Article
Service DesignLEGO Serious Play: Method, Process, and Application in Service Design and Strategy
LEGO Serious Play as an innovation method: process, application types, research, and practical guide.
LEGO Serious Play (LSP) is a facilitated workshop method in which participants build three-dimensional models from LEGO bricks to explore complex questions, develop strategies, and understand systems. The core mechanism: participants “think with their hands” — they build models that make abstract concepts (identity, strategy, relationships, systems) tangible and discussable. The method was developed from 1996 by Johan Roos and Bart Victor at the International Institute for Management Development (IMD) in Lausanne in collaboration with the LEGO Group, and was released under a Creative Commons license in 2010 [1][2].
What distinguishes LEGO Serious Play from other workshop methods: it enforces complete participation of all attendees — not through facilitation, but through the building process itself. In a traditional workshop, quiet participants can remain silent while dominant personalities steer the discussion. In LSP, every participant builds their own model and must explain it to the group. There is no hiding behind silence or behind someone else’s slides.
Search for “LEGO Serious Play” and you will find many providers selling workshops, but few explaining the scientific background. None of the results describe the four application types (individual, shared, landscape, and system dynamics models). None shows how LSP is concretely used in service design or strategy development. And none honestly names the situations where LEGO Serious Play is the wrong method.
This guide closes those gaps — with the theoretical foundation, the core process, the four application types, a strategy example, and an analysis of common mistakes.
Where the method comes from: From IMD to open source
The creation of LEGO Serious Play connects management theory, cognitive science, and corporate crisis.
1996 — The academic birth: Professors Johan Roos and Bart Victor at IMD in Lausanne sought ways to make strategy processes more vivid and participatory. Inspired by Seymour Papert’s theory of constructionism (more on this shortly), they developed together with the LEGO Group a method in which leaders do not discuss strategies but build them [1].
1999-2002 — Corporate phase: The LEGO Group — itself in a severe corporate crisis — invested in commercializing the method. Robert Rasmussen, then a LEGO employee, became the central developer and evangelist of LSP. The method was initially marketed as a proprietary product with certified facilitators and special LEGO sets [2].
2010 — Open source: In a remarkable move, the LEGO Group released the method under a Creative Commons license (CC BY-SA). Since then, anyone can use LEGO Serious Play without licensing fees. Special LSP sets (LEGO Serious Play Starter Kit, Landscape Kit) remain available but are not mandatory — standard LEGO bricks work as well [2].
Robert Rasmussen founded Rasmussen Consulting after leaving LEGO and became the most influential trainer and method developer. His book LEGO Serious Play: Open-Source Introduction to the Methodology (2013, updated 2019) is the most widely used practical reference [3].
Theoretical foundation: Constructionism — thinking with your hands
The cognitive science basis of LSP is Seymour Papert’s constructionism (1991) — an extension of Jean Piaget’s constructivism [4]. Papert’s central thesis: people learn most deeply when they actively construct something tangible — a physical artifact that externalizes their thinking.
Why this works: Neuroscientific research shows that the hand-brain connection is one of the strongest neural pathways. When people build with their hands, they activate brain regions that remain inactive during pure talking or writing. Building produces a kind of “knowledge serendipity” — ideas and connections that would never have surfaced in conversation become visible through the physical building process [5].
The 80/20 reversal: In a typical workshop, 20% of participants speak 80% of the time. In LEGO Serious Play, every participant builds and presents their model — participation consistently reaches 100%. This is not a side effect but the core mechanism of the method [1][3].
The core process: Challenge, Build, Share, Reflect
Every LSP session follows a four-step core process that is repeated multiple times [3]:
1. Challenge (pose the task)
The facilitator poses a building question — not a discussion question. The question always begins with “Build…” and targets something abstract that becomes tangible through the model.
| Discussion question (not LSP) | Building question (LSP) |
|---|---|
| “What are our strengths?" | "Build a model that shows what makes you unique as a leader." |
| "What should our service look like?" | "Build the ideal customer experience in our service." |
| "What are our biggest risks?" | "Build a model of the forces threatening our business.” |
2. Build
Every participant builds individually — in silence, without discussion. Building time is typically 3-10 minutes, depending on question complexity. The facilitator says: “Let your hands begin — the meaning comes through building.”
Important: The goal is not aesthetically beautiful models. The goal is models that carry meaning. A red brick can mean “passion,” a tall tower “ambition,” a bridge “connection between departments.” The meaning is assigned by the builder, not predetermined by the model.
3. Share
Every participant explains their model to the group — not themselves, but the model. The group asks questions of the model, not the person: “What does this red brick mean?” rather than “Why do you think that is important?”
The difference from storytelling: When sharing, the participant points to physical elements of the model. This anchors the discussion in the concrete and prevents conversations from drifting into the abstract.
4. Reflect
The group reflects on the models: What patterns emerge? What differences? What surprises? The facilitator directs attention to connections between models and to insights that could not have emerged at any single table.
The 4 application types
LSP is not one method — it is four different applications with increasing complexity [3]:
Type 1: Individual models
Each participant builds their own model to a question (e.g., “Build your ideal leadership role”). Suitable for: identity work, values exploration, onboarding.
Duration: 30-60 minutes Complexity: Low
Type 2: Shared models
The group builds a collective model representing a shared answer (e.g., “Build together the ideal customer experience”). Individual models are merged into a shared model. Suitable for: team identity, shared vision, mission statement.
Duration: 60-120 minutes Complexity: Medium
Type 3: Landscape models
The group builds a physical map of their system — customers, competitors, partners, internal actors — and positions their models in spatial relationship to each other. The spatial arrangement makes proximity, distance, dependencies, and conflicts visible.
Duration: 2-4 hours Complexity: High
Type 4: System dynamics
The group models connections, dependencies, and feedback loops between landscape elements. “What happens to our model if competitor X launches a new service?” The system is physically modified, and the group observes the effects.
Duration: 4-8 hours (often over 2 days) Complexity: Very high
Application type decision guide
| Question | Application type | Typical duration |
|---|---|---|
| Gathering individual perspectives | Type 1 (Individual) | 30-60 min |
| Shared vision or identity | Type 2 (Shared) | 60-120 min |
| Understanding the stakeholder landscape | Type 3 (Landscape) | 2-4 hrs |
| Playing through strategic scenarios | Type 4 (System dynamics) | 4-8 hrs |
LEGO Serious Play in Service Design
LSP develops particular power in service design because services are abstract. You cannot touch a service, photograph it, or put it on a shelf. LSP makes the abstract tangible — and therefore discussable [6].
Modeling the service ecosystem (Type 3)
In the Discover phase of a service design project, an LSP workshop can make the stakeholder landscape visible: Who are the actors? What relationships exist? Where are breaks, conflicts, untapped connections?
Prototyping service concepts (Type 2)
Instead of presenting service concepts as PowerPoint slides, teams build three-dimensional models of their service concepts. This forces concreteness: “What does this brick mean? What happens at this point for the customer?” — questions a slide never provokes.
Playing through strategic scenarios (Type 4)
In the Define phase, teams can use LSP to physically simulate different service scenarios: “What happens to our service ecosystem if the regulator introduces new requirements?” The team moves bricks, removes connections, adds new ones — and observes what happens.
Practical example: Strategy workshop at an insurer
Context: A large DACH insurer faces the question of what its claims processing should look like in 5 years. Digitalization, changing customer expectations, and new competitors (InsurTechs) require a strategic realignment. The executive team has different visions — the CTO thinks in technology, the COO in processes, the sales director in customer proximity. A classic strategy workshop with PowerPoint would devolve into positional battles.
Format: LEGO Serious Play, full day (7 hours), 12 participants (executive team + division heads), external LSP facilitator.
Process:
Warm-up — Skills Building (45 min): Participants build simple models to learn the process. First exercise: “Build a tower.” Second: “Build something describing what you experienced this morning.” Third: “Build a model showing what good customer service means to you.” Each time: Build, Share, Reflect.
Round 1 — Individual identity (60 min, Type 1): “Build a model showing what makes your division uniquely valuable to our customers.”
12 individual models emerge. The CTO builds a bridge between two islands — “We connect old and new systems so the customer can transition seamlessly.” The COO builds a clockwork — “Our strength is reliability and precision.” The sales director builds a figure with outstretched arms — “We are the first person the customer sees after a claim.”
Round 2 — Shared model (90 min, Type 2): “Build together the ideal customer experience for claims processing in 5 years.”
Participants negotiate physically: Which elements belong in the center? What gets connected? What stands at the periphery? The shared model shows: the customer stands at the center, surrounded by a “shield” of proactive service (the claim is detected before the customer calls), flanked by human contacts for complex cases and digital self-service channels for simple cases.
Round 3 — Landscape and system dynamics (120 min, Type 3+4): “Build the landscape of your service ecosystem: customers, competitors, partners, regulators. Then: What happens when an InsurTech enters the market?”
The group builds the ecosystem. Then an InsurTech model is placed. Participants shift connections: “The customer turns to the InsurTech if we do not offer proactive service.” A new connection emerges: “We could cooperate with the InsurTech rather than compete — partnerships instead of defense.”
Result: Three strategic decisions that would not have emerged without LSP: (1) Investment in proactive claim detection (IoT, sensors) rather than purely reactive processing. (2) Hybrid model: digital self-service for standard cases, human contact for complex cases. (3) Open partnership strategy with InsurTechs instead of isolation.
Note: This example is illustratively constructed to demonstrate the method in a strategy context.
Comparison: LEGO Serious Play vs. other workshop methods
| Dimension | LEGO Serious Play | Design Sprint | World Cafe | Classic strategy workshop |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Focus | 3D modeling of abstract concepts | Prototype development + user validation | Large-group dialogue + networking | Analysis + decision-making |
| Participants | 6-24 (ideal: 8-16) | 5-7 | 20-200+ | 5-20 |
| Duration | 4-8 hours (1-2 days) | 5 days | 2-3 hours | 4-8 hours |
| Participation | 100% (everyone builds and presents) | High (small group) | High (table conversations) | 20-30% active, rest passive |
| Materials | LEGO bricks (LSP sets or standard) | Prototyping materials, software | Paper tablecloths, markers | Flip charts, projector, sticky notes |
| Output | Shared understanding, strategy, system model | Tested prototype | Collective insights, action areas | Decisions, action plans |
| Strength | Makes abstract tangible, 100% participation | Concrete, testable result | Scales to large groups | Directly decision-oriented |
| Weakness | Requires LSP facilitator, skeptical participants | Not for large groups | Results often remain at insight level | Dominance of few voices |
Our recommendation: Use LSP when you need to make abstract topics (strategy, identity, system understanding) tangible and need 100% participation. Use a design sprint when you need a testable prototype at the end. Use a World Cafe when you need to involve more than 20 stakeholders.
Research landscape
The academic research on LEGO Serious Play is growing but still limited:
Hadida (2013): Allison Hadida showed in a study at Cambridge Judge Business School that LSP workshops lead to higher participation and deeper strategic insights than conventional workshop formats — particularly among participants who speak little in traditional formats [7].
Zenk et al. (2021): A study at the Austrian Institute of Technology documented that LSP workshops significantly increased participants’ creative self-efficacy and led to unexpected connections between ideas that did not arise in discursive formats [8].
Kristiansen and Rasmussen (2014): Per Kristiansen and Robert Rasmussen published Building a Better Business Using the LEGO Serious Play Method, the most comprehensive practice handbook with documented case studies from companies including Daimler, NASA, and Roche [5].
Limitation: Most studies are qualitative with small sample sizes. Controlled experimental comparisons with alternative workshop methods are largely absent.
5 common mistakes with LEGO Serious Play
1. Treating LSP as play — without serious building questions
Symptom: Participants build happily, but models lack depth. Discussion stays superficial. At the end, someone says: “Nice afternoon, but what does this get us?”
Why it hurts: LSP is not a team-building event. It is a methodological intervention for complex questions. Without serious, challenging building questions, it produces pleasant models but no strategic insights.
Fix: Formulate building questions with real strategic relevance. “Build the greatest risk to our business model” produces deeper models than “Build something that describes you.”
2. Skipping the reflection phase
Symptom: Participants build and share, but group reflection is omitted. Each participant has their individual insight, but collective patterns remain invisible.
Why it hurts: The strength of LSP lies not in individual building but in collective pattern recognition. Without reflection, every model remains an island.
Fix: Plan at least 30% of total time for the Reflect phase. The facilitator directs attention to connections: “Three of you built bridges — what does that tell us about our organization?“
3. No trained facilitator
Symptom: A project leader “moderates” the LSP workshop but knows only the basics. Building questions are too simple, transitions between types are missing, the system dynamics phase is skipped.
Why it hurts: LSP is methodologically more demanding than it appears. The progression from Type 1 to Type 4 requires experience in conversation guidance, question formulation, and managing resistance.
Fix: For Types 1 and 2, a facilitator with basic LSP training suffices. For Types 3 and 4 (landscape, system dynamics), we recommend an experienced, certified LSP facilitator.
4. Ignoring skeptics instead of engaging them
Symptom: One or two participants refuse: “I am not going to build with LEGO, I am a board member.” The group builds without them; the skeptics sit aside checking emails.
Why it hurts: LSP works only when everyone builds. A non-building participant undermines the format’s egalitarianism and signals: “This is not serious.”
Fix: The skills building (warm-up) is the decisive moment. Start with simple, non-threatening building tasks that draw even skeptics in. When a board member builds a tower and finds the result interesting, they will build the strategic model too. Most resistance dissolves after 10 minutes of building.
5. Not translating results
Symptom: At the end of the workshop, impressive LEGO models stand on the table. Photos are taken. Three weeks later, no one remembers what the red brick meant.
Why it hurts: LEGO models are ephemeral — they get disassembled, meaning fades. Without translation into documents, decisions, or project plans, the workshop’s insight energy dissipates.
Fix: Document every model with photo and description during the workshop. Translate insights into concrete next steps. Create a workshop protocol with photos, model explanations, and derived actions.
When LEGO Serious Play does NOT work
1. When concrete operational decisions are needed: LSP generates understanding, not decisions. If you need a budget allocation or go/no-go decision at the end of the day, a structured decision workshop is more effective.
2. With more than 24 participants: LSP scales poorly. The Share phase (everyone presents their model) takes 90+ minutes with 24 participants. With 40 participants, it becomes exhausting. For large groups, World Cafe or Open Space are better suited.
3. For extremely time-critical topics: An LSP workshop needs at least 4 hours for Types 1+2, ideally a full day. If you need results in 90 minutes, the format is too intensive.
4. When organizational culture does not permit “play”: In organizations with very high formality, the association with LEGO (children’s toy) can discredit the method before it can work. A good facilitator can often overcome this resistance — but not always.
5. Without follow-up: As with any workshop method: without translating insights into actions, LSP is an expensive team-building exercise.
Frequently asked questions
What is LEGO Serious Play?
LEGO Serious Play (LSP) is a facilitated workshop method in which participants build three-dimensional models from LEGO bricks to explore complex questions. The core process — Challenge, Build, Share, Reflect — is repeated multiple times. The method is based on Seymour Papert’s constructionism (“thinking with your hands”) and was developed in 1996 at IMD Lausanne [1].
Do you need special LEGO sets?
No. Since 2010, the method has been available under a Creative Commons license and can be conducted with any LEGO bricks. The special LSP sets (Starter Kit, Landscape Kit) contain an optimized selection of bricks, wheels, figures, and connectors — they are helpful but not mandatory [2].
How long does a LEGO Serious Play workshop take?
At least 4 hours for Types 1+2 (individual + shared models). A strategy workshop with landscape models (Type 3) takes 6-8 hours. System dynamics workshops (Type 4) typically extend over 1.5-2 days. The warm-up (skills building) requires 30-45 minutes and is mandatory for every workshop.
Does LEGO Serious Play work online?
To a limited extent. Digital adaptations exist (e.g., with virtual LEGO bricks or physical building in front of a camera), but the haptic dimension — “thinking with your hands” — is partially lost. For Type 1 (individual models) it works acceptably; for Types 3+4 (landscape, system dynamics), physical presence is methodologically necessary.
Is LEGO Serious Play scientifically grounded?
The theoretical basis (constructionism, hand-brain connection) is well supported by neuroscience. The empirical evidence on the method’s effectiveness is growing but still limited. Studies by Hadida (2013) and Zenk et al. (2021) show positive effects on participation and creative outcomes [7][8]. However, controlled experimental comparisons are largely absent.
Related methods
- Service Prototyping: LSP as a 3D prototyping method for abstract service concepts — complementing experience prototyping and paper prototyping
- Design Thinking: LSP in the ideation phase of design thinking projects to make concepts tangible
- Service Design: LSP for stakeholder mapping and service ecosystem modeling in the Discover phase
- Brainstorming: LSP as an alternative to verbal brainstorming — building instead of talking produces different ideas
- Service Design Methods Overview: Positioning LSP within the overall methodological landscape
Research methodology
This article synthesizes insights from the original works by Roos and Victor (1999), Rasmussen’s practice handbook (2019), Papert’s constructionism theory, the empirical studies by Hadida (2013) and Zenk et al. (2021), and the analysis of 8 German-language publications on LEGO Serious Play. Sources were selected by methodological rigor, practical relevance, and currency.
Limitations: The empirical research on LSP is predominantly qualitative and based on small sample sizes. Controlled comparison studies with alternative workshop methods are lacking. Most documented applications come from the corporate context — evidence on effectiveness in service innovation is particularly limited. The practical example is illustratively constructed.
Disclosure
SI Labs provides consulting services in the area of service innovation. LEGO Serious Play is not a standard component of the Integrated Service Development Process (iSEP) but can be used as a workshop format in the Discover and Define phases when stakeholder alignment and system understanding are the focus. This positioning informs the presentation in this article. Readers should be aware of the potential perspective bias.
References
[1] Roos, Johan, and Bart Victor. “Towards a New Model of Strategy-Making as Serious Play.” European Management Journal 17, No. 4 (1999): 348-355. DOI: 10.1016/S0263-2373(99)00015-8 [Foundational Work | Original Paper | Citations: 400+ | Quality: 85/100]
[2] LEGO Group. “Open-source: Introduction to LEGO Serious Play.” Creative Commons BY-SA, 2010. https://www.lego.com/en-us/seriousplay [Primary Source | Open-Source License | Quality: 80/100]
[3] Rasmussen, Robert. LEGO Serious Play: Open-Source Introduction to the Methodology. 2019. [Practitioner Guide | Method Developer | Quality: 78/100]
[4] Papert, Seymour. “Situating Constructionism.” In Constructionism, edited by I. Harel and S. Papert, 1-11. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1991. [Foundational Work | Cognitive Science | Citations: 5,000+ | Quality: 90/100]
[5] Kristiansen, Per, and Robert Rasmussen. Building a Better Business Using the LEGO Serious Play Method. Hoboken: Wiley, 2014. ISBN: 978-1118832455 [Practitioner Guide | Case Studies | Citations: 300+ | Quality: 75/100]
[6] Schulz, Klaus-Peter, Silke Geithner, Christian Woelfel, and Jens Krzywinski. “Toolkit-Based Modelling and Serious Play as Means to Foster Creativity in Innovation Processes.” Creativity and Innovation Management 24, No. 2 (2015): 323-340. DOI: 10.1111/caim.12113 [Journal Article | Creativity Research | Citations: 150+ | Quality: 78/100]
[7] Hadida, Allison L. “Let Your Hands Do the Thinking! Lego Bricks, Strategic Thinking and Ideas Generation.” Strategic Direction 29, No. 2 (2013): 3-5. DOI: 10.1108/02580541311297757 [Case Study | Cambridge Judge Business School | Quality: 72/100]
[8] Zenk, Lukas, et al. “Designing Innovation: A LEGO Serious Play Approach for Facilitating Creative Innovation Workshops.” European Journal of Innovation Management 25, No. 6 (2021): 300-320. DOI: 10.1108/EJIM-07-2021-0360 [Empirical Study | Austrian Institute of Technology | Quality: 76/100]