In this story, I will take you on the journey of how we redefine the word compromise while collaborating together as a team to reimagine the organization we are choosing. The rollercoaster experiences can only be explored in every scene of this story while finding out the impossibility of having every imagination narrowed down into specific ideas. This collaboration project might have altered our team dynamic but also changed us individually.
How We Started
The shift from Unit 1 to Unit 2 of MA Applied Imagination felt like being caught in a sudden storm— intense, and completely unavoidable. Just as I was beginning to settle into the rhythm of the course, I was thrown into an unexpected challenge: a cross-disciplinary collaboration with MA Innovation Management students. Thus, I have to compromise with the unknown. Regardless, the concept of the collaboration project itself was thrilling because it could be an opportunity to merge perspectives and rethink how organizations within the Knowledge Quarter could be future-proofed with our combined ideas. But as we were teamed up, an unshakable feeling settled in—I knew this collaboration would change us, but I had no idea whether that transformation would lead to something remarkable or unravel into chaos; however, one cannot rationally proclaim that they know everything about everything, or even everything about their own fields (Miles, 1989).
Our various backgrounds and gaps filled in each other’s puzzle: the planner, the strategist, the researcher, the brainstormer, and the finisher are assembled into a team of the ‘Power5Girls.’ Although we might switch roles and try to expand our boundaries by doing something we were not before in this team, this made us really hopeful for our team in the future and made us become more understanding to one another. During the forming stages, much of our time was spent defining our values and mission, carefully crafting our team charter.
So, what values did we choose to make this creative collaboration work? We call these values the ‘X-Factors’;
Through all of these shared values, this collaboration sounded promising—practical, even. But as any good baker knows, the real challenge begins once the cake is in the oven.
Going Right Down to the Rabbit Hole
As the reality began when we were required to decide which organizations to choose, this is when we were actually sailing the uncharted waters. We wanted so much—the ideas, the authenticity, and definitely the perfect ones—until choosing made us stretch more time than we required. It was also challenged by our consistency to obey our charter until one of us was getting too loose and too tight to stick with it; hence, this was when our true color started to emerge. It did not become clearer before we started our first tutorial in the British Library.
We addressed our variety of interests to our tutor: arts, fashion, marketing, and technology that made us stuck in inertia. And all of a sudden, “¿Por qué no los dos?” our tutor said. Our eyes twitched in confusion because none of us understood. “I mean, why not do both?” he translated to us. Henceforth, the words become our mantra to realize our choice, a space where everything is possible to be established—a theater. This is when we compromise to choose the New Diorama Theatre as our organization.
New Diorama Theatre is an independent theatre in the London Borough of Camden, situated in the prime office area where most of its demographic are high earners and well-educated. The plays are mostly made by the independent writers and producers; therefore, the shows are more experimental compared to the West End theatre. It also has a functioning cafe-bar on the front side of the theater, which is more lively in the daytime with the young working people who spend their time with their own laptops in the cafe. These facilities seemed to back up their financial growth aside from the government and investor funds.
We visited the theater three times, two times for the experience tour and once to watch the show after a 10-day gap. Its limited space also created a sense of exclusiveness to its certain community only; therefore, the shows were less appealing than the mainstream. The visit made us come to realize that some of our experiences here did not validate our initial desk research, that most of the theater audience is similar to the cafe customers, or the demographic of the Camden borough itself. Apparently, most of the audience who came to the ‘Lynn’s Faces’ show that night were the total opposite of what we knew—they were middle-aged, mainly retired, and had a relationship with the artists. On that account, we are questioning the belonging of the theater and which community should it be focused on.
Is There Any Way Out There?
Apparently, our attempt to secure an interview with the general manager of the New Diorama Theatre was met with rejection—not only were we denied a conversation, but we weren’t even given a recommendation for someone else on the management team to speak with. On top of that, many potential interviewees either didn’t respond to us either way. Without a clear path forward, we found ourselves stuck in a loop—returning to desk research while simultaneously searching for alternatives.
And we found out more from the article given by the Arts Council through email, that apparently, the institution is encouraging the creative industry to be immersed with technology. It appears that technology is driving the future of creativity by funding and supporting artists who experiment with emerging digital tools, enabling new forms of artistic expression, global exposure, and economic opportunities in the creative industries (Arts Council, 2024). This opportunity may be a good decision for the future of New Diorama Theatre, but in fact, they may not have the capacity due to its financial constraints.
Not all decisions turn out to be the right ones, no matter how much data we gather. Some missteps are minor, while others can have more serious consequences, yet we continue making choices based on perceptions of the world that may not always be accurate (Sinek, 2009). In relation to that, we tried to identify our ‘Why’—a guiding purpose that could prevent us from being overwhelmed by excessive information and constantly shifting directions. However, as promising as this approach sounded, our storming phase was anything but smooth.
Bounded by both external setbacks and internal conflicts, the tension within the team gradually eroded the sense of fun we had initially valued. Conflicting desires & thoughts happen everyday in the project and we are helpless to keep them in line (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997), and that was exactly what happened to us. This became evident during our formative assessment, where the jury pointed out that our research lacked a clear big question—further complicated by the pressure of time constantly ticking away.
Compromising Our Way Out
“The best way out is through”, quoted by the poet, Robert Frost. During the first months of my master’s degree, navigating intense research under tight deadlines, conflicting ideas, and differing approaches to re-imagining the organisation often made me wish the process would end sooner. But an ending wouldn’t mean much if the problems remained unresolved. Instead, we went back to our core value of communication—coming together, sitting down as a team, making use of the traditional post-it ideation and assembling our thoughts to find a way forward.
Taking into account, we agreed that the future of technology is unavoidable, meaning this is the hypothesis we considered. As AI advances we are leading to The Synthocene Era, where humans use AI as a tool for growth rather than control. This shift will push brands in entertainment to create unique and differentiating moments that wow consumers (Future Laboratory, 2024). But, does fringe theatre really need advancement in technology while their actual backbone comes from the community and bonfire experience? The answer is maybe. Therefore, we draw the lines on our hypothesis– is the future actually very human? Knowing no superficial technology can empower the collaboration experience, even in the team. The touch of humans actually still matters the most.
During our session with Jamie Brasset, ex-Course Director in Innovation Management, he stated that envisioning the future shapes our present, as speculating about a specific future influences our current actions. In addition, adjusting our behavior today in response to future expectations, we ultimately reshape the very future we envisioned. Therefore, to compromise both of the hypothesis and the anti-thesis, we synthesised them into “Humanising The Tech” to bridge the best of both worlds. Thus, our question narrowed into speculating “How might we enable a deeper connection between theatre enthusiasts and the art form by integrating technology with tradition, allowing NDT to grow its audience and community despite limited rebranding funds?” This question brought fresh air as if we were out of the woods.
Out Of The Woods
Openness can drive innovation but beyond that it poses coordination challenges, impacting individual and organizational search efforts (Salter, Ter Wal, Criscuolo, & Alexy, 2015), henceforth, we maintain our ideation strictly to our question while proving our idea through an intervention using a fake website project. The purpose of this intervention is to prove whether people actually wanted to immerse their show with technology, or remain conventional.
Apparently, the result showed that people were interested and clicked on the immersive theatre but, they finally added the conventional one to the basket more. The data from the intervention is aligned with what our experts said and what we found from the survey we distributed to 53 respondents. From the survey, it is also proven that many people enjoy conventional experience the most but not stopping themselves to try something new.
In addition, experiencing immersiveness in a conventional performance might be something they are looking forward to in the future of the theatre.
Thus, “¿Por qué no los dos?” – we compromise the needs of the consumer and also the future of the theatre. Our expert in theatre producer, Franny Anne Raferty, validated this “It’s all about creating a more dynamic relationship with the audience. And let’s face it, with everything happening digitally these days, people want to feel involved in something real, something they can touch and feel, not just watch on a screen.” And from that, this is how we reimagining New Diorama Theatre:
We future-proof the theatre using two streams of ideas; altering the current business model through marketing, and proposing new services that are directed to the people and the product.
First, we developed a membership plan that not only rewards our audience but can also strengthen a long-term connection with NDT and enhance the sense of community.
Onto the proposal to people services, we bring the idea of stage is everywhere or blended spaces, a concept-driven cafe where theatre extends beyond the stage, offering immersive storytelling through themed dining, projection mapping, and interactive art. This experience-driven approach shifts passive waiting time between shows into an engaging journey, maximising space efficiency and deepening audience connection. By aligning the cafe’s ambiance with running productions and integrating storytelling techniques, we create a bridge between its consumers in cafes and consumers in theatre.
And lastly an immersive theatre remix, where audiences become co-creators and influence classic plays in real-time through interactive the concept of Event Cinema. By partnering with larger theatres and inviting emerging theatremakers, we blend Event Cinema techniques with traditional theatre, offering an experimental platform for interactive, hybrid performances. This not only enhances audience engagement and content accessibility but also positions New Diorama Theatre as a pioneer in the future of theatre, creating a win-win for larger theatre seeking experimental formats, emerging artists needing a platform, and audiences craving immersive engagement.
Finale
Learning compromise is the biggest lesson throughout the journey. Compromising our own ideas and ego as a mixture of our collaboration spirit until compromising the feasibility of our ideas that might work or not to our organization. We were finally able to present our idea on the first schedule list, and it left not only feeling relieved because it is done, but realisation that we won the game as a team which is more rewarding than ever. The concept of compromise has changed for me personally, it is no longer about how to give in for peace, but actually stitching all minds together to make things work.
Leave a Reply