data-driven as much as possible. For now, err on the side of more, and let prototyping / dot voting / data collection determine which are the most useful mindsets.

3. Make the whole deck easily handled, which probably means a limit of about 60 cards. We could potentially have a “small” core deck with add-on decks for more specialized cultures.

4. Keep costs low. A small batch of a 60-card deck costs about $30/deck, so we’re going to target 60 for now (including printed blanks).

Thoughts? Revisions?

I finished a pass of pruning and consolidation using the criteria listed above. We're at 65 cards. I'm sure there are additional cards we could remove (or add back), so I'd like to open things up to feedback and suggestions before I close the book on this.

Great work, everyone! My feedback can be found at the following link, in addition to a bunch of extra mindsets that we developed this afternoon. I didn't know how to create a doc in the mindsets folder, so here is a link to it.
https://docs.google.com/a/groupaya.net/document/d/1yl8Gy9i_DJtlT7bCbJETOWOP5tIRigq-BpwNMN02Zms/edit

Thank you, @kristincobble. Lots of good changes here. I incorporated most of them. Also, @amywu, thanks for your edits including a lot of reclassifying values. It was helpful to have another pair of eyes there.

In general, great work everyone! We ended up putting in a lot more work on this than I had previously expected we would, and I really appreciate all of your efforts here. Here's the current, near final tally for v0.5:

65 cards total (up from 60). We removed 20 old cards, and added or edited 47! (Anything that was touched is highlighted in the spreadsheet.)

We have 32 Less Of, 26 More Of, and 7 Neutral.

The reason we touched so many cards was that we changed many cards away from the shorthand into more descriptive mindsets. It makes everything longer and less skimmable, and it will make Amy's job harder. It was also quite bold, because we had gotten very positive feedback about our previous mindsets.

We're definitely not modeling, "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" :-) And, I think that's exactly right. Let's see how it plays out in this next version of testing.