At Brink our mission has always been to make an outsized impact. We set out to do this through our approach, which we call Behavioural Innovation. We have been practising Behavioural Innovation ourselves and instilling it in the organisations and teams we have been lucky to work with. But over time we realised we were missing a trick. To scale our impact even further we could be sharing and teaching Behavioural Innovation to other practitioners like us. This could be our route to even greater impact. 

That’s why in 2024 we set ourselves the ambition to begin building Brink University, a series of courses based on the approaches we have been developing and refining alongside our partners for the past six years and which we have seen time and again leading to accelerated and outsized impact.

We thought we’d practise what we preach and start small with an experiment to test the waters and see what we could learn from the experience that could inform our wider ambitions for Brink University, which we are calling BrinkU. 

In this blog we’ll share with you what we tried, our approach to building an initial six-week course that not only teaches Behavioural Innovation by telling learners about it, but which truly shows what Behavioural Innovation is by having participants experience elements of it themselves. 

We’ve written this article to try and capture some of what we’ve learned while it’s still fresh in our minds, to lay out how we applied our methods and our thinking to the job of running a course, and how that experiment played out in reality.

Testing the waters with some early messaging

In May we sent out a message to our network, announcing the first of these courses:  Innovation Missions, powered by Behavioural Sciences. We wanted to use the response to that first message to gauge potential interest in a course like this and to uncover ‘willingness to pay’. The response was immediate and incredibly encouraging. We received thorough and thoughtful enquiries and a flurry of early sign ups. It was clear from the first few hours and days that there is a real appetite out there for understanding how to weave behavioural sciences most effectively into the hard work of real-world change across complex systems.

Choosing Innovation Missions because the world needs these methods at scale 

An innovation mission is a bold, clear, and impactful vision of a better future that drives forward thinking and strategic action within organisations and across societies. The concept of Mission Oriented Innovation dates back to the 1960s and has since been popularised especially by Mariana Mazzucatto through her work and writing. At Brink we have been working on innovation missions sparked by the challenges posed by the pandemic. We realised we had learned much along the way from the successes and many mistakes we have made and wanted others to benefit from that knowledge. We chose innovation missions as the focus for our first BrinkU course because missions are about more than just creating ideas; they are about creating tangible change and addressing complex challenges with creativity and strategic foresight. And it’s what the world needs now, if we are to tackle the polycrises of our time. 

Designing a structure that allowed for applied learning and different styles, all online 

We wanted to create a course where anyone who took part was empowered to envision ambitious goals AND to strategically navigate the intricacies of those missions with purpose and resilience. And we wanted them to have a brilliant experience along the way!  Above all, we knew that, in order to consolidate learning, this needed to be a course where people would apply these new ideas and concepts immediately, in their own work. There’s nothing worse than a lovely learning experience which stays in the classroom where participants’ new tools, techniques and mindset shifts never make it out into the world. 

The subject matter of missions can be dense and includes plenty of nuance, so we designed the course to run once a week over six weeks with plenty of white space in between to allow the concepts to percolate. Our aim was a comprehensive learning experience that combined theory with practice, strategy with creativity, and individual insights with collective wisdom.

Below are four of the main elements that we consciously baked into the design of the course in order to meet that ambition.

Use of Experience-Based Learning (aka ‘Don’t tell me you’re funny, tell me a joke’)

When you’re learning to ride a bike, you don't need to understand the laws of physics that are keeping you upright and in motion, or even the engineering that created the bike you’re sitting on. You just need to get in the saddle and fall off a few times until you get the hang of it.

As adults, we tend to move away from this experience-first way of learning and, instead, we tend to reflect and theorise before we experience and do. But we knew that basing a course around theories and lectures on the principles that worked for us (even if those lectures were accompanied by proven tools and frameworks) would not reliably set people up for success.

Instead, we chose to design the course primarily on the techniques of Experience-Based Learning (EBL), which emphasises the need for first-hand experience (even if simulated) to enable learners to then develop conclusions and principles that are right for their own context and challenges. We had to communicate a large volume of complex information, so we particularly wanted to dial up active engagement and practical learning, to make sure it all landed.

One of the best known techniques within this field is Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory which posits that people learn better by following a cycle of learning styles from concrete experience to reflection, conceptualisation and application.

"When a concrete experience is enriched by reflection, given meaning by thinking, and transformed by action, the new experience created becomes richer, broader, and deeper."  - David A Kolb

Many of the skills and techniques we communicate on the Innovation Missions course deal with convening, enabling and working with a cast of people all shaping a system. It was important to us that the cohort would have the chance to experience what these skills felt like. Here is how we applied EBL to one of the most complex and hardest-to-get-right foundations of successful innovation: psychological safety.

1. In the first sessions, we focused exclusively on laying the foundations of psychological safety, for example by using techniques like questions to fall in love with your team (ie questions of increasing intimacy for people to get to know each other); framing experimentation as part of the work; requesting, praising and clearly acting on feedback; and doubling down on acting with consistency.
2. We gradually introduced situations that tested the cohort’s developing  psychological safety, such as moving from private 1:1 discussion to 1:many feedback.
3. Next, we lifted the lid on the experience. We gave learners time to reflect on how they had experienced the increasing levels of challenge, and supported them to conceptualise the theory of psychological safety.
4. Finally, we invited experimentation by introducing concepts such as using the body as a research tool (ie what data are sensations in your body giving you when facilitating a group of people to do hard things), or sensing and naming the’ third entity’ in the room (ie the relationship between people and how it feels at any given moment). This meant that participants were able to further explore their own experience-based concept of psych safety.

What we learned

Designing the course, we already knew that EBL is a proven course methodology that  aims to empower learners to bring new knowledge and techniques to existing roles, settings and challenges. 

That said, we were relieved to validate that our design worked well for such a complex concept as  psychological safety. Firstly, because concepts like psychological safety rely on the openness and collaboration of the cohort; and secondly, because they are big enough to warrant a course in themselves!

As we move forward with future courses, we want to ensure that the individual concepts align and build on each other as a combined experience, and lead to an outcome that is greater than the sum of its parts.

Walking the walk when it comes to innovating and adapting

In a situation where you are keen to deliver a meaningful learning experience for a group of paying customers, the tendency can be to plan everything to the Nth degree; to script it, schedule it, and execute it flawlessly. But this was our first time presenting this material in this format, and when it comes to innovation, we felt we had to walk the walk.

Early on, we decided that we would be clear and deliberate on the factors that would lead to good course outcomes for our learners: The learning goals that would translate to impact in their own work, and the focus on EBL that would make the course engaging and lead to transformative learning. Beyond that, we needed to leave space to listen to the cohort, gather feedback, and adapt.

We tested, iterated, and surfaced challenges as we went along, embodying the very principles we taught. This approach was both exciting and challenging, but it underscored the essence of mission-driven innovation—embracing uncertainty, learning continuously, and adapting dynamically.

What we learned

A lot of techniques were already well-known to the cohort, but it was useful to validate them as applicable to mission-driven innovation specifically. Some techniques were new and worked as intended - for example, what we did to build psychological safety. And some techniques didn’t really work but still got the point across, one memorable example being “Guess the weight of the cow”. This is based on the work of the Statistician Francis Galton who observed that the median guess of 800 people participating in a contest to estimate the weight of a cow was accurate within 1% of the actual weight. With our small sample size the weight of the cow was wildly off which made it a much less punchy example and necessitated some extra explaining, so we were surprised that despite (or maybe because?) this botched demonstration, collective intelligence was still one of people’s top takeaways! 

Incorporating case studies 

While we focused mainly on EBL to make learning accessible and actionable, we also had a wealth of case studies we wanted to share in order to explore the complexities of mission-based innovation projects. To that end, we experimented particularly with different ways of using case studies:

1. Using fictional and at times whimsical scenarios based on real case studies, in order to introduce key concepts playfully before layering on real-world complexity
2. Using video interviews with collaborators and stakeholders in our case studies, before inviting the same people to join the final session in order to give learners the opportunity to ask deeper questions and, in essence, making our case studies interactive
3. Structuring case studies as developing journeys and asking learners to conceptualise principles and applying them to their own work as we went.

What we learned

As we expected, case studies do bring theory to life and make it easier to bridge the gap to learners’ own work. They worked especially well for giving people a jumping-off point to ask deeper questions; for example, rather than just accepting the importance of learning and designing with instead of for stakeholders as a point of learning, asking “So how did you get everyone into the room? And what did you do when they were unwilling to collaborate”? Great questions! Finally, we underestimated how much inviting our collaborators added to the learning experience - so we’ll be doubling down on that.

Splitting 15 hours of learning over six weeks

Our hypotheses that led to the structure of the course were:

• A weekly spacing over six weeks will give learners time to apply what they learn to their real-world, real-work challenges.
• 2.5h weekly live session time is the upper end of the attention envelope we’d want to push.
• 1h of weekly recap time via course materials is feasible for learners.

What we learned

In a perfect example of why it’s always good to test your assumption, the signals we got over the six weeks actually invalidated our three hypotheses!

Our cohort did bring their own challenges and applied what they were learning week-on-week, but it would likely have been more useful to work through bigger chunks of challenge at a time, drawing on bigger chunks of learning.

Similarly, while it is true that 2.5h of screen time is still relatively easy to commit to, we now think that consolidating sessions further might be more effective - potentially with bigger gaps in-between during which we engage the cohort more actively

Finally, we now believe that more and more formal ‘homework’ might actually be welcome provided it is clearly framed and checked-in on.

But this is exactly why we experiment. We now have clear results and will adapt for the next iteration of the course. 

What we’d do differently next time 

The biggest learning was to realise that clear institutional knowledge doesn’t neatly and easily translate to learning experiences. 

We were confident that Brink holds expertise and experiences that would be beneficial to others looking to leverage mission-driven innovation. We recruited the team members who had designed and led mission-driven projects to be our ‘content experts’, and we gathered all of our codified wisdom in the shape of tools and frameworks. 

What became clear was that what works when we’re internally transferring knowledge within Brink,  doesn’t automatically constitute a good learning experience. These are our top learnings that we’ll bear in mind for the future of BrinkU:

1. Cultural shorthand can be a barrier. Like any group of people working on complex problems over a period of time, at Brink we have our own terminology and references which make it easier to communicate and navigate the work efficiently. But all of that shorthand needs to be translated into more universal language for a course, and it’s not a trivial task. For our next course, we’ll factor in the need for a pre-beta-test with friends of Brink! 
2. Check your baseline. As we learned, mission-driven innovation has appeal and applicability to a wide range of sectors. Any organisation which codifies its knowledge and tools will primarily do so for people who have a high level of specific experience - but that means that this knowledge and these tools will not make for an easily accessible learning experience. While we baselined the assumed level of familiarity with basic concepts well enough to ensure our learners had a good course experience, we’ll double down on clarifying ‘course requirements’ for the next iteration.
3. Cut content, not experience. This was by far the hardest learning for us - just because we think something is ‘important’ or effective (and thus, mandatory part of internal knowledge transfer) doesn’t mean that it needs to be in the course. Bear in mind that when used internally, people will have more time in a single week to dig into case studies, go hands-on with toolkits and ask questions of experienced co-workers than a cohort has over the course of a 15-hour learning experience. We learned that the one thing to protect is the white space for learners to experience, theorise, conceptualise and experiment - everything else is fair game for the cut.

Join us for the next Innovations Missions course in November

Are you ready to embark on your own innovation mission? Keen to take part in the next course?

Sign up here to join a community of forward-thinkers and change-makers dedicated to making a meaningful impact.

(We are offering an early bird discount of 40% off the full price for all sign ups in August).