Aim of the workshop was to test to test the role and the needs of the moderator in a face to face discussion aiming to consensus. What emerged is that if the moderator is properly trained for such a structure it can be helpful to keep the designers focused, to give the right rhythm and to give everyone the same chances to express him/herself.

shared work structure: To all the participants was suggested to work progressively on different level of detail. Not everyone did that and they try to come up from the first phase with a finished work. What can happen in this case is that having a finished work in an early stage wouldn't give the designers the chance to investigate more deeply the proposals that were unfinished. Discussing on proposals that are on different level of detail could alter the discussion since the designers will be probably tempted, also for time reason, to go with the most finished work.

Not only that but if someone produce something finished in the time that wasn't initially meant for that it probably means that he or she went for the easiest solution. A finished work won't let some much space to the others to keep on working and the effect of collaboration won't be maximized.

What people would need is to work in the same structure, with different steps and a different goal for each step in order to be able to discuss them.

Without having set a precise time for the concept, people kept on discussing this aspect for most of the time. In this way they didn't really manage to collaboratively work on a practical level until the last steps. Dividing the workflow in steps people would have clearer what needs to be done and when and they could be concentrate on one aspect at the time. Having a define structure would also make easier to take microdecisions on the project before moving on.