Gijon Creative jam 2019

The notes here are taken quickly and will be consolidated with feedback from partners.


This creative jam draws lessons from the experience of Lugo Creative Jam in Lugo, and from various partners' remarks at conferences Main Lessons from AYCH in Brussels. The aim was to give young people present a creative experience, but also to disseminate AYCH tools in the hubs, in particular through the creation of hub mentor groups.

Two guiding documents were produced with the experience of the Brest hub and the support of Plymouth: the mentor's notebook and a welcome kit for young people Welcome kit Gijon

For this second creative jam, were present: 4 nationalities, 72 students, 30 mentors and accompanying, from 16 to 30 years.

The School of Design mobilized: 4 students, 2 supervisors, a communication officer for the production of thematic films.


A goal of disseminating tools

  • Reuse tools already used in other contexts
  • Disseminate tools in hubs through this event: presence of observers or mentors from other hubs to ensure replicability in the hubs.

A reinforcement of the transnational dynamics (see the report of the creative jam of Lugo)

  • Work on a transnational dynamic (which has been progressive)
  • The objective of giving birth to projects was this time secondary.

General scheme

3 days with continuity and theme: reinventing the city

  • Icebreaker, discovery: test of a game icebreaker (bright mirror) and discovery of the city in investigation mode
  • Technical Workshops (list of workshops here): delivered by each of the partners
  • Hackathon (1 day for “hacker” elements of the city) and reuse the elements of the workshops (techniques, etc.)

Video of the 3 days here :

FOCUS on a tool: Idea Wall as a binder of creative jam

IDEA WALL has served as a common thread throughout these days of creativity. This tool had already worked well in Lugo and Tate Modern as starter of a creative emulsion and icebreaker. It has done his work again, but some improvements could be made.

For more information on the tool Idea Wall

Video on IDEA WALL :

See how to feed it not in the context of workshops, but put it in strategic places and explain the rules at startup. Make tools available to complete this chart throughout the 3 days.

Balance sheet

of the organization, areas for improvement

  • The small details of the organization (power strips, cables, screens etc.)
  • Poor sound quality to make intermediate announcements
  • Room unfavorable (big development work) and big resonance / noise
  • Play well on the music: to have more attention during the announcements.
  • Waiting for HDMI / VGA displays / connectivity: ensure both upstream
  • For juries, upload presentations
  • Internet connection sometimes poor quality

of the 3 days, seen by the participants (to be completed)

See the elements given by PY Jaouen here.

The workshops (descriptions and short reports)

Workshop 1: Discovery of the city in survey mode

This report is not exhaustive, could not observe a workshop, the School of Design being mobilized on the preparation of the room for the bright mirror.


The workshop was provided by a local agency. The goal was to mix discovery of the city's use of research tools through design.

Balance sheet


  • Applying to a local agency was interesting to identify the key points of the city a priori.
  • This workshop was not well received.
  • No culture of partnership and design on the part of the local agency, no visibility on tools and their reproducibility, no adaptation of tools for a young audience.
  • Improvement track: to review how to mix discovery of the place and ethnographic survey: protocol to be created.

Workshop 2: Bright Mirror

  Workshop provided by the School of Design with the support of Grand Angoulême.

A precedent: a game used in some workshops

  • The idea was developed in September by Olivier Balez, illustrator of the hub of Angoulême see here for the first version
  • Tested with an audience of master 2 (CNAM, Master MEDAS)
  • Tested in Liverpool with animators (AYCH TEST)

  • Some changes to the rules of the game were made upstream through simulations made by students and teachers of the school of design (workshops). They have started to create 12 games in easy mode to produce and transport.


Objectives of the game


  • Reassure on the possibilities of co-creation
  • Give power to imagination (prospective 2045)
  • Develop a culture of cooperation
  • Development of a critical sight on technologies.

Construction of the game: marked by transdisciplinarity

See also:

  • Illustrations and storytelling: Grand Angoulême, Olivier Balez (illustration of the characters, creation of the universe, respect of a narrative scheme)
  • Respect of the process of design thinking
  • Opening (2045, insights, photos on Idea wall)
  • Conceptualization: to pose a frame and a beginning of narrative
  • Production of a final object: a newspaper: work on cooperation

The final object makes it possible to finalize the construction and to stimulate debate


  • The game is played in teams of 6 willingly mixed (but in two nationalities only) to ensure a transnational component.
  • See slideshow and rules of the game here
  • To facilitate the progress: instructions given on screens punctuate a limited time

Balance sheet

very enthusiastic feedback

  • Link to the review video: very enthusiastic feedback
  • Easy to conduct a workshop for 70 or more young people (very didactic).
  • Many interests of participants to reproduce the game in the hubs

an icebreaker

  • Realization of all the stages in the allotted time: can it be done in one day?
  • Some interesting thoughts on technology (newspaper photos)
  • Cohesion of the teams
  • Launches reflection on the issues of technology and the city, the red thread of 3 days. On the other hand little connection between the hackathon day and bright mirror which was more used like an icebreaker.
  • Very important: the final sharing moment
  • Choice of teams: random but 2 nationalities

an easy to produce tool

Additions for next games

  • Possibility of a constraint (or choice) optimistic / pessimistic (Black, Bright)
  • Template of the log to release: the risk being little cooperation if one makes 3 separate sections. Maybe give an example?
  • Maybe the pictures (above) are to dissociate from the game: to create an IDEA WALL well visible of all? Or to specify the rules and choices that must be more free associations to create a story (not too much constraints?)
  • One could imagine with a break the noon a longer time with a moment of sharing then longer creation of the newspaper
  • Name change ? the name is already used.

The workshops

This report is not exhaustive, we could not observe a workshop, the School of Design was mobilized on the preparation of the Hackathon day and the animation of a workshop.  


Each partner is asked to deliver a workshop lasting two hours :

  • Technical workshops
  • Workshops
  • Workshops around design thinking

List here

First assessment (seen with Gijon, Islam)

  • Too short to apprehend a technology in two hours. Good but short.
  • Limit probably the workshops to technical aspects, the question of design thinking having been seen before. It seems useless to reiterate them (too much creativity sessions during hackathon day & Bright Mirror

Hackathon day



  Everyone went back to work collaboratively for a day of creativity from 9.00 to 15.00, then 3 hours of juries, presentations.


Organization and accompaniment


  • Decision to remix the teams, with the risk of having too many ideas: we were afraid of having too many ideas or even conflicts, which did not happen.
  • Groups of 4 to better manage the discussions, with a mentor to better articulate.
  • Decision to have 1 mentor assigned to each group with mentors' brief and mentors' council (good practice of the Brest hub) and mentors' booklet. Directed by Pierre Yves Jaouen.
  • Decision to have a team flying design experts (Students of the School): on the aspects innovation, graphics
  • Other experts: 3D printing, virtual reality, sound design)
  • Decision to have precise briefs on Pitch (Pacific stream) and communication / scenario (Vida Lactea)
  • Using slack to give instructions, download presentations without USB key: need to have a person at least dedicated. Required 2 partners for the connections (1 student design school + 1 person from Atlantic cities
  • Distribution of certificates during the deliberation of the final jury: takes the time.

Presence of mentors with groups

Slack, indispensable tool for group management

Creative process

  • Take back the Idea Wall to start the ideas.
  • Creative process of two hours to fix the idea: very rhythmic, with very simplified tools made by the School of design compared to Lugo and tested in particular at SPACE (September & February 19), Tate (March 19) and challenge innovation in Corsica (March 19)



  * Decision better distribute jury times to give more returns (following the assessment of last year): 3 panels of 4 juries in parallel to take the time of returns. Decision to shorten the final presentation times and 6 presentations on the final panel.   * Choice by the head of the group distribution mentors at the 1st jury (as there was a logic of 1/2 selected for the final, it was necessary to distribute the teams to ensure a homogeneity of the levels)   * Decision to award prizes and hierarchy (entrepreneurial spirit): prices are in the spirit AYCH (support for project development), on the most impact, the most conducive to investment, a favorite audience (at the very end, applaudimeter) (good practice from Plymouth).   * Decision to make mixed juries AYCH / GIJON (all the hubs, coordinated by the students of the School of Design)


The presentations

  Access to presentations here

Balance sheet


  • Very positive: quality of presentations, perceived team dynamics
  • Timing respected thanks to the composition of the juries

Improvement points



  • Mentor needs to be better briefed to also play on group dynamics
  • The brief at 12.00 (pitch + filmora): dispersion of the teams when there is a need for ideation, however the mentors managed to reunite them easily. Pitch training sequence in situ?
  • Template persona: to review, difficult to understand?
  • Better specify the question of the prototype: most wanted to develop “apps” in prototype: this question will have to be specified. The team that used the resources (VR, 3D printer, cardboard pen) won everything. . Should we better present the resources available for prototypes (or better articulate the workshops?) ?

The egg the winning team worked to use all available resources (3D printing, VR) for the creative jam.