by Facilitation Expert | Dec 22, 2016 | Facilitation Skills
Great Facilitators
Today we bring you twelve significant behaviors that define successful, professional facilitators. (i.e., GREAT Facilitators) Our scope focuses on structured facilitation (NOT Kum-Bah-Yah). Structured facilitation requires a balanced blend of leadership, facilitation, and methodology. (An alpha sort sequences the following, not order of importance).
The first three behaviors:
- 7:59 AM preparation and interviews
(i.e., managing expectations and ownership). Increased experience forces top-notch facilitators to value preparation more than ever. No class, certification, or silver bullets help facilitators who show up without preparation.
- Active listening
(i.e., seeking to understand rather than being understood). Of facilitation’s core skills, active listening remains the easiest to understand and the hardest to do.
- Annotated agenda
(i.e., visualizing everything the session leader does or asks in advance). Preparation or writing down what you intend to say and do remains critical. Therefore, Great facilitators don’t rely on memory, they write it down.
The next three behaviors:
- Common nouns and purpose give rise to natural categories
. A professional NEVER asks a group HOW they would like to ‘categorize a list.’ Common nouns are symptomatic of the likelihood of clusters. Normally categorizes arise from shared or common purpose.
- Holarchy
(i.e., interdependent reciprocities—contextual explanation of how it all fits together). When active listening fails to resolve conflict, appeal to the organizational objectives. They drive the determination of whose argument should prevail. Begin with the project, then the program, then the business unit, and if necessary, enterprise objectives. The holarchy provides the key to alignment and a professional knows how to apply it.
- “I” no longer
(i.e., the substitution of pluralistic and integrative rhetoric for the first person singular). Professionals avoid reference to themselves alone. Everything ‘we’ do is for the benefit of them and you, not ‘me.’ The least professional words a facilitator could utter — “Help me.”
Three more behaviors:
- Life Cycle: Plan ☛ Acquire ☛ Operate ☛ Control (i.e., great tool and inherent rationale behind all life cycle methodologies). It matters not whether building requirements or an action plan. Blue-chip facilitators explore at least four activities (likely more). They ensure at minimum one activity within each of the four primary life-cycle stages.
- Numeric SWOT leads to consensual actions (i.e., Easily the best way to prioritize hundreds of items and build consensus around “WHAT” needs to be done to support the purpose). So many untrained facilitators build four lists, hang them on the wall, and ask “Now what?” Traditional SWOT remains an awful method for galvanizing consensus. Outstanding facilitators consider the MGRUSH quantitative approach instead.
- Right-to-left thinking or, focus on the deliverable first (i.e., starting with the end in mind—forcing the abstract into the concrete). Leadership demands understanding what ‘DONE’ looks like. Top-flight professionals constantly apply a ‘DONE’ consciousness against the meeting deliverable, agenda step, supporting activity, and even specific questions. Always start with the end in mind.
The final three behaviors:
- “The Purpose is to . . . So That . . . “
(i.e., an amazing tool to extract the “strategy” behind something too small for a
“strategic plan”). The professional facilitators’ ‘screwdriver.’ is known simply as the Purpose Tool. Use it repeatedly to first build consensus around WHY something exists before discussing WHAT can be done to make it better.
- Trivium
(i.e., the natural force behind the structure of movement and progress). Plato called it Logic, Rhetoric, and Grammar. Our sixth-grade teachers called it WHY, WHAT, and HOW. Project life cycles are called Planning, Analysis, and Design. We call it Will, Wisdom, and Activity. The Trivium represents the nature of structured facilitation as superb facilitators help groups transform from the abstract to the concrete.
- Website resources
(i.e.,” You get to ride all the rides, as many times as you want.”). You will find many of the finest facilitators in the world among the thousands of MGRUSH alumni. Therefore, use online access to agendas, templates, and other meeting support tools to make your life easier.
______
Don’t ruin your career by hosting bad meetings. Sign up for a workshop or send this to someone who should. MGRUSH workshops focus on meeting design and practice. Each person practices tools, methods, and activities daily during the week. Therefore, while some call this immersion, we call it the road to building high-value facilitation skills.
Our workshops also provide a superb way to earn up to 40 SEUs from the Scrum Alliance, 40 CDUs from IIBA, 40 Continuous Learning Points (CLPs) based on Federal Acquisition Certification Continuous Professional Learning Requirements using Training and Education activities, 40 Professional Development Units (PDUs) from SAVE International, as well as 4.0 CEUs for other professions. (See workshop and Reference Manual descriptions for details.)
Want a free 10-minute break timer? Sign up for our once-monthly newsletter HERE and receive a free timer along with four other of our favorite facilitation tools.
Terrence Metz, MBA, CSM, CSPF, PSP01, HTTO1, is the Managing Director of MG RUSH Facilitation Leadership, Training, and Meeting Design, an acknowledged leader in structured facilitation training, and author of “Meetings That Get Results – A Facilitator’s Guide to Building Better Meetings.” His FAST Facilitation Best Practices blog features nearly 300 articles on facilitation skills and tools aimed at helping others lead meetings that produce clear and actionable results. His clients include Agilists, Scrum teams, program and project managers, senior officers, and the business analyst community among numerous private and public companies and global corporations. As an undergraduate of Northwestern University (Evanston, IL) and an MBA graduate from NWU’s Kellogg School of Management, his professional experience has focused on process improvement and product development. He continually aspires to make it easier for others to succeed.
by Facilitation Expert | Dec 15, 2016 | Managing Conflict
Group decision-making, when not transparent or properly facilitated, can lead to awful decisions. The Abilene Paradox captures why four intelligent adults would agree and decide to do something that none of them wanted to do in the first place.
It may sound absurd that four intelligent adults would agree and decide to do something that none of them wanted to do in the first place, but it is effectively found in a small but well-received story. I first learned of Harvey’s article while receiving my MBA at Kellogg, and was recently reminded of it during a discussion with a student after class, who was in the process of earning her own MBA.
The Abilene Paradox Background
Based on a story that starts in the remote town of Coleman, Texas, four adults travel in a dust storm and 104 degrees (Fahrenheit) heat in an un-air-conditioned ’58 Buick to a cafeteria in Abilene. After returning, the story covers their conversation which could be summed up with the comment “ I didn’t want to go.” Of course, none of them did, so why did they go?
Jerry B. Harvey’s Abilene Paradox tale can be found sourced in the October issue of the Organizational Dynamics journal, 1985. Its message is timeless. He identifies the inability to manage agreement as a major source of organizational dysfunction. He never mentions the need or value of a professionally trained facilitator. Rather, he describes the caller of the meeting as the “confronter.” A professionally trained facilitator provides a more effective term as they should challenge participants (rather than “confront” them).
Therefore, in his article, Harvey covers six issues.
Six Abilene Paradox Lessons
The Abilene Paradox
- Symptoms of the paradox (arguably the most important of the six)
- People in organizations shave private conversations . . .
- . . . and make private agreements as to the steps to “cope” with the situation or problem they face.
- They fail to communicate their underlying desires or beliefs to one another leading to a misperception of the collective reality.
- Members make collective decisions that lead them to take actions contrary to what they want to do, and thereby arrive at results that are counterproductive to the organization’s intent and purposes . . .
- . . . resulting in frustration, anger, irritation, and dissatisfaction with the organization that causes blame toward “other” subgroups.
- Since they are unable to manage agreements (rather than conflict), the cycle repeats itself with greater intensity.
- How they arise in organizations
- The underlying causal dynamics
- Implications for organizational behavior
- Recommendations
- Views toward the broader existential issue
The Abilene Paradox provides fun and enjoyment because his thesis asserts that the failure to communicate effectively runs rampant throughout most large organizations. Facilitated decision-making provides a dependable answer or alternative to absurd decision-making. Why? Because people speak symptomatically. Without proper challenge, they do not think clearly nor do they articulate the driving cause or rationale behind their beliefs.
The Watergate Paradox
Also citing the “Watergate” fiasco that brought down President Nixon, Harvey notes that . . .
“ . . . the central figures of the Watergate episode apparently knew that, for a variety of reasons, the plan to bug the Watergate did not make sense.”
Avoid your own Watergate, or an exhausting 106-mile trek by embracing the value of a trained, professional facilitator.
Remember that two people arguing about the spiciness of a chili or curry are both right. By title, they are called ‘subject(ive)’ matter experts. Your role as the facilitator through the method of the challenge will get them to agree that regardless of spiciness, the chili or curry measures 1,400 Scoville Units.
______
Don’t ruin your career by hosting bad meetings. Sign up for a workshop or send this to someone who should. MGRUSH workshops focus on meeting design and practice. Each person practices tools, methods, and activities daily during the week. Therefore, while some call this immersion, we call it the road to building high-value facilitation skills.
Our workshops also provide a superb way to earn up to 40 SEUs from the Scrum Alliance, 40 CDUs from IIBA, 40 Continuous Learning Points (CLPs) based on Federal Acquisition Certification Continuous Professional Learning Requirements using Training and Education activities, 40 Professional Development Units (PDUs) from SAVE International, as well as 4.0 CEUs for other professions. (See workshop and Reference Manual descriptions for details.)
Want a free 10-minute break timer? Sign up for our once-monthly newsletter HERE and receive a free timer along with four other of our favorite facilitation tools.
Terrence Metz, MBA, CSM, CSPF, PSP01, HTTO1, is the Managing Director of MG RUSH Facilitation Leadership, Training, and Meeting Design, an acknowledged leader in structured facilitation training, and author of “Meetings That Get Results – A Facilitator’s Guide to Building Better Meetings.” His FAST Facilitation Best Practices blog features nearly 300 articles on facilitation skills and tools aimed at helping others lead meetings that produce clear and actionable results. His clients include Agilists, Scrum teams, program and project managers, senior officers, and the business analyst community among numerous private and public companies and global corporations. As an undergraduate of Northwestern University (Evanston, IL) and an MBA graduate from NWU’s Kellogg School of Management, his professional experience has focused on process improvement and product development. He continually aspires to make it easier for others to succeed.
by Facilitation Expert | Dec 8, 2016 | Leadership Skills, Meeting Structure, Meeting Support, Meeting Tools
Here’s how to create a project plan or RACI chart (or RACI matrix) when your discussion or meeting deliverable includes assignments for actions that have been built or identified.
As a result of capturing the additional inputs below, you develop a consensual understanding from your group’s roles and responsibilities chart (RACI chart).
(1) WHO will take responsibility (the keystone of a RACI chart or RACI matrix) for
(2) WHAT needs to be done (ranging from simple activities to comprehensive strategies) and
(3) WHEN the assignment(s) may be completed, given resources such as
(4) HOW MUCH extra money (approximate cash or assets) required and
(5) HOW MUCH estimated labor (FTP, or full-time person) is required to complete the assignment?
RACI Chart – Roles and Responsibilities Method for Building a Roles and Responsibilities Matrix[*]
The WHAT group of actions or assignments may take the form of strategies, initiatives, programs, projects, activities, or tasks. They should already be identified before beginning your RACI or RASI assignments. Furthermore, as you increase the resolution from the abstract (eg, strategy) to the concrete (eg, task), expect to increase the resolution of the role or title of the responsible party. For example, strategies may get assigned to business units while tasks get assigned to individual roles such as Business Analyst or Product Owner.
Remember that the WHO dimension might include business units, departments, roles, or people but be consistent and match closely to the appropriate level of responsibility for WHAT needs to be done. Define each of the (five) areas of responsibility—note that each implies the others that follow. For example, the Authorizer is also Responsible. Hence, because they Support the effort, they need to be Informed about it as well.
- A = Authorizes—approves or signs off on the method or results of a given task
- R = Responsible—is held responsible for the success and completion of a given task
- S = Supports—provides assistance, information, etc., in the completion of a task—if requested
- C = Consults—provides consultation as required
- I = Informed—is kept informed of the progress or results of a given task.
- L = Lead (a surrogate or substitute for R)
Rules to Follow When Building a Roles and Responsibility Matrix
Especially relevant, note that C, or Consults has been de-emphasized with a blue font because “consults” can be a nebulous term. Our advice suggests substituting the S because it implies both Supporting and Being Informed.
Consider building your RACI chart or matrix using a large sheet of paper. Use a bright color marker, red is optimal, to document the R. Go back and complete the other relationships as appropriate.
- Portrait view—When using an easel or flip chart, write the people involved (units, job names, etc.) across the top (the WHO) and the tasks, jobs, projects, etc., down the left-hand side (the WHAT).
- Landscape view—Build a matrix on a whiteboard or other large writing area with the tasks, jobs, projects, etc. (the WHAT) across the top and the people involved (units, job names, etc.) down the left-hand side (the WHO).
- One and only one R per row (i.e., for each activity)
- At least one A who is not the R—may be more than one
- When this role requires only to be informed
- S for those supporting the R
NOTE:
- A implies R, S, I
- R implies S, I
- S implies I
Because this approach develops input for a Gantt chart, you also build consensual understanding and shared ownership. Furthermore, a facilitated effort captures the group’s personality, not a lone myopic view from one person’s office or cubicle. A generic and illustrative Gantt chart follows, displaying activities and assignments supporting a faux product development project:
An Infographic GANTT Chart
How to Build Roles and Responsibilities for Multiple Sites
Here is a roles and responsibilities matrix that can help you manage multiple sites. The following supports more complicated situations than the traditional RACI chart (or RACI matrix or its equivalent) discussed above.
Roles and Responsibilities for Multiple Sites
Using the table above as an illustrative template, preview the content you need to facilitate and develop. The content is coupled with additional explanations of the column headings below that support multiple sites.
Activity or Task[*]
The first section provides details about the Activity or Task that needs to be assigned and completed. Since the details will not fit comfortably into a spreadsheet cell, code the cell and refer to another document with additional details. As the details may or may not be complete at the time of the assignment, there may be a separate individual or group who takes on the role of author and provides the details. When initially logged, the details are either complete (y for yes) or not (n for not).
Location
Since identical tasks may be carried out in multiple facilities, code the facilities in the Location section. There could be more than two facilities of course. If more than two, you might substitute “A” for all instead of “B” for both.
Who Does What
The WHO section captures who will be responsible for the activity or task at each respective location. If necessary, you can add an additional column indicating their backup or who may be supporting them.
Frequency
The Frequency section refers to how often the activity or task needs to be performed. The due date represents the completion of the activity or task. For repetitive activities or tasks, the coding shown suggests the following:
- W = weekly
- M = monthly
- Q = quarterly
- A = annually
- V = variable or ad hoc
FTP or Full-time Person
The last section captures the intensity or concentration of effort required to complete the task. While frequently shown as hours per month, you could substitute FTP (i.e., full-time person-equivalent) or whatever measurement works best in your culture (aka FTE or full-time equivalent).
Finally, append the table with a resource column that estimates how much financial capital or currency will support the activity or task. This is a tool that you can modify to your situation, cultural expectations, and terms—so experiment freely.
A Roles and Responsibilities Matrix (RACI Chart) Captures WHO Does WHAT By WHEN
We have discovered at least twenty (20) different varieties of the Responsibility Matrix. While methodologically agnostic, we support any method your culture uses. However, be careful with the “C” as in ‘consult’. Because one can never be certain if an assigned “C” provides you something or you provide them something. Below you will find 20 documented types of roles and responsibilities, and undoubtedly there are others:
Transform Roles and Responsibilities Into a GANTT Chart
Click here to see a recorded demonstration of how to transform your roles and responsibility matrix into a Gantt chart.
- ARCI
- RACI (Responsible, Accountable, Consult, Informed)
- RACIA (Approve)
- RASI (Supports)
- RASCI
- PARIS
- ALRIC
- RASCIO (Omitted)
- LACTI (Lead, Tasked)
- AERI (Endorsement)
- RACI-V
- CAIRO
- DRACI (Drives)
- DACI
- DRAM (Deliverables Review and Approval Matrix)
- RACIT
- RASIC
- RACI+F, where F stands for Facilitator
- CARS (Communicate, Approve, Responsible & Support)
- PACSI (Performed, Accountable, Control, Suggested & Informed)
[*] Moreover, for a thorough primer and clear discussion on RACI, see “RACI Matrix: How does it help Project Managers?”
______
Don’t ruin your career by hosting bad meetings. Sign up for a workshop or send this to someone who should. MGRUSH workshops focus on meeting design and practice. Each person practices tools, methods, and activities daily during the week. Therefore, while some call this immersion, we call it the road to building high-value facilitation skills.
Our workshops also provide a superb way to earn up to 40 SEUs from the Scrum Alliance, 40 CDUs from IIBA, 40 Continuous Learning Points (CLPs) based on Federal Acquisition Certification Continuous Professional Learning Requirements using Training and Education activities, 40 Professional Development Units (PDUs) from SAVE International, as well as 4.0 CEUs for other professions. (See workshop and Reference Manual descriptions for details.)
Want a free 10-minute break timer? Sign up for our once-monthly newsletter HERE and receive a free timer along with four other of our favorite facilitation tools.
Related video
Terrence Metz, MBA, CSM, CSPF, PSP01, HTTO1, is the Managing Director of MG RUSH Facilitation Leadership, Training, and Meeting Design, an acknowledged leader in structured facilitation training, and author of “Meetings That Get Results – A Facilitator’s Guide to Building Better Meetings.” His FAST Facilitation Best Practices blog features nearly 300 articles on facilitation skills and tools aimed at helping others lead meetings that produce clear and actionable results. His clients include Agilists, Scrum teams, program and project managers, senior officers, and the business analyst community among numerous private and public companies and global corporations. As an undergraduate of Northwestern University (Evanston, IL) and an MBA graduate from NWU’s Kellogg School of Management, his professional experience has focused on process improvement and product development. He continually aspires to make it easier for others to succeed.
by Facilitation Expert | Dec 1, 2016 | Meeting Support, Problem Solving
Decision quality increases with the number of available options. The MGRUSH technique has long promoted the concept of team diversity to improve decision quality. Most understand that properly facilitated teams are smarter than the smartest person on the team, especially when you increase team diversity.
- Teams create more options than aggregating individual inputs.
Dial-Up Decision Quality with More Diverse Teams
Diverse teams push even higher, why?
A 2015 McKinsey study found that among nearly 400 public companies in the top quartile for ethnic and racial diversity in management, they were 35% more likely to have financial returns above their industry mean. An additional positive factor was found for gender diversity as well. Credit Suisse found among 2,400 global companies that “organizations with at least one female board member yielded a higher return on equity and higher net income growth than those that did not have any women on the board.”[1]
In addition to decision quality mentioned above, a November 2016 HBR (Harvard Business Review) article by David RockHeidi and Grant Halvorson provides three additional reasons to promote diversity within your teams:
- Assuredly, diverse teams rely more on facts,
- Diverse teams process facts more carefully,
- Consequently, diverse teams are more innovative
With some strong research to back them up, the rationale for each follows.
Diverse Teams Rely More On Facts
When teams and groups are stirred up with heterogeneity, they find common ground in facts. Ethnically diverse groups make more accurate predictions than homogeneous groups. Because they focus less on the subjective feelings of individuals, they present arguments that belie the objective nature of the group at large. Therefore, by mixing up groups, participants become more aware of their own biases and heuristics.
“Diverse teams are more likely to constantly reexamine facts and remain objective. They may also encourage greater scrutiny of each member’s actions, keeping their joint cognitive resources sharp and vigilant.”
Diverse Teams Process Facts More Carefully
Increased diversity forces teams to take a more disciplined approach to analyzing information. Referring to a study published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin by Katherine Phillips of Northwestern University, groups with ‘newcomers’ were more likely to make accurate decisions than those without.
“Remember: Considering the perspective of an outsider may seem counterintuitive, but the payoff can be huge.”
Diverse Teams Are More Innovative
Innovation drives superior profits and customer lifetime value. The authors refer to a study of over 4,000 companies published in Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice.
“ . . . they found that companies with more women were more likely to introduce radical new innovations into the market over a two-year period.”
Separately, a study of nearly 8,000 firms in the UK indicates clearly that diverse leadership teams are more likely to develop new products. Therefore, according to RockHeidi and Halvorson:
“Hiring individuals who do not look, talk, or think like you can allow you to dodge the costly pitfalls of conformity, which discourages innovative thinking.”
While the HBR article emphasizes the enrichment of employee pools by varying gender, race, and nationality, you should aspire for heterogeneity among your teams and meetings. Divers teams monitor personal bias and validate assumptions more thoroughly. As you facilitate and lead meetings with higher-quality decisions and output, your projects will and programs will more likely succeed as well.
______
Don’t ruin your career by hosting bad meetings. Sign up for a workshop or send this to someone who should. MGRUSH workshops focus on meeting design and practice. Each person practices tools, methods, and activities daily during the week. Therefore, while some call this immersion, we call it the road to building high-value facilitation skills.
Our workshops also provide a superb way to earn up to 40 SEUs from the Scrum Alliance, 40 CDUs from IIBA, 40 Continuous Learning Points (CLPs) based on Federal Acquisition Certification Continuous Professional Learning Requirements using Training and Education activities, 40 Professional Development Units (PDUs) from SAVE International, as well as 4.0 CEUs for other professions. (See workshop and Reference Manual descriptions for details.)
Want a free 10-minute break timer? Sign up for our once-monthly newsletter HERE and receive a free timer along with four other of our favorite facilitation tools.
Terrence Metz, MBA, CSM, CSPF, PSP01, HTTO1, is the Managing Director of MG RUSH Facilitation Leadership, Training, and Meeting Design, an acknowledged leader in structured facilitation training, and author of “Meetings That Get Results – A Facilitator’s Guide to Building Better Meetings.” His FAST Facilitation Best Practices blog features nearly 300 articles on facilitation skills and tools aimed at helping others lead meetings that produce clear and actionable results. His clients include Agilists, Scrum teams, program and project managers, senior officers, and the business analyst community among numerous private and public companies and global corporations. As an undergraduate of Northwestern University (Evanston, IL) and an MBA graduate from NWU’s Kellogg School of Management, his professional experience has focused on process improvement and product development. He continually aspires to make it easier for others to succeed.
by Facilitation Expert | Nov 17, 2016 | Communication Skills
Not all situations are covered by cookbook agendas or avail a methodologist to help. The facilitator must develop their approach another way. Therefore, use the Single Question Approach to develop new questions that lead to a meeting method complete with a detailed agenda.
The Single Question Approach breaks down the big question that analyzes the primary problem by breaking it into detailed supporting questions. Focused questions provide groups with traction and are much easier to answer.
The Single Question Approach
Method for the Single Question Approach
The Questions
What is the single question, the answer to which the group needs to know to accomplish its purpose?
Example: A workshop to design a newsletter could begin with the single (and broad) question, “What is the content and format of this newsletter?”
Sub-Questions
What sub-questions must be answered before we can answer the single question we just formulated? While preparing, talk to participants and find out what questions they suggest we answer during the meeting. Test your questions prior to the meeting for clarity, precision, and completeness.
Example: Our newsletter workshop question can be answered when the following sub-questions are answered.
- Who is the newsletter audience?
- What is the purpose of the newsletter?
- What are their interests?
- Why would they read a newsletter?
- What do they already know?
- What do they want to know?
- Which media would they prefer?
Sequencing
Sequence them in an appropriate order—which needs to be answered first, second, and so on. Sequencing creates topical flow—facilitators lead with coherent agenda steps, not a laundry list of questions. The order is based on which answers help in answering subsequent questions.
Example: For our newsletter, the questions might be answered in the following sequence.
- What is the purpose of the newsletter?
- Who is the newsletter audience?
- Why would they read a newsletter?
- What are their interests?
- Do we know what they want to know?
- What do they already know?
- Which media would they prefer?
Organizing
Next group the questions. We could just leave them as is and step through the questions in this order, but it doesn’t clearly provide us with our deliverable. Participants think better when we categorize information to create natural breaks. Group the questions into a single, definable product at the end of each set of questions—or question.
Example: In our newsletter example, we might have four key categories; Newsletter Purpose, Audience, Content, and Media.
- Question 1 defines the Newsletter’s Purpose.
- Questions 2 and 3 define the Audience.
- Questions 4, 5, and 6 define the Content.
- Question 7 defines the Media.
Agenda
What are the best descriptors and sequence of the categories?
Example: Our newsletter workshop simple agenda might be . . .
- Introduction
- Purpose of the newsletter
- Audience
- Content
- Media
- Review and Wrap up
Comments
- Advantages—Good if under time pressure and you need a
quick agenda. Forces a decision. Include within other agendas.
- Disadvantages—Very difficult in conflict-ridden or very
complex situations.
______
Don’t ruin your career by hosting bad meetings. Sign up for a workshop or send this to someone who should. MGRUSH workshops focus on meeting design and practice. Each person practices tools, methods, and activities daily during the week. Therefore, while some call this immersion, we call it the road to building high-value facilitation skills.
Our workshops also provide a superb way to earn up to 40 SEUs from the Scrum Alliance, 40 CDUs from IIBA, 40 Continuous Learning Points (CLPs) based on Federal Acquisition Certification Continuous Professional Learning Requirements using Training and Education activities, 40 Professional Development Units (PDUs) from SAVE International, as well as 4.0 CEUs for other professions. (See workshop and Reference Manual descriptions for details.)
Want a free 10-minute break timer? Sign up for our once-monthly newsletter HERE and receive a free timer along with four other of our favorite facilitation tools.
Terrence Metz, MBA, CSM, CSPF, PSP01, HTTO1, is the Managing Director of MG RUSH Facilitation Leadership, Training, and Meeting Design, an acknowledged leader in structured facilitation training, and author of “Meetings That Get Results – A Facilitator’s Guide to Building Better Meetings.” His FAST Facilitation Best Practices blog features nearly 300 articles on facilitation skills and tools aimed at helping others lead meetings that produce clear and actionable results. His clients include Agilists, Scrum teams, program and project managers, senior officers, and the business analyst community among numerous private and public companies and global corporations. As an undergraduate of Northwestern University (Evanston, IL) and an MBA graduate from NWU’s Kellogg School of Management, his professional experience has focused on process improvement and product development. He continually aspires to make it easier for others to succeed.
