In systems facing deep divisions — between institutions and communities, funders and doers, or tradition and innovation — conflict is not the exception; it's the norm. Co-designing in these spaces requires tools that help people see both their own assumptions and those of others, without flattening or erasing differences.

What is Co-Designing in Conflict, and Why Does It Matter?

Using system mapping and visualizing competing mental models is essential to working on 'wicked' problems. These methods allow us to make the invisible visible, shift from positions to perspectives, and create space for authentic dialogue.

Provocative Questions for Facilitators:

• How do we support collaboration when trust is low or absent entirely?

• What happens when we stop trying to solve the conflict and instead start mapping it?

• How can visualization tools represent multiple truths without forcing agreement?

How Can Facilitators Work Within a System in Conflict?

Co-designing in conflicted systems doesn't mean avoiding tension — it means working skillfully within it. In this workshop, you'll learn to use a mix of systems thinking, mapping tools, and facilitation methods to help teams:

• Map the Systems Landscape: Identify the stakeholders, power dynamics, feedback loops, and stuck patterns.

• Surface Competing Mental Models: Make visible the different assumptions, values, and narratives that drive behavior.

• Find "Coherence Without Consensus": Help groups align around shared purposes, even without shared opinions.

Frenemies

The focus of this Design Gym was to discuss how to facilitate frenemies. This topic was inspired by a panel discussion at the annual SXSW conference that Peter attended in Austin, Texas.

The “Frenemies“ panel was hosted by a group with members from an indigenous tribe in the Pacific Northwest, local fishermen, and government officials. These three groups are considered "frenemies" (friends and enemies) that all have a common interest: Salmon. The issue at the heart of the conflict is salmon, which have been massively overfished and affected by climate change.

The fishermen believed that they should have access to fish, whereas the First Nation Indigenous Tribe has legal rights to fish on the land, all while the government agents have laws that are constantly evolving. These three groups started as enemies, and at the end of the panel, they had a systemic view on preserving the salmon.

Stories like this happen often in this line of work.

And, for this Design Gym, Peter used the challenge of "hypoxia" as an example. Hypoxia means low levels of oxygen. This problem exists in water all over the world, and when oxygen levels drop, animals die. In New Orleans, the Mississippi River enters a massive delta into the Gulf, and since 1985, the government has been measuring the size of the dead zone.

So, why is this happening?

It is due to the cows, chickens, and nutrients that we use for agriculture. The problem originates in the Northern Mississippi basin in the Midwest, where the nitrogen, phosphorus, and poop are entering the water and contaminating it.

Peter's cousin, who is a lawyer, invited him to attend a Frenemies design session concerning hypoxia. Different representatives from the surrounding states, such as researchers, farmers, sanitation engineers, government officials, and private industry researchers, were in attendance. Each person had their own goal, and many people in attendance were at odds with one another.

The primary topic was the nutrient trading system, and the overall goal was to decrease hypoxia. During the design session, participants used the tool system mapping to examine what the different parts of the system were and how they interact with one another.

Another tool used: “How might we…” questions.

Questions to look at five different areas/goals that can change the behavior and affect efficient usage of pollution reduction, access to water, water treatment, water conservation, and habitat protection.

Throughout the session, they color-coded the different parts of the system to organize and understand what voice/viewpoint the input was coming from.

Following this case study, participants went into breakouts to discuss facilitating frenemies through discussing the following questions: 

• As a facilitator whose job is to act as a neutral party, where do you run into challenges when working with frenemies?

• How do you deal with polarization and personal attacks?

• How do you handle stuck systems or circular blame?

• How do you handle power imbalances?

• How do you center equity and voice when dominant actors control the narrative or the funding?

• What about Performative participation?

• How do you create conditions for real dialogue when participants show up with agendas/fear? 

In the remaining time, participants shared their group discussions: 

A Power Imbalance

• One tool is to ask participants to change roles to understand a different perspective. 

• Be hard on the problem, soft on the people. Create a safe and trustworthy environment.

• Set the intention to be 100% honest and 100% forgiving with each other. 

• Make sure all voices are heard. 

Polarization and Personal Attacks

• We can use tools like axioms, music, or breathing to calm people down. 

• Change the atmosphere or call a stretch break. 

• Dialogue walks. Prompt people while walking outside to diffuse intense situations.

In the remaining minutes, participants shared certain tools that have helped them when facilitating with frenemies: 

• Have people rank themselves on how they are when it comes to conflict. 

• Have them write out this statement: “You get the best of me when (blank), and you get the worst of me when (blank).“

• Give people language to de-escalate the moment with humor.