Four Reasons You Will Dial Up Decision Quality with More Team Diversity

Four Reasons You Will Dial Up Decision Quality with More Team Diversity

by | 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.

Team Diversity Increases Decision Quality

Team Diversity Increases Decision Quality

Diverse teams push even higher, why?

A 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 Harvard Business Review article by David RockHeidi and Grant Halvorson provides three additional reasons to promote diversity within your teams:

  1. Assuredly, diverse teams rely more on facts,
  2. Diverse teams process facts more carefully,
  3. 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.

______

Let us know how we can assist because nobody is smarter than everybody.

______

Consensus Mastery and Facilitation require more than understanding the ‘what’—it’s about mastering the ‘how.’ Building consensus demands a unique blend of human-centric skills and analytical tools to ensure inclusivity, rigor, and actionable outputs. Take the first step toward transforming your facilitation skills: identify where your organization or team faces the greatest challenges by cross-referencing these factors as you plan your next meeting or workshop. Ready to elevate your impact? Join our Professional Workshop to gain hands-on insight, practice, and feedback, empowering you to lead with confidence and achieve lasting results. Click here to secure your spot today!

______

Our workshops also provide a superb way to earn up to 40 SEUs from the Scrum Alliance. Receive 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. Finally, receive 4.0 CEUs for other professions. (See workshop and Reference Manual descriptions for details.)

______

With “Bookmarks” no longer a feature of WordPress, note the following that we are providing for your immediate benefit and long-term reference.

Avoid Asking “How Do We Solve Global Hunger?” with the Single Question Approach

Avoid Asking “How Do We Solve Global Hunger?” with the Single Question Approach

by | 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

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.

  1. What is the purpose of the newsletter?
  2. Who is the newsletter audience?
  3. Why would they read a newsletter?
  4. What are their interests?
  5. Do we know what they want to know?
  6. What do they already know?
  7. 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.

How to Facilitate Force Field Analysis Leading to Actions

How to Facilitate Force Field Analysis Leading to Actions

by | Nov 10, 2016 | Analysis Methods, Meeting Tools

Force Field analysis modifies and improves upon a similar approach called “pros & cons.” Force Field analysis helps groups identify and prioritize actions and opportunities for improvement, especially among product and project teams.

This approach to Force Field analysis makes it easier for groups to organize their thinking while encouraging thoughtful exploration. Once supportive and hindering forces are identified, the group analyzes the impact, leading to actions that reinforce the positive and mitigate the negative forces.

Procedure to Facilitate Force Field Analysis

Force field analysis begins by identifying the objectives, or CTQs (Critical to Quality), or targets. First, facilitate clear understanding of WHAT needs to change. Next, for each discrete objective (typically built in advance of a meeting or workshop and provided in a pre-read as a slide or handout), ask the following questions, ONE AT A TIME:

  • What is hindering us from reaching this target (negative, or forces hindering change)?
    • Environmental Forces
    • Structural/ Organizational Forces
    • Technological Forces
    • Individual Forces
  • What is helping us move toward this target (positive, or forces supporting change)?
    • Environmental Forces
    • Structural/ Organizational Forces
    • Technological Forces
    • Individual Forces

The responses will generate two new lists (ie, positive/ supporting and negative/ hindering forces). Adapt the Peter Senge philosophy that it is easier to remove obstacles (the hindrances) than to push harder (supportive forces). Focus discussion on what we can do differently to overcome the hindrances or obstacles. Facilitate the discussion on one obstacle at a time. For each obstacle, consider at least one action and perhaps more.

Once all actions have been clarified and understood, it may be necessary to prioritize them. When you have more than a one dozen actions, consider the Pareto Principle (ie, 80-20 Rule). If so, use MG RUSH’s PowerBall, Perceptual Mapping, or Decision-Matrix tools to facilitate consensual prioritization.

Notes about Force Field Analysis

See how the first list of objectives generates two lists (i.e., supports and hindrances) that lead to one consolidated action list, as shown in the diagram:

Transform Force-Field Analysis into Actions, Facilitate Force Field Analysis

Transform Force Field Analysis into Actions

______

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.

Quantitative SWOT Analysis (TO-WS) Makes it Easier & Faster to Build Consensus

Quantitative SWOT Analysis (TO-WS) Makes it Easier & Faster to Build Consensus

by | Nov 3, 2016 | Analysis Methods, Decision Making, Meeting Structure, Prioritizing

Quantitative SWOT analysis contrasts the internal, controllable aspects of the organization (i.e., Strengths and Weaknesses) with external, uncontrollable situational factors (i.e., Opportunities and Threats) to create consensus around potential actions an organization might take to reach its goals and objectives.

Qualitative situational analysis[1] provides a poor method for building consensus. In what Dr. Tufte refers to as ‘flatland’, answers pop out at people, but not consensual answers. Therefore, consider using quantitative SWOT analysis, developed by Terrence Metz while attending the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. Traditionally, SWOT provides a narrative description of the current situation. We encourage a quantitative approach whenever you are faced with prioritizing a complex situation involving dozens, or even hundreds of options.

TO-WS (SWOT) QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS (Current Situation or Situation Analysis)

This activity describes the current Situation by developing a shared understanding to support WHAT Actions a group should embrace so that they reach their Key Measures such as objectives (SMART), goals (fuzzy), and considerations (binary).

A quantitative view of the Current Situation displays the foundation for justifying Actions. Consequently, Actions that currently work well are potentially reinforced and renewed alongside new Actions that get approved and developed.

The term used to describe Actions will change depending on your level in the holarchy. For example, an organization will refer to Actions as strategies, a business unit may use the term initiatives, a department or program office may call their Actions new products or new projects, and a product or project team may call their Actions, activities, or tasks. For each group, the term used represents WHAT the group is going to do to reach its Key Measures that were established to ensure that the group achieves its Vision.

The Current Situation provides consensual descriptions of:

  • Current environment (TO-WS)
    • Threats (externally uncontrollable, frequent trends)
    • Opportunities (externally uncontrollable, frequent trends)
    • Weaknesses (internally controlled, as viewed by competitors or competitive forces)
    • Strengths (internally controlled, as viewed by competitors or competitive forces)
  • Assumptions made in developing analysis
  • Model representing how stakeholders view the business or organization

WHAT Actions the group foresees, given their Current Situation, to help reach or exceed their Measures in support of achieving their Vision

General Questions, Which . . .

  • threats are most worrisome and justify defense?
  • opportunities provide a real chance of success?
  • weaknesses need the most correction?
  • core competencies or strengths should be leveraged?
Blank TO-WS Scoring Sheet

Blank TO-WS Scoring Sheet

Procedure

  • Have people prepared to share their TO-WS factors in advance but keep them private. Let them reference their notes as we proceed.
  • Develop consensual lists and complete definitions (use Definition Tool) for each Threat, Opportunity, Weakness, and Strength. If necessary, reduce each list to the top four to six factors (see Categorizing logic and then use PowerBalls for prioritizing, along with Bookends to prevent wasting time).
  • As you build four different lists, describe each entry clearly and carefully. Threats and Opportunities are externally uncontrolled and frequently represent trends. Weaknesses and Strengths are internally controlled as viewed by competitors and outsiders.
  • Build and enforce strong definitions and potential measurements behind each TO-WS. For example, the strength of ‘Brand’ could be measured as market share among target customers or the threat of ‘Transportation Costs’ could be indexed to the cost of a barrel of oil or the price for a liter of diesel.

NOTE: Reverse the common SWOT sequence to TO-WS because it’s easier and more effective to deal initially with external factors, especially Threats. Technically, there are only two lists, both with a plus and minus end of their continuum. If the factor is external and you do not control it, by definition it must be a Threat or an Opportunity (TO). Therefore, if the factor is internal and you control it, by definition it must be a Weakness or a Strength (WS).

REMEMBER: NEVER allow a group to define an internally controllable Weakness as an Opportunity for improvement. If it is controllable, by definition it is a Weaknesses and NOT an Opportunity.

We call it TO-WS because most experts agree this is the best sequence to consider:

    1. External Threats: It’s easy to imagine what could go wrong.
    2. External Opportunities: Since Threats come more easily, remind participants to refer to their list of prepared factors.
    3. Internal Weaknesses: Participants are usually more sensitive about things going wrong than to what is positive.
    4. Internal Strengths: Begin by referring to their notes.

NEXT

  • Create a definition package so that each of the characteristics scored is based upon an agreed ‘operational definition.’
  • Convert your four lists into a matrix (usually a spreadsheet) with Threats (-) and Opportunities (+) on the horizontal axis and Strengths (+) and Weaknesses (-) on the vertical axis (because it is easier to visually focus on columns rather than rows).
  • Remind participants that they are on the inside looking out and have them score, using instructions that follow later.
  • Aggregate the individual scores into a collective score. If you are using the spreadsheet, it will automatically calculate a group total.
  • Review with the group to identify the most impactful Actions—strategies, initiatives, products, projects, or activities.

CRITICAL NOTE:

Carefully enforce the operational level in your holarchy and meeting scope because the Strengths and Weaknesses MUST BE within the control of THIS group, NOT simply the company or organization. For example, a department may not control its budget so financial resources may be viewed as a Threat to the group because they do not control the budget or financial assets.

Sample Questions to Generate Threats:
  • What is your competition doing much better than you?
  • What regulatory issues could stop or hinder progress?
  • Which trends are a real threat to your organization/ project?
Some Questions to Generate Opportunities:
  • What are you not doing yet but could easily see yourself doing with the right momentum?
  • Name a political policy that might help.
  • Which trends provide a new opportunity for you?
Sample Questions to Generate Weaknesses:
  • What could you improve?
  • Detail something not working so well.
  • What do others outside do poorly and so do you?
  • What should you stop doing?
Some Questions to Generate Strengths:
  • How do you currently achieve success?
  • What do you do better than others?
  • What do others outside view as your strengths?

PARTICIPANT SCORING INSTRUCTIONS

  • Working within each column (i.e., external factor), one at a time ask: “What am I suggesting we do (to take advantage of this specific opportunity) or (to defend us against this specific threat)?”
  • As you decide on WHAT to do, write down your most important ideas on a separate piece of paper to bring with you to the next meeting.
  • You have nine points to be used in each column. Within each column, distribute the nine (9) points according to the impact or perceived value of each proposed Action (i.e., WHAT we should do to seize an opportunity or defend ourselves against a threat).

The total for each column should equal nine (9).

  • Avoid assigning one point to multiple items by awarding the most significant items three, four, or more points.
  • Strive to assign points to three cells at most in each column. Assigning nine points to only one cell is okay. Another tactic might be to assign five (5) points to the most important, three (3) points to the next important, and one (1) point to the third most important cell, with the balance of the cells kept blank.
  • Use your business understanding—a blank cell does not mean it is unimportant. Rather, it means it is less important than others that offer more impact or leverage. If you are compelled to assign similar values to everything, the results will be watered down and provide less value for developing Actions than if you focus on the most compelling Actions.
One Person Scoring Sheet

One Person Scoring Sheet

NOTE: Participants should think about each cell in a column carefully when asking “WHAT can we do to seize this opportunity?” or “WHAT do we need to do to defend against this threat?” They might write their thoughts on a separate sheet of paper and when they have completely analyzed a column, go to the cells that represent the most important ideas and put the most points in those cells.

Scoring Tabulation

  • Collect the scoring. Using a spreadsheet, compute the final scores for each cell intersection, each column, each row, and each quadrant.
  • Review the scores with the group and highlight the rows and quadrants with the most significant (i.e., highest) scores.
  • Immediately move to the next step in the agenda to convert the results into narrative Actions. Anticipate the ‘law of large numbers’ as people speaking early will defend themselves with the ‘large numbers’ from the spreadsheet.
Scoring Aggregated for Eleven Person

Scoring Aggregated for Eleven Participants

Riffs and Variations

Using Bookend rhetoric, force rank each Strength or Weakness specific to each external factor. For example, if there are twelve combined Strengths and Weaknesses, we would support the following analysis for each column:

    • Instruct each participant to ask: “Of these twelve controllable factors, which has the greatest impact on (taking advantage of this opportunity) or (defending us against this threat)?” More is better so assign the answer a twelve (12).
    • Now instruct each participant to ask: “Of the remaining eleven factors, which has the least impact on . . . ?” Assign a one (1).
    • Continue using Bookends, which is next most, next least, etc., until all have been assigned a rank.
    • Aggregate scores and continue to convert them into Actions described in the next Agenda Step.

You might conduct a Quantitative TO-WS for the current date and situation, and then conduct another Quantitative TO-WS for some agreed-upon date in the future. Encourage participants to unveil the strategy by determining what Actions will get us from the current date to the future date.

To support change management, you could also conduct Quantitative TO-WS at varying levels within the organization. Contrasting the Current Situation at the C-Suite, Director, and supervisory levels provides interesting and compelling evidence as to WHAT “Actions” need to occur that will get us from where we are to where we would like to be in the future.

______

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.

Questions to Ask If Using a Decision Quality Spider Chart (DQ Spider)

Questions to Ask If Using a Decision Quality Spider Chart (DQ Spider)

by | Oct 20, 2016 | Analysis Methods, Meeting Structure

When making decisions, consider testing for decision quality (DQ)[1] so that you can avoid having another meeting. A quick method involves testing your options against your purpose to gauge alignment and support. However, this DQ Spider offers a more robust method.

First, remember that the MGRUSH technique defines consensus as a decision good enough that it ‘will be supported’ (not thwarted in the hallway or uprooted in the board room) and not cause anyone to ‘lose any sleep’ rather than being anyone’s ‘favorite’ or making them ‘happy.’  Hence, this is NOT Kum-Bah-Yah, rather we are relying on the prowess of structured facilitation.

Decision Quality Spider Chart (DQ Spider Chart)

Decision Quality Spider Chart

How to Begin Using the DQ Spider

When either comparing decisions or testing for the quality of a single decision, the method remains the same. Therefore, plan on scoring and discussing six vectors that impact decision quality:

The Six Vectors[2] and Some Supporting Questions of a DQ Spider

  1. Appropriate Context (Frame)

    • Do you have an articulate problem to address?
    • How clear is the background, context, and impact of the decision?
    • How well do stakeholders commonly understand the problem?
    • To what extent do stakeholders commonly prioritize the problem?
    • To what extent has the decision been quantified for its impact, typically in dollars or FTP (full-time person)?

  2. Options Development (NOTE: some call these ‘alternatives.’ but strictly speaking, in the English language, an alternative is one of two there are more than two, and they are called options)

    • What are the possible solutions (decisions)?
    • What potentially critical options are missing?
    • Which inconsequential options be eliminated?
    • With remaining options:
      • To what extent are they realistic (doable)?
      • If the option is selected, to what extent will we win?

  3. Meaningful & Reliable Information

    • To what extent do we know what we need to know?
    • To what extent do we NOT know what we need to know?
    • How trustworthy are the sources of our information?
    • To what extent will this be a fact- or evidence-based decision?

  4. Clear Decision Criteria (aka Values, Trade-offs, etc.)

    • To what extent have we identified and clarified the most important criteria?
    • How well have the criteria been prioritized to reflect our internal value drivers?
    • How comprehensive are the criteria to help measure success against the project or organizational goals and objectives?

  5. Logic and Reasoning

    • How solid are our research, logic, and findings?
    • How well can we explain our choice for and choices against our options?
    • To what extent have we applied appropriate tools and rigors to evaluate this option?

  6. Action and Commitment

    • How confident are we projecting the outputs or outcome of this option?
    • How ready are we to commit ownership and resources to this option?
    • To what extent have we missed anything substantive that could impact the quality of this decision?

How to Complete the DQ Spider?

Consider this quick and simple method to capture scoring, using a low of one (1) and a high of five (5).

  • Instruct each team member or stakeholder to generate their scores for the six vectors above. Thus they attribute an individual score against all remaining options.
  • Using a spreadsheet or simply drawing it on a large format Post-It® paper or whiteboard, put a dot on the average value. Also place a dot for each outlier, the lowest and highest score, along each of the six vectors.
  • Discuss the outliers so that everyone can support the original average, or move the average value either lower or higher based on the discussion and consensual understanding.
  • Facilitate discussion around comparing the results and consider the following questions:
    • To what extent are the values defensible?
    • Which scores appear too high or low relative to the project or initiative they are supporting? (adjust the score if necessitated)
    • To what extent do the differences represent real risk or simply differences of opinion?
  • You may want to force rank the six vectors if some are more important than others. Consequently, tell the group to consider the ranking during its assessment, and if necessary, change the values based on a permutation of the reduced or increased weight of each vector.
    • Therefore, in our illustration above, stakeholders would favor Option 3 if Ownership and Commitment are substantially more important than logic or reliable information.
    • Likewise, stakeholders would favor Option 1 if Context and Logic become more important than Criteria and Information.
NOTES:

[1] NOTE:  Microsoft Excel refers to this chart as a “Radar” Chart. However, various terms are used by other consulting firms as well.

[2] A ‘dimension’ or ‘factor’ captures a single measurement while a ‘vector’ captures multiple dimensions or factors. Additionally, vectors normally capture many more than two measurements.

______

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.