The 3D worlds method in the team workshop

What is the 3D Worlds Method?

Janek Panneitz’s 3D Worlds Method was developed to create a shared picture of complicated relationships in a playful way. It is particularly suitable for giving structure to shared content in a team or group and for making decisions transparently. The content is noted on rewritable hexagons (mini whiteboards), which are then clustered and prioritized with the help of height profiles (hence the name 3D worlds).

The method is divided into 4 phases, each of which is self-contained and the results of which provide insightful added value. This makes it possible to achieve valuable interim results efficiently and to give participants the space and time they need – without having to keep a constant eye on the clock. The 3-dimensional map that is created here enables a more intensive and tangible visualization of the topics than 2-dimensional sticky notes.

The first use

Our first active use of the 3D Worlds method was in moderating a team workshop. The aim was to identify the potential for improvement in cooperation and compare the importance of possible improvements in the group.

The framework conditions

The workshop lasted five hours, and 15 people participated on-site. Creating and discussing the 3D world took about three hours.

Our approach

We worked out the key question for the workshop in advance with the client and presented it to the workshop participants at the beginning. This was then used to develop a common target image for the workshop.

The 4 phases of the 3D worlds method in the workshop

Phase 1: Collecting the content

In the first phase of the 3D worlds method, we asked all participants to think silently and write down on eight white hexagons which aspects would contribute most to good teamwork. In the next step, the participants sorted out any duplicates in groups of three and made an initial prioritization, so that after this step there were only a maximum of four tiles left per person. As we had 15 participants in the workshop, a maximum of 52 white hexagons were ready for the next phase to create the islands.

Phase 2: Creating islands

We then asked the teams to briefly present a maximum of two tiles per person per round and place them on the blue mat. It is important that tiles with similar content – or in other words, with a different facet of the same topic – are placed next to each other. Those hexagons that were identical in content to an existing hexagon should be handed over to us moderators.

If there was a completely new aspect on a hexagon, we asked the participants to start a new island. This resulted in ten islands of different sizes in this phase. Next, we gave the participants ten grey hexagons and asked them to find corresponding headings for each island. At the end of this second phase, we also offered bridge stones to show any dependencies between the islands by connecting them.

Phase 3: Prioritization using height profiles

Now comes the third dimension of the 3D worlds method: All team members were given two height profiles – one for each hand. We invited them to look at all the white hexagons again at their leisure and then decide – each for themselves – which two aspects were the most important from their point of view. We then asked the participants to take a big step back from the table as soon as they had made their decision.

As soon as everyone was ready, we gave the command to place the stones at the same time to avoid influencing each other. To achieve a slightly more differentiated height profile, we gave the participants four further height profiles, which they could distribute as they wished by group decision. We then asked reflection questions, such as “Imagine the sea level rises and all aspects without a height profile stone sink. Should the prioritization remain as it is? What is really important? What do you want to focus on?” We then let the group decide together on prioritization adjustments.

Phase 4: Colonize islands

To colonize the islands using the 3D world method, they are populated with various small wooden figures. These can be chosen according to the desired outcome of the workshop. We split this last phase in our workshop into two parts. First, we marked those islands with golden obelisks for which the participants definitely wanted to consider measures in the next step. And then, once we had drawn up a joint action plan, we marked the white hexagons with stars for which concrete measures were defined. Finally, we looked at the ratio – obelisks to stars – together with the participants and reflected on how satisfied they were with the measures they had found.

Our conclusion

Janek Panneitz’s 3D worlds method can be wonderfully combined with our solution-focused tools and offers a great way of visualization. With 15 participants, it was helpful to build the island worlds on two mats – especially for clarity. For the next workshop, we plan to formulate the instructions for prioritization even more concretely so that it becomes clearer what exactly should be prioritized and what happens to the prioritized hexagons afterwards. We will certainly learn a lot more at the next workshops – we are looking forward to it.

5
0 Comments/by

Self-organization in agile teams and beyond

Many publications on the subject of agility state that one of the special things about agile teams is their ability (and possibility) to self-organize. This usually sounds as if teams were not self-organizing before “agilization”. But self-organization takes place all the time – in all teams!

Self-organizing systems

One of our customers asked us to run a training day on the topic of “Systemic thinking and action”. In preparation, we delved into the basic books again after a long time to work out the relevant statements. During this research, we came across texts by the biologists Maturana and Varela, which dealt with the characteristics of dead and living systems, among other things.

What we read there gave us a completely new perspective with far-reaching consequences for our daily work: Maturana and Varela write that every living system – and therefore every group of living beings – is self-organizing and only differs from dead systems in this way.

So while agile coaches do everything they can to help teams to self-organize, they are already there anyway. It is therefore easy to understand why well-intentioned attempts to bring about change are often met with resistance from the teams because it is not about promoting self-organization.

So what is it all about?

The answer to this question may become clearer with the help of this practical example: Imagine you are attending an IT conference and enter the main conference hall together with around 400 other people. There are chairs arranged in neat rows waiting for the visitors.

What do you do? You probably choose one of the seats that are still free, taking various needs into account. You may want to take photos of the speakers and their slides, and therefore look for a seat in the front rows with an unobstructed view of the event. Perhaps you prefer to stay on the edge because you have long legs and value comfort. Or you prefer to sit in the last row so that you can leave the room inconspicuously if you don’t like the keynote.

And what do all the other conference attendees do? They do the same. They also look for a seat that suits their needs and settle down there. In the end, all – or at least most – of those present sit in rows of chairs, all facing the stage, in this room and wait for the conference to start. Nobody is sitting upside down. No one is sitting on the floor or even on the stage. And this works without any signs, team-building sequences or seating instructions. Clear proof of the functioning self-organization of living systems.

What would have happened if the chairs in the conference room had been arranged in a circle? You’ve probably already guessed it: the visitors would have sat down in this circle of chairs – all facing the center.

The consequences for agile coaching (and agile leadership)

The implications of this thought experiment are enormous for agile coaching. Guiding teams towards more agility in collaboration is by no means about teaching team members how to organize themselves. Rather, it is about reviewing the given framework conditions and changing them so that a team can and will self-organize in a more purposeful way than before.

So if we were to acknowledge that a team has always been self-organizing, we would probably change our language and our wishes. Instead of saying “Agile teams are self-organizing – so go for it.” or “You need to organize yourselves better.” it makes sense to ask the following or similar questions:

  • What team behavior is desirable and for what purpose?
  • Who or what already supports this behavior?
  • On a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 means that the team behavior already fully corresponds to this desired behavior and 0 the opposite, where do you see the current reality?
  • What is already working so that you could choose this value?
  • What changes would result for whom if the team were already one step further? Consider both positive and possible negative effects for the people affected. Would this step mean a gain or loss of skills for someone? Would costs be saved or new ones created? Would logistical measures be necessary? Would compliance with official channels be jeopardized?

The answers to these and similar questions can shed light on the current obstacles a team may be facing on its path to greater agility. Long-standing habits, unspoken fears, informal rules or resignation are the learned results of unfavorable environmental conditions that are frequently encountered. They are often the real blockages to agile success stories. They are difficult to detect and stubborn to maintain. And they often cause signs of visible rigidity, reluctance or even aggression from individual team members. In reality, however, it is just a form of functioning self-organization that has established itself by experience.

Living systems learn and adapt

The good news is that learned behavior can also be relearned in the event of a lasting change in conditions. This requires new experiences. Initially, these new experiences feel unfamiliar and trigger mistrust. It is understandable, for example, that the sudden offer of freedom in previously strictly managed teams is initially rejected. However, if the offer remains honest despite the rejection, if the initial cautious use of the freedom is repeatedly reinforced, then new trust can develop.

So it is the environmental conditions of a team that need to be changed sustainably and permanently if you want a different form of self-organization – the team members are already organizing themselves anyway!

 

0
0 Comments/by

Coaching in modern leadership

According to presentations at relevant conferences and blog articles on the subject, coaching in modern leadership is the number one toolkit. This is entirely appropriate if certain rules and limits are observed. However, the misunderstood and, therefore, incorrect use of coaching tools can lead to a lasting deterioration in the relationship between managers and employees.

We would like to make an offer right at the beginning regarding the use of language: We like the term “leadership personality” much better than “leader” because modern leadership requires personality and attitude rather than strength and assertiveness.

Experience expertise – through non-knowledge and impartiality

When using coaching tools, a leader inevitably finds themselves in the difficult position of sitting between two stools: The position as a leader with content expertise on the one hand and the position of the coach with their indispensable attitude of non-knowledge and impartiality on the other. The attitude of not knowing is based on the assumption that the coachee (as the client is called in coaching) is the only true expert on their situation. In this way, the coach remains curious and avoids offering quick solutions, which always originate from his world of experience and thus his interpretation. By impartiality, on the other hand, we mean that all opinions and statements are equally valid for the coach, i.e. that he can be an advocate for each individual party.

As a leader, you naturally pursue a goal in most cases and also have your own opinion on a professional situation. For the most part, you also have to adhere to overriding corporate goals. Therefore, both the attitude of not knowing and impartiality are rarely realistic in this role – unlike with a coach, who is always unintentional with regard to the goal that the coachee wants to achieve.

The following thought is therefore often helpful: In your role as a leader, you are rarely in a position to take on the role of an unintentional coach. However, you can use coaching tools in modern leadership to support the achievement of common goals. Let’s have a look at some examples of leadership situations in which coaching tools can be used sensibly, and in which you should rather use other means of communication.

Sensible use of coaching tools (coaching in modern leadership)

If, for example, you need to moderate a conflict in which you can honestly maintain an attitude of impartiality, coaching questions are a great aid. If you want to lead workshops in which the participants need to formulate a goal together or develop a vision, you are also ideally equipped with these tools. You can also excel as a coach when supporting one of your employees in a personal crisis or if you want to provide unintentional support for personal development – for example, before or after changes in the company, department or team.

However, coaching tools are out of place in situations where you are providing your employees with professional input and information or even communicating a decision that has already been made. Clear statements are required here. Criticism is best expressed in the form of a wish because that’s all it is, and positive feedback is in the form of honest appreciation: prompt, specific and personal. In these cases, the coaching case can safely remain closed. Oh yes – and if you think you are right to coach one or the other employee, take this tip to heart: Find an impartial and impartial coach to work with you!

Which coaching tools are useful

The magic bullet: A sympathetic ear and the gift of undivided attention are often enough to solve problems or at least take you one step further. Simply listen until the other person finishes speaking, and then report back what strengths and values you have discovered behind the story.

Probably the most frequently used coaching tool is the question. They come in a wide variety of forms: Open questions, closed questions, directed and undirected questions, clarification questions and hypothetical questions – you are probably familiar with these, as they are also used constantly in everyday life.

Some of the more unusual-sounding questions that will quickly reveal you as a coaching tool user include scaling questions, coping questions, circular questions, meta-questions, questions about exceptions and the miracle question coined by Insoo Kim Berg.

Like many solution-focused questions, scaling questions are aimed at mapping a desired target position. Based on what has already been achieved on the way there, the next intermediate goals are described and steps are formulated to achieve them. Other types of questions aimed at describing the desired future or activating the interviewee’s resources and making their potential visible can also be used.

As a general rule, only ever ask a question if you want an honest answer. Remember that you may well hear answers that contradict your wishes as a leader. And then you have the choice of responding angrily or with gratitude and curiosity.

Trust and voluntariness as basic requirements

In coaching situations, trust and voluntariness are basic requirements. This also applies to the use of coaching tools in performance reviews. Some employees may have experienced that openness in discussions with their leadership personality has a negative impact on their career. As soon as fear is involved, efforts at honest conversation are bound to fail. What you need now are your helpers, “patience” and “confidence”. These employees must first learn to trust. Depending on their experience, this can take different amounts of time and effort.

When using coaching tools, you as a leader should also make sure that you only ask your interviewee these wonderful questions voluntarily. The respective wishes of your counterpart must be taken seriously so that a sustainable working relationship can develop.

Conclusion: If you ask, you lead! If you listen, you will be followed!

To be a good leader in the modern working world, you need the following ingredients: A positive view of people, patience and confidence, the attitude of not knowing and of impartiality and a large portion of honest interest, coupled with skillful questioning techniques.

1
0 Comments/by

Lateral leadership – The light side of power

Network-like forms of cooperation are currently emerging in many organizations and associations. Thematically relevant experts are cooperating in projects regardless of their hierarchical affiliation. In these networks, those who know their way around have to say. Leadership concepts based on formal hierarchy quickly reach their limits here. This is reason enough to have a closer look at lateral leadership as a topic, as it is increasingly gaining momentum.

Lateral leadership is based on three pillars

According to Stefan Kühl and Thomas Schnelle, lateral leadership is based on three central influencing factors: power, trust and understanding. With their help, it is possible to combine the different interests of all those involved into something as viable and common as possible, thus creating a collective framework for thinking.

Laterale Führung braucht Balance
  • POWER is the most confusing term, as it is generally suspected of having a negative connotation. In this case, however, it refers to a positive influence. For example, if an employee has special expertise or experience in a topic compared to others, they almost automatically take the lead in this area. The same applies to the seniority principle: A person who has been working on a topic or in a team for a long time has a lot of implicit, useful knowledge. And then some people are particularly good at networking or can easily build up good and sustainable relationships with other team members or people in other departments. These connections contain valuable, powerful and beneficial resources. Probably the most underestimated form of power is that of listening. It is always good to know what is going on among those involved in the team, project or company. Listening and listening properly can make the difference between success and failure in a project.
  • TRUST is important, everyone knows that. However, the beginning of a trusting relationship is tricky – after all, someone has to start with a leap of faith in the other person. That is why it is also called “giving trust” – always in the hope that this gift will not be abused. Trust therefore requires courage on the one hand and time on the other, because the consequences of this investment only become apparent later. It can neither be created nor imposed, it has to grow over time. If there is trust within a team and in the shared abilities, it needs attention and care. This keeps it strong and resilient against the rough storms of everyday life. If this is successful, even emotional conflicts can be resolved on a factual level. Then they are useful for the quality of the joint result.
  • UNDERSTANDING has a lot to do with getting to know the needs, wishes and concerns of others. Anyone who wants to lead without authority must be able and interested in exploring the thoughts of others to such an extent that the number of options for action increases. Resistance is always a sign that important information is missing that could further secure the success of a project. People who dare to offer resistance should therefore always be valued as important sources of information and taken seriously.

Lateral leadership basically means that there is someone for whom the goal is more important than any kind of authority – and who still respects it. Someone who is interested in the expertise of those involved. Someone who knows why something needs to be done. The basis for successful collaboration is voluntary cooperation and the creation of a common framework of thought, a shared reality. Sounds good and simple in theory, but is somewhat more complex to implement.

Laterale Führung ist wie Jonglieren

In everyday life, it’s the mix that counts

The interplay and balance of the three factors – power, trust and understanding – can vary depending on the situation. They can intertwine in such a way that they support and benefit each other. And it is entirely possible for them to hinder each other here and there. The secret of successful lateral leadership lies in finding the right balance of power, trust and communication depending on the situation.

Solutions to problems are then developed together directly within the team – or expertise is brought in from outside. Then resistance is celebrated as a resource – or experienced as a special form of commitment. Then confidence can provide the patience needed to persevere in tough times – or, given the right conditions, the end of a project can be decided by mutual agreement. All according to the principle: One for all and all for one.

Imagine, for example, that you want to organize a big company party for the entire workforce and their families at your location in Vienna. You have chosen the beginning of September as the date because many people will be back from holiday and the weather should still be good enough. It is now helpful if you have good contacts who are familiar with the organization of major events and can actively support you (power). It is also useful if you are patient and confident that everything will go well in this situation (confidence). Instead of getting angry, ask those complainers who find the appointment impossible what concerns they have and how they think the appointment would be better (understanding). In this way, you have combined all three factors for your success.

However, if the most committed of your experienced contacts are scheduled during the busiest period, the confidence that everything will still work out is too little. It then takes a lot of energy to find new helping hands, outsource the job to external professionals, or postpone the deadline. Power and understanding must take priority here – and trust can follow as soon as everything is back on track.

Supervisor role versus lateral leadership?

It can often be observed that employees are more likely to be led by people who are not formally responsible than by their own boss. And sometimes this boss, thanks to his authority to issue instructions, tries to have these lateral leaders solve the problems in his management tasks. You guessed it: That won’t work.

Successful leadership only works if the issue in question is highly relevant to the manager personally – and this cannot be delegated. If you have children, you know only too well that you can hardly successfully enforce rules that you don’t really stand behind. The same principles apply in the relationship between manager and employee. So if you want a certain behavior, you have to enforce it yourself.

Connecting instead of separating

[asa2]0887309585[/asa2]

The two, a hierarchical superior role and lateral leadership, are absolutely compatible. In our part of the world, many managers use the power of authority because they have learned to do so. If you have confidence in your own abilities and those of your team, you can lead formally and laterally at the same time.

Lateral leadership has a long tradition as a concept. Back in the 1990s, Harvard experts Roger Fischer and Alan Sharp published a book entitled “Getting it Done”. It is primarily aimed at people who have to and want to successfully implement their projects together with colleagues without a formal management function. Anyone who has ever held a project management role will be familiar with the difficulties encountered when trying to lead people to commitment who also “serve other masters”. When studying the concept of lateral leadership, this somehow sounds familiar…

What are your experiences with lateral leadership? How do you practice hierarchy as a corporate culture? Share your experiences with us so that we can continue to learn together!

2
0 Comments/by

Security and sense – The founding fathers of sinnvollFÜHREN

sinnvollFÜHREN – We chose this name for our small company for several reasons – and today, after almost 10 years of existence, we are happier with it than we could ever have hoped for. Let’s start from the very beginning:

Security and sense

SENSE

Viktor Frank’s teachings reached me in 2008 when my dear friend and colleague Sabine Indinger took me to a 6-day seminar on the topic of “Meaning and value orientation in the world of business and work”, in which Paul Ostberg generously shared his life’s work with us before retiring. I was impressed by the power of meaning in our lives. It can move us when it is there, and it ensures our end when it is lost one day.

The stronger the meaning we recognize, the stronger our commitment to achieving a goal. Nothing else moves us in a certain direction as much as the meaning we can realize at the end of this path. However, meaning cannot be given to anyone. Each person has to find it for themselves. However, taking meaning is dangerously easy. Often, a single look, a single word, is enough to destroy meaning and stop people in their pursuit. This leads us to the second part of our name.

LEAD

If you type the word leadership into Google, you get around 113 million results. So it is undisputed that a lot of people are concerned with this topic – and probably always have been! Over time, however, the meaning of leadership has changed dramatically! While in the time of the ancient Greeks and Egyptians, it was probably about securing land and prosperity through strategically skilful leadership, the task of leadership at the time of industrialization was to ensure the quality of work results through targeted demonstration and control. And now, we are in the age of digitalization.

We hardly know today what requirements will be needed tomorrow. The main issue here is to create a framework in which personal responsibility, adaptability and a spirit of innovation can flourish at all levels – from the board to facility management – so that companies can keep up with the pace of progress to some extent. However, one thing remains the same across all eras of leadership: leadership is there to provide security. It’s just the type of security we need that has changed.

SECURITY

Like sense, no one can give us security. Both arise within ourselves. All managers can do is create an environment in which both meaning and security can be found. This includes a positive image of people as well as a mindful use of language, a focus on success, the establishment of a shared vision worth striving for, space for regular reflection, a learning culture in which mistakes are not only allowed but even welcomed and much more.

Today we know that leadership does not begin with the awarding of a title and a sign on the office door, but with the responsibility to ensure that employees have everything they need to be effective. This probably also includes the willingness to relinquish leadership from time to time, to trust others, and to follow them. For many, this is probably the most difficult part of modern leadership – after all, as a manager, you are responsible for results…

Giving up leadership does not mean that you are no longer allowed to look! On the contrary! Taking an interest in issues that have been handed over gives the new manager security and backing. “Command and control” is not deleted without replacement. It is indeed being replaced by “reflection and backing”!

The challenge of modern companies is not to deliver results faster, cheaper and better, but to offer everyone involved a working environment in which they can find a certain degree of meaning and security. This task cannot be delegated to any consultant, coach or HR department. Every single manager in the company must contribute to this themselves.

If this succeeds, anything is possible.

1
0 Comments/by

Sharing makes you rich – More is not enough!

Sharing courage

The last article was about “Sharing makes you rich. And much more.” If I had known back then what this post would achieve, I might have been more careful…

What happened?
Just two days after writing the blog post, I woke up and knew that I had a clear mission, namely

Giving away courage!

The only question that remained was how to do it. So I told as many people as possible about the idea of the courage bank. The following Monday, I received so many ideas on this topic from some of the donors that nothing should stand in the way of the concept of giving courage as a gift at the courage bank.

Bild einer MutBank

My request to you: Be “overconfident” and participate in the courage bank!

You can do this, for example, by leaving a comment or writing your blog post on the topic and sharing your courage in this way!

Sharing experience

Last Tuesday, we tried a new experiment: three visitors from two companies came to spend the day with us. There were many conversations, questions, “aha” moments and much more to learn. Here I would like to share with you the feedback that was passed on to me from both sides after the day:

Feedback from the visitors:

Many thanks for the information, and thanks again for the great day with you in Nuremberg! Cxxxx

Thank you so much for giving us such a great and informative day with you! I must say that I am really impressed by the way you work and I can also well imagine that your “office” is a really pleasant place to work. Please also give my heartfelt thanks to all those who gave us such an open and friendly insight into their daily working lives. See you soon … Until then, have a good time and best regards, Wxxxx

Feedback from the “visitors”:

+Exchange in both directions
+Many different focus topics
+many new insights (about flat hierarchies)
Nxxxx

+ Exchange and interaction with the teams […] something was also presented […] by individual developers
+ Daily planning in Confluence
+ Early and repeated announcement
Sxxxx

Share pictures

In December 2016, Melanie asked me at an Agile Monday whether it would be possible to visit her and her colleagues. Then, she said, more people would have the opportunity to exchange ideas and enrich themselves by sharing. I had light-heartedly agreed at the time and then racked my brains as to how this visit could be organized in a meaningful way. The result was a photo report on our way of working entitled “How mosquitoes and elephants fertilize each other”.

Konserve

The “canned” version included a virtual tour of our visual centre, as well as a release retro in photos. It’s about how we share and learn from each other across departmental boundaries, even though one is as big as an elephant and the other as small as a gnat.

Bild mit Mücke und Elefant

Here are some of the reactions to the presentation that arrived just a few minutes later via SMS, Twitter and email:

Hello Werner,
I’m still flashed by your presentation. My colleagues too, by the way …

Thank you very much …. The courage bank kept some people busy afterwards, oh yes, it was so nice!

Start trusting the teams, then empower them and pass on responsibility. You will find yourself utterly impressed with what can happen. Don’t believe… visit Werner…

How is this supposed to continue?

Well, if it’s up to me – hopefully exuberantly and with a lot of exchange! 🙂

So: please visit the courage bank and do what you do at a bank: if you have a lot, deposit some of your courage. And if you need some, then borrow some from others. You’re sure to get your deposited courage back with interest and compound interest whenever you want – at the current exchange rate. Because exchange gives you courage – that’s for sure. 🙂

0
0 Comments/by

Sharing makes you rich – And much more

Sharing makes you rich

I wanted to write the “Sharing makes you rich” blog post earlier, … today it finally works:

I received the following e-mail:
Hello Werner, thank you for your information and especially for the open appointment.
I can feel how good such an intercompany exchange is for me, and I was able to take a lot with me.
I was able to take a few things away with me. Best regards Bxxxxxxxx

What was the reason for this? On various occasions, people who are interested in agile ask if they can see how we are agile and some then find their way to the Südwestpark and take a look at our “Visual Center”. That’s what happened to the sender of this e-mail on February 15. He had come to us by bike from Sigmundstrasse.

What does such an exchange look like?

Cosima Laube described her visit to us very well on her blog:
“The visit to Werner Motzet at the IT system house of the Federal Employment Agency was quite spontaneous, I was only there for just under an hour … But I was able to take away a lot of impulses and input. Not just hearing or reading about how dailies and retrospectives or the coordination of several collaborating teams work, for example, but being shown and explained work results directly. Learn about the background. Seeing work objects live on site. Seeing the people involved.”

Why do I like doing this (so much)?

“Sharing makes you rich” is ‘everyday life’ in my life and since ‘sharing more’ also ‘makes you richer’, I can’t have enough of it.

It scares some people:

  • “Where will it end?”,
  • “What if the other person only takes and doesn’t share?”,
  • “You’re giving away what you’ve worked so hard for and what you get in return”.

I don’t feel that way, I experience it:

  • my “leap of faith” is rewarded,
  • I learn so much more by sharing that it would be a loss not to share.

My call to share is therefore:

“Just try it out, it’s so enriching …. “.

And, … I did it again today, 10 people from a car manufacturer joined us in the afternoon, so much interest, so many good questions, so much honesty, so much thinking ahead. I’m still enjoying and digesting. Very slowly, the visitors are daring to talk about themselves and ask questions. Lots of good ideas and approaches and I can encourage them! Isn’t that wonderful?

After two hours of standing, we sat down together in a restaurant and continued our discussions. Questions like: “Your business card says catalyst. What does that mean?” And after I explained, “I can contribute to the change without being consumed”, the next question was: “Aha, you get a lot of garbage!” I had to laugh and explain: “It depends on how you look at it: From my point of view, something good comes out.”

I can only recommend it to you: Try it out! Share with other departments and companies! You will see: It’s so enriching! And if you don’t believe it, then come to Nuremberg…

When will I do this (again)?

Since I also work (from time to time), visits take place on average once a week (or less often). In the next three weeks, there will be four visits and some of the visitors will come from far away.

Here you can find “Sharing makes you rich” part 2.

0
0 Comments/by

Retrospective (almost) “after” Ralph

In the last guest blog post, I briefly reported on a retrospective that made me think of my first encounter with Ralph and the consequences: “Away with the Ishikawa”.

I’ve now been approached by a few people who wanted to know how the retrospective went. So as not to keep you in suspense any longer, here is the report:

As there was a “flu epidemic” in Nuremberg at the end of January and beginning of February, and I had taken on a few stand-ins, there was little time to prepare for the retrospective in a development team (ET). The room is so small that there is no space to sit down together. The team members therefore have to remain seated in front of their PCs during the retrospective. In the middle are the PO and I, as the moderator, with a flip chart.

How had I prepared myself?

  1. Read Veronika and Ralph’s book again
  2. Flip chart with text prescribed (post-its and pens are available in the team room)

    We want to achieve this here and now:

     

    So that:

     

Sequence of the retrospective:

The flip chart is in the middle, the first sheet is blank (the prepared sheet is the second sheet)

1. Positive opening

What did you do well?

(with two rounds) [approx. 7 min]

2. Topic

What topic(s) should be addressed here today to make this retrospective worthwhile for you and the team?

 

The members of the development team and the PO write their topics on the post-it’s for the next five minutes. Then, one by one, the members stick the post-its on the first sheet of the flip chart and briefly explain them.

3. Selection

The members prioritize the topics using dot voting: everyone has two dots to assign. The result:

  • overarching process topic (5 points) => is handed over to Scrum Master
  • retrospective should be sustainable (2 points) => is stuck at the top as a meta-topic
  • frequency of refinement/grooming (2 points) => is stuck on the 2nd sheet

4. What for?

The members are now given another five minutes to complete the sentence. All post-it notes are stuck on one below the other and explained straight away.

So that:

… we are better prepared for our sprints
… we have a better overview of the upcoming stories
… we can recognize potentially blocking problems and dependencies at an early stage
… we look at the stories in a concentrated and focused way and deal with them

5. What else?

In response to the question

“What else…?”

then came,

we also want to do that:

… prepare grooms in advance
… prepare grooming appointments without a PO, better penetration of stories

As time is already running out (a good 40 minutes have already passed), I shorten the process a little.

6. Scaling

I put a 0 and a 10 on the floor and place the flip chart at the 10, then I ask the members to line up on this scale:

How confident are you that you will take these steps?

One person is at 7, everyone else is at 8. “Oops” I thought, “so many, so close to 10, I haven’t seen that (often).” So I asked:

What’s gone well so far that you’re at 7?

Answer: “A long time ago, we already had a regular appointment like this, and it worked well.”

Everyone at 8 agreed.

When asked

What do you need, what would have to happen for you to move up a number?

I get the answer: “That we set the weekly series date in Outlook straight away and that everyone joins in.”

The other people then say: “Then we’d go straight to 10.”

No question, the Outlook appointment is created immediately.

7. Conclusion

The team members take their seats again and I ask:

Is there anything else to add?

One person would like us to (still) tackle the other 8 topics that are still on the flip chart. After a brief discussion, in the course of which a review of the previous retrospective results plays an important role, the team decides: “Better to work on just one topic, but do it well”.

The retrospective lasted just under 55 minutes and was awarded 4 out of a maximum of 5 points in the final short assessment.

Addendum: The first meeting (refinement/grooming) has already taken place and was relatively short because there was not much to discuss/clarify.

0
0 Comments/by

Away with the Ishikawa

I was allowed to carry out the retro in one of our development teams. As I only had representation and little time to prepare, I borrowed the example from Ralph and Veronika’s book – and it went really well. At the end of the 55-minute retro, I noticed something that reminded me of my beginnings with the solution-focused approach.

The team room is very small and has little free space on the walls (several boards and a free area for the projection). So I asked: “Where can we hang this?” “On the inside of the door, of course” came the immediate reply. When I saw the door, I looked worried (there were X layers of flipchart paper with lots of Post-It notes stuck to it). “We can tear it all down, it’s all old and we haven’t implemented anything” came from the team. Anyone who has worked in and with agile teams for a long time may be familiar with this and I was glad that we were able to clear the air together so easily.

On the way back to my office, I suddenly remembered a situation in February 2016. I remember the exact day. It was Tuesday, February 16, and I had been at the 66th Agile Monday in Nuremberg the previous evening. One of Ralph’s sentences still resonated with me: “The solution (usually) doesn’t care how the problem came about.”

Full of enthusiasm, I told every colleague on the way from the underground parking garage to my office how great the presentation was. I passed a small meeting room where two colleagues were standing in front of a large printout (plot) of an Ishikawa diagram and were very engrossed. As the door was open, I went in and asked:

“Well, does the Ishikawa get you anywhere?”

As the answer was not very convincing, I immediately presented my new insight: “The solution (usually) doesn’t care how the problem arose.” My colleagues looked at me, half horrified, half happy, and said: “We’ve been working on it for more than two days now and haven’t made any progress, even though we’ve put so much energy into it together with many colleagues.” It looked as if they were relieved to be able to stop. They immediately seemed a little more relaxed.

They followed up with something like: “We’ve always done it this way, but if we’re honest, nothing sustainable has ever come of it.” Then I said in my casual way: “If it doesn’t work (anymore), don’t do it and do something else.” After all, I had “absorbed” everything there was to say about it the night before.

Then I made my way back to my office. Some time later I passed the room again, it was empty and the Ishikawa was gone. Over lunch, one of the two colleagues told me how much effort they had put into these analyses and how little came out of them, or rather how exhausted they were afterwards, which meant that they were never able to derive any measures from them.

“We have understood you: Ditch the Ishikawa and focus on the solution(s).”

Over the next two days, all the Ishikawas disappeared from the walls. I haven’t heard anything about them since, nor have I heard anyone mourning even one of them.

What is much more important, however, is that my colleagues are now putting the “recovered” energy into ideas and solutions, asking “why” and daring to try things out more often. The “experiment” has become an even more important tool. To avoid giving the wrong impression: We are still at the very beginning when it comes to “solution-focused work”. After all, we are 200 colleagues working together on one application.

But we know that “patience and confidence” and the “power of small steps” are what will get us further. Looking back, I can say that “away with the Ishikawa” was the first, decisive and very important step for all of us towards a solution-focused approach. If you like, I can tell you all about what has happened in the meantime in further blog posts.

What is the Ishikawa diagram good for?

The name “C&E” (cause/s and effect/s) or “cause-effect diagram” explains quite well what it is all about, namely understanding the relationships between causes and effects. Where did Kaoru Ishikawa use the diagram himself? As one of the “Seven Tools of Quality”, also known as Q7, it is used to identify sources of problems in production with materials, methods, machines and people (= 4M). In other words, it is about problem source(s) and their elimination (= simple solution). Even if the extension to “8M” came later, it was never intended as a tool for complex topics or even complex systems in development. Accordingly, it is also unsuitable there. See Wikipedia disadvantages.

Where have I used it for complex topics anyway? In a PowerPoint presentation to present or explain solutions (which were developed with a focus on solutions) to an audience of American engineers. These people are used to C&E and understand the content more quickly and easily. In addition, I have added two arrows between “branches” to make the overarching connections at least partially visible. However, when using this approach, make sure that the emphasis remains on the solution!

0
0 Comments/by

Celebrating mistakes: Niki-learns-something-ball

Our Niki once enthusiastically wanted to help clear the Christmas tree. She grabbed a big white glittering glass ball and looked at me with a proud expression. “Look, mum… !” At the same moment, the ball landed on the floor and shattered. Niki stared dumbly at the shards and after a few seconds started to cry bitterly…

I walked slowly to her and put my hand on her back to comfort her. “Oops,” I said in a calm voice. “I didn’t mean to break the ball!” Niki sobbed quietly. “Hmmm… I’m quite sure you didn’t mean to,” I replied.

C for celebrating mistakes

As we stood there looking at the remains of the Christmas tree bauble, I suddenly remembered the third point of our SUCCESS model for team development, F for celebrating mistakes. “What are you going to do differently with the next bauble you take from the tree?” I asked my daughter. She looked at me blankly. “I’m not going to take another ball down. You do that now!” she said firmly. “That’s a shame!” I replied, ”Then the poor ball has been broken for nothing.” “For nothing? What do you mean?”

“Well,” I began to share my thoughts, ”if you now think about what you can do differently with the next ball, then this ball has taught you something. It will be something very special. A real Niki-learns-something-ball!” She thought about it for a while and then said: “I won’t look at you next time, but I’ll look at the ball while I’m holding it.” “That’s a good idea!” I said happily, ”Would you like to try it out right away?”

Niki nodded. First, we swept the broken pieces safely to one side. Then she carefully took the next bauble from the tree to carry it to the storage box and place it inside. From that moment on, she never took her eyes off a single piece of jewellery as long as she held it in her hands. When all the Christmas tree decorations were safely stowed away, we thanked the broken Niki-learns-something-ball and proudly took it to the garbage can together.

0
0 Comments/by