The problem
PERIL's web ecosystem includes programs, platforms, tools, resources and initiatives, each serving different audiences and needs. Before anyone could fix search, taxonomy or navigation, the team needed a shared understanding of how the pieces relate.
I gathered written input from stakeholders, grouped it into an affinity diagram, and built a working model of the ecosystem: core PERIL properties, programs and initiatives, resource and discovery areas, public-facing tools, and the relationships between them.
A one-hour validation workshop
I designed and facilitated a June 2026 workshop in FigJam to pressure-test the model. It had one goal: decide whether the model was 80 to 90 percent right, stable enough to move forward.
I told participants what the session was not: not a final map, not a design review, not a full inventory.
Naming the limits up front kept a short session focused on decisions instead of details.
Agenda
- Welcome and goals
- React to the affinity diagram of stakeholder input with FigJam stamps: agree, disagree, +1, or confused
- What's missing?
- Relationship review: are the connections between programs and platforms right?
- Future growth
- Open questions, including governance and ownership
- Is this a solid enough foundation to move forward?
What it set up
Stakeholders had three business days afterward to send corrections. The updated model then became the working foundation for the next phase of the information architecture: taxonomy, metadata, search, resource organization and roadmap planning.
How I run working sessions
- Start from what the group already said, so the session reacts to evidence instead of a blank board.
- State the goal as a yes-or-no question the group can answer by the end.
- Use lightweight, low-stakes ways to disagree, like FigJam stamps, so quieter voices count.
- Leave a short review window afterward, then lock the result so work can move.