POSTS

Unstructured Meeting Costs Rise: Use a Proven Structured Technique

by Facilitation Expert | Mar 31, 2016 | Communication Skills, Facilitation Skills, Managing Conflict, Meeting Agendas

Meeting costs to American businesses as a result of poorly run meetings (typically unstructured) continue to rise. Surveys indicate that on average managers waste:

8.5 hours per week for low-level management
10.4 hours per week for middle-level management
11.5 hours per week for senior-level management

As a strong and effective facilitator, you need to use a structured technique such as MGRUSH that wraps around RAD (Rapid Application Development), Lean, Scrum, and all other structured methodologies to reduce meeting costs. In Joint Application Development, Jane Wood and Denise Silver cite the following testimonials on the benefits of structured meetings and reduced meeting costs.

Structure Minimizes Meeting Costs

Structure Your Meetings to Reduce Meeting Costs

Capers-Jones states,

The Capers-Jones study determined that projects using structured meetings missed only 5 percent to 10 percent of required functionality with minimal impact on the code and overall reduced meeting costs.
A survey conducted by the Index Group of Cambridge Massachusetts concluded that

Their survey of 95 information systems development directors found that:
- 64% say that they cannot get users in different departments to cooperate in cross-functional systems projects,
- 78% say that coordinating efforts between end-user developers and professional systems developers is a major challenge even though the number of end-users developing their own systems is on the rise,
- Less than 29% say they have any long-range plans for retiring obsolete systems.
David Freedman states,

In The Data Modeling Handbook, Michael C. Reingruber and William W. Gregory stress the importance of involving the customer, stating the following:

Secondary Sources Stress the Rise of Meeting Costs

Numerous articles, case studies, and studies have shown structured meetings to be “best practice.” Published benefits include:
- Avoids bloated functionality, and gold-plating, and helps designers delay their typical “solution fixation” until they understand the requirements better [Whi].
- It prevents the requirements from being too specific and too vague, both of which cause trouble during implementation and acceptance [Str].
- By properly using transition managers and the appropriate users, typical cultural risk is mitigated while cutting implementation time by 50% [Eng].
- Cultivate ownership, easier acceptance (buy-in), and stronger commitment by users. The involvement of business end-users is no longer advisory or consultation. It is the participation and contribution in the project development life-cycle. The more users contribute to the system, the easier for them to accept it and commit to it.
- Enhanced communication and relationships between business end-users and information technology personnel.
- Enhanced education for participants and observers. By participating in structured meetings and being the medium between other users and information technology, the business end-users will be kept fully informed about the progress of the system development.
- Improved system quality and productivity. Much of the system’s quality depends on the requirements gathered. Structured meetings involve users in the development life cycle, let users define their requirements, and thus ensure that the system developed satisfies the actual activities of the business.

Tertiary Sources Stress the Rise of Meeting Costs

- Lays the foundation for a framework of mutual education, productive brainstorming, binding negotiation, and progress tracking [Whi].
- One of the best ways to reduce function creep, most of which results from incomplete initial requirements [Ant]. Capers Jones states that structured meetings reduce function creep by 50%, and when used with prototyping, creep is reduced by another 10-25% [Str].
- Reduced system cost. Most of the system development costs are man-hours for both system developers and business users involved. Reduced development time reduces the labor cost for developers, as well as users. Important steps like requirement gathering compel the involvement and commitment of business area experts. The cost of taking them away from their daily operation is very high. Structured meetings can reduce the involvement time of these business experts and hence reduce the cost further. Reduce costs by catching errors, misunderstandings, and mistakes early in the development phase. Studies show that a majority of system errors result from early analysis errors, and the earlier these errors get corrected, the less they will cost. Structured meetings let designers and users work together in the very early of the development cycle, defining the scope, and requirements of projects, and resolving conflicts among different user groups. Structure puts efforts early in the life cycle in order to improve the quality increase productivity and reduce cost.
- Reduced system development time. In structured meetings, information can be obtained and validated in a shorter time frame by involving all participants (or at least a representative set of participants) who have a stake in the outcome of the session. Structured meetings eliminate process delays and reduce application development time between 20% to 50%.
- Saves time, eliminates process delays and misunderstandings, and improves system quality [Hol].

Here are some of the sources:

[Eng] Engler, Natalie. “Bringing in the Users”.
[Fin] Fine, Doug. “Information Technology Staff Move into Business Units”.
[Gar] Garner, Rochelle. “Why JAD Goes Bad”.
[Hol] Hollander, Nathan, Naomi Mirlocca. “Facilitated Workshops: Empowering the User to Develop Quality Systems Faster”.
[Kno] Knowles, Anne. “Peace Talks: Joint Application Development”.
[Lev] Leventhal, Naomi. “Using Groupware Tools to Automate Joint Application Development”.
[Str] Strehlo, Kevin. “Catching Up with the Joneses and ‘Requirement’ Creep”.
[Whi] Whitmore, Sam. “Readers Shed Development Woes”.

______

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 every day during the week. Therefore, while some call this immersion, we call it the road to building high-value facilitation skills.

Want a free 10-minute break timer? Sign up for our once-monthly newsletter HERE and receive a timer along with four other of our favorite facilitation tools, free.

Stop Meeting Scope Creep with Precise Questions

by Facilitation Expert | Mar 17, 2016 | Communication Skills, Facilitation Skills, Leadership Skills, Managing Conflict

Scope creep kills a lot of projects. Scope creep kills many more meetings. The hardest task to accomplish in leading a group of people is to get them to focus. Their minds drift, twist, and become partially selective.

When the right group of people is assembled, they can accomplish nearly any task at hand if the leader can get them to focus. Yet they continue to drift, and even begin to discuss and argue about issues that are not within the scope of the meeting as they impose their own scope creep.

Understanding Meeting Scope Creep and Precision of Your Questions

Secrets to Prevent Meeting Scope Creep

There are two secrets to prevent scope creep in meetings. First, the session leader or facilitator needs to make the meeting scope clear when the meeting begins, as well as secure agreement from the participants about the meeting scope. Frequently meeting scope is limited by geography, duration, or situation—frequently it represents only PART OF the project scope.

When people argue about the validity or purpose of a project, for example, the discussion is usually NOT within the meeting scope. Only a conscious facilitator can police scope creep carefully.

Secondly, the facilitator needs to know the precise question that the group should be addressing. When the facilitator does not know the question, ANY answer is appropriate. Most meeting facilitators should focus on context before meetings rather than content, by knowing the right questions and the proper sequence to ask them. They also cannot afford to ask for the meeting deliverable, as that question is so broad as to be DUMB (i.e., Dull, Ubiquitous, Myopic, and Broad).

Ask Precise and Detailed Questions to Prevent Meeting Scope Creep

If a product marketing plan is the deliverable, you cannot ask “What is the product deliverable?” For example, a marketing plan is a function of segmentation, targeting, positioning, market mix, message, medium, etc. If the question is “What are our top three market segments?” the facilitator cannot allow arguments over social media, as such content is out of the scope of the question at hand.

The holarchy above illustrates the narrowing of the scope of the enterprise through the question being discussed in a meeting. The facilitator’s role is to know the precise questions that support the completion of agenda steps that support the completion of the meeting deliverables that support the completion of the project, etc. When the facilitator does not know the right question to ask, all hell breaks loose, and rightfully so, scope creeps . . . Do not let that happen to you.

______

Want a free 10-minute break timer? Sign up for our once-monthly newsletter HERE and receive a timer along with four other of our favorite facilitation tools, free.

Facilitate Consensual Prioritization Using a Perceptual Map

by Facilitation Expert | Mar 3, 2016 | Decision Making, Meeting Structure, Meeting Tools

A perceptual map works well when the PowerBall approach is not robust enough, yet many of your attributes and criteria remain fuzzy and subjective. Thus we are able to help a team compare and prioritize its options using a rich visual display, called a perceptual map, that provides visual support (in a directional manner) of your optimal and sub-optimal options.

Illustrative Perceptual Map on Customer Loyalty

Rationale for a Perceptual Map

With a perceptual map, we can also expand our understanding of the options, since there is likely more than one right answer. By locating the options we stimulate discussion and solicit the rationale for placement. The analysis provides insight into which options may demand more or less urgent attention and care.

Method One for a Perceptual Map

After you have helped the team build their options (e.g., actions to take), consider arranging them along a perceptual map. One version called a Payoff Matrix dimensions includes: 1) Ease of implementation, and 2) Impact of the solution.

If you have dozens of options, consider using a large whiteboard.
You should use Post-It® notes because the discussion will lead to moving around (relocating) some of the options.
Be careful to know how to illustrate and define “High” and “Low” and to the extent possible, draw from your personal metaphor or analogy (Agenda discussion point in the MGRUSH curriculum).
Use active listening and challenge frequently to discover evidence that can be used to support beliefs and claims. Enlighten all participants as to which conditions are required to support the arguments.
Modify the “Two-by-Two” illustration below by adding a moderate dimension, making it what others call a “Nine-Block Diagram” (or “9-Block Diagram”) shown at the bottom.
In Six Sigma, comparisons are made of the CTQs (Critical to Quality) with the improvement or weighting factors.

An Illustrative Perceptual Map and Generic Payoff Matrix

Method Two for a Perceptual Map

You can also facilitate building a perceptual map by creating the following nine-block:

Identify two dimensions that most affect the decision or situation.
Typically array from low to high but be prepared to define what is meant by “Low” or “High” (see video on PowerBalls).
If you need to use a third dimension, such as quantity, consider varying your symbols or notes. Change the size of the Post-It notes so that width, height, or shape equates to the third dimension.
Consider using different colored Post-It notes that relate to a third or fourth dimension such as large, medium, and small.
The alternative shown next is the Nine-Block Diagram that provides an additional, third sector of information contrasted to the Two-by-Two up above.

A Nine-Block Perceptual Map

______

Want a free 10-minute break timer? Sign up for our once-monthly newsletter HERE and receive a timer along with four other of our favorite facilitation tools, free.

How to Calculate Total Factor Productivity as an Indicator

by Facilitation Expert | Feb 18, 2016 | Analysis Methods, Meeting Tools

Measure the increase in productivity per employee using the formula for Total Factor Productivity.

Accomplishment may be measured by the increase in productivity per employee. For many, calculating productivity has been nebulous and argumentative. Total Factor Productivity permeates industries from service and software to the manufacturing of products and goods. Since no formula of any value goes without an acronym, call it the TFP. As a calculation, TFP looks like this:

Total Factor Productivity

XX% CiR − (0.4 constant * XX% CiA) = TFP

Here is an explanation for Total Factor Productivity:

CiR represents the “Change in Revenue (per employee)”. If an illustrative small company or business unit with $218 million has 1,400 employees has a revenue of $155,000 per employee. If the following year they grow to 1,500 employees and realize revenue of $257 million, they will realize $171,333 per employee or a positive change of 14.2 percent.

Constant represents a baseline and 0.4 is being used, although it could be modified. Be careful, however, as MIT Professor Robert Solow received a Nobel Memorial Prize for his work. He discovered that 0.4 represents the best overall constant to use. If used by others, it also allows for direct comparison.

CiA represents the “Change in Assets (per employee)”. If our illustrative company or business unit grows its assets from $60,000 per employee to $70,000 per employee, it will realize a 16.7 percent increase in its CiA.

Therefore, using our illustrative results above, the calculation would look like this:

14.2% CiR − (0.4⊂ * 16.7% CiA) = 7.5 percent TFP

TFP now represents gains made in labor productivity, less gains from investing in capital. TFP can be driven by various factors including cost cutting, increased market share, new products, or getting something out of idle assets (e.g., vacant property). Innovation and new technology drive or propel the USA economy for increasing TFP, including hardware (e.g., GPS or geo-positioning systems equipment) and software improvements (e.g., resulting in fleet and fuel optimization).

TFP measures the revenue for each employee and also factors in capital assets and investments in equipment, information, and technology.

______

Want a free 10-minute break timer? Sign up for our once-monthly newsletter HERE and receive a timer along with four other of our favorite facilitation tools, free.

How to Facilitate Alignment and Confirm Balance

by Facilitation Expert | Jan 21, 2016 | Analysis Methods

When you facilitate alignment, you help groups identify gaps, omissions, and overkill, and confirm the appropriateness and balance of their action plan.

Facilitate Alignment, an Illustration

Rationale to Facilitate Alignment

Building consensus around alignment can be very challenging, especially if you facilitate exclusively in the narrative world (i.e., written words). Therefore, MGRUSH suggests the use of icons (see PowerBalls) that are both appropriate and powerful to help you facilitate alignment.

Method to Facilitate Alignment

First of all, create a matrix with your options (e.g., actions) and the targets (e.g., goals). Common items that may be aligned include the comparison of strategies to objectives. To facilitate alignment, consider these three steps:

First, complete the matrix with a linear approach, but be careful to always ask the open-ended question, “To what extent does ‘x’ (i.e., option, action, or strategy) support ‘y’ (i.e., target, goal, or objective) ?”
Having defined the PowerBalls (preferably with a legend that is visible throughout the activity for your participants to reference), label each cell with either a high, low, or moderate PowerBall symbol, indicating the extent to which the option supports the target.
While completing the matrix, ask the group to confirm completeness. Add anything missing or modify as required (i.e., Create a new option or calibrate an existing option).

Note: Since the solid balls indicate high and the empty circles indicate low, the half-filled balls indicate moderate. We like to define High as mandatory, “must have at any price.” We define Low as “would like to have but not willing to pay extra.” The stuff in between is Moderate, the stuff for which we would be willing to “pay a reasonable amount.” The equivalent to the MoSCoW tool would be: Must have, Should have, Could have, and Won’t have (null).

For seasoned professionals and alumni, consider using the Book-end method to equal dispersion after you complete your initial baseline analysis.

Click here to see a recorded demonstration of this method.

______

Want a free 10-minute break timer? Sign up for our once-monthly newsletter HERE and receive a timer along with four other of our favorite facilitation tools, free.

Related videos

How to Build Stakeholder Analysis and Consensual Understanding

by Facilitation Expert | Jan 14, 2016 | Managing Conflict, Meeting Support

Begin stakeholder analysis by identifying and examining how each interacts with the organization when they provide or receive services or benefits. External or internal people, systems, and other groups comprise stakeholders. They interact with the group through a specific process.

Stakeholder Analysis Begins by Defining Organizational Interests

Identify process stakeholders and examine their contributions to the process (inputs) and benefits or what they receive from the process (outputs). Use the three-step approach below to identify process stakeholders.

One – Identify inputs

What inputs does the process require, or what goes into the process? Consider using the FAST Creativity Exercise to help prevent missing items.
Who provides each input from Activity 1 immediately above? Link the source(s) of each input.
Where does the input go? Describe the activities and how each activity plays out.

Two – Identify outputs

What outputs does the process create? List them as “things” or nouns such as a form, report, or event (e.g., deposit).
Who uses or benefits from the output of the process—link to the client(s) of each output.
What creates the output? Describe activities that depend on the outputs and how each makes them into something of value.

Three – Identify stakeholders

Link each input/ output to one/ more stakeholders by one/ more activities within a process. Meanwhile, a stakeholder relationship shown in the table below clarifies the relationship between stakeholder, input, output, and activity within the process.

Stakeholders’ Relationships

Group Stakeholders

Therefore, stakeholders can be grouped together according to how they use or interact with the inputs and outputs. From the table above members and employers group together because “Payers” interact with the collection process in the same manner.

Acknowledge Stakeholder Interests

The motives and needs of the stakeholders determine their interest in the process and indicate how they can contribute/ derail the success of the project.

Define Stakeholder Strategy Plan

The stakeholder strategy plan provides a blueprint for the BPI (i.e., Business Process Improvement) team’s interaction with stakeholders. Focus on the stakeholder’s contribution shows how the team can use the stakeholder’s interests to support the project and make it successful.

The plan identifies

What the project wants to achieve with each stakeholder
Stakeholder issues and interests
How stakeholders will be managed
The frequency of communication
The changing content of communication over the life of the project

The plan must be constantly updated to reflect changes in stakeholder opinions over the life of the project. The template below supports the development of the stakeholder strategy plan.

Stakeholder Strategy Plan Answers . . .

Stakeholder Name:_____________________________

The objectives of the strategy plan . . .
It is important for the project to have a stakeholder plan because . . .
The purpose of the process is to . . . So that . . .
Give a short description of the stakeholder group:
The members of this stakeholder group are . . .
Describe this group’s role in the process.
Identify inputs the group provides:
Identify outputs the group uses:
Stakeholder thinks that the current process . . .
Stakeholder thinks this because . . .
Stakeholder’s interest in the current process . . .
Stakeholder’s power in the current process…
Stakeholder thinks that the BPI project . . .
Stakeholder’s likely reaction:
Stakeholder wants . . . from an improved process.
It is essential for the stakeholders to support the project because:
Without the stakeholders’ support . . .
Stakeholders’ support . . .
Stakeholders can contribute to the success of the project by . . .
The stakeholder can hamper the project by . . .
The BPI team wants the stakeholder to . . .
Three things that are important to the stakeholder are:
The team can guarantee . . .
We need to tell the stakeholder . . .
We need to tell them because . . .
The best way to communicate with this group is to . . .
This will cost (prepare a budget):
We need to meet with this group because/ when:
At what points in the project is it critical to meet with each stakeholder?
How do we deal with confidentiality issues?
Can each team member be privy to all information?
Can each stakeholder be privy to all information?
What is the strategy to ensure that confidential information stays that way?

Develop a Communications Action Plan

The communications action plan identifies exactly how and when a project team will communicate with each target audience (or stakeholder) over the life of the project. Therefore a flexible plan updates over the life of the project and recognizes the need for intervention and ad hoc meetings. Match the communications plan with your project milestone and plan outreach to the stakeholders and staff at critical points of your project.

Next, consider the need for different types of meetings. One-way communications may be appropriate when the team needs to reveal the decisions made and share information. Therefore, use facilitated workshops for decision-making and to encourage participation and ownership. Ad hoc meetings deal with negative situations and negotiate among stakeholders. The communications action plan provides significant input for the change management plan.

Determine Stakeholder Risks

Because the amount of power each stakeholder/ stakeholder group enjoys now and the extent to which this power change provides an indication of the level of resistance the stakeholder will have to the project. The more pain that each stakeholder absorbs, and the more power/ status (s)he loses, the greater the resistance. NOTE the figure below to predict the amount of resistance from the stakeholder group.

Mitigate Behavior

Because of our analysis, developed an action plan to encourage positive behaviors and limit negative behaviors. Certainly, a stakeholder analysis recognizes the fragility of the human condition and sensitivity to its environment. Therefore your team must constantly monitor and evaluate stakeholders’ reactions by revisiting the stakeholder analysis at each milestone in your project.

Conclusion

Stakeholders (internal and external) have invested interests in your project and can provide positive support. Therefore the project team’s responsibility demands identification of stakeholder contributions. The project team needs to be aware of the impact a project may have on each stakeholder and their power base, and develop strategies that are appropriate for advancing their project.

______

Want a free 10-minute break timer? Sign up for our once-monthly newsletter HERE and receive a timer along with four other of our favorite facilitation tools, free.

Building Agendas to Deliver the Output You Need from Your Meeting

by Facilitation Expert | Jan 7, 2016 | Meeting Agendas, Meeting Structure

You should use these steps when building agendas because following them will increase your meeting success and personal reputation. Before we begin, let us remember the definition of a solid, structured meeting agenda:

Agenda Defined

Eleven Steps for Building Agendas

An agenda is a series of steps that structure a group discussion throughout a meeting or workshop. The MGRUSH technique provides field-tested agendas that work effectively to accelerate information gathering and improve decision-making methods. Therefore, a robust and effective agenda enables you . . .

. . . the facilitator (i.e., the session leader) to lead the discussion, with . . .
Subject matter experts who are experts about content but NOT about context or meeting technique. They will rise to a consensual understanding with evidence-based information . . .
That makes the next steps clear (i.e., the meeting output or deliverable including for example, decision-making or prioritization), thus
Enabling your stakeholders to use information and decisions that accelerate and advance project objectives and organizational goals.

Use these steps when building a meeting agenda. Sequentially begin with meeting purpose, scope, and session (i.e., meeting or workshop) deliverables. Only then can you create a simple agenda and begin sharing among your participants.

Write down your deliverable and strive to get examples! Note that deliverables illustrate the required documentation and needed information. What are we producing? Show participants examples if you are building a model. Align with the enterprise and business unit strategic plans to help reconcile tradeoffs in your decision-making process.
Codify your deliverables—What specific content creates success as the output of your workshop? What is the optimal sequence for gathering it? Who will use it after the meeting is complete? Better stated, “What does DONE look like?”
Quantify the impact of the meeting on the program and articulate the project or meeting scope. Identify the level of detail desired, the type of session (planning, problem-solving, design, etc.), and what to accomplish in the workshop. Understand what might be excluded (due to scope); or what the purpose and scope are NOT.
Identify and compose the simple steps that enable you to organize the known information, identify the missing information, and produce the deliverables identified previously. Compose a series of steps from experience. Consider the analytical methods used by other experts to make decisions, solve problems, or develop the necessary information.
- Consider internal life-cycle methods, cultural expectations, and what other projects have been used in the past within your organization.
- Study the MGRUSH curriculum and consider its pre-built planning, analysis, and design workshops with agendas that have been proven to work for others in the past.
- Do some research and find out what others are doing; competitors, competitive industries, competitive alternatives, and the most current academic approaches.
- Talk to others, especially project team members and business community subject matter experts to determine some of the major components they would include in a simple agenda.

Send us a sample for analysis and feedback if you are a graduate of the MGRUSH Professional curriculum.

Review steps for logical flow—walk through the steps to confirm the desired outputs probably produced.
Determine likely meeting participants—Identify the most likely participants and identify their level of understanding about the business issues and the method you have drafted for them to develop the information during your agenda steps.
Identify any agenda steps that the participants cannot complete—modify or eliminate the steps that your specific participants may not understand, will not value, or are inappropriate for their level of experience.
Identify what information is needed to fill the gaps from step number six above, and determine how to get this additional information (e.g., offline)—What information or analysis is required to substitute for the missing information identified in step number six above that your meeting participants cannot provide?
Detail the final agenda steps to capture required information for the open issues—build the appropriate activities to produce the information without making the participants perform unnecessary activities (e.g., do NOT do team building if they already function together properly).
Review—Confirm steps number one and two above and then carefully review the detailed activities with stakeholders to confirm that they satisfy the purpose and provide the needed information without over-challenging or intimidating your participants.
Perform a walk-through, including documentation format or templates, with other business experts, executive sponsors, and project team members.
Refine—Make any changes identified in the walk-through and begin to build out your annotated agenda as suggested by the MGRUSH curriculum.

Identify the most appropriate participants

Identify what knowledge or expertise each needs to bring to the workshop. Determine how much of the agenda the participants understand and can reasonably complete in a group environment. Identify what issues they have—do they need team-building or creativity or some management of behavior? Furthermore, identify someone who will provide resistance at the meeting so that you can learn to anticipate challenges that will develop. You may not want to avoid the issues because they need to surface; however, you do not want to be surprised or caught off guard.   Walk through the steps to see if you can produce the desired results with the proposed participants. Do the steps allow the group to build on prior work without jumping around? Are the steps logical? Will the deliverables be comprehensive?

Also, Consider the Following When Building a Meeting Agenda

Existing enterprise systems or processes (life cycle)
Architecture infrastructure (consider drafting a baseline architectural pattern)
Scoping/ phasing (what high-level information supports the deliverable)
Consider existing process models, high-level ERD, and actors’ security/ policy

______

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.

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.

Become a Humane Human, Understand WHY Behind WHAT

by Facilitation Expert | Dec 24, 2015 | Communication Skills, Leadership Skills, Managing Conflict

The opposite of being a humane human. Road Rage. Have you been irritated by someone else’s driving? Of course, we all have.

Today I realized however that I am likely guilty of doing the precise thing that others have done to piss me off. However, when I did it, there was justification—of course. When they did the same thing, however, they were wrong, dumb, stupid, and worthy of decapitation. So what’s the difference?

On Being a Humane Human

Have you ever made a right turn in an automobile very slowly, because your grandma was in the back seat, or you didn’t want the pie to spill, or the house number you were seeking was right around the corner? Imagine so. But when someone makes the turn incredibly slowly in front of you, they are being rude and inconsiderate, correct? So what’s the difference?

Become a Humane Human: Understand the WHY Behind the WHAT

The difference evidences itself when you seek to understand WHY. Chances are, the person who upset you had good reason in their own mind and was not attempting to be intentionally inconsiderate. They were not malicious at all. They simply had their own reasons.

We should always stay mindful of the phrase in St Francis’ Peace Prayer—Seek to understand, rather than being understood. The Dalai Lama also has a nice way of expressing similar sentiment when he states (paraphrased)—“When you speak, you are saying something you already know. When you listen, you may learn something new.”

Facilitators Need to Challenge WHY

As facilitators, we cannot afford to let down our guard. Keep the ego in the hallway. Challenge meeting and workshop participants to justify their positions by explaining WHY they are making a particular claim. Chances are, we will discover something new. By active listening through the reflection and confirmation of their rationale, we can begin to build consensus.

Would it bother you if I turned slowly around a corner if you already knew that I had an infirmed occupant or something that might spill? I imagine not, as you would likely have some compassion, not because you liked WHAT I was doing, but because you understood WHY I was doing it.

To build consensus, make sure everyone understands WHY claims are being made. They likely hear what the other person said (or did), but since it upsets them, they fail to understand nor strive to understand WHY. That’s your job as a facilitator. Build consensus around WHY since most WHAT everyone believes is not simply black or white, rather it is conditional. It’s your job to get the group to understand under what conditions someone’s erratic thoughts or behavior may in fact echo the same thing you would do if you were in their shoes.

______

Want a free 10-minute break timer? Sign up for our once-monthly newsletter HERE and receive a timer along with four other of our favorite facilitation tools, free.

Data Transformation — How to convert a single piece of data into a visual display of 16 elements

by Facilitation Expert | Dec 17, 2015 | Decision Making, Meeting Tools

With data transformation, each piece of data or single cell might be decomposed into another layer. Amplify this approach even further by splitting your four cells into sixteen.

Therefore, see the chart below. We can now ask, generate, and record sixteen pieces of information on a large Post-It® for each assignment. Note how we take the four basic criteria below and expand them into four additional details (for illustrative purposes only).

Other Best Practices articles instructed that one key to facilitating effective analysis mandates the facilitator to ask open-ended questions, not simple, close-ended (i.e., yes or no) confirmations. For example, and pardon the simplicity, do not ask “Does the sport of curling involve any sweat?” Someone will make a compelling argument that it does, albeit minimal perhaps. The superior question, simply re-phrased: “To what extent does the sport of curling involve sweat? (a lot, little, or somewhere in between)”.

When building a roles and responsibilities matrix for example, the classic approach identifies who is going to be ‘Responsible’ for some apportioned activity or assignment, and the appropriate single cell is given a large, red “R”. At minimum you might ask four questions, such as:

What role will be responsible for this assignment? (e.g., Business Analyst)
When will we reach completion? (e.g., date specific)
How much financial resources will be required to complete it? (eg, $,$$$)
What is the estimated FTE required to bring it to completion? (FTE = full-time equivalent, such as 0.25 which is one person, full-time, for three months)

Power of the Single Cell

What role will be responsible for this assignment? (e.g., RASI Chart)
1. What role is ultimately being held Accountable and paying for this initiative? (e.g., EVP)
2. What role will be Responsible for this assignment? (e.g., Business Analyst)
3. What roles will be Supporting this assignment? (e.g., Project Manager)
4. What roles need to be Informed about this assignment? (e.g., Customer)
At what estimated point in time will we reach completion? (e.g., date specific)
1. When does concerted effort begin? (e.g., date specific)
2. What is the projected halfway point? (e.g., date specific)
3. At what estimated point in time will completion be final? (e.g., date specific)
4. When will the effort be reviewed such as Retrospective or Look Back? (e.g., date specific)
How much financial resources will be required to complete it? (eg, $,$$$)
1. What are the estimated research costs? (e.g., $,$$$)
2. What are the estimated acquisition costs? (e.g., $,$$$)
3. What are the estimated operational costs? (e.g., $,$$$)
4. What are the estimated termination costs? (e.g., $,$$$)
What is the estimated FTP required to bring it to completion? (FTP = full-time person, such as 0.25 which is one person, full-time, for three months)
1. What maximum number of people work at the same time? (e.g., Quantity)
2. Call on which special subject matter experts? (e.g., Title[s])
3. How much FTP will bring it to completion? (e.g., FTP)
4. Codify any special issues not described above. (narrative, perhaps coded)

Having left a meeting can be comforting because the amount of detail described above is substantial, but knowing that it was consensually built and is now owned by the meeting participants is reassuring. When applied to a project plan, using questions similar to the ones shown above, you will deliver a more detailed GANTT chart than most people build in their cubicles alone. Hand this off to an intern who claims to be an “expert” with Microsoft Project Manager® and tell them to bring you back a full resource-allocated project plan so that you can go on to your next meeting.

______

Want a free 10-minute break timer? Sign up for our once-monthly newsletter HERE and receive a timer along with four other of our favorite facilitation tools, free.

Related video

Basic Facilitation Skills: #3 Transform your Roles & Responsibilities Matrix into a Gantt Chart

Facilitate a Decision Matrix to Document Supporting Rationale

by Facilitation Expert | Dec 10, 2015 | Meeting Structure

A decision matrix supports both decision-making and decision quality at the same time. A decision matrix can be viewed as the ‘logic’ behind all decisions, providing the rationale for both the support and reasons to de-select or de-emphasize one of the options.

Method to Create a Decision Matrix

First, determine and agree upon the “Purpose” of the object or topic being decided. Then separately list and define your options. Follow up with a detailed and objective understanding of the decision criteria. Copy them into a simple X-Y grid as shown below.

Use the “Creativity” tool or narrative “Brainstorming” to develop lists of both the options being considered and the criteria to be used to evaluate the options. By applying “PowerBalls” and carefully wording our questions, we can now assess the impact of each criterion on each of the options with a simple decision matrix. For example, if we want to know which sports to target in a marketing campaign, we might develop two lists and populate the decision matrix as shown below:

Basic Decision Matrix

At the intersection of each criterion and option, ask precisely the following at the start of your analysis effort.

From the example above we might determine that from the perspective of a sports drink company, ‘Basketball’ is a more desirable option than ‘Curling.’

Benefits of a Decision Matrix

Always provide your executive sponsor or steering team with a decision matrix to back up your decision. This simple but highly effective visual tool preempts their common question, “Why did you select ‘X’?” The decision matrix provides a visual display of your rationale and trail of logic. Furthermore, if the decision changes, it forces the team to adjust their logic. Once documented, it enables your team to be consistent with subsequent decisions.

______

Want a free 10-minute break timer? Sign up for our once-monthly newsletter HERE and receive a timer along with four other of our favorite facilitation tools, free.

Demonstration Video

Basic Facilitation Skills: #2 How To Facilitate Consensual Prioritization with a Decision Matrix

Voting Sucks Because it Leads to Bigger Numbers but Lower Quality Decisions

by Facilitation Expert | Dec 3, 2015 | Decision Making, Meeting Structure

Western society, and to an increasing amount, the rest of the world, depends on the voting method of decision-making.

Various levels of government including federal, state, and local elections rely on plurality voting, whereby one person equals one vote. While some will argue that a benevolent autocrat provides a fairer form of governance, most democracies rely on a multi-level system for its checks and balances. For example, tripartite arrangements normally allow separate voting for the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Democracies frequently refer to this method as “Plurality Voting.” Experience shows that voting leads to lower-quality decisions and many conclude, voting sucks.

Voting Results in Winners and Losers

There are other methods of voting, to avoid lower-quality decisions, and arguably none of them are as effective as consensus-based decision-making. Note for example . . .

Approval Voting

Method: Voters are provided one vote for each option they deem acceptable.

Examples: Numerous not-for-profit organizations use Approval Voting to select their board of directors and officers.

Results: The approach does little to distinguish between acceptable options and outstanding options. Results have been known to be highly erratic.

Borda Count

Method: Voters ordinate all options from top to bottom, where more is better. With ten options, the best is assigned a value of ten while the least favorite is assigned a value of one. The highest score wins.

Examples: The method used by the Associated Press for its college football and basketball rankings.

Results: The favorite method of promoters for voting, unfortunately, does little to help distinguish the mid-range and lower-tier options. As voters know less or become more ambivalent (e.g., fourth versus fifth), final tallies can become quite skewed.

Cumulative Voting

Method: Voters are assigned a batch of votes (i.e., units of value). They distribute them across the options as they see fit. With a batch of ten votes, for example, you may assign seven votes to your favorite and three to your second favorite.

Examples: Texas and Arkansas use this method in some legal jurisdictions along with some corporate board rooms.

Results: There are bound to be winners and losers—much gaming is involved when, for example, your second favorite is more likely to be the victor, yet each unit assigned to your second choice, reduces the chances of your first choice being selected. Reportedly, many “second favorites” win with this method (see the Abilene Paradox).

Electoral College

Method: Winners of the presidential election in each state get all of the pre-assigned electoral votes (equal to the number of seats in Congress), regardless of the margin of victory.

Examples: Only in America, where most states assign their marginal winners, all of their electoral votes.

Results: Since it is possible to “win” the popular vote but “lose” the election, some have suggested that the Supreme Court of America will rule on its legality. Look at the Gore versus Bush election in 2000.

Instant Runoff

Method: Voters rank their options and if the top pick does not generate a simple majority (i.e., greater than 50 percent), the option with the fewest votes is dropped, and members vote again until a winner emerges.

Examples: Jurisdictions worldwide, from Australia to San Francisco rely on this method.

Results: While arguably a stronger method than simple “Plurality Voting”, mathematical models have shown that sub-optimal (i.e., initially secondary or tertiary options) options rise faster than the primary option and frequently “win”.

Our MGRUSH alumni have experienced the weakness of voting with the Goethe demonstration during class. Unlike consensus building that yields a win-win result, voting represents bigger numbers, not better decisions. Plus, there is always a loser.

______

Want a free 10-minute break timer? Sign up for our once-monthly newsletter HERE and receive a timer along with four other of our favorite facilitation tools, free.

Attitude of Gratitude Makes for More Powerful Facilitation

by Facilitation Expert | Nov 26, 2015 | Communication Skills, Leadership Skills

The evidence is overwhelming—those who have more gratitude, or an attitude of gratitude — are happier individuals.

Although you won’t hear the term ‘happy’ very frequently in one of our meetings or workshops (because the word is both subjective and fuzzy), it seemed appropriate as people of the United States are celebrating their Thanksgiving period to provide a quick reflection.

Few, if any, would argue that gratitude is not a positive attitude. Positive attitudes, or an attitude of gratitude, provide a leading indication for the opportunity to galvanize consensus. Therefore, groups who have more gratitude are more likely to agree.

Mandate vs. Gratitude

Of interest are the following trend lines extracted from Google’s Ngram. As the use of the term ‘mandate’ has increased in recent decades, the use of the term ‘gratitude’ has decreased. While the relationship does not prove that people have less gratitude today than in the past, it does suggest that the frequency of the term and reference to its positive meaning has been on the decline.

Mandate vs Gratitude

Facilitation vs. Gratitude

Although use of the ‘facilitation’ in a business sense is relatively new (over the past few decades), since we started teaching facilitation there has been a steady and positive slope increase in the use of gratitude. Not coincidentally, we would argue.

Gratitude vs Facilitation

Implications?

Get your group to be more thankful for what they have, rather than dwelling on what they do not have. Use what they have (e.g., skills, strengths, etc.) to focus on WHAT they could do to further extend what gives them gratitude.

You will benefit personally as well. Harvard Medical School reports that “In positive psychology research, gratitude is strongly and consistently associated with greater happiness. Gratitude helps people feel more positive emotions, relish good experiences, improve their health, deal with adversity, and build strong relationships.” (emphasis is ours)

People in the United States take so much for granted, it can make outsiders incredulous. Perhaps less than one percent of the people on this planet have some money in the bank, a few coins in their purse, a stocked refrigerator at home, the ability to read, at least one parent who remains alive, the skill to read, and the liberty to attend the place of worship at their choosing.

If you do, if your meeting participants do, then we suggest that you begin your meeting or workshop by first stressing the gratitude to have the opportunity to make things better for your business and its stakeholders. Most people are not so fortunate.

______

Want a free 10-minute break timer? Sign up for our once-monthly newsletter HERE and receive a timer along with four other of our favorite facilitation tools, free.

A Quick, 5-Minute Paradigm Exercise to Challenge Groupthink

by Facilitation Expert | Nov 5, 2015 | Leadership Skills, Managing Conflict

We encourage professional facilitators to carry a toolbox. Include some intervention devices when you need to shake up your participants. Be prepared to challenge groupthink if you start hearing things like . . .

That will never change.
We don’t do things like that around here.
etc.

. . . then you may want to jolt your participants. We have covered similar exercises in other Best Practices articles such as “Four Dots” and “Bookworm”. Here is another example that is quick, simple, and effective. Some call it the “Spot.”

Groupthink: Your Goal

To shake up a paradigm, challenge groupthink. Otherwise, get your participants to focus on the CONTEXT of something in addition to the CONTENT.

Groupthink: One Halting Method

Using a large flip chart, or distributing white sheets of paper, place a small, colored spot or a few colored spots on the paper. Ask the participants to indicate what they see on the paper.

Most of them, and usually in sequence, will indicate they see a “Green Spot” (or any color you choose). Consider using the white space on the easel to tally the number of same or similar responses.

While confirming that you also see the spot(s), NOTE that most individuals overlooked a large amount of white space surrounding the dots. Participants frequently miss or under-appreciate the context around us or the deliverable (be it a decision, a plan, etc.). You may point to the importance of interpersonal relationships at work as an example.

Additionally, you may point out that customers tend to identify the blemishes in our products and services, and frequently have a reasonable expectation for them to be fixed. Likewise, management focuses on the “dots” of our projects or personal performance, failing to properly value the vastness of good, solid contributions and effort.

Conclude by sharing that while it may be appropriate to look for the “spots”, we should also force ourselves to consider the large white area of equal importance. If there is any unique contribution or answer besides “dots” emphasize how that voice may have been discounted when the rest of the group focused on the “dots”, when in fact that solo voice may have been speaking about something far more important than the rest of the group combined.

______

Want a free 10-minute break timer? Sign up for our once-monthly newsletter HERE and receive a timer along with four other of our favorite facilitation tools, free.

Process Improvement Questions to Ask When Leading an Initiative

by Facilitation Expert | Oct 22, 2015 | Communication Skills

Organizational process improvement questions depend on the points of view.

From an executive perspective, fewer participants and lower costs indicate process improvement. However, from an employee or member point of view, getting more done quickly and easily, without losing people, indicates process improvement. Consensual answers to the process improvement questions below yield the type of improvement that everyone will support, from the board room to the boiler room.

Process Improvement Questions Lead to Coherence

Process Improvement Questions

What input could be automated?
What sources provide the inputs?
Which inputs must be manually created and what is the source?
What calculations need to be used?
What are the discrete outputs and who do they go to?

Informational Needs

To better understand the term ‘in-formation’, add the hyphen. Now observe the dynamism of the term. As a result, rather than viewing the need as static data, see the active flow that results:

What data supports each activity?
Where does it come from?
What does it look like (i.e., field, statement, table, etc.)?
How does it apply?
What data are we lacking?
What data may have concerns around authenticity?
Where is the missing data?

Display Format

Sensitize yourself on how to obtain the information. Thereby, noting potential inefficiencies when participants acquire the data:

What screens, reports, or manual forms do you use to secure the data?
Optimally, how should it look?
Explain any flows or dialogs to obtain the data.
What conditions dictate using it?
What conditions dictate NOT using it?
How is it used?

Environmental Considerations

Card access and ATMs provide examples of where ambient conditions affect optimal design. Therefore, consider the following:

Describe and determine data generated and transactions performed
What security requirements appear prudent?
How frequently does it occur?
What are the special considerations?

Relationships

Also, consider the dependent relationships on the process in scope. Therefore, do not optimize in a vacuum:

Which relationships affected by the process require optimization?
What starts, stops, or changes the relationships?
What business policies affect them?
Separately identify the one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-one, or many-to-many relationships between them.

______

Want a free 10-minute break timer? Sign up for our once-monthly newsletter HERE and receive a timer along with four other of our favorite facilitation tools, free.

To Lead Faster Meetings Requires Explaining the White Space, the WHY Before the WHAT

by Facilitation Expert | Oct 15, 2015 | Communication Skills, Leadership Skills

To effectively control your meetings and finish faster meetings (ahead of schedule) requires an effort that begins long before your meeting starts.

We call the preparation period 7:59 work, as in before 8:00 AM. After the meeting starts, you can further accelerate group performance by serving your group as an effective process police person. The role of the facilitator mandates core skills such as clear rhetoric, detailed questions, constant observance, and rigid neutrality. The facilitator’s role also demands control of the meeting agenda so that you lead faster meetings.

A Deliverable for Every Step

Lead Faster Meetings by Explaining the WHY and HOW Behind the WHAT

The agenda is the roadmap by which the team advances from the start of the meeting (ie., metaphorically “8:00 AM”) to the end (ie., metaphorically “5:00 PM”). Solid, simple agendas do not include verbs. Verbs are work and nobody wants more work (e.g., “identify”, “define”, etc.) any more than nobody wants more meetings. Yet we meet frequently because we need deliverables. Each agenda step has its own deliverable that adds up to help you finish meetings faster.

Describe the deliverable for each step as the object (i.e., a noun) or objective of the step. For example, use “Key Measurements” instead of “Identifying Key Measurements.” The verb “Identifying” describes HOW we get the objectives of the step, and HOW we do it has more than one right answer.

As the facilitator, explain HOW, and more importantly WHY, each step in the agenda contributes. Notice that the object of the step is WHAT DONE LOOKS LIKE. Meeting participants can read the agenda (best to keep it posted) and seldom need to be reminded WHAT we need, but do need to be reinforced WHY it is important and HOW we are going to get there. WHY objects are posted on the agenda captures the white space, or space between the lines, and demands further explanation.

Explain the White Space

We have all been in a meeting when someone, usually an outlier, asks “Now WHY are we doing this?” Ever feel the oxygen get sucked out of the room? An effective facilitator anticipates that question and slows down during agenda transitions, a maneuver that is counter-intuitive to most who state “Let me review this quickly.”

The Tuckman Model suggests that groups, even high-performance teams, are subject to regression when transitioning from one step in your agenda to another. Be forewarned, transitions are the best time to slow down and carefully explain the white space:

WHY did we build the output from the prior agenda step?
HOW does it help us get out of this meeting faster; i.e., how does it relate to the meeting deliverable?
WHAT are we going to do next?
WHY are we doing it and HOW does it help us get out of this meeting faster; i.e., how does it support the meeting deliverable?
WHY are the agenda items in the sequence provided?

Carefully explain the white space by answering the questions above and you will discover that your meetings finish meetings faster than ever.

______

Want a free 10-minute break timer? Sign up for our once-monthly newsletter HERE and receive a timer along with four other of our favorite facilitation tools, free.

How to Facilitate Olympic Scoring – Innovative Ideas & Concepts

by Facilitation Expert | Oct 1, 2015 | Analysis Methods, Decision Making, Meeting Structure, Prioritizing

The Purpose of Olympic Scoring is to extract some consensually validated new product, process, or other innovative ideas or concepts while encouraging 100 percent participation. The following is particularly appropriate when facilitating Olympic scoring with larger groups of nine or more participants.

In advance, inform all of your participants to bring at least one idea or response to a prepared question. Immediately capture them during the meeting or workshop. While focused on a central theme (e.g., solution to a problem), break down your primary question into small, manageable pieces.

For example, do NOT ask what does the Marketing Plan look like. Understand that “Y” is a function of numerous large “X” and small “x” so ask solid, detailed questions such as: Who should be our target audience for _________? What should the message for target audience _____________?

Methodology of Olympic Scoring

Build three sets of flashcards with the numbers one through ten on each set. Consider using 4in * 6in index cards. In the meeting or workshop, consciously or randomly select three class members (“experts”) who will serve as judges rather than content providers.

Olympic Scoring Method

After meeting participants present each idea or concept, the judges flash their scores, with more being better (i.e., ten is the best). The facilitator captures the three scores and tabulates them on a large Post-It®. The highest score does not necessarily win, but the discussion will be minimized, if not eliminated, around the low-scoring options, thus encouraging the group to focus its discussion on the best candidates.

Deliverable from Olympic Scoring

Subsequently or concurrently the facilitator leads discussions about the reason(s) to support the higher scores and captures the reasons and rationale for their decision on large Post-Its. The reasons provide the criteria that can now be used to re-evaluate all the ideas or to create new ideas, that optimally satisfy the appropriate criteria.

Considerations when Olympic Scoring

Consider prioritizing or weighting the criteria since some will be more important than others. Traditionally the weighting system runs from one to five where more is better. You might use the Scorecard tool to calculate detailed scores or consider using the Perceptual Map tool and arraying your options against the most important criteria.

If you have your participants prepare responses to more than one question, and have additional time, start over again. Consider appointing new judges so that all voices are viewed as equal contributors.

______

Want a free 10-minute break timer? Sign up for our once-monthly newsletter HERE and receive a timer along with four other of our favorite facilitation tools, free.

Twenty Popular Brain Teasers to Stimulate Meeting Participants

by Facilitation Expert | Sep 24, 2015 | Meeting Support

Here are twenty very common examples of Brain Teasers.

Our MGRUSH Facilitative Leadership and Facilitator Workshop alumni have digital rights to access thousands of Brain Teasers (or, Brain Breaks/ Brakes as a double entendre). If you need help with the answers, simply reply with a comment or buy us a cup of coffee.

We like to use them at the end of a lunch period during full-day(s) workshops to get people seated on time, and having a little fun.

20 Popular Brain Teasers

______

Want a free 10-minute break timer? Sign up for our once-monthly newsletter HERE and receive a timer along with four other of our favorite facilitation tools, free.

How to Make Thinking Visible — Three Forms of Business Argumentation Support

by Facilitation Expert | Sep 10, 2015 | Communication Skills, Facilitation Skills

The main reason for categorizing input relies on a common purpose. Most groups gather around a common purpose.

For example, treasury groups gather their departments around financial capital. While human resources gather their departments around human capital. Sales and marketing gather around customers’ needs for products and services. Force your participants to make thinking visible around their purpose and why they organize the way they do.

Evidence-based

Three forms of support for business argumentation include:

How to Make Thinking Visible

Evidence,
Values, and
Credibility

When you challenge meeting participants to make their ‘thinking visible’, use active listening and reflect back on WHY they believe their claims to be true. Isolate the proof behind their claims, understanding that you will need to reflect on the facts and examples they provide to boost their claim. Let us take a closer look at the three forms.

Evidence

Much is written about evidence, and while the following is not all of it, business arguments rely on three types of evidence to support claims, namely:

Surrogates
Trends
Vision

Surrogates

Surrogates provide examples and operate through analogy to support arguments. Meeting members might refer to competitors as surrogates for their own group. Examples might not even come from within the industry but may derive from an analogous situation. Some clothing dry cleaners introduced drive-up services, having viewed the success of a surrogate industry, the fast food industry.

Trends

Statistics are frequently used to support business arguments. Since proof about future conditions cannot be established, support is provided for likelihood and probabilities. As you know, historical performance does not prove future performance. The value of statistics derives from trend lines.

Historical performance and statistics provide a lagging indication when time has passed and nothing can be done to reverse the past. Linked together, however, tends to appear to support the likelihood or probability of future performance. As a facilitator, be prepared to further challenge the assumptions from historical performance that may be carried over to support future claims.

Vision

When leadership establishes visionary claims, such as establishing “world-class” or “best-of-breed” aspirations, meeting participants will use the vision to support their claims. Visionary arguments may be similar to arguments supported by values, in that they are likely to be more fuzzy than SMART.

Organizational goals and objectives capture measurements toward the vision and will be used to support many arguments. If participants can make clear claims for example, that their positions will generate the most profit, most will support them if their claims are clear and valid.

Values

Operating in a similar fashion to vision, values also drive “board room to boiler room” behavior and will be used to support arguments. An organization focused on “safety” for example, may defer to the argument that claims to be the safest approach if everything else is held constant.

As a facilitator, strive to have the organizational values (also called Guiding Principles, Tenets, Elements, etc.) handy, and preferably posted for all to see. Likewise, having a clear line of sight to enterprise, business unit, departmental, and project objectives can be leveraged to resolve arguments.

Credibility

Credibility is “the perception that the arguer is competent and trustworthy, and has good will” (see “Argumentation and Critical Decision Making” by Rieke, Sillars, and Peterson, pg 280) toward the other meeting participants. Participants naturally give stronger adherence to other participants with greater credibility. Extensive research and other books and journals speak to the power of credibility. From a facilitator’s perspective, challenge even the credible to make their thinking visible. Make sure everyone in the meeting understands WHY the credible participant has formed his or her belief or claim.

______

Want a free 10-minute break timer? Sign up for our once-monthly newsletter HERE and receive a timer along with four other of our favorite facilitation tools, free.

Methodological Awareness About Deming’s 14 Points of Continuous Improvement

by Facilitation Expert | Aug 20, 2015 | Decision Making, Leadership Skills

Every minute somewhere, someone refers to Deming’s term SMART (i.e., Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-Based).

Lesser known, however frequently copied, you will find his philosophy of continuous improvement. Therefore, true to his words, enjoy the phrasing of Deming’s 14 points of continuous improvement. You will discover an excellent discussion of them in Chapter 2 of Out of the Crisis, by W. Edwards Deming, MIT Press, 2000; originally published in 1982.

A few are counter-intuitive but you decide. Consequently, take what you like and leave the rest.

First-half

Deming’s 14 Points — Continuous Improvement Pays for Itself

Provide for the long-range needs of the company; don’t focus on short-term profitability. The goal is to grow the business and add value.
The world constantly changes, and managers need to adopt their way of thinking. Delays, mistakes, defective workmanship, and poor service are never acceptable.
Quit depending on inspections to find defects, and build quality into products and processes as they are built. Use statistical process control to minimize biases.
Do not choose suppliers on the basis of pricing (e.g., low bids) alone. Minimize total cost by establishing long-term relationships with suppliers that are based on loyalty and trust.
Work continually to improve customer delivery and service. Improvement is not a one-time effort; every activity in the process must be continually improved to reduce waste and improve quality.
Institute training because managers should know about modern leadership and be able to train workers to become future leaders. Managers also need training to understand the processes of production, delivery, and customer satisfaction.
Institute leadership. Managers ought to help people do a better job and remove barriers that keep them from doing their job with pride. The greatest waste in America is failure to use the abilities of people.

Second-half

Drive out fear. People need to feel secure in order to do their job well. There should never be a conflict between doing what is best for the company and meeting the expectations of their immediate job.
Break down barriers between departments. Create cross-functional teams so everyone can understand the others’ perspectives. Do not undermine team cooperation by rewarding individual performance.
Stop using slogans, exhortations, and targets. It is the process, not the workers, that creates defects and lowers productivity. Exhortations don’t change the system; that is management’s responsibility.
Eliminate numerical quotas for workers and numerical goals for people in management. Also, eliminate arbitrary deadlines for development teams that are managed by fear. Embrace facilitative leadership.
Eliminate barriers that rob people of their pride in workmanship. Stop treating hourly workers like a commodity. Eliminate annual performance ratings for salaried workers.
Encourage education and self-improvement for everyone. An educated workforce and management will propel profits in the future.
Take action to accomplish the transformation. A top management team must lead the effort with action, not simply ‘support’ it.

______

Want a free 10-minute break timer? Sign up for our once-monthly newsletter HERE and receive a timer along with four other of our favorite facilitation tools, free.

Appreciate the Value of Argumentation and Meeting Argumentation

by Facilitation Expert | Aug 13, 2015 | Communication Skills, Decision Making, Facilitation Skills, Leadership Skills, Managing Conflict

A strong facilitator should understand and appreciate the value of argumentation, specifically meeting argumentation. She should understand the holarchial nature of business and align people organized around a common cause. Critical thinking helps structure discussions so that groups can get more done, faster.

Setting up our evidence-based approach that favors the value of argumentation and meeting argumentation, when Thomas Watson (CEO of IBM) was helping IBM reach their pinnacle, he said:

He asserted that beliefs for IBM included (illustrating the value of argumentation):

Respect the individual.
Provide the best customer service of any company in the world.
Drive for superiority in all things.

While “beliefs” serves as a synonym for values or guiding principles, the value of argumentation suggests that answers to the four questions below drive consistent decision-making from “the board room to the boiler room” (METZ).

Why are we here? (Mission)
Who are we? (Guiding Principles)
Where are we going? (Vision)
What are the units of measurement to guide our progress? (Goals, Objectives, and Considerations)

Do not build your guiding principles simply because MBA textbooks say so. Rather, they should be collaboratively built so that everyone in the organization can make appropriate trade-offs in daily decision-making.

Starting Points

Organizations, especially businesses, have developed elaborate processes around knowledge management. Accepted facts, presumptions, assumptions, and probabilities (listed in order of general acceptance) represent the most common spheres of knowledge. Without starting points, argumentation is not possible. Conversely, the greater the shared starting points, the easier it is to galvanize consensus. Starting points become foundations as support for further claims, normally claims that are associated with change and a call to action.

The Value of Argumentation Relies on Facts, Presumptions, Assumptions, and Probabilities

Facts

People refer to facts as observations, calculations, evidence, and other empirical knowledge derived from observation or experience over which there is no controversy. For example, the evening sunsets in the west. Chocolate truffles are more expensive than dirt. Yet acceptable facts will change from group to group.

Presumptions

With lesser certainty than facts, presumptions provide the basis for many claims. For example, children are less able to care for themselves than adults. Presumptions are subject to challenge and may be overthrown. Some people even begin their arguments with presumptions they know to be false, simply to get the conversation going. Presumptions are relied upon heavily in legal actions and frequently require an additional ‘burden of proof.’ A key value of group decision-making is the ability for groups to more thoroughly challenge and disrupt unsound presumptions by providing facts or observations of times and places when the presumptions are false.

Assumptions

While a presumption represents something you think is generally true, but not always true, an assumption is something believed to be true, with less certainty than a presumption. The difference can be subtle. When you have certain set ideas about some things, they are also presumptions. Keep in mind that presumptions are more authoritative than assumptions.

An excellent comparison from The Write Source by Liz Bureman follows:

Probabilities

With lesser certainty, probabilities are assembled with a combination of facts, presumptions, and assumptions about some future condition. Such beliefs are frequently held, whether clear or not, during most arguments. Probabilities may even be assigned percentages and are reflected when you hear words such as “Likely”, “Almost certainly”, “Probably”, and “Maybe”.

Summary

Since many business arguments involve probabilities, an effective facilitator needs to make the thinking visible behind modifiers such as “likely”. Discover conditions under which the probability increases or decreases to get a group more rapidly to accept an algorithm reflecting the probability or propensity. Seek to have them articulate a range of possibilities rather than fixed numbers. Consider capturing three placeholders such as best case, worst case, and most likely. Always use your critical thinking to examine the basis of facts, presumptions, assumptions, and probabilities and help the group understand what components may cause their arguments to fortify or to become frail.

______

Want a free 10-minute break timer? Sign up for our once-monthly newsletter HERE and receive a timer along with four other of our favorite facilitation tools, free.

« Older Entries

Next Entries »

A practical, comprehensive guide to designing and running meetings that result in less time wasted, more collaborative decision-making, and measurably improved business outcomes. Order today!

Live Online or On-site | Facilitation Training to Fit Your Needs

MG RUSH offers a variety of training options, from monthly LIVE ONLINE facilitation trainings, to Public IN-PERSON classes and PRIVATE CUSTOMIZED TRAINING to fit you or your organization’s needs.

Be Kind, Not Nice

A conversation with Terrence Metz

Qualify Now

Students who successfully complete our 452 Professional or 301 Fundamentals earn IIBA CDUs (and/or FAC CLPs, SAVE CVS PDUs, and CEUs).

5 Basic Facilitation Skills

YouTube.com/MGRushFacilitation

The Facilitation Store is open…

Browse our catalogue for meeting tools and solutions: posters, break timers, white papers, agendas and more. If there’s something you’re looking for and can’t find – let us know!

Member IAF

Sign up now for Facilitation Best Practices Monthly Digest

Buy us a cup of coffee

Change or Die: The Business Process Improvement Manual

Meeting costs to American businesses as a result of poorly run meetings (typically unstructured) continue to rise. Surveys indicate that on average managers waste:

Structure Minimizes Meeting Costs

Secondary Sources Stress the Rise of Meeting Costs

Tertiary Sources Stress the Rise of Meeting Costs

Here are some of the sources:

______

Scope creep kills a lot of projects. Scope creep kills many more meetings. The hardest task to accomplish in leading a group of people is to get them to focus. Their minds drift, twist, and become partially selective.

Secrets to Prevent Meeting Scope Creep

Ask Precise and Detailed Questions to Prevent Meeting Scope Creep

______

Rationale for a Perceptual Map

Method One for a Perceptual Map

Method Two for a Perceptual Map

______

Measure the increase in productivity per employee using the formula for Total Factor Productivity.

XX% CiR − (0.4 constant * XX% CiA) = TFP

Here is an explanation for Total Factor Productivity:

______

When you facilitate alignment, you help groups identify gaps, omissions, and overkill, and confirm the appropriateness and balance of their action plan.

Rationale to Facilitate Alignment

Method to Facilitate Alignment

______

Begin stakeholder analysis by identifying and examining how each interacts with the organization when they provide or receive services or benefits. External or internal people, systems, and other groups comprise stakeholders. They interact with the group through a specific process.

One – Identify inputs

Two – Identify outputs

Three – Identify stakeholders

Stakeholders’ Relationships

Group Stakeholders

Acknowledge Stakeholder Interests

Define Stakeholder Strategy Plan

Stakeholder Strategy Plan Answers . . .

Develop a Communications Action Plan

Determine Stakeholder Risks

Mitigate Behavior

Conclusion

______

You should use these steps when building agendas because following them will increase your meeting success and personal reputation. Before we begin, let us remember the definition of a solid, structured meeting agenda:

Agenda Defined

Use these steps when building a meeting agenda. Sequentially begin with meeting purpose, scope, and session (i.e., meeting or workshop) deliverables. Only then can you create a simple agenda and begin sharing among your participants.

Send us a sample for analysis and feedback if you are a graduate of the MGRUSH Professional curriculum.

Identify the most appropriate participants

Also, Consider the Following When Building a Meeting Agenda

______

The opposite of being a humane human. Road Rage. Have you been irritated by someone else’s driving? Of course, we all have.

On Being a Humane Human

Facilitators Need to Challenge WHY

______

With data transformation, each piece of data or single cell might be decomposed into another layer. Amplify this approach even further by splitting your four cells into sixteen.

What role will be responsible for this assignment? (e.g., RASI Chart)

At what estimated point in time will we reach completion? (e.g., date specific)

How much financial resources will be required to complete it? (eg, $,$$$)

What is the estimated FTP required to bring it to completion? (FTP = full-time person, such as 0.25 which is one person, full-time, for three months)

______

A decision matrix supports both decision-making and decision quality at the same time. A decision matrix can be viewed as the ‘logic’ behind all decisions, providing the rationale for both the support and reasons to de-select or de-emphasize one of the options.

Method to Create a Decision Matrix

Benefits of a Decision Matrix

______

Western society, and to an increasing amount, the rest of the world, depends on the voting method of decision-making.

Approval Voting

Borda Count

Cumulative Voting

Electoral College

Instant Runoff

______

The evidence is overwhelming—those who have more gratitude, or an attitude of gratitude — are happier individuals.

Mandate vs. Gratitude

Facilitation vs. Gratitude

Implications?

______

We encourage professional facilitators to carry a toolbox. Include some intervention devices when you need to shake up your participants. Be prepared to challenge groupthink if you start hearing things like . . .

That will never change.

We don’t do things like that around here.

etc.

. . . then you may want to jolt your participants. We have covered similar exercises in other Best Practices articles such as “Four Dots” and “Bookworm”. Here is another example that is quick, simple, and effective. Some call it the “Spot.”

Groupthink: Your Goal

Groupthink: One Halting Method

______

Organizational process improvement questions depend on the points of view.

Process Improvement Questions

Informational Needs