As I was writing this book, I was reminded of the many conversations I have had with peers, colleagues, and team facilitators about what makes the Co-Create model stand out and apart from other project management and change models. I have shared several strengths of the model already, but there are more. If you gain nothing else from this book, I hope that you find these elements of the model useful. You can overlay these with your current project management practices and improve results and engagement.
There are six features of the Co-Create model, two of which I have already outlined in the Introduction and earlier chapters. These six differentiating factors support our team culture and improve participation and ownership. They are:
• Tasks, teams, and individuals—our integrated approach as outlined in the Introduction.
• The four big ideas—outlined in Chapter 2.
• Team facilitation—effective facilitation is key to helping team members do their best work.
• Let the team work—trust the process to produce results.
• Visualization—seeing the entire system.
• Flexibility of form—we modify the application of the model to fit the project—not the other way around.
These practices are neither earth shatteringly different nor do they represent a breakthrough in business science. Used together, however, these six methods are powerful. Since I have already written about the first two on the list, integration and the big ideas we’ll focus on the latter four here.
The team facilitator is not a subject matter expert on the team, but he or she plays a vital role that goes well beyond making sure that meetings have agendas and everyone has a chance to speak. Our facilitators connect deeply so that they can proactively help the team excel in accomplishing tasks, teaming, and individual growth. The facilitator helps ensure the team and individual elements of the Co-Create model are developed as fully and intentionally as they need to be to complete the project.
You will notice that in the coming chapters, I offer specific tasks that the team tackles at each project phase of the model, but fewer that relate to the team or individual tracks. This is because each team is different and every project brings out a different dynamic. The facilitator closely monitors the team’s progress and will propose the approaches and tools he or she thinks might help the team the most. With the focus on what’s happening in the project phase, the majority of the time is spent there—this group exists to accomplish specific project objectives. That said, the facilitator has the responsibility to intervene as issues or needs surface related to teaming or an individual’s contributions. It is a key role for the facilitator.
Does every team need to have a facilitator? Yes, all major projects deserve, and need, a facilitator. By separating this function, we ensure that the facilitator is not encumbered by the temptation to guide the team toward getting to “their” right answer. In the past, we had facilitators who were also team members and this did not work well at all. When facilitators also own a part of the work, they struggle to remain open and fluid. As I mentioned previously, our team facilitators need to attend to the team and individual dynamics and not be sidetracked by other interests.
In addition to ensuring team and team member engagement, the facilitator helps the team create visual representations of their work throughout the project. They ensure that our sense of urgency or competing demands don’t result in shortcuts to the crucial exploration and definition aspects of the work. I will discuss the importance of our visual approach in the following.
Our team development process is experiential, versus training, driven. What I mean by this is that our teams learn how to be great teams by experience with the model. For example the team facilitator will help team members become better listeners in the course of team meetings and by having open discussions about the quality of their discussions. We help them work better together by facilitating conversations where they work things out.
To accomplish all these outcomes our facilitators need to be open, at times courageous, and driven to make teams better. Our team facilitator training process emphasizes the tools, practices, and beliefs that we know will help our teams succeed. The training program generally takes about a week to complete. The final six sessions are all skill-based training—the participants are up in front of the group getting experience and receiving feedback. Ideally the group size is six to eight with two trainers.
The components are:
1. How to conduct an orientation and planning session.
2. A deep review of the Co-Create model.
3. How to write a whitepaper and how to coach project owners (we devote an entire session to this topic).
4. Introduction to facilitation skills that cover our three project dimensions—the work, the team, and individuals.
5. How to help groups make effective decisions.
6. Creating commitment and participation.
7. Managing group conflict.
8. Facilitating effective meetings.
9. Using the core data gathering, organizing, and analysis tools.
10. Facilitating implementation planning and next steps.
It is an involved process teaching a complex task. We tell all our participants that doing this work is somewhat of an adventure. The good news is that they have a map of the territory and a good set of tools to work with. The bad news is that no two projects are alike and the actual terrain always contains differences from the map. What’s required is for the facilitator to use their best judgment about what to do next as the adventure unfolds. In many ways it’s best described as a practice—one with a body of knowledge associated with it, but requiring constant adjustment. The only way to build your team facilitation skills is to do it over and over again.
The project owner is a project team member—not a team leader. The team should not immediately defer to him or her for decisions. We work hard, with the help of the team facilitator, to ensure that the team does not feel overly influenced by the project owner. I realize that this might seem odd to you because the project owner, after all, OWNS the project.
I can remember one project owner who apparently viewed the Co-Create model as a great tool for getting everything HE wanted done. He had the solution figured out before the first meeting. This intention quickly became apparent to the group and they shut down. The team felt the project was “rigged” and that the owner was asking for their input when in reality he didn’t really want it. The team saw the truth—it was an act of manipulation not engagement. Yes, our teams accomplish great things, but every project must unfold naturally and generatively. We talked with him about our team approach and that although the project owner and sponsor draw up an initial scope and definition for each project in the white paper (Phase 1), the team then takes over to shape and execute the project together. Ultimately, this particular leader was not a good fit for our organization’s culture and he moved on.
The relationship between project owners and project teams runs two ways—both serve the other, both lead. The trick is in knowing when to lead and when to follow or collaborate. We have had project owners who needed to make adjustments to how they approached the team and how they participated as a team member. Our team facilitators are trained to spot potential issues and coach owners on how to prevent getting in the way of team progress.
The benefits of trust go beyond projects as well. Our managers learn how to lead in ways that open up and tap into talent. And they learn that although they often have great ideas about how projects ought to be completed, the team can and will consider more ideas, uncover more potential root causes, and create even better solutions that they are fully committed to.
You will see a couple of examples of our huge “as is” process maps. One diagram was 32 feet long and wrapped around several conference room walls! Many organizations use process mapping, mind mapping, and other visual analysis methods. The idea is not new, but perhaps you might find our approach helpful.
Our teams go big and deep with the visuals they create and we do not short-change the time it takes to get to the most meaningful level of understanding. It would be easy for a team to rationalize spending less time and taking less effort to map out project processes if most in the room thought they already had a clear understanding of it. Our experience tells us that what we think we understand is different than what we really understand.
Visual representations improve our understanding and increase team member buy-in. Seeing is believing and until we take the time to sketch out a solution or connect the dots within a complex process, we can’t fully move forward. The time is well spent. Figure A.1 shows an example from the discovery phase of a project where we redesigned our assortment management process. On the left, we mapped the current workflow and indicated specific pain points with the starbursts. The team also gathered artifacts representing the different reports and documents (along with the system that generated it) that are used to support the decision making involved in this process. This exercise helped the team see that accessibility and availability of information was a major barrier. This then set up the next phase, Co-Create the Ideal, where a completely new software solution was created to make the information available in real time, in one place, and down to the detail needed by the merchants. The team created this visual over two meetings, with individuals working on certain pieces of it outside the meetings.
Visual analysis also improves team development. Everyone gets involved and the room feels electric. Team members are up at the boards adding content and pointing to areas of conflict—it introduces a physical connection to the work (see Figure A.1). This increases retention and understanding. When posted on the wall or on a screen, these visuals prompt better discussions and questions and clearly reveal gaps, overlaps, inadequacies, and new possibilities. They also live on in the conference room where the group is meeting for the duration of the project. This is valuable because it provides a touchstone—it is easily accessed to review or remind the group about some aspect of the data.
Visual Analysis Graphic
Whether you fully implement the Co-Create model or not, I recommend you allow ample time for your project teams to go big and deep with visual tools. This practice benefits the work and the team relationships.
Flexible Form
I am often asked about the templates we use for the various tasks that teams complete throughout the six phases of the Co-Create model. Many have seemed surprised with my answer. We have very few templates at all and, in fact, resist requesting standard forms, templates, or standard outlines.
Each team decides how they want to analyze, document, measure, and communicate their work with the facilitators’ guidance. Their approaches are based on the project, the team, and the situation. For example, the white paper for one project looked like a marketing brochure while other teams have used simple text or presentation formats. The points they cover are similar (see Chapter 4) but the included information can and does vary.
Figure A.1 Visual analysis example
We focus on the quality of the work, period. If the team is doing their best work and if tasks, roles, measures, and outcomes are clear, why should we micromanage their work processes and products? Some people argue that having a template will save time and help teams be more efficient. We believe that there is little value in requiring teams to use certain formats for their work, dictating HOW tasks are done would violate our underlying beliefs. It would be inconsistent for us to tell our teams that they own creating and launching this project, but that report needs to look a certain way. To create a strong culture, we need to walk our talk with our purpose and beliefs.
This approach, like others I have shared, has a positive impact on project-related work. We are driven by results, not formality. Our flexible work practices have improved employee engagement and ownership.
Considerations for Leaders
The six differentiating factors of the Co-Create model come together to create the “secret sauce” of our approach. Our leaders not only support these approaches, they own them. And this is an important point of distinction. The “trust in the process” idea, for example, is hollow and meaningless unless leaders believe that this is the right way to work and they show it through consistent words, actions, and decisions.
Conclusion
This is the essence of the Co-Create model and what makes it both unique and incredibly effective. When I think about the results we get from our project teams, I am amazed. But then I remember the power of these approaches and the talent and dedication of our team members and facilitators and it all makes perfect sense. For our team members, it is considered a good thing to work on a project because they know they are helping to change and improve the business.
In the coming chapters, you will see how these differentiators are manifested throughout the six phases of the model. The bottom line is that if you select the right ones, a few changes can make a big difference and help your teams work and relate at a higher level.
“If we’re growing we’re always going to be out of our comfort zone”
—John Maxwell