Position the second workshop
Make clear that participants are moving above the ART level into cross-ART coordination, shared capabilities and decision cadence.
Module 2 · LEGO Value Stream Workshop
Facilitator Setup Prepare the room as a decision system.
A long-form facilitator page based on slides 1–6 of the LEGO Value Stream Workshop deck. Use it to position the workshop, explain why it exists, and let every participant assess which large-solution coordination topics matter in their own environment.
Training intent
Do not start with a framework. Start with the coordination problem.
The facilitator setup is the moment where participants shift their mental model: the first LEGO workshop is about teams, one ART, iteration planning and visible delivery. This second workshop is about several ARTs that must create one integrated regional system. The learning problem is no longer simply “Can we build more?” It is “Can we make the system decision-capable while the work is changing?”
Build the room model
Prepare FutureREGION, roadmap boards, ART forecast boards, dependency views and decision backlog so the room behaves like a system.
Establish working agreements
Make bad news valuable, decisions explicit, assumptions visible and every open decision owned by a named person.
Slides 1–6 translated into the page
The first six slides become six facilitation moves.
The source deck starts with a cover, deck map, research basis, transition from the first LEGO workshop, learning goals and a framework-agnostic vocabulary. On this page those slides become a facilitation flow: orient the room, explain the map, make the research base transparent, connect to the prior simulation, anchor learning outcomes and translate terminology into the customer’s language.
01 · Purpose
Use the opening to say what this workshop is not: not another slide deck, not a framework certification exercise, not a status meeting simulation.
02 · Deck map
Frame the workshop as a trainer toolkit: concept, simulation, agenda, facilitation, scenarios and transfer into real cadence design.
03 · Research basis
Show that the method is grounded in Dynamic Agility material, large-solution roadmapping, flow, design thinking and team-of-teams research.
04 · Bridge
Connect workshop 1 to workshop 2: from one city and one ART to an integrated region requiring cross-ART decisions.
05 · Learning goals
Split learning into cognitive understanding and observable behavior so participants can assess both knowledge and operating practice.
06 · Vocabulary
Use terms such as ART, Solution Area, Solution Train, roadmap, forecast and sync as anchors — never as dogma.
Individual assessment
Before the simulation starts: what is already true in your own environment?
Give participants five minutes of silent reflection. Ask them to score each statement from 0 to 3. The goal is not to judge maturity. The goal is to reveal which large-solution mechanics are relevant enough to watch during the simulation.
Integrated value
Important outcomes in my environment only become real when several teams, ARTs, suppliers or platforms integrate their work.
Roadmap reliability
We need a shared roadmap that is more than a list of local plans, because sequence, risks and dependencies change together.
Decision cadence
Cross-ART trade-offs often wait for escalation instead of being decided in a regular decision cycle.
Forecast uncertainty
Our plans are useful forecasts, but they are treated too often as fixed commitments.
Shared foundations
Platform, architecture, security, compliance or data work competes with feature delivery and needs explicit capacity.
Learning loops
When new information appears, we can update the roadmap and decision backlog without losing trust in the process.
Deck map
Use the workshop as a modular facilitator kit, not as a slide dump.
The deck map from the source presentation is a useful contract with the room: concept, simulation, agenda, facilitation, scenarios and transfer. For training, this means the facilitator can deliberately decide where to go deep and where to stay light. For example, an executive awareness session may focus on the concept and one short sync exercise; a practitioner session can spend much more time on boards, change injects and transfer.
Concept
Why multiple ARTs need their own refinement and decision layer.
Which coordination problem do participants recognize from their work?
Simulation
Story, roles, boards, LEGO material and room setup.
Which physical artifacts will make the invisible system visible?
Agenda
One-day and shorter formats plus timeboxing.
Which parts can be shortened without losing the learning outcome?
Facilitation
Step-by-step guidance from setup to debrief.
Which interventions will turn confusion into learning instead of frustration?
Scenarios
Change injects, risks, supplier and management-gap cards.
Which injects mirror the customer’s real environment?
Transfer
How insights become roadmapping and sync cadence changes.
Which follow-up experiment can be run within 30 days?
Research basis
Framework-agnostic does not mean ungrounded.
The facilitator should name the research base without turning the workshop into a theory lecture. Dynamic Agility provides the core point of view: complex value, multi-transformation and the management gap create the need for integrated roadmaps and a decision cycle. Scrum contributes the idea of small, cross-functional, self-managing teams and empiricism. Kanban contributes flow, visualization and risk-aware trade-off conversations. SAFe contributes vocabulary for ARTs, PI Planning and Large Solution coordination. Team Topologies contributes a language for team-of-teams design, cognitive load and interaction modes. The Design Council contributes a useful design process for exploring, shaping and building.
Facilitator stance
Use sources as grounding, not as authority. The room should experience the coordination mechanics and then translate them into its own language.
Participant stance
Ask: “Which of these mechanics do we already have? Which ones are missing? Which ones exist only as meetings, not as decisions?”
From Workshop 1 to Workshop 2
The learning boundary moves above one ART.
The first LEGO workshop makes agile delivery tangible at team and ART level. Participants create backlogs, plan iterations and build a city. The second workshop changes the challenge: several ARTs must coordinate capabilities, dependencies, capacity, risks and decisions over several PIs. The bottleneck is no longer raw building speed; it is the quality of alignment and realignment across the network.
Workshop 1 asks
- Can teams plan and deliver increments?
- Can one ART synchronize work and learning?
- Can local visibility improve iteration decisions?
Workshop 2 asks
- Can several ARTs maintain one integrated solution view?
- Can roadmaps, forecasts and decision backlogs stay connected?
- Can the network realign fast when assumptions break?
Learning goals
Participants should leave with understanding and observable behavior.
Cognitive understanding
- Local ART optimization does not automatically create integrated customer value.
- Roadmaps, forecasts and decision backlogs are one operating system, not separate artifacts.
- A Solution Train or solution network is a refinement and decision layer, not just a bigger meeting.
Observable behavior
- Make dependencies visible before they become expensive.
- Decide trade-offs in the network instead of pushing them into political escalation.
- Update the roadmap after new information without treating learning as failure.
Participant worksheet
Translate the learning goals into your own work context.
Where do we need cognitive clarity?
Write down one current initiative where people disagree about whether the problem is team-level, ART-level or solution-level.
Where do we need behavioral practice?
Write down one recurring behavior you want to observe in the simulation: late dependency discovery, silent overcommitment, roadmap drift or unclear ownership.
Design principle
Use vocabulary as translation, not as doctrine.
The source deck deliberately stays framework-agnostic while still using terms such as Agile Team, ART, Solution Area, Solution Train, roadmap, decision cycle, sync and forecast. The facilitator’s job is to translate the mechanics into the customer’s vocabulary. If a participant says “tribe”, “domain”, “program”, “platform”, “portfolio” or “project cluster”, do not correct the label first. Ask which mechanism is meant: delivery, integration, shared capability, decision cadence, roadmap or risk response.
Agile Team
Small unit that delivers increments.
Who can actually change the system?
ART / Team-of-Teams
Cadenced group of teams delivering value.
Where does local planning currently stop?
Solution Area
Temporary or stable cluster around an integration problem.
Which problem requires a cross-cutting room?
Solution Train / Network
Coordination and refinement layer for several ARTs.
Where are cross-ART decisions made and updated?
Roadmap
Negotiable hypothesis about sequence, risks and shared capabilities.
What must remain stable and what must adapt?
Forecast
Planning assumption under uncertainty, not a frozen promise.
How do we make confidence and capacity visible?
Sync
Decision meeting, not a status meeting.
What changes because this meeting happened?
Facilitator setup canvas
Use this canvas before starting the simulation.
Scope
Which real value stream, product family, platform or solution should participants keep in mind while playing?
People
Which roles must be represented so the simulation does not become a team-only exercise?
Artifacts
Which boards must be prepared before the room arrives: roadmap, forecasts, dependencies, decisions, risks?
Decision rights
Which decisions are safe to simulate, and which real decisions need follow-up outside the workshop?
Transfer
Which 30-day experiment should be possible after the session?
Suggested facilitation rhythm
Open slowly enough for people to locate themselves.
0–5 min · Position
Explain the shift from one ART to multiple ARTs. Ask participants to name a current cross-ART coordination problem.
5–10 min · Assess
Use the assessment scale. Let participants mark the two topics they want to watch most closely in the simulation.
10–15 min · Translate
Agree on vocabulary. Map customer terms to mechanics: team, ART, solution area, roadmap, decision cycle and sync.
15–20 min · Show artifacts
Walk the room: FutureREGION, roadmap, ART forecast boards, dependency board and decision backlog.
20–25 min · Working agreements
Define how bad news, blocked decisions, capacity conflicts and ownership will be handled during the simulation.
25–30 min · Start
Move into the first simulation step. Keep the assessment visible as the personal observation contract.
Sources and grounding
Source material used for this facilitator page.
Primary Box source: LEGO_Value_Stream_Workshop.pptx, slides 1–6. Used for the deck purpose, deck map, research basis, bridge from workshop 1 to workshop 2, learning goals and framework-agnostic vocabulary.
Dynamic Agility source: 2026-04-17 Dynamic Agility Roadmapping.pdf. Used for the three drivers: complex value, multi-transformation and management gap, plus the need for integrated roadmaps and decision cycles.
Roadmapping source: Large Solution Roadmapping workshop with Examples.pdf. Used for roadmap inputs, forecasts, PI cadence and the distinction between vision, systems, value streams, milestones, enablers and roadmap items.
External references: Scrum Guide, Kanban Guide, SAFe PI Planning, Large Solution SAFe, Team Topologies key concepts, and Design Council Framework for Innovation.
Use note: Framework terms are used as reference vocabulary. In customer work, translate the mechanics into the customer’s own language before prescribing labels.
Continue the workshop flow
Move through the modules one decision layer at a time.
Dynamic Agility
Prepare the room so the network can learn.
The setup is successful when participants understand why the simulation exists, know which artifacts matter, and have identified which cross-ART coordination problems they want to assess in their own environment.
LEGO Value Stream Workshop anfragen