Mind Mapping

Challenge:

My faith community has undergone serious changes and growth in the last 5 years: new leadership,  many new members, and even a new location for worship (after temporarily occupying other spaces  while our new church home was being constructed). One constant throughout these dynamic years has  been music, and more specifically, the way music brings people within our community together. As a  member of my congregation’s music ministry, my role is to plan and share musical offerings during  worship services. The consistency of our ministry (familiar hymns, predictable players, etc.) has been  helpful during recent times of transition. However, now that we are settled into our new church home,  we’re looking to improve upon our greatest hits. Specifically, we’re looking to answer the following  question: How can we make our music ministry more inclusive? Our congregation and the community in  which it sits look different every day. How do we expand or revamp the way we use music in worship to  be more inclusive of new people, new ideas, and new traditions?

Selection:

As a congregational church, we value a democratic approach to decision-making. We wanted to leverage  input from members across the congregation to design our new vision for music. After employing  several strategies to collect data from congregants (interviews about their worship experiences, journals  and collages to capture their relationship with music beyond the church walls, surveys to learn their  hopes for the music ministry), I designed a mind mapping session to glean some insight from all the  information. I was compelled to use this particular tool after brainstorming sessions with church  leadership earlier in the process revealed their very strong opinions about the future direction for the  music ministry. I remembered learning about the dangers of “hippos” (“highest paid person’s opinions”)  in the design thinking process, and knew that our solutions would never address both the stated and  unstated needs of the congregation without a more unbiased approach. Mind-mapping became a way  to bring fresh eyes and voices to the conversation from people both within and beyond the church  community.

Application/Insight:

For our mind mapping session, we used the “yard sale” approach Lindsay Carr described in our course  video. Our “data” was randomly displayed in a big, open room. Participants first independently reflected  on the display and then collaboratively clustered data into themes and identifying outliers. We guided  teams in turning these themes into insight statements by asking “so what” about each of the themes  discovered. This was the most powerful experience of the session as it revealed criteria to include in our  solution that were not yet on our radar. For example, earlier brainstorming sessions with church  leadership produced possible solutions that only looked at music’s role within the hour-long worship  service each Sunday. The insight statement from our mind mapping exercise revealed that congregants  most valued music that could intersect with multiple areas of their lives. From this, we established a  new criteria for solutions to incorporate “musical offerings” that would somehow extend into the week  or extend across Sunday services.

An unexpected consequence of the mind mapping was that it revealed an alternative definition for  music that no one in the original planning team had expected. Within one congregant’s music journal,

he noted his experiences with both audible music and silence. For him, silence was part of music as it  was an absence of music. He described his musical experiences as being most profound when  juxtaposed with opportunities for silence. Had we not encouraged participants in the mind mapping  exercise to take note of outliers, we may have missed this important idea. Within our solution criteria,  we made sure to expand the role of the music ministry to include planning for both audible music and  silence within worship and beyond.

Approach:

Overall, I was very pleased with the mind mapping session. It captured many more voices and ideas than  might have been heard at an all-church meeting (our typical forum for collaboration). Listening to  discussions during the session did make me think critically about the strategies we used to capture our  initial data from the congregation. The music journals and other artistic expressions of people’s  relationships to music were among the most successful. Since members of the music ministry were the  ones who conducted the one-on-one interviews with congregants, I question how honest folks were  about their positive and negative experiences with the music we shared each Sunday. In the future, I  would use a more neutral party to interview the community.


Mind Mapping Challenge : My faith community has undergone serious changes and growth in the last 5 years : new leadership , many new members , and even a new location for worship ( after temporarily occupying other spaces while our new church home was being constructed ) . One constant throughout these dynamic years has been music , and more specifically , the way music brings people within our community together . As a member of my congregation ’s music ministry , my role is to plan and share musical offerings during worship services . The consistency of our ministry ( familiar hymns , predictable players , etc . ) has been helpful during recent times of transition . However , now that we are settled into our new church home , we ’re looking to improve upon our greatest hits . Specifically , we ’re looking to answer the following question : How can we make our music ministry more inclusive ? Our congregation and the community in which it sits look different every day . How do we expand or revamp the way we use music in worship to be more inclusive of new people , new ideas , and new traditions ? Selection : As a congregational church , we value a democratic approach to decision - making . We wanted to leverage input from members across the congregation to design our new vision for music . After employing several strategies to collect data from congregants ( interviews about their worship experiences , journals and collages to capture their relationship with music beyond the church walls , surveys to learn their hopes for the music ministry ) , I designed a mind mapping session to glean some insight from all the information . I was compelled to use this particular tool after brainstorming sessions with church leadership earlier in the process revealed their very strong opinions about the future direction for the music ministry . I remembered learning about the dangers of “ hippos ” ( “ highest paid person ’s opinions ” ) in the design thinking process , and knew that our solutions would never address both the stated and unstated needs of the congregation without a more unbiased approach . Mind - mapping became a way to bring fresh eyes and voices to the conversation from people both within and beyond the church community . Application / Insight : For our mind mapping session , we used the “ yard sale ” approach Lindsay Carr described in our course video . Our “ data ” was randomly displayed in a big , open room . Participants first independently reflected on the display and then collaboratively clustered data into themes and identifying outliers . We guided teams in turning these themes into insight statements by asking “ so what ” about each of the themes discovered . This was the most powerful experience of the session as it revealed criteria to include in our solution that were not yet on our radar . For example , earlier brainstorming sessions with church leadership produced possible solutions that only looked at music ’s role within the hour - long worship service each Sunday . The insight statement from our mind mapping exercise revealed that congregants most valued music that could intersect with multiple areas of their lives . From this , we established a new criteria for solutions to incorporate “ musical offerings ” that would somehow extend into the week or extend across Sunday services . An unexpected consequence of the mind mapping was that it revealed an alternative definition for music that no one in the original planning team had expected . Within one congregant ’s music journal , he noted his experiences with both audible music and silence . For him , silence was part of music as it was an absence of music . He described his musical experiences as being most profound when juxtaposed with opportunities for silence . Had we not encouraged participants in the mind mapping exercise to take note of outliers , we may have missed this important idea . Within our solution criteria , we made sure to expand the role of the music ministry to include planning for both audible music and silence within worship and beyond . Approach : Overall , I was very pleased with the mind mapping session . It captured many more voices and ideas than might have been heard at an all - church meeting ( our typical forum for collaboration ) . Listening to discussions during the session did make me think critically about the strategies we used to capture our initial data from the congregation . The music journals and other artistic expressions of people ’s relationships to music were among the most successful . Since members of the music ministry were the ones who conducted the one - on - one interviews with congregants , I question how honest folks were about their positive and negative experiences with the music we shared each Sunday . In the future , I would use a more neutral party to interview the community .