Structure: As a first attempt one of the main point of interest was to test how people would normally collaborate if they have to, since it's what would normally happen if people are forced to collaborate. Checking which kind of work structure would they come up with and how it influence the final product. The result is that in order to maximize the work of all the participant they need a structure to work in. Such a structure can be decided by all the participants before starting the project or can be an already tested one. More important is that everyone agree on it and respect it presenting the right kind of output in the right moment.

Professional background: Some of the participants in the workshop weren't really trained as graphic designer which have produced some misunderstanding within the group. In order to collaborate and to maximize the effect of peer-to-peer collaboration is important that all the participants shared a common knowledge, especially on a technical level. This would avoid mistakes during the process. It doesn't mean that they have to have the same taste or the same approach , in fact different approaching if properly interfaced could produce really interesting results.

File sharing/ exchange: In order to make easier for other people to work on somebody else's work all the members of the group need to agree on their project folders structure. Having the same structure would mean making people able to find the same referring point when they approach a work that wasn't their.

Moreover, if people want to share files, they need to take care of treating them in the most compatible way possible. It doesn't mean that all the participants need to work with the same design tools but that they need to consider some compatibility issues. This point is already important to notice how the common toolkit is not meant for a collaborative environment or at least it wouldn't allow people with really different tools to productively work together.

Pair Design: Pair design has been tested with two slots of 30' each. All the participants agreed at the end that would have been better to have more slots in order to be able to try more thing. They agreed that while you are watching the other one "typing" you can have ideas that you would just like to try. Having more slots to work would give them this opportunity.

In this first attempt pair design was only structured and regulated in time. In order to have everyone one able to work at his/her best some rules are probably needed: the one who is watching shouldn't interrupt the other while is working and shouldn't say anything if the others is not asking for it. On the other hand he/she can stop something that he/she doesn't agree on, but only if the other is done with that decision.