• Save
Facilitation. A better way to agree - Tony Mann
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Facilitation. A better way to agree - Tony Mann

  • 199 views
Uploaded on

http://evaintheuk.org/eva-19-success/ EVA19, the established Earned Value conference, took place again this year towards the end of May. The venue again was the magnificent Armourer’s Hall; steeped......

http://evaintheuk.org/eva-19-success/ EVA19, the established Earned Value conference, took place again this year towards the end of May. The venue again was the magnificent Armourer’s Hall; steeped in tradition and just a stone’s throw from St. Paul’s Cathedral. This year the plan was to explore the ‘ABC’ of project management – Agile, Benefits and Complex.

The backdrop proved to be as poignant as ever, as Steven Carver regaled the audience with the story of Alfred the Great, using real-life actors and Jonathan Crone provided Lessons from WW1, and the heroic battle of Vimy Ridge.

The military theme culminated with Lt. Colonel Tom de La Rue explaining what Leadership means in the context of an Apache Helicopter squadron on active service, and as the commanding officer of Prince Harry, in Afghanistan.

The two days, which included a banquet in the impressive livery dining hall, were engaging and intimate with the emphasis on personal development and learning together. The speakers were practitioners and professionals of the highest calibre, with many having taken time out from their day-jobs as managers and directors of mega-projects and programmes, to share their considerable knowledge and experience.

Steve says “The emergent themes from the conference this year were the importance of people and culture. Organisations need to move beyond slavishly following process and create an environment where project managers can really thrive. It is vital in any project that stakeholders are properly engaged which underlines the fundamental need for project professionals to Listen, Learn and Lead.”

Steve’s events have a reputation for being innovative and edgy – and this year was no exception. Peter Taylor, the project manager who smiles, entertained the audience with anecdotes and stories, including a personal favourite about a genie, a project manager and the task of building a bridge over the Atlantic. Jack Pinter was masterful in teaching members of the audience how to write the project management blues, which he went on to perform with his band throughout the day.

The feedback from the audience was extremely positive including this example. “The strength of the conference for me is the thread between the sessions that allows me to join the dots to meet my needs. I can create my own landscape from the wealth of knowledge and experience shared [maybe not the one I was expecting] and, perhaps most importantly, gets that mental recharge for the next set of challenges. Roll on next year!”

Steve says “The ‘eVa in the UK’ series has a reputation for giving something back to the profession. One way it does this is by creating a rich learning legacy. With the help of its many speakers, supporters and generous sponsors, most notably PM Channel, it has been able to accrue an impressive archive of presentations, video programmes and podcasts which can all be accessed from the archive section of this web site”

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
199
On Slideshare
198
From Embeds
1
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1

Embeds 1

http://www.slideee.com 1

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. © Resource Facilitation - a better way to agree Tony Mann Resource Strategic Change Facilitators APMG Chief Examiner for ‘Facilitation’
  • 2. Taking people on the journey
  • 3. Understanding – Sharing the background, context and the contributing factors. Recognising the ‘now’ situation, the “why” and the changes that have or are taking place. Implication/Impact – Identifying the implication and implication of the current situation. Recognising the “what this means” and the consequences of the situation. Application – Exploring the way forward and the response to the situation. Working out “what to do” and “how to do it” Ownership – Checking that there is a full awareness of the background, consequences and outcomes and ownership of the way forward and the potential outcomes. Empowerment – People feeling empowered to take responsibility for the action plan. = Cascading The Strategic Implementation Message Gaining commitment and engagement
  • 4. Understanding – Sharing the background, context and the contributing factors. Recognising the ‘now’ situation, the “why” and the changes that have or are taking place. Implication/Impact – Identifying the implication and implication of the current situation. Recognising the “what this means” and the consequences of the situation. Application – Exploring the way forward and the response to the situation. Working out “what to do” and “how to do it” Ownership – Checking that there is a full awareness of the background, consequences and outcomes and ownership of the way forward and the potential outcomes. Empowerment – People feeling empowered to take responsibility for the action plan or feeling that they have been heard. = Cascading The Strategic Implementation Message Gaining commitment and engagement 50% 30% 20%
  • 5. Enhancing ‘Debate’
  • 6. Example
  • 7. Drilling down
  • 8. Using Other Medium • DVD sent to publishers of ‘what is effective publishing prior to Conference of different businesses around the world • Video sent out of electrification of rail line – showing technology and planned route • Interactive discussion forum for IDBs before major decision making event
  • 9. Understanding
  • 10. Exploring Issues
  • 11. Implications
  • 12. Planning for Stakeholder Engagement
  • 13. Stakeholder Map
  • 14. Listening to People
  • 15.  The Feedback Model is used to:  Promote higher levels of understanding between group members  Further assist group members in discovering the reasons lying beneath communication breakdowns  Enhance all aspects of inter-relationships between group members  Not disrupt a speakers thought process  The Feedback Model can be used at any stage when understanding needs to be checked and when groups are working in high levels of complexity or uncertainty 15 The Feedback Model
  • 16. 4321 1 – No! Great as it allows for clarity (good or poor) 2 – Nearly got it, needs some building on 3 – Got it! Ideal to have a ‘3’ 4 – Hearing beyond what was said. Always strive for a ‘4’ 16 Feedback Model
  • 17.  “So what you’re saying is …..”  “If I understand ……”  “My understanding is that ……”  “Can I just check what you are saying…..”  “I think that you’re saying that ….” 17 Words or Phrases used in the Feedback
  • 18.  “So what am I saying …..?”  “What do you understand by me saying ……?”  “Your understanding is What …..?”  “Can you just check what I am saying …..?”  “I think that I am saying ……?” 18 Words or Phrases used in the Reverse Feedback
  • 19. ‘Analogy’ – Putting things into experiences It is best used when there is a need to throw new light on a problem and when it is desirable to adopt new perspectives. It can also be used as a part of the Feedback process to bring the understanding out of a specialist arena into the common language  So what you are saying, is it is like using a torch when you should be using a searchlight if we want to find the source of the problem” ‘Yes ..and’ – Yes but is negative, while Yes and is positive Whenever there is a danger that the group will become negative or there is a tendency for people to act as if "we've already tried that" or "we don't think that will work" and to compensate for the different perspectives people have about issues 19 ‘Analogy’ and ‘Yes ..and’ RB 133 RM 77
  • 20. Summarise (the background/context) Propose (Format, technique(s)) Outcome/Output (what will result) 20 SPO Tool
  • 21. Models, Tools and Techniques for Agreeing and Decision Making
  • 22. What will I see? Process Iceberg Convergent Type of Thinking Divergent Open- ended Scope Narrow Degree of Uncertainty Certainty Uncertainty Force Field Debate Applying the ‘right’ Model, Tool or Technique Matrix Chart Four Box SCA E vs D Brain Dump DotsRIG
  • 23. Understanding Risk and Exploring Implications
  • 24. Values Characteristics Behaviours (people) Features (things) + ve - ve What will I be seeing…? What will I see if …? Why is that important …?
  • 25.  This technique presents an “at a glance” for of consensus. It is used to enable a group to visually identify ideas or issues that several members of the Group consider important – a form of Prioritisation  Voting with dots is used to best effect in circumstances where a consensus view is required. It is a simple method of identifying agreement on common areas of importance  This technique has the following steps:  Decide the best Format for Voting  Decide number/colour/size of dots  Spend the dots  Record the order of importance Voting with Dots Technique RB 168 25
  • 26. All Here everyone (‘All’) have dots – each person can put 1 large Dot up to 3 dots on the smaller Post Its™ . Voting with Dots Technique 26
  • 27.  This technique is used to help Group’s to decide the suitability of potential solutions and scenarios  Essential and Desirable can be used after a Group has identified the most critical issues by using other tools and techniques such as Voting with Dots or Relative Importance Grid  Essential is defined as: Must be fulfilled  Desirable is defined as: Nice if they are fulfilled RB 172 Essential and Desirable Technique 27
  • 28. Essential Desirable Essential and Desirable 28 Combined with Dots
  • 29.  This tool is used to help the Group reach consensus or to identify and prioritise the most critical issues in a particular set of circumstances by measuring their Relative Importance  RIG can be used in circumstances where there is a need to prioritise a number of factors, issues, ideas and solutions, which might have different levels of importance to different stakeholders and is proving difficult to agree on which are the most important Relative Importance Grid Tool RB 162 29
  • 30.  Issue: Comparing strategic issues  Criteria: What are the key factors we must keep central 30 RIG Example 1 Environmental issues 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 3 (2nd) 2 Archaeology 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 4 (1st) 3 River Traffic 3 4 3 5 3 6 1 (4th) 4 Disruption to homeowners 4 5 4 6 3 (2nd) 5 Compensation to local people 5 6 0 (5th) 6 Technologically Viable 2 (3rd)
  • 31.  This tool can be used for both Data Collection and Decision Making and is best applied when structuring the relationship between two aspects of a situation  This tools is most useful when working with Group’s and plotting where things fit when being considered in relation to two different and possibly disparate descriptions  Examples may be:  Old / New  Cost / Benefit  Advantage / Disadvantage  High / Low  Etc. The Four Box Model RB 136 31
  • 32. Low Expense High Using the Four Box Model Benefit High Low
  • 33.  This tool is useful for comparing options against three or more dimensions and assessing data across a number of aspects  This tools can be used when there are three or more categories of information or data in two dimensions (represented by the rows and columns)  This tool is different to Four Box, which handles data on two dimensions but where there are only two points on each axis (i.e. High/Low, etc.) Matrix Charting Tool RB 139 33
  • 34. Options/ Issues Option 1 Option 2 2 5 7 5 3 4 1 Option 3        Option 4 20 32 16 27 46 26 13 Option 5 Option 6 Could Should Must Must Not Could Should Option 7 3 1 4 5 2 7 6 Column Headings Cost Time Benefit Effort ROI People Customer Different Ways of Completing a Matrix 34
  • 35. Debate and Group Formations  The different formations and combinations are used when one needs to exchange information, share different perceptions and or explore ideas across a number of different issues  Formation combinations:  Mixed Groups: A1 & B1 & C1, A2 & B2 & C2, A3 & B3 & C  Homogenous Groups: A1 & A2 & A3, B1 & B2 & B3, C1 & C2 & C3  Ambassador Groups: A1 & A2 & C3, B1 & B2 & A3, C1 & C2 & B3 Compromise, Conflict or Resolution  The different formations and combinations are used when one needs to explore conflict and disagreement and to help develop consensus and shared ownership 35
  • 36. Compromise, Conflict or Resolution? Name Paulo Beck y Piot Total Order Wide range of products 2 4 5 4 3 1 19 1 Extensive range of brands 5 3 3 3 1 3 18 2 Ethical 2 2 3 3 3 2 15 3 Low cost - BOGOFs 1 3 2 2 1 5 14 4= Open 24/7/365 1 2 4 2 4 1 14 4= Free parking 3 2 1 3 3 1 13 6 Tracy Paulo Becky AndreaTomasz Piot Tomasz Andrea A B C D E F Tracy
  • 37. Tracy Paulo Becky Andrea Tomasz Piot A Use a One to All to allow each person to express the reasons for their scores, exploring areas of common thinking and differences 37 Tackling Compromise, Conflict and Achieving Resolution
  • 38. B Paulo Becky Andrea Tomasz Piot Tracy Step 1: Divide the group into two sub groups and have Paulo explain his logic to Andrea, whilst in the other sub group Piot explains his logic to Thomasz. Meanwhile Becky and Tracy listen in so that they can also understand each person’s reasoning Step 2: Either Andrea and Thomasz act as ‘advocates’ or Piot and Paulo, having rehearsed their argument explain their thinking to each other 38
  • 39. Hamburg Research  Research carried out at Hamburg University identified that:  The higher the quality of individual input regarding the subject matter at the beginning of the group interaction, the higher the quality of the group performance.  The more individual inputs are independent of one another at the beginning of the group interaction, the higher the quality of the group performance.  The more the group performance includes individual input, the higher the quality of the group performance.  The more comprehensible the individual input is for each group member, the higher the quality of the group performance.  Therefor high quality individual input influences the final group decision, the higher the quality of the group performance.  Principles of Process application define that a facilitative approach which adheres to the criteria mentioned above will:  maximise the informational influence on the group performance process;  minimize the normative influence on the group performance processes; and  optimize the influence of individual input on the final group decision 42
  • 40. 43 Force Field Applied Effectively
  • 41. 44 Force Field Applied Effectively
  • 42. The Process Iceberg® Strategic Change Model
  • 43. Positive Buy-In Issues Roles, Skills, Attributes & Knowledge Organisational Systems Organisational Structure/ High Level Processes Strategic Focus & Values Process Iceberg® Organisation Model Externally Focused Strategy Internally Identified Issues © Resource Strategic Change Facilitators
  • 44. Emotions Roles, Skills, Attributes & Knowledge Organisational Systems Strategic Focus Values Process Iceberg® Change Model – Implementation Customer Service Process Right information always available Never missing deadlines Comprehensive information Co-operation Customers satisfaction Customer care skills Buy-in © Resource Strategic Change Facilitators Organisational Structure/ High Level Processes
  • 45. Positive Buy-In Engaged Workforce Safety & Accident Free Flexible Skills Buy-in Example - Implementing a Values-Based Culture Implementation Roles, Skills, Attributes & Knowledge Organisational Structure & High Level Processes Strategic Focus & Values Enhanced Plant - Wide Process Organisational Systems & Procedures Safety Tours Comprehensive Maintenance System Principles: - Hierarchical - Sequential - Inter-dependant
  • 46. Negative Emotions Roles, Skills, Attributes & Knowledge Organisational Systems Strategic Focus & Values Process Iceberg® Change Model – Exploring Issues © Resource Strategic Change Facilitators Missing deadlines Customers’ dissatisfaction Lack of Customer care skills Symptom Right Information not always available Customer Service Process Incomplete information Lack of Co-operation ActionCause Organisational Structure/ High Level Processes
  • 47. Structure & High Level Processes Systems & Processes Roles, Skills, Attributes & Knowledge Strategic Focus & Values Structure & High Level Processes Systems & Processes Roles, Skills, Attributes & Knowledge Strategic Focus & Values Linked Icebergs NBG 1 NBG 4 Positive Buy-in or Emotions/Issues Positive Buy-in or Emotions/Issues
  • 48. Corporate Dept/Team/ Process Strategy & Values Structure Systems Skills, Attributes & Knowledge Process Icebergs® within Process Icebergs Positive Buy-in or Negative Emotions/Issues
  • 49. Facilitation Models, Tools and Techniques 52 Tony Mann Chief Examiner for ‘Facilitation’ for APMG Office: +44 1255 822589 M: +44 7957 660722 tony.mann@resourcestrategicchange.com www.resourceproductions.com Skype: tonymannresource Twitter: FacilitateGuru
  • 50. www.multiwallconnect.com
  • 51. www.multiwallconnect.com