A framework to assess the coherence of interaction design via five thinking‑lens dimensions.
Core Question: How coherent is our interaction design?
You've designed your interactions — Interactions, containers, cadence, network. But how do you know you haven't missed something? Most organizations default to a narrow view — they see meetings as either "standups or retros," classify by format instead of purpose, and never question whether their mix of interactions actually serves the system.
These dimensions are thinking tools, not prescriptions. Each organization will discover its own patterns through these lenses. The goal is not to fill every cell in a matrix but to use the dimensions as a recurring check: after designing your interactions, run them through these lenses to verify coherence and completeness.
Details
Dimensions as Thinking Lenses
Dimension | Question | Spectrum |
Board Reference | Is this interaction about the board or about the system? | Board-centered ↔ Off-the-board |
Purpose | What is this interaction for? | Decision / Coordination / Learning / Information |
Time Horizon | How frequently does this need to happen? | Daily / Weekly / Monthly / Quarterly |
Participation | How many people need to be involved? | Large group / Small group / Bilateral |
Formality | How structured does this need to be? | Formal / Semi-formal / Informal |
Each dimension reveals different kinds of blind spots:
- Board Reference: Are all interactions board-centered? Then off-the-board interactions (retrospectives, 1:1s, improvement workshops) are missing — the system optimizes for flow but never improves itself.
- Purpose: Is everything Information and Coordination? Then there's no dedicated space for Decisions or Learning.
- Time Horizon: Is everything daily? Then deeper, less frequent reflection never happens.
- Participation: Is everything large-group? Then you never go deep in small, focused conversations.
- Formality: Is everything formal and agenda-driven? Then important informal alignment is invisible and fragile.
Practical Examples
Completeness check: A team has designed 6 interactions. Running them through the Purpose lens reveals: 4 are Information, 2 are Coordination, zero are Decision or Learning. Blind spot identified — they have no dedicated space for decisions or reflection.
Balance check: An FL2 system examines its Formality dimension: all 8 interactions are formal, planned, agenda-driven. The team realizes important alignment happens informally in corridors but is invisible and fragile. They add a semi-formal "open sync" to bridge the gap.
Board Reference check: A team notices all their interactions are board-centered. Off-the-board interactions — retrospectives, improvement workshops, 1:1s — are missing entirely. The system optimizes for flow but never improves itself.
Smells — When to Look Closer
- Using dimensions as a rigid classification — "every interaction must fit exactly one cell" misses the point; they're lenses, not boxes
- Trying to fill every combination — all dimensions with all options creates paralysis, not insight
- One-time exercise: categorizing once and never revisiting as the system evolves
- Ignoring uncomfortable dimensions — skipping Formality because "we don't do informal" is exactly the blind spot this pattern is designed to reveal
Related Patterns
- Meeting Canvas defines individual meetings; Categories checks whether the collection of meetings is coherent
- Meeting Cadence covers the Time Horizon dimension specifically
- Board ↔ Meeting Alignment checks coherence from a different angle — board vs. meeting system
Your play!
If you want to use this in your worksystems-design sessions, here is all the material you need.
More about this
These patterns are part of the Flight Levels thinking and design model. If you want to learn more, take the Kick start path to Flight Levels Now!