Collective Campus vs Behavjor: Which Fits Your Team?

Choosing between a behaviour-led design and research consultancy and a capability building company is a decision about what you want to walk away with. One kind of partner leaves you with beautifully researched and designed outputs. Another leaves your people with new skills, tools and habits they can use the next morning. Some organisations need the first, some need the second, and some need both in sequence.

This article compares Collective Campus and Behavjor honestly. Behavjor is a Sydney-based experience design and innovation agency. Collective Campus is a Melbourne-founded capability building company for teams. They overlap in one area (innovation capability and training) and differ meaningfully in most others. The aim here is to help Australian leaders, L&D teams and innovation heads decide which one belongs on a shortlist, and what to ask before committing.

Everything said about Behavjor comes from their own public homepage and is attributed accordingly. Where their public site does not state something, this article says so rather than guessing.

Short answer

Behavjor describes itself as a Sydney experience design and innovation agency that blends behavioural research with design, plus project-based innovation training. Collective Campus is a capability building company for teams, spanning AI adoption, design thinking, customer experience, agile, psychological safety, governance and high-performance teams. Choose Behavjor for research-led design work with training attached. Choose Collective Campus when the goal is building lasting team capability, with programmes tailored after a scoping call.

At a glance comparison table

Who Behavjor is

According to the title of their homepage, Behavjor is a "Behaviour-Led Design & Research Consultancy" based in Sydney. Their own copy describes the business as "an experience design and innovation agency, that has been working in this space for 25 years," collaborating with "ambitious partners to create beautiful experiences." Their stated positioning is that they are "a creative company chosen by leaders to envision tomorrow and launch it today."

Their public site organises the business into three broad areas.

Breakthrough design

Their site says they "blend cutting edge design with behavioural research to reimagine the way people experience products, systems and services," adding that their products "don't just look good, they perform." The listed design services are brand experience design, digital product design and service design. Under experience design they describe taking work from concept and prototype through to design systems for delivery. Under services and systems they describe researching the end-to-end engagement with a brand, from consideration through to fulfilment. Under brand experience they describe creating engagement and amplifying performance based on a client's market positioning.

Behavioural strategy

The second area is strategy. Their site says they "uncover the trends and perspectives that shape future customer experiences and business growth." The listed strategic services are behavioural research, strategic design, and future visions and creative innovation. The sub-themes on the page are human insight (understanding the habits and behaviours of an audience so that reality shapes strategy), creative and design (shaping the approach around the narratives people hold, to intentionally shift perceptions) and experience strategy (crafting pathways and interactions with customers "from the outside in").

Innovation capabilities, projects and training

The third area is the one that overlaps with Collective Campus. Their site says: "We create an army of ready and willing innovators across your organisation. New skillsets, mindsets and toolsets, kicked-off with a culture changing program of work." The listed innovation services are skills uplift and coaching, innovation programs and key project innovation. They describe three themes here. Accelerate innovation is about creating "a cultural change movement around innovation" and shifting how an organisation innovates. Grow future mindsets is about preparing teams for "new problems" with new skillsets, toolsets and mindsets. In-project training is described as "learning through doing, on practical problems that are of importance to your business."

Work and clients mentioned

Their homepage features several project teasers. It names Flite ("Australia's Most Awarded eFoil"), Heidelberg (described as closing gaps in the customer service experience for concrete delivery) and the University of Melbourne (described as helping "over 9000 experts make positive impact worldwide"). These are their claims about their own work, and the detail sits behind "Learn more" links that were not part of the research for this article.

What their public site does not say

Their homepage does not state pricing, programme durations, group sizes, named facilitators, delivery formats beyond project and program work, or any AI-specific or governance-specific offering. It also does not describe a measurement framework. This is normal for an agency homepage and does not imply absence. It simply means a buyer should ask on a first call.

Who Collective Campus is

Collective Campus is a capability building company for teams. The tagline is "Building high-performance culture and teams for the AI world." It was founded in Melbourne by Steve Glaveski and Sean Qian, and has worked on innovation capability since 2015 and on AI since 2022. It is not an agency that delivers design outputs on a client's behalf, and it is not an AI-only training shop. It sits in the middle: a broad capability partner whose programmes cover how teams think, build, decide, collaborate and adopt new technology.

The programme spread

The portfolio covers AI training and adoption, design thinking, customer experience, lean startup and product sprints, agile, productivity, psychological safety, critical thinking, AI governance and high-performance teams. The thread connecting them is that each is a capability a team can build and keep.

Within AI, the AI programs include a 90 day AI adoption sprint, an AI champions model, a leadership team AI immersion and a dedicated AI governance programme. There are also AI design sprints and online AI training for distributed teams. The broader innovation capability work continues alongside.

Style and delivery

Workshops are known for energy and entertainment. Founder Steve Glaveski comes from stand-up comedy and bands, and that shows in how sessions run, but the point is practical: participants leave with tools they can use the next morning. Steve still leads flagship workshops. Programmes are tailored after a scoping call rather than sold off a fixed menu.

For more on the people and approach, see the about us page and the case studies section.

Deep comparison across eight dimensions

1. Approach: agency output versus team capability

The most important difference is the unit of value each organisation produces.

Behavjor's public site positions the business as an experience design and innovation agency. The first two of its three areas, breakthrough design and behavioural strategy, are about producing research, strategy and designed experiences for clients. A client engages them to reimagine a product, a service or a brand experience, and the output is the design and the strategy. Their innovation capabilities area adds training and coaching, with the stated aim of creating "an army of ready and willing innovators across your organisation."

Collective Campus works from the opposite direction. The unit of value is the capability a team builds. A design thinking programme does not deliver a redesigned service for the client; it teaches the client's people to run discovery, define problems, prototype and test, so they can do it themselves long after the facilitators leave. The same logic applies to AI adoption, agile, psychological safety and the rest.

Neither approach is superior. They answer different questions. If the question is "we need this specific experience designed and researched well," an agency is the natural fit. If the question is "we need our people to be able to do this without us," a capability partner is the natural fit. The overlap, and the place where buyers often compare the two, is the innovation training space, where Behavjor's "in-project training" and Collective Campus's innovation and design thinking programmes can look similar on a first read.

A useful test: at the end of the engagement, what is left behind? With an agency-led model, the answer is primarily the work product, with capability built along the way. With a capability-led model, the answer is primarily the skills and habits, with real work applied during the programme.

2. Breadth: what each can cover

Breadth is easy to misjudge, because the two organisations are broad in different directions.

Behavjor's breadth, per their site, runs across design disciplines and research: brand, digital product and service design on one side, and behavioural research, strategic design and future visions on the other, with innovation programs and coaching as the third strand. That is a coherent stack for organisations whose challenge is customer experience, product and brand.

Collective Campus's breadth runs across team capabilities: AI, design thinking, customer experience, lean startup, agile, productivity, psychological safety, critical thinking, governance and high-performance teams. That is a coherent stack for organisations whose challenge is how teams work, learn and adopt change, particularly AI-driven change.

Where the two overlap is customer experience and innovation. Collective Campus's customer experience programmes teach teams to understand and improve the customer journey, while an agency like Behavjor would, according to its site, research and design that experience for the client. Again, the difference is whether the client's people learn to do it or receive it done.

A buyer with a single acute need in design or research may prefer a specialist agency. A buyer with several interlocking capability needs, say AI adoption, team behaviours, governance and product thinking, may prefer one partner who can sequence them. Collective Campus's breadth makes it a better fit for the second case, and the programme stack is designed so that, for example, psychological safety work supports an AI adoption effort rather than sitting beside it.

3. Depth of behaviour change

Both organisations talk about behaviour, but in different senses, and the distinction matters.

Behavjor's name and positioning centre on behaviour as a research lens. Their site describes understanding "the habits and behaviours of your audience" so that "reality shapes your strategy." The behaviour in question is largely the customer's: how people experience products, systems and services, and how perceptions and interactions can be intentionally shaped. This is behavioural insight applied to design and strategy.

Collective Campus focuses on the behaviours of the team itself: how people share ideas, challenge assumptions, run experiments, give feedback, adopt tools and work together under pressure. High-performance teams, psychological safety and critical thinking programmes target those internal behaviours directly. For a deeper view of what these look like, the article on what makes a high-performing team in the AI world sets out the thinking.

On the training side, Behavjor's site describes a "culture changing program of work" and "a cultural change movement around innovation," with learning "through doing, on practical problems." That is a legitimate and effective adult-learning model, and the detail of how it is run and reinforced is not stated on their public site. Collective Campus uses a similar learn-by-doing philosophy but builds in explicit follow-through mechanisms, such as AI champions who carry practice back into teams and sprint formats that apply new tools to live work. Whether either approach produces durable change depends heavily on leadership involvement and what happens after the sessions end, which is why that is a core question for any scoping call.

Honest advice for buyers: behaviour change is the hardest thing to buy, because workshops alone rarely shift it. Ask any provider, including both of these, what happens in the weeks after the sessions, who owns reinforcement inside your organisation, and what evidence they will look for to know the change has landed.

4. Leadership involvement

Capability building fails most often when leaders are absent. Both kinds of partner need leadership buy-in, but they approach it differently.

Behavjor's public site says they work with "leaders" and position themselves as "chosen by leaders to envision tomorrow." It does not describe a specific leadership development or executive immersion product, and it does not name who leads sessions. Whether they run executive-level work is therefore something to ask directly.

Collective Campus builds leadership involvement into its programme design. The leadership team AI immersion is designed to get executives fluent enough to make good decisions about AI, and the guidance on how to run an AI workshop for your leadership team reflects the view that leaders need to experience the tools, not just approve the budget. For innovation and design thinking, the article on design thinking training for executives in Australia covers how senior sponsorship changes outcomes. For larger organisations building internal innovators, the piece on running an intrapreneurship programme in a large Australian organisation covers the leadership role in sponsoring and protecting that work.

Steve Glaveski still leads flagship workshops, which means senior participants meet a founder-level facilitator rather than a hand-off to junior delivery staff. For executive audiences, who is in the room is often as important as what is on the slides, and it is worth asking any provider to name the facilitators, not just describe the curriculum.

5. AI and risk

This is the clearest gap between what the two organisations publicly state.

Behavjor's public homepage does not mention artificial intelligence training, AI adoption or AI governance. That does not mean they do not work with AI in their design or innovation projects; it means it is not stated on their public site, and a buyer with an AI-specific need should ask directly what they offer and what experience sits behind it.

Collective Campus treats AI as a major programme area, with work since 2022. The AI training pages cover team capability building, and the AI programs include adoption sprints, champions and leadership immersions. Critically for risk-conscious buyers, there is a dedicated AI governance offer, with its own programme for organisations that need policy, guardrails and decision-making frameworks rather than just tool skills. Governance matters because teams adopting AI without clear rules about data, accuracy, accountability and acceptable use create exposure that no amount of enthusiasm offsets.

Regulated sectors have extra needs. Collective Campus publishes sector pages for government AI training, financial services AI training and legal AI training, reflecting the reality that a bank, a law firm and a government agency face different obligations and different tolerance for error.

If your organisation's main driver is AI adoption with governance, the comparison is not close on publicly stated scope. If your main driver is customer experience or product design and AI is incidental, the gap matters less, and it is a question of whether you want design delivered or capability built. For help choosing among providers in the AI category specifically, see how to choose an AI training provider in Australia and best AI training for teams in Australia.

6. Measurement

Measurement is where many training engagements go quiet, and where a buyer's questions can separate serious providers from the rest.

Behavjor's public homepage does not describe a measurement framework for its innovation training or its design work. Their site does note that their products "don't just look good, they perform," which implies a performance orientation on the design side, but how performance is defined and measured is not stated on their public site. As with other points, this is a question for the first conversation rather than a criticism.

Collective Campus does not publish invented results, and this article will not either. What matters for a buyer is that measurement is agreed up front rather than retrofitted. During scoping, the conversation covers what success looks like for the organisation, which behaviours or outputs would indicate change, and how progress is observed over time, for example tool usage, quality of experiments run, decisions made faster or with better evidence, or confidence and capability self-assessments paired with observed practice. The right measures differ by programme: an AI adoption effort should look at real use in real workflows, a psychological safety effort should look at how people speak up, and a design thinking effort should look at what teams actually do differently when facing a new problem.

A practical principle for any engagement: distinguish activity measures (attendance, satisfaction scores) from outcome measures (changed practice, changed decisions, changed results). Satisfaction scores are easy to collect and say little about whether anything changed. Ask both providers which outcome measures they would propose and what baseline they would take before starting.

7. Facilitation style

Style affects how much participants absorb, and it is one of the few things you can only evaluate by seeing it.

Behavjor's public site does not describe its facilitation style, and it does not name facilitators. It frames its training as "learning through doing, on practical problems that are of importance to your business," which signals an applied, project-embedded model rather than a classroom one. That is a sound approach for teams that want to make progress on a live problem while learning.

Collective Campus is known for energy and entertainment. Founder Steve Glaveski's background in stand-up comedy and bands shapes the delivery: sessions are lively, participatory and designed to keep people engaged rather than passively listening. The substance is practical, with tools and frameworks participants can use the next morning. Energy is not a substitute for rigour, and the programmes are built around real work, but a room that is awake and talking learns more than a room that is not. Steve Glaveski leading flagship workshops is part of that experience.

The honest caution is that facilitation style is a matter of fit. Some audiences love high energy; others, particularly in more conservative or technical cultures, may prefer a quieter, more analytical tone. The best way to test is to ask for a sample of the format, speak to facilitators, and consider your audience. Both applied, in-project training and high-energy workshop formats can work well, and the right choice depends on whether your people need momentum and permission to experiment or a structured deep dive on a specific live project.

8. Fit for Australian organisations

Both organisations have an Australian base, which matters for time zones, regulatory context and cultural nuance.

Behavjor's site lists a Surry Hills, Sydney office, includes an acknowledgement of Traditional Owners, and features Australian project work, including Flite, Heidelberg and the University of Melbourne. That suggests a strong Sydney and Melbourne footprint for design and research engagements. Wider city coverage and delivery model for training are not stated on their public site.

Collective Campus was founded in Melbourne and works with teams in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Canberra and other Australian cities, with dedicated pages for high-performance teams in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane, and for design thinking in Sydney and Melbourne. There is also online AI training for distributed teams across states.

For Australian buyers, fit comes down to a few practical things. Does the provider understand your regulatory context, particularly in government, financial services and legal? Can they deliver in your city or across your sites? Do their examples and language reflect Australian workplaces rather than imported frameworks? Collective Campus's Australia-first focus and sector pages are aimed squarely at those questions. Behavjor's Australian base and local project work point the same way for design and research, and a conversation will confirm how that extends to training.

Who each suits

Choose Behavjor if...

• You need an experience designed or researched, such as a digital product, a service, a brand experience or a customer journey, and you want an agency to produce it.
• Behavioural research and human insight are the heart of your problem, and you want strategy shaped by how your customers actually behave.
• You want innovation training that is embedded in a live project, with the team learning by working on a real business problem alongside a design agency.
• Your primary need is customer-facing design quality, and training is a supporting strand rather than the main event.
• You value an agency with a stated 25 years in experience design and innovation, and with Sydney-based design and research capability.
• You are comfortable asking the questions their public site does not answer, such as pricing, format, facilitators and measurement, in a first conversation.

Choose Collective Campus if...

• Your goal is lasting team capability: people who can run design thinking, adopt AI, work in agile ways and collaborate under pressure without relying on an external agency.
• AI adoption is a priority, and you need training, champions, leadership immersion and governance that move together rather than as separate projects.
• You operate in a regulated sector such as government, financial services or legal, and need AI governance and risk thinking alongside tool skills.
• Culture and team behaviours, including psychological safety, critical thinking and high-performance habits, are part of the challenge, not an afterthought.
• You want a founder-level facilitator in the room for flagship sessions and a high-energy, practical style your people will engage with.
• You want one partner who can sequence several capabilities, with programmes tailored after a scoping call rather than chosen from a fixed menu.
• You need delivery across multiple Australian cities or a distributed workforce, including online options.

When you might want both

These are not mutually exclusive. An organisation might use a design and research agency to reimagine a customer experience, and a capability partner to ensure internal teams can sustain and extend that work, adopt AI in the process and keep the culture healthy. The sequencing matters: research and design first can give a team something concrete to practise on, while capability work first can make the team better buyers and collaborators when the agency arrives.

Alternatives to Behavjor in Australia

No single provider fits every organisation, and a good procurement process compares at least three. Here is a neutral map of the types of alternatives Australian buyers typically consider, rather than a ranking.

• Capability building companies. Collective Campus sits here, covering AI, innovation, design thinking, agile and team performance. Buyers who want skills left inside the organisation often start with this category.
• Experience design and service design agencies. These produce designed outputs and research for clients, similar in shape to the agency side of Behavjor's offer. They suit organisations whose main need is a better customer experience delivered by specialists.
• Large consulting firms. These bring scale, change management frameworks and sector depth, often at an enterprise level, with training as one component of a wider transformation.
• University executive education. Business schools offer open and customised programmes with academic credibility, which can suit leadership development and formal credentials.
• Specialist AI trainers and vendors. Some focus narrowly on tool training or a single platform. These can work for a tightly defined tooling need but may not address governance, culture or leadership.
• Internal L&D plus freelance facilitators. Some organisations assemble their own programmes from individual facilitators, which offers flexibility but demands coordination effort.

Collective Campus is one option on that list, aimed at teams that want broad, practical capability building with an AI focus and a tailored approach. Whatever the shortlist, run the same scoping conversation with each provider so the comparison is like for like. The guidance on how to choose an AI training provider in Australia and the guides library can help structure that process, and the case studies section shows how Collective Campus describes its own work.

Decision checklist

Use this list in your internal discussion before and after speaking to providers.

• We have written down the single most important outcome we want, in one sentence.
• We know whether we need a deliverable (design, research, strategy) or a capability (skills and habits our people keep).
• We have identified the executive sponsor and confirmed they will attend, not just approve.
• We know which teams or roles are in scope and why.
• We have agreed how we will tell whether the change has landed, beyond satisfaction scores.
• We have a baseline for the behaviours or outputs we want to change.
• We know whether AI adoption is a priority, and if so whether governance and risk need to be covered at the same time.
• We have checked any regulatory or sector constraints that affect what can be taught and how.
• We know who inside our organisation will own reinforcement after the sessions end.
• We have asked each provider who exactly will facilitate, and whether those people are available for our dates.
• We have asked to see or experience a sample of the format before committing.
• We have confirmed where and how delivery will happen, including our cities and any online needs.
• We have asked how the programme will be customised to our actual work, tools and constraints.
• We have asked what follow-up support exists and what it looks like in practice.
• We have asked for references or examples relevant to our sector, and treated unsupported claims with caution.
• We have agreed how scope changes will be handled if our priorities shift mid-engagement.
• We have shortlisted at least three providers and run the same scoping conversation with each.
• We have compared providers on fit and evidence, not on who presented best.

Questions to ask any provider on a scoping call

How a scoping call with Collective Campus works

A scoping call is a conversation, not a sales pitch. Collective Campus programmes are tailored after that call, and nothing is quoted or fixed before it, because the right design depends on your situation rather than a standard package.

The conversation typically covers a few things:

1. Your goal. What you are trying to achieve, what triggered the need now, and what success would look like for your organisation.
2. Your people. Which teams or roles are involved, their starting capability and confidence, and any history of past training that did or did not stick.
3. Your context. Your sector, regulatory constraints, tools in use and any sensitivities, particularly around AI, data and risk.
4. Your leadership. Who is sponsoring the work, how involved they plan to be, and where support might be thin.
5. Your constraints. Locations, whether delivery is in person, online or mixed, and anything else that shapes what is practical.
6. Fit. Whether Collective Campus is the right partner at all. If another approach would serve you better, including an agency-led design engagement, that is worth saying plainly.

After the call, Collective Campus proposes a tailored approach covering which programmes fit, how they connect and how follow-through and measurement will work. The proposal is built from what you said, not from a template. If you want to prepare, reading the relevant programme pages first, such as AI training, design thinking or high-performance teams, helps you arrive with sharper questions. The innovation capability page is a good starting point for broader programmes.

FAQ

Is Behavjor a training company?

Not primarily, according to their own site. Behavjor describes itself as an experience design and innovation agency with a behaviour-led approach. Innovation training, skills uplift and coaching form one of three areas on their homepage, alongside design and behavioural strategy. Collective Campus, by contrast, is a capability building company for teams, where training and programme delivery are the core business.

What is the main difference between Collective Campus and Behavjor?

The main difference is what each produces. Behavjor's public site positions it as an agency delivering research, strategy and designed experiences, with training attached. Collective Campus builds team capability across AI, design thinking, agile, psychological safety and more, so that people can do the work themselves. One suits buyers wanting outputs delivered, the other suits buyers wanting lasting skills.

Does Behavjor offer AI training?

AI training is not stated on their public site. Their homepage covers design, behavioural strategy and innovation capabilities but does not mention AI adoption or governance. If AI capability is your priority, ask Behavjor directly what they offer. Collective Campus treats AI as a major programme area, with training, adoption sprints, champions, leadership immersion and dedicated governance, and has worked on AI since 2022.

Where is Behavjor based?

Their website lists an office at Mary's Place in Surry Hills, Sydney. Their homepage also includes an acknowledgement of Traditional Owners and mentions Australian client projects. Coverage of other cities and the delivery model for training are not stated on their public site. Collective Campus was founded in Melbourne and works with teams across Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Canberra and other Australian cities.

Which is better for innovation training, Collective Campus or Behavjor?

It depends on the model you want. Behavjor's site describes in-project training, where teams learn by working on a real business problem alongside the agency. Collective Campus runs broader innovation capability and design thinking programmes tailored after a scoping call, aimed at teams who need to keep running the process themselves. Both are legitimate. Compare facilitators, follow-up and measurement before deciding.

Can an organisation use both Behavjor and Collective Campus?

Yes, and for some organisations that is sensible. A design and research agency can produce a redesigned experience or insight base, while a capability partner can build the internal skills to sustain it, adopt AI and keep team behaviours healthy. Sequence matters, so discuss with both providers how the work would connect before committing to either.

Does Collective Campus design products and brands for clients?

No, that is not the core offer. Collective Campus teaches teams design thinking, customer experience, lean startup and product sprint methods so they can design and test solutions themselves. If you need an agency to produce brand, digital product or service design on your behalf, a design agency is the better fit, and this article says so plainly.

How does Collective Campus price its programmes?

Programmes are tailored after a scoping call, so there is no standard price list to compare. The call covers your goals, people, context and constraints, after which Collective Campus proposes an approach. Treat any provider who quotes a fixed price before understanding your situation with caution, and ask every provider the same scoping questions to compare like for like.

Who leads Collective Campus workshops?

Collective Campus was founded in Melbourne by Steve Glaveski and Sean Qian, and Steve still leads flagship workshops. Founder Steve Glaveski's background in stand-up comedy and bands shapes a high-energy, entertaining style focused on practical tools used the next morning. For any provider, ask who will actually facilitate your sessions. Behavjor's public site does not name facilitators.

Is Collective Campus only an AI training company?

No. AI is a major area, with work since 2022, but Collective Campus also covers design thinking, customer experience, lean startup and product sprints, agile, productivity, psychological safety, critical thinking, AI governance and high-performance teams. Innovation work goes back to 2015. The common thread is building capability in teams, rather than any single technology or method.

How should a buyer shortlist providers?

Shortlist at least three, and run the same scoping conversation with each. Define your outcome first, decide whether you need outputs or capability, and ask about facilitators, customisation, follow-up, measurement and governance. Compare on fit and evidence rather than presentation polish. The how to choose an AI training provider in Australia guide offers a practical structure.

What should a buyer check on Behavjor's public site before contacting them?

Review their three areas (breakthrough design, behavioural strategy and innovation capabilities), the featured projects, and the Perspectives and Knowledge Hub sections they link to, which were not reviewed in detail for this article. Then ask about the points their homepage does not state, including facilitators, delivery format, measurement, pricing and any AI-related work.

Next step

If you are weighing a design and research agency against a capability partner, the quickest way to clarify the choice is a conversation about your actual goals. A scoping call with Collective Campus is the place to start: no fixed menu, no price quoted in advance, just a discussion of what you want your teams to be able to do and whether Collective Campus is the right partner to help. If the honest answer is that an agency like Behavjor, or another provider, is a better fit, that is worth knowing early. Book a scoping call to get started.

Sources

• Behavjor homepage: https://behavjor.com
• Behavjor contact and office details, as listed on their homepage: https://behavjor.com
• Behavjor project references (Flite, Heidelberg, University of Melbourne) as summarised on their homepage: https://behavjor.com