Human-Centered AI: 5 HCD Principles for Developing AI 

Reading Time 6 mins

Introduction 

In recent years, Artificial Intelligence (AI) has transcended the realms of science fiction to become an integral part of our daily lives. From recommending the next song on your playlist to predicting global financial markets, AI's capabilities are vast, varied, and truly transformative. As with any disruptive technology, the potential of AI is unparalleled, promising solutions to some of the most pressing challenges we face today in healthcare. 

Yet, amidst this meteoric rise and potential, lies a pressing concern: For whom is this AI being developed? And more importantly, who gets to decide? This is where the significance of a human-centered approach in AI development emerges. It is not just about building intelligent systems, but about crafting solutions that resonate with, empower, and uplift people, ensuring that technology complements human capabilities rather than competing with or marginalizing them.  

Why is Human-Centered AI Critical? 

Artificial Intelligence, in all its prowess, is not immune to the complexities of human nature. In fact, when not crafted with a human-centric vision, its impact can be starkly detrimental. Ignoring human factors in AI's development can lead to systems that are not only unhelpful but potentially harmful. Here's why: 

1. Bias and Discrimination: Without careful consideration, AI can perpetuate, and sometimes amplify, societal biases. These biases, present in data or algorithms, can lead to unfair or discriminatory outcomes, further marginalizing vulnerable populations.
2. Loss of Trust: AI systems that act in unpredictable or unsatisfactory ways can quickly lose user trust, making them less likely to be adopted or effectively utilized.
3. Safety Concerns: In a critical sector like healthcare, a non-human-centric AI can directly endanger lives due to ill-informed decisions or actions. 

Case Study: Oversight in Healthcare AI 

IBM's Watson for Oncology was acclaimed as a groundbreaking AI that could help doctors diagnose and treat cancer by providing tailored treatment recommendations based on the analysis of vast medical datasets. However, it faced criticism and challenges upon actual implementation. 

In 2018, reports surfaced indicating that Watson had occasionally made unsafe or incorrect treatment recommendations for cancer patients. For instance, there were instances when Watson suggested treatment plans that weren't in line with best practices and clinical guidelines. 

A critical issue was how Watson had been trained. Rather than being purely data-driven, it relied heavily on the input from human experts at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. If these experts had a particular bias or if there was a gap in the knowledge provided, Watson might not make a fully informed recommendation. 

This situation underscores the importance of the data used to train AI, the potential pitfalls of over-reliance on AI recommendations without human validation, and the challenges of deploying AI in complex, real-world medical scenarios. 

5 HCD Principles for Developing AI 

As AI becomes increasingly integral to our daily routines, it's vital to create systems that align with human values and needs. Beyond advanced algorithms, the real challenge is ensuring AI resonates and serves its users. Here are five essential HCD principles for genuine human-centered AI development. 

1. Empathetic Problem Definition: At the heart of effective AI solutions lies a deep understanding of users' genuine needs and emotions. By embracing an empathetic approach, we ensure that AI not only aligns with but also addresses the real challenges faced by users. To truly achieve this, ongoing collaboration with end-users should be woven into every phase of AI strategic planning.
2. Fairness and Bias Consideration: Achieving fairness in AI is crucial to avoid amplifying existing societal biases. AI system designers and developers must engage in continual introspection and assessment to prevent inadvertent propagation of these biases. While technical solutions, such as adversarial testing and fairness toolkits, play a pivotal role, a deeper approach demands an appreciation of the broader historical and societal contexts in which these technologies are deployed. As a recommendation, AI development teams should integrate interdisciplinary experts, including sociologists and ethicists, to provide comprehensive insights into the potential socio-cultural implications of AI systems. 
3. Transparency and Explainability: Imagine boarding a self-driving car that doesn’t tell you how it decides its routes. An unnerving experience, right? This highlights the necessity for AI decisions to be transparent and explainable. Especially in critical domains like healthcare, understanding AI’s reasoning instills trust and facilitates better decision-making. Tools like LIME (Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations) are being developed to demystify the often complex inner workings of AI, enabling users to have a clear view of the decision-making process.
4. Privacy and Data Protection: In an age where data breaches make headlines, the importance of user data privacy in AI cannot be overstressed. Every piece of personal information processed by AI systems poses a potential risk if not handled with utmost care, especially in healthcare. There have been instances where seemingly harmless AI applications, like photo-editing apps, were found mishandling user data. Ensuring rigorous data protection protocols, incorporating techniques like differential privacy, and being transparent about data usage are critical steps towards establishing and maintaining user trust.
5. Ethical Considerations: Beyond the bits and bytes, AI has profound societal implications. Ethical AI development isn’t just about creating efficient algorithms; it's about asking the deeper questions: Who benefits from the AI? Who might be harmed? Is the AI reinforcing harmful stereotypes or contributing to societal inequalities? Consider the ethical debate around AI in surveillance. While it can enhance security, unchecked usage can lead to invasive privacy violations or state control. Developers need a holistic ethical framework, one that ensures that AI serves humanity and respects fundamental rights.

Case Study: Bridging Gaps in Healthcare AI 

Diabetic retinopathy (DR) is the fastest-growing cause of blindness, with nearly 415 million diabetic patients at risk worldwide. Early detection and treatment can significantly reduce the risk, but many patients, especially in low-resource settings, lack access to screening. Recognizing this challenge, Google Health developed a deep learning system to assist eye doctors in identifying DR. 

A truly human-centric approach was employed in the design and deployment of this AI solution. It was trained on a dataset of retinal images that were extensively labeled by ophthalmologists, ensuring its foundation was rooted in expert human knowledge. Recognizing the potential diversity of patients, efforts were made to ensure that the training data was representative of various ethnicities and backgrounds. 

But what made it particularly human-centered was its usability for the intended end-users: the doctors and medical staff. The AI system provided not just a binary result, but also highlighted the areas of concern on the retinal image, thereby giving physicians a transparent and interpretable result, allowing them to make the final diagnosis. 

The result? In field deployments, this AI showed performance on par with U.S. board-certified ophthalmologists. It has been heralded as a potential game-changer for regions where there’s a shortage of ophthalmologists, emphasizing how a human-centric approach to AI can bridge gaps in healthcare and improve patient outcomes. 

Conclusion 

In the ever-evolving landscape of AI, it's paramount to ensure that our technological advances remain rooted in human needs and values. A human-centric AI not only enhances user trust and satisfaction but also ensures ethical and effective solutions. As we delve deeper into the AI realm, let's prioritize this human-centered approach, making technology an enabler rather than a barrier. 

Reference 

Gulshan, V., Peng, L., Coram, M., Stumpe, M. C., Wu, D., Narayanaswamy, A., ... & Kim, R. (2016). Development and validation of a deep learning algorithm for detection of diabetic retinopathy in retinal fundus photographs. JAMA, 316(22), 2402-2410. 

Ross, C., & Swetlitz, I. (2018). IBM’s Watson supercomputer recommended ‘unsafe and incorrect’ cancer treatments, internal documents show. STAT News. 

Continued Learning 

Team Essentials for AI: Apply Design Thinking to AI (Free 3-hour training) 

https://www.ibm.com/design/thinking/page/courses/AI_Essentials 

AI in Healthcare, Standford School of Medicine (5-course specialization via Coursera subscription) 

https://www.coursera.org/specializations/ai-healthcare  

How Collaboration Improves U.S. Health Care

Reading Time 6 mins

In the face of escalating healthcare costs and inconsistent quality, the call for increased competition in the United States healthcare system has been prominent. Proponents argue that competition could incentivize hospitals to deliver superior care at reduced costs. However, it's crucial to acknowledge that competition isn't a universal remedy; the quality of care remains highly variable both within and between health systems, and some research indicates that competition may even diminish quality and worsen disparities, particularly among less profitable patient groups. An alternative and potentially more effective approach involves fostering collaboration among hospitals, an idea that entails sharing internal data, financial transparency, and cooperative efforts with neighboring institutions. Although this notion may appear ambitious, it's already in practice, yielding positive outcomes. 

Why Collaborate? 

Collaboration holds immense significance, not only within a company but also between different organizations. It fosters enhanced problem-solving, peer-to-peer learning, a shared sense of purpose, and the emergence of innovative ideas. Rosabeth Moss Kanter emphasized the vital role of collaborative relationships between companies in achieving individual success. Successful collaborations among organizations are characterized by their capacity to unveil unanticipated opportunities, generate fresh value rather than engage in zero-sum transactions, and operate as collective endeavors with equal contributions from all stakeholders. This concept has been coined as the "collaborative advantage." 

Collaborative Success Stories 

In 1997, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan initiated the BMC2 Cardiovascular Consortium, a program with a simple yet ambitious goal: bring hospitals together to enhance cardiovascular disease care, a leading cause of death in the United States. Starting with five hospitals, it expanded to encompass over 50 hospitals across Michigan. These hospitals shared in-depth clinical data, including their approaches to treating the disease, complication rates, and technology utilization. This transparency unveiled hidden performance gaps, led to innovative solutions, and spurred practice improvements. Instead of competing, hospitals began to learn from one another. Impressive outcomes in infection control or smoking cessation, for instance, were shared and adopted collectively. Consequently, this collaboration elevated care quality, reduced cardiovascular complications, hospital readmissions, care costs, and mortality rates statewide. 

• Bariatric surgery — 56% reduction in mortality 
• Blood clot prevention — 175,000 unnecessary lab tests prevented 
• Cardiovascular care — 51% reduction in bleeding complications 
• General surgery — 23% reduction in surgical-site infections 
• Hospital medicine — Reduction in unnecessary antibiotics, leading to a change in national guidelines 
• Knee and hip replacement — 53% fewer discharges to extended care facilities after surgery 
• Urology — 50% reduction in procedure-related hospitalizations 

Moreover, collaboration in healthcare proves invaluable in crisis response. The Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium, comprising over 40 hospitals, adeptly redirected its collaborative efforts to address the Covid-19 pandemic. Within a month of the first documented Covid-19 case in Michigan, this collaborative established a statewide database for tracking Covid-19 hospitalizations and identifying critical risk factors for severe illness. The outcome was a publicly accessible risk calculator that aided clinicians in assessing patient risk on an individual basis. This model of collaboration extended nationwide, with healthcare systems across the country uniting to share information and resources, effectively combating the pandemic. 

Furthermore, the financial benefits of collaboration cannot be understated. Preventing complications, reducing hospital admissions, and minimizing unnecessary care translate into substantial cost savings. Collectively, Collaborative Quality Initiatives (CQIs) have saved an estimated $1.4 billion in healthcare expenses. A study by the RAND Corporation reveals that Michigan boasts some of the nation's lowest healthcare costs. This success has prompted other states like Illinois and Wisconsin to adopt a similar collaborative approach to enhance care quality and reduce expenses, demonstrating that collaboration may rival, if not surpass, competition in achieving the elusive goal of better care at lower costs in healthcare. These insightful examples explain the true value of collaboration across teams, organizations and functions to the benefit of patients and customers. 

How Does Collaboration in Health Care Work? 

Collaborative quality improvement has been a fixture in healthcare since the 1980s, involving multiple stakeholders, including clinicians, non-clinicians, departments, and entire hospitals, pooling resources to share information, identify performance gaps, and develop solutions. This approach departs from the traditional proprietary model, emphasizing transparency by openly sharing outcomes, processes, and expenses across the group. 

The impact of this collaboration is twofold. Firstly, it provides hospitals and physicians with insights into their performance relative to peers, enabling them to identify high and low performers, fostering competition and improvement. Secondly, it facilitates the tracking of performance over time, allowing for the assessment of effective strategies. In essence, collaboration contextualizes performance, addressing the critical need for benchmarking and revealing that leaders in one aspect of care may lag in others 
The second major advantage of hospital collaboration is that it empowers those providing care to shape the improvement agenda, highlighting the crucial importance of physician and hospital engagement. Once hospitals grasp their standing within the group, they can take ownership of localized solutions. 

For instance, when a coalition of 26 hospitals in the Michigan Spine Surgery Improvement Collaborative identified patients' post-surgery urination difficulties as a major challenge, local experts—spine surgeons, anesthesiologists, and nurses—developed tailored solutions. Remarkably, these solutions saved an estimated $20 million. This approach sharply contrasts with traditional top-down regulatory reform, where uniform regulations mandate identical problem-solving approaches across all hospitals, often without sufficient data. Regrettably, such a top-down approach can result in inefficient resource utilization and unintended patient harm. Conversely, collaboration allows hospitals to enhance their performance by leveraging their unique processes, addressing specific challenges, and capitalizing on their individual strengths. 

Scarcity and Abundance 

The concepts of "scarcity" and "abundance" mindsets, popularized by Stephen Covey, provide a valuable lens through which to examine the dynamics of competition and collaboration. The prevalent call for competition in healthcare often stems from a scarcity mindset, where resources are perceived as fixed, and the healthcare industry is viewed as a zero-sum game reliant on securing a competitive edge. This perspective can often dominate boardrooms, where hospitals may regard each other as adversaries to be surpassed or absorbed. In this framework, only a subset of hospitals that outcompete their peers is expected to see improvement. 

Conversely, an abundance mindset, which regards opportunities as additive rather than mutually exclusive, offers the possibility of simultaneous improvement for all hospitals. Unlike the scarcity mindset, which necessitates a winner for every loser, an abundance mindset recognizes the potential for "win-win" scenarios. Collaboration emerges as a potent avenue to harness these opportunities. Over more than two decades, Michigan has showcased the benefits of this collaborative approach, delivering reduced costs, enhanced quality, and heightened patient satisfaction for payers, providers, and patients alike. Collaboration underscores the idea that healthcare thrives when its most exceptional talents collaborate rather than compete, suggesting that increased collaboration might be precisely what the healthcare industry requires. 

What should CMS do? Six Actions

1. Promote Collaborative Initiatives: CMS should actively encourage and support collaborative initiatives among healthcare providers, similar to the Collaborative Quality Initiatives (CQIs) in Michigan. This can be achieved by providing incentives and resources for hospitals and healthcare organizations to collaborate on improving care quality and reducing costs. 
2. Emphasize Transparency: CMS should advocate for greater transparency in healthcare by encouraging hospitals to share data and performance metrics. Transparency enables hospitals to benchmark their performance against peers, identify areas for improvement, and adopt best practices. 
3. Localized Solutions: CMS should recognize the importance of localized solutions. Encourage healthcare providers to take ownership of solutions at a local level based on their unique challenges and strengths. This approach can lead to more effective and efficient improvements in patient care. 
4. Measure Outcomes: Develop a robust system for measuring healthcare outcomes, not just costs. CMS should focus on tracking metrics related to care quality, patient satisfaction, and health outcomes. This data can help identify successful collaborative efforts and guide future initiatives. 
5. Abundance Mindset: Promote an "abundance mindset" within the healthcare industry. Encourage healthcare organizations to view collaboration as an opportunity for mutual benefit rather than a zero-sum competition. This mindset shift can lead to more widespread improvements in healthcare. 
6. Incentivize Collaboration: Consider offering financial incentives and reimbursement models that reward healthcare providers for participating in collaborative efforts and achieving specific quality and cost-saving outcomes. 

In summary, CMS should prioritize collaboration, transparency, and localized solutions as key strategies to address the challenges of rising healthcare costs and inconsistent quality while also emphasizing the importance of an abundance mindset within the healthcare industry. These actions can contribute to better care at lower costs, benefiting patients and healthcare providers alike. 

Resources: 

Michigan Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium; https://www.mi-hms.org/quality-initiatives/mi-covid19-initiative-retired 

COVID-19 In-Hospital Mortality Risk Score Model: https://micovidriskcalc.org/ 

Blue Shield - Collaborative Quality Initiatives: https://www.valuepartnerships.com/programs/collaborative-quality-initiatives/ 

Rand Research Study: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3033.html 

Science Direct: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1070324116304084 

Science Direct: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0741521421019777 

Science Direct: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1070324116304084 

Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinecastrillon/2020/07/12/5-ways-to-go-from-a-scarcity-to-abundance-mindset/?sh=6dfc8c2b1197 

CNS Journal: https://journals.lww.com/neurosurgery/abstract/2023/10000/minimally_invasive_transforaminal_lumbar_interbody.18.aspx?context=featuredarticles&collectionid=39 

Working with the Public to Improve Digital Forms: A GSA Case Study

Reading Time: 2 min

The American public spends approximately 11.5 billion hours per year filling out federal government forms. Form complexity can result in lack of submission or completion, and errors on forms can cause processing delays and affect whether the form is accepted — which can have far-reaching consequences.

Join the CCSQ HCD Community of Practice on Thursday, September 28, for Working with the Public to Improve Digital Forms: A GSA Case Study. We will welcome members of the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Office of Evaluation Sciences (OES) to discuss the digital forms evaluation project and share how five GSA offices and the public worked together to improve federal forms.

During the session, we’ll explore how to:
•    Build and use evidence in the federal government,
•    Utilize data analytics and user feedback, and 
•    Evaluate the impact of form changes.

Stephanie Tepper - Associate Fellow at the Office of Evaluation Sciences

Stephanie Tepper received her Ph.D. in 2023 in Social Psychology from Cornell University. Her research focuses on how people in the U.S. think about economic inequality and how economic disadvantage influences well-being. Stephanie also studies how to develop behavioral science interventions to promote economic opportunity. Prior to earning her doctorate, she worked as an applied researcher at the Center for Advanced Hindsight at Duke University, where she developed and tested interventions with nonprofit and government partners to improve the financial well-being of people in low- to moderate-income households. Stephanie holds a B.A. in Psychology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 

Blair Read - Associate Fellow at the Office of Evaluation Sciences 

Blair Read received her Ph.D. in Political Science at MIT, where her research focused on the politics of private service delivery with an application to education policy in the Global South. Through her applied policy research, Blair uses randomized control trials, quasi-experimental design, and descriptive inference with large-scale administrative data to study how to improve citizens’ experiences with the government, and poverty alleviation. Other applied research interests include political behavior in the Global South, and survey design and measurement. Prior to the Office of Evaluation Sciences, Blair was a data scientist with Code for America, and a field research associate with MIT GOV/LAB, where she implemented lab-in-the-field experiments in Tanzania and Uganda. 

The presentation slides and recording will be available following the session on Confluence. 

***

When: Thursday, September 28, 1 PM ET

Where: Zoom; Meeting ID: 161 139 6449; Passcode: 585100 

How to Design the Best Meeting Ever

Reading Time 8 mins

I have a confession to make: I'm not a big fan of meetings. Now don't get me wrong. I understand why we have meetings. Meetings can be used to provide new information. Meetings can be used to make new decisions. Meetings can be used to align expectations. Meetings can be used to "meet" new coworkers. Meetings can be long. Meetings can be short. Meetings can include many people. Meetings can include as little as two people. But often there are few engaged people due to lack of design. Yes, I said design. To run an effective meeting, you need to intentionally design it so it achieves your objectives.

One of my favorite types of meetings are ones where teams go through an affinity diagramming activity. One variation, called the KJ Technique, offers a chance for teams to both brainstorm and prioritize possible solutions. So in as little as an hour, there's a chance to discuss potential solutions to a problem and reach decisions with the consensus of many. It's an activity that intentionally encourages active engagement and participation from everyone. Yet not all meetings can be run this way. So I offer up 7 suggestions for designing the best meeting ever.

1: Test the Technology

How many times have you shown up for a meeting and had to wait while the organizer sorts out a technical issue? I remember one job I had where it felt like I could show up 15 minutes late because there was always some issue with computer connectivity or problems using some piece of software. While it is not always possible, try to run a tech check ahead of the meeting to ensure that technology will enhance, rather than subtract, from the time you have called people together. A majority of us work remotely and use the same computer day after day. But if the meeting is in person, go to the location ahead of time to make sure that you know how to run any technology and to confirm that your tools will play nicely in a setting that closely resembles what will really happen. I've even had laptop updates impact my ability to run an app. Or sometimes something I wanted to show on my screen instead looked fuzzy or out of focus when projected to an audience. Test and practice the meeting logistics before you facilitate the meeting. And also prepare for the worst and have a backup plan ready to go.

2: Start. Stop. Break.

It's difficult to know for just how long to schedule a meeting. Sometimes that question may be answered simply by the availability of others you want to invite. Nonetheless, before you can even decide on how long to schedule a meeting, you need to determine your goals and objectives (see #3). But here's what you can decide. First, when you schedule a start time, start on time. If people learn that you are punctual and respect everyone's time, then they will respect your time. But in today's age of remote work, the reality is that some people have back to back to back meetings with no breaks in between. So what can you do to show consideration? The easiest thing you can control is to end the meeting before the top or the bottom of the hour. Consider hosting a 45 minute meeting so that people can break and prepare for their next meeting. Chances are, most meetings begin and end at the top or bottom of any hour. But what if you have a challenge with people showing late because they just came out of another meeting? Could you take what was normally a 1 hour meeting and shorten it on either end, so it starts at 5 minutes after the hour and ends 5 minutes before? Again, these little changes demonstrate that you respect everyone's time but also sets the expectation that you will start at the start time. And while many meetings only go for an hour, if you have meetings that last longer, consider scheduling breaks every 1-1.5 hours. This can help attendees re-energize so they can contribute more.

3: Win the Battle for Structure

In The Family Crucible, Carl Whitaker and Augustus Napier describe a battle that take place between counselors and clients in the counseling setting. The authors indicate that the counselor’s task is to make a therapeutic environment where the client can process experiences and make changes. This would include a counselor:

• set session expectations and structure,
• review policies and informed consent with the clients,
• discuss confidentiality and limits of confidentiality, and
• help clients stay focused on their goals.
  
  

In other words, one primary responsibility of a counselor is to structure a session to make the clients feel safe. I would argue this is no different in a business meeting setting. And without intentionally structuring a meeting and setting expectations, participants may take it over and turn it into something that does not meet your goals and objectives. So, how do you win this battle for structure?

Before the Meeting

Before the meeting even begins, you should set expectations. Clearly state the goals and objectives in any communications, including on the calendar invite itself. If you have an agenda, communicate that information as well so people gain an understanding of what you seek to accomplish during the timeframe. If some attendees do not respond, consider reaching out to them individually, asking them to respond. This sets expectations for meeting behavior. Be intentional when sending an invite if the attendee should be considered required or optional. And if they are optional, should they be invited in the first place? Persons invited as optional should receive communication ahead of time indicating why they are optional and what you role you expect of them. And be prepared to cancel or reschedule the meeting if a required attendee is unable to join the meeting.

During the Meeting

Maybe a required individual responds in the affirmative but then is a no-show. Again, be prepared to cancel or reschedule the meeting. Remember, you must win the Battle for Structure, and it may mean speaking with that person afterwards to stress how their behavior impacts the success (or lack thereof) of the planned meeting. But assuming the required people show, spend a few minutes setting expectations and creating a safe environment by:

• Goals, Objectives, Agenda: Reiterate the purpose of the meeting by stating your goals and objectives. Review the agenda and setting expectations for time breakdown.
• Participation: Tell meeting attendees what their participation and contribution will look like. When can they speak? Can people just jump in or should they raise their hand and take turns to speak?

4: Assign Roles

My wife will tell you that I have a poor short term memory. What this means is that if I attend a meeting and I fail to take notes, I may very easily forget what was accomplished in that very meeting. While we may not always have our own resources to spare, consider enlisting meeting attendees to fill some roles, including:

• Facilitator - This is often the organizer of the meeting, responsible for covering all goals of the meeting.
• Recorder - This is the note taker - the person responsible for documenting and what happened and any action items/ next steps
• Tech Check - This person manages tech functions. If there is a remote portion of the meeting, this person can monitor communications during the event
• Time Keeper - This person makes sure the facilitator is aware of the time and what other agenda items must be addressed before the meeting ends.

5: Use Ice Breakers

If meeting attendees do not know one another, consider starting with an ice breaker. Certainly we can fall back onto a simple "introduce yourself" moment, but research suggests your ice breaker should give attendees an opportunity to share an embarrassing story. The idea being that if persons are able to be vulnerable and take off their mental masks, there's a greater likelihood of opening up opportunities for genuine creativity and innovative problem-solving. It also builds trust among the group, which leads to higher productivity in subsequent team interactions.

6: Keep Detours Brief

I sometimes joke how I am like the easily distracted dog chasing the proverbial squirrel. It's easy to get sidetracked. There may be a very important person or someone with a domineering personality who takes your meeting in another direction. But again, you must win the Battle for Structure. When discussions get sidetracked,  validate the person and their idea, but consider creating a "Parking Lot" of ideas. Consider even carving out some time at the end of the meeting to circle back and address other ideas mentioned in the meeting.

7: Take Meaningful Action

Nobody wants to leave a meeting without understanding what is going to happen as a result. If a meeting does not move the needle, then I would argue that the meeting never had clear goals defined. If you have clearly stated meeting goals that is known by all, then be sure to carve out enough time to both identify and document decisions and next actions. This will increase team morale as attendees will feel they participated in meaningful activity. Further, any delegated tasks will add a sense of meaning and responsibility to the person who must take action.

--

Nobody wants to waste their time attending a meaningless meeting. By approaching any meeting as a design challenge, consider crafting each meeting with intent. Win the Battle for Structure by creating an environment that sets expectations and provides a safe place to be creative and build trust.