Plan your work and work your plan. Let’s begin your journey with planning (novel idea?).
What is the difference between a strategic plan, a department plan, a product plan, a project plan, a team plan, and so on? Primarily, scope. The word “plan” can be defined with three words (preferably five), namely “who does what” (by when)—that’s a plan. The same logic extends throughout an organization. Every business group needs answers to the nine questions listed in the “Basic Planning Agenda” section that follows. This chapter shows you how to facilitate consensual agreement around those answers for any group.
Modify the following Planning Approach to define organizational direction when your group needs to build consensus around its priorities and initiatives. A robust Planning Approach defines vision factors, success measures, actions, and responsibilities. Further, the Planning Approach also does the following:
While a planning session’s input begins with why a group exists, the output documents what team members agree to do. A primarily narrative document, plans may be augmented with . . .
Planning workshops require more facilitation skills because of personality challenges and other biases. Carefully control your operational definitions for critical terms (Mission versus Vision, goals versus objectives, and so on) and how they fit together to form a strategic or other type of plan before launching your planning session.
Observe that in the Basic Agenda I have used a lighter gray type for traditional terms like Mission and used black type to emphasize the critical words (why do we show up?)—the primary questions being answered during each Agenda Step.
NOTE: Much confusion exists about the difference between Mission and Vision. Here’s why. Academic textbooks typically follow the sequence I use, including defining the terms by the questions being answered. The military-industrial complex also sequences the questions in the same order I use but defines the associated terms differently.
For example, the US Armed Forces define Vision as the answer to the question, “Why do we show up?,” and they define Mission as the answer to the question, “Where are we going?” Professional meeting designers remain agnostic and may use either sequence based on what is normally used by the culture being served. Keep in mind that the sequence of the questions does not change for either group. Both cultures need to know why they show up before they talk about where they are going.
For purposes of this book, Mission will be defined as “why we are here,” and Vision will be defined as “where we are going.” I leave it up to you to make the necessary adjustments based on the culture of the organization for which you are facilitating.
This Basic Planning Agenda can be used at any level in the holarchy—anytime a group of people needs to define who does what. If you are facilitating strategic plans for organizations, business units, and significant departments, proceed with the agenda as shown, including Mission, Values, and Vision.
For other types of teams, including team charters for products and projects, substitute the Purpose Tool (chapter 7) instead of using Mission, Values, and Vision. Either tactic creates a sense of direction upon which you build the Key Measures such as objectives and goals. After completing either the Mission, Values, and Vision or the Purpose Tool, every team needs answers to questions from the other Agenda Steps, namely:
The detailed instructions and procedures that follow may be easily modified to accommodate your culture and preferences. There is more than one right way to facilitate any Planning Approach. More important, however, there is a wrong way. The wrong way surfaces when you don’t know how to use or have not fully prepared a procedure.
NOTE: I will illustrate the Planning Approach Agenda Steps using a fictitious greenfield company called THRIVE LLC. THRIVE provides for-profit products and services to residential households, intending to make household and family activities and resources easier to manage. Occasionally, I will also reference the sport of mountaineering. Either may be used as an analogy to illustrate deliverables from the Agenda Steps covered over the next few dozen pages.
When explaining the agenda during the meeting Launch, provide a parallel path of change via analogy. Analogies help protect your neutrality while bringing to life the sequence and connections of Agenda Steps.
The Mission Agenda Step contains a unique challenge because Mission ad-dresses why we show up. We could show up for any reason we want. The reason for showing up establishes the foundation for your analogy, helping you link each Agenda Step back to the meeting deliverable. I encourage you to work with an analogy around which you have a personal passion.
For example, if you love baking, the analogy could be a designer cake. If you love scrapbooking, the analogy could be an award-winning scrapbook. Or, in the analogy chosen for table 6.1, we love mountaineering, and therefore reaching the summit.
Refer to your analogy to help explain the purpose of each Agenda Step. The analogy guides smoother transitions as to why the Agenda Steps are listed in the sequence shown. Although I picked a sport (some people are turned off by sports), I selected a gender-neutral, generic sport with a clear deliverable, reaching the summit.
Please accept my apologies in advance for the upcoming “mixed metaphor” because I will also use THRIVE LLC for examples, to provide analogous explanations with “business-like” conditions.
For strategic planning especially, assess a composite view of answers to the following six questions (see table 6.2). Gauge your group in advance so that you can better estimate how much you might get done, how quickly (or not), and how much resistance you will encounter.
Liberally modify the questions yourself and add others that establish a feeling for the culture. I strongly encourage you to keep participant contributions anonymous. Aggregate results and display them in a chart when sharing your findings.
Use the seven-activity sequence for Launch (chapter 5). Remember that the Launch is the “preachy” part for a meeting facilitator. My own Annotated Agenda for a Launch is always around three pages. If you want to rehearse anything, try explaining the white space behind your Agenda Steps—why are they there? Contextual control provides a terrific opportunity to develop confidence among your participants.
Table 6.1. Mountaineering Analogy
Agenda Step |
Corresponding Analogy |
Mission Why do we show up? |
We choose to show up because we love mountaineering. |
Values Who are we, and how do we treat one another? |
We could be young and vibrant with no cash, or more mature and experienced with lots of money. What do we carry with us? Young people have ropes and value rappelling. More mature people have Sherpas who carry ladders, among other stuff. |
Vision Where are we going? |
Which peak are we going to ascend? Young people may choose the south peak because they don’t have much time. Mature people may choose the north side with switchbacks that enable them to use their ladders and stop for comfortable breaks. |
Key Measures What are our measures or indicators of progress in reaching the Vision? |
There are three types of criteria: SMART—Be at 5,000 meters suspended in our sleeping bags before the storm blows in at 3 p.m. (objective). Fuzzy—Get some nice photographs when we reach the summit (subjective or aspirational such as a goal). Binary—Did we reach the summit or not (critical consideration)? |
Current Situation What is our current situation of things we control and do not control? |
TO-WS analysis (showing the youthful mountaineers): Externally Controlled External Threat—avalanche External Opportunity—a “break” in the weather Internally Controlled Internal Weakness—few supplies Internal Strength—stamina and flexibility |
Actions—What to Do Given our Current Situation, what do we agree to do to reach our Key Measures placed as milestones to ensure we reach our Vision? |
Young people—They are going to rappel up the south side of the face of the mountain to quickly reach the summit so that they can return to base camp before they run out of supplies. |
Alignment Are those the right Actions and enough Actions to ensure we reach or exceed our Key Measures? |
Do they have enough rope? If the young people are rappelling 100 meters but only have 50 meters of rope, let’s find out before they take off so we can adjust either the path or the amount of rope. |
Assignments Who is doing What? |
Who is carrying the rope? |
Communications Plan What do we tell the world about what we completed here? |
Phone home before they make their ascent in the morning when the weather is predicted to be calm. |
Table 6.2. Pre-session Survey for Strategic Planning
Among employees, what is the balance between anxiety and hope? |
||||||||
Mostly |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
Mostly anxiety hope |
How does senior management’s point of view about the future compare to that of competitors and other industry experts? |
||||||||
Conventional |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
Distinctive and reactive and far-sighted |
To what extent are we engineering the present or designing the future? |
||||||||
Mostly an engineer |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
Mostly an architect or a designer |
What amount of our efforts focus on catching up versus setting up our own future vision? |
||||||||
Mostly a |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
Mostly a rule-taker rule-maker |
What amount of our efforts focus on catching up with competitors versus building new industry advantages? |
||||||||
Mostly |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
Mostly catch-up new stuff |
Which issues absorb senior management’s attention? |
||||||||
Re-engineering |
|
• |
• |
• |
• |
• |
|
Regenerating core processes core strategies |
Note: If your marks lean to the left or in the middle, your organization may be spending too much time preserving the past and not enough time and energy strategizing a new future. |
NOTE: For multiple-day workshops, cover the same items at the start of the subsequent day. Additionally, review content that was built the preceding day or days and reinforce how that relates to the progress being made completing the deliverable.
Before you begin your meeting Launch, have your physical or virtual room set up to provide a visual display of the meeting purpose, scope, and deliverable. Let me repeat that if you do not know what the deliverable looks like, then you do not know what success looks like.
Follow these activities in this sequence for a robust start:
Mission defines the why of any business area or organizational scope. For me, the definition is brief, like a slogan, so that it is never forgotten, Mission represents an action-oriented expression of an organization’s reason for existence. When explaining, link back to your analogy.
Mission expresses why the participants, or group, or organization show up—the purpose and reason for their existence.
The Mission expression provides the foundation upon which other Planning Approach Agenda Steps are built. Each subsequent Agenda Step refers to the Mission expression (as purpose), ensuring harmony with the Mission of the group and organization. Mission documents why an organization exists, vitally linking it to subsequent Agenda Steps.
HINT: Mission expresses why. Why are we here? Why are we doing this? I recommend a concise expression that could fit on a bumper sticker or T-shirt. Servant leaders strive to ensure that Mission balances both the head (will), the heart (wisdom), and the hands (activity).
You need to carefully determine what does your deliverable look like when you are DONE. Will it be a sentence, a paragraph, or a bumper sticker? Will it be brief and snappy like an axiom, or fully described? There is no single right answer; the wrong answer is not to know.
The following lists aggregate comments made by dozens of “experts” on strategic planning. Clearly, the characteristics of Mission expressions vary tremendously. Use the following and embrace what resonates with you:
Characteristics
Clarity
A Mission expression is not . . .
Length (if people can’t remember a Mission expression, it serves only as a wall decoration)
Ease of recall
Next determine the questions you deem most appropriate to have your group answer. The Mission expression traditionally distills answers to the following, textbook MBA prompts:
Other academic styles apply similar logic:
Building a Mission expression can also be fun because you can use any questions that you think will benefit your group. Think about what you want your group members to know about one another, their situation, their conditions, and their stakeholders.
To avoid the “common deliverable” that makes many companies sound exactly like their competitors, consider the alternative questions that follow. Especially for team charters and other planning efforts, find the passion, rather than using the textbook MBA questions (everyone wants to grow and provide quality service). What truly makes your group unique? Why do they really show up?
Find the passion:
You can modify questions to work with any group. Michael Barrett, of Resonance LLC, uses the following questions with boards of directors of nonprofits. He emphasizes that in one meeting, when directors shared their illustrations with one another, some were moved to tears.
Other topical areas you might explore include these:
To facilitate a Mission, I use Brainstorming, Coat of Arms, and Breakout Teams Tools, whose explanations follow. After the next Agenda Step (Values), we will look at the Scrubbing, Defining, and Categorizing Tools.
Display, distribute, or post the questions that you have selected.
Begin to appreciate the circuitous challenge of meeting design. It would be much easier to forget structure, sit around, and have a discussion. But how’s that working out for you?
The meeting designer’s life is never easy. I could go even further and use PowerBalls or Perceptual Mapping (Tools for prioritization) to prioritize input for the Mission expression, but for now, let’s keep it painless; PowerBalls and Perceptual Mapping are explained in chapter 7.
The Coat of Arms Tool may be used for the Listing activity of Brainstorming when there is more than one question to answer. However, while especially useful for Mission expressions, time box (set a time limit) a Mission expression. Mission expressions can be highly emotional—so do not expect them to conclude smoothly or quickly.
Ask for volunteers to take time after this session concludes and return at some future time or date to share some expressions for all participants to consider. When reconvening, try to post the original Coats of Arms to stimulate and remind participants about their original answers.
It’s difficult to distill the passion and verve of any group, organization, or team into very few words. However, by my standards, the following (at some point in time) reflected Mission quite well:
Figure 6.1. Nuclear Disarmament Symbol
CAUTION: Mission expressions should be time-boxed. There are horror stories of groups that went off-site for a few days and never completed the first step of their agenda, Mission. Crafting the perfect Mission expression is not easy. Nor should it be expected during the first attempt.
Don’t hesitate to ask for two or three volunteers to take output from the initial exercise as an assignment when the session has completed. Have them go away and craft candidate Mission expressions to bring back to the group at a future session for consideration. Allow the power of gestation to work for your group. Their final Mission expression may take a few months, or longer, but continue to revisit the updated drafts until one version resonates with everyone.
When you have assigned, documented, or drafted a Mission expression, and with the group’s assent, apply your analogy and move the agenda indicator4 for a smooth transition to the next Agenda Step, Values—answering the question, “who are we?”
Effective meeting design is clearly not effortless—but the rest of this book will make it much easier for you. I will recommend using Brainstorming, Coat of Arms, Breakout Teams, and so on dozens of times throughout the book, so . . .
A frequently abused and nebulous term, “brainstorming” is right up there with “process,” “system,” and “user experience.” Brainstorming is the means to an end. It is not a verb. You cannot “brainstorm” something if you are using the technique of the creator, Alex Osborn.5 You can, however, list, analyze, and then decide—or, using terms preferred by academics, diverge, analyze, and converge. Therefore, the trichotomous term (sorry) “brainstorming” should never be listed as an Agenda Step. To be successful, you must clearly envision the output from your Agenda Step before you apply Brainstorming activities.
Table 6.3. Trichotomy of Will, Wisdom, and Activity
Trichotomy |
Will |
Wisdom |
Activity |
Brainstorming |
List |
Analyze |
Decide |
Transformation |
Thought |
Word |
Deed |
Reflectionist |
WHAT |
SO WHAT |
NOW WHAT |
NOTE: The trichotomy unfolds transformation from the abstract to the concrete. Note the similarities of three different Tools in table 6.3. Brainstorming may be used to develop anything. Brainstorming intends to give us more information to use in a shorter amount of time by leveraging the power of groups. However, lists by themselves can be frustrating, since consensual answers never simply “pop out” of the wall or screen (flat-land).
Successful Brainstorming depends on thorough analysis. Creating, typing, or writing down lists is the easy part. The hard part is understanding what you are going to do with the list—the hard part is the analysis.
When facilitating, the Analysis and Decide activities provide significant challenges. Yet most people equate the term “brainstorming” with the Listing activity alone, and that is not Osborn’s definition, intent, or meaning.6 Osborn created the term in 1953, describing it as “a structured way of breaking out of structure.”
Brainstorming requires three discrete activities. Each could represent separate Agenda Steps:
Quickly list candidate items—do not talk about the merits of them or, in fact, have any discussion at all. Keep the energy high. Select from the following ideation rules as appropriate. Do not, as most facilitators do, become the first violator by asking for more information about an item, requiring further definition, mentioning that “we already have that,” or starting any inquiry. As the expression goes, “Is there any part of the word ‘no’ in the rule ‘no discussion’ that you don’t understand?”
The first two rules specific to Listing are sacrosanct. If you monitor these two closely, you don’t need any other Listing rules. The other Listing rules below may be helpful but are only supplemental. Remember, if you start or allow any comments or discussion during the Listing activity, you are not doing Brainstorming.
There are various activities for Listing and gathering input, such as the following:
NOTE: Consider time-boxing your ideation activity if necessary, typically in the range of 5–10 minutes. However, if you fastidiously enforce the “high-energy” rule, you will discover that most groups cannot maintain high energy around a single question for more than 6–8 minutes.
Consensual understanding provides the foundation for all analysis. Analyzing comprises 80 percent of the Brainstorming effort. Listing is quick, as we just saw. Therefore, first “scrub” the lists and validate the clarity. Challenge participants as to why they contributed an item. Scrubbing may be quick or demand analyzing each item to determine
To analyze successfully, you must first know what you are building. Know in advance what you are going to do with the list—what questions to ask and how you are going to clean up and document the final list.
Thorough analysis frequently requires input from more than one Listing activity. For example, Deciding and Alignment require purpose, options, and criteria. Assigning requires who and what. Situation Analysis requires understanding the resources that we control and factors we don’t control.
Rely on the Analyzing activity (and all other Tools) to do the work for you. Rely on and trust the procedure, not your content knowledge. Participants may never arrive at your answer, but they will create a solution they can all understand and will support.
Thorough and complete analysis frequently relies on building some type of matrix. The Analysis activity sets up the matrix. The Deciding or converging activities document consensual findings resulting from the analysis your group set up by completing the matrix.
While I always remain hesitant about letting any tool make our decision for us, tools will frequently enhance focus by getting a group to agree on what not to consider or what not to talk about anymore. Tools help groups deselect. After deselection, most decisions are win-win because the remaining options may all be robust enough to secure everyone’s support. We have rid ourselves of the weak options and the noise they generate that causes distractions in meetings.
At this point, your definition of consensus becomes critical. We may not be able to find a solution that is everyone’s favorite. In fact, we usually won’t. We may even develop a solution that is not anyone’s favorite. But we have facilitated consensus by building an agreement, decision, or solution that everyone will support while not causing anyone to lose any sleep or withdraw their support.
Therefore, on a separate screen or sheet of paper, document the final list, output, or choice depending on what type of deliverable you have built. Confirm buy-in with your participants, securing an audible response from each participant as an outward sign of agreement and support. In highly contentious and politically charged situations, I’ve even circulated an 8.5-by-11-inch or A4-sized sheet of paper and required each participant to sign or initial.
Plan Brainstorming ahead of time. Write down your precise question or questions before starting. Have a clear understanding of what you are building (a list of options, criteria, or whatever it is) before you start. Other cautions to heed include avoiding these pitfalls:
Using Breakout Teams captures more information in less time and helps you overcome the monotony of relying too much on group Listings. Consider Breakout Teams whenever you are gathering information and ideas, typically where more is better.
NOTE: When building consensus, it is frequently best, however, to defer your Analysis activity until all teams have returned and assembled as one integrated group.
NOTE: Be creative. Other ways to assign teams include birth order position, latitude of birthplace, mountain peaks, rivers, constellations, land features, mythical gods, historical icons, hobby or game themes (for example, sports), places, emotional categories, entertainment icons, and hobbies. If you want them to be creative, then walk the talk. For larger groups, consider using the day of the week you were born (making sure it can be looked up if they don’t know), name of their first pet, first concert they attended, and so on.
Any time you seek answers to more than one question, Coat of Arms can be used during the Listing activity of Brainstorming. Use Coat of Arms whenever you have multiple questions. The Coat of Arms is especially helpful when developing input for brief Mission or Vision expressions for any group or business. Always use in conjunction with Breakout Teams, thus creating more than one Coat of Arms.
Provide participants or teams with written and posted questions along with pre-drawn templates for their Coats of Arms. Partition each Coat of Arms into the same quantity of sections as you have questions. Typically carve out three to seven sections with a discrete corresponding question for each section.
Values define the principles or internal rules, laws, policies, and philosophies of their conduct—the “stuff” we carry with us and value. To me they answer simply, “Who are we?” Weave your analogy into your introductory remarks.
You will also see Values labeled with different terms by organizations, such as “credo,” “professional code,” and “tenets of operation.” Completed Values may be displayed as lists, paragraphs, sentences, and so on.
DEFINED: Values describe who we are by defining “how we will work together” for the business, in support of our Mission. Some consider Values as ideals that lend significance to our lives, that are reflected through the priorities we choose, and that we act on consistently and repeatedly.10
Values may support:
Values may be narrative descriptions of policies or philosophies. They may be full-sentence descriptions or phrases. Keep in mind that groups can identify both descriptive values (we are this way and walk the talk) and prescriptive values (hopes and aspirations). The former is associated with traditional management, while the latter is more associated with servant leadership.
NOTE: Ken Blanchard asserts that an organization should limit itself to three values. Employees will not remember more than three. And if employees cannot remember their Values, then why build them?11
Values define “who we are” or “the things to which we stay true.” Values provide foundation for all Agenda Steps. Eventually, we will review and validate output from the remaining Agenda Steps as harmonizing and supporting the Mission and Values, sometimes referred to collectively as the Guiding Principles.
Values do not have to be short statements, but what is easier to remember? Values may be full sentences (as the examples below), but they should always capture an articulate sense of “how we will work together.”
NOTE: Values are best remembered as bullet points or brief sentences. When combined as paragraph expressions, they are much more difficult to remember.
At this point, when you have documented Values with the group’s assent, apply your analogy and move the agenda indicator for a smooth transition to Vision—an explanation about where we are headed.
Categorizing creates clusters or chunks of related items so that groups can sharpen their focus. Similar terms describing the same logic include “affinity,” “chunking,” “clustering,” “distilling,” “grouping,” and so on. To roll up or distill any list or group of Mural or Miro items, Post-its, or other forms of multiple items, Categorizing provides both detailed procedure and the logic behind the rationale for categorizing most things: common purpose.
Categorizing eliminates redundancies by collapsing related items into chunks (scientific term). Labels or triggers that represent the titles for your chunks can be easily reused in flow diagrams, matrices, or other visual displays, making it easier for groups to analyze complex relationships.
NOTE: Never ask the group how to categorize. They don’t know how. That is why they engaged you. Explain the tool and teach them the logic of common purpose when it becomes necessary to group items.
Categorizing can take little or much time, depending on how much precision is required, how much time is available, and relative importance. After ideas have been gathered, preferably using Breakout Teams, do the following:
Take the lists created during your ideation activity and underscore the common nouns (typically the object in a sentence that is preceded by a predicate or a verb). Use a distinct color marker or shape12 for each group of nouns, and have the team add any synonyms or similar expressions that capture the intent for each group of items underscored.
Ask a volunteer to take one grouping of underscored items (at a time) and provide a term or phrase (category) that combines, integrates, and reflects the sentiment of all the items underscored in that specific color (or shape).
Write the new term or phrase (category) on a separate page or screen. Use the Definition Tool to reinforce clarity if participants require better understanding.
Return to the original list—ask, confirm, and then delete items that now collapse into the new expression that you rewrote during the Transpose activity above.
After each new category, before moving on, don’t forget to ask, “Which other items not underscored also belong to this category?” If so, delete those items or parts of them as well.
Allow your group to focus on remaining items that have not been eliminated and decide whether they require unique expressions, need further explanation, or can be deleted.
For each item not underscored or remaining, consider asking “Why ?” Items that share common purpose may be categorized together. Create a new category if they remain unique or delete them if they are inconsequential.
Everyone witnesses building the final list, which now belongs to everyone, rather than being associated with one team or another. The original team contributions should be discarded once the group confirms that the sentiment has been effectively captured with the newly written term or phrase.
NOTE: Always cross out and rewrite listed items so that there is one final list when you are complete. Everyone should witness the rewrite and now become an owner. Ideas should not belong to the contributor, and if you keep the original version, it will always belong to the person or team who wrote it.
Before transitioning, review the new expressions (categories) and confirm that team members understand and will support them. Let team members know that they can add to the categories later, but if they are comfortable as is, move on, since the new categories may be reused later.
You are helping your group move raw input into a refined output on a new sheet or screen. Deleting their raw input when rewritten makes it easier to focus on the items not yet deleted. When the new categories are documented, with everyone present, it also transfers ownership because everyone witnesses and participates in creating the new categories (expressions).
The primary reason for categories of things is common purpose. Look at how we organize in businesses. Walk around an office building and you will see that people are grouped together, organized around “things.” They are not organized around verbs.
Treasury personnel are organized around financial assets. Human resources are organized around human capital. Sales and marketing are organized around customers. Everybody performs the same verbs. They all plan, acquire resources, do their work, and control for the work they’ve done. What gives rise to the separation or categorization is symptomatic of the nouns or resources but the driving force behind the categories of most things is simply common purpose. Engineering has common purpose around products. The Enterprise Project / Program Management Office (EPMO) has common purpose around projects—and so on.
If there are arguments or uncertainty about which category something belongs, simply challenge the group with “Which purpose does it best support?”
People visually perceive items, not in isolation, but as part of a larger whole. These principles include human tendencies toward common purpose. Other, less common reasons for the “categories of things” may include these:
It is hard enough to get a family of four to agree on where to go out to eat, much less getting a group of directors, executives, and managers to agree on where they want to drive their organization.
Vision defines the direction of an organization by providing details about where the organization wants to go. Vision should appeal to both the head and the heart, supporting the question, “Why change?” A clear expression of the future helps to gain genuine commitment. Illustrate your definition with your analogy.
A Vision is a desired position specified in sufficient detail so that an organization knows when they reach the Vision. A consensual Vision provides direction and motivation for change. Optimally, a Vision should be specific enough to differentiate your organization from competitors.
A few clearly defined expressions or a brief paragraph 25–75 words in length. Consider beginning with “We aspire . . .”
Vision anchors the forthcoming Measures Agenda Step by expressing where your organization is headed. When thoroughly constructed, Visions:
Asking “Where have you been?” is too broad to effectively stimulate. Consider the dozens of Perspectives (chapter 8) to provide additional input that aggregates into a broader, overreaching Vision, a view that considers the evidence and facts arising from answers to questions such as these:
The following is an example for the organizational Vision at THRIVE LLC:
We aspire that contractors, developers, and homeowners will order THRIVE products and services before their new home construction or renovation begins. Residential families will begin to THRIVE before they take occupancy of their property. They will view us as a trustworthy partner as they begin their new life, in a place they may consider foreign, but we will help them occupy as familiar so that they THRIVE and feel like home.
This Agenda Step concludes when you have an expression or paragraph that the group believes captures the target or Vision of where they want to go. Confirm enough detail that they can recognize the target, and would all agree when they get there. Use your analogy and move the agenda indicator for a smooth transition to Key Measures, setting goals and objectives (milestones) along the path toward reaching the Vision.
Temporal Shift helps groups agree on where to go or be at some point in the future. It is much easier to ask and build consensus around “Where have you been?” or “What type of legacy have you left behind?” than to ask, “Where would you like to go?”
Temporal Shift defines a specific forward-looking view (Vision) of a group or organization in sufficient detail so that a group or organization can easily agree when they reach it (or not). Subsequent planning efforts direct attention toward reaching the Vision. Looking forward, shaping curves, or Vision help determine the optimal goals, objectives, and measures.
NOTE: When you have them pretend they are on a beautiful beach sometime in the future and pick up a periodical displaying a headline about their efforts, what you are really asking them is “What is the legacy you have left behind as a result of the effort you began back in this meeting?” See the following website for today’s headlines worldwide, which could also be printed and given to team members, thus providing tactile stimulation: https://www.freedomforum.org/todaysfrontpages/.
This Agenda Step defines what the organization will Measure to determine its progress reaching its Vision. Relate each of the three measurement types explained here back to your analogy.
The deliverable from this Agenda Step may be called by many names:
There are three general types of criteria: (1) SMART (specific, measurable, adjustable, relevant, time-based), (2) fuzzy, and (3) binary. In the most common vernacular, these three types correspond with objectives, goals, and considerations. An objective “measure” is a standard unit used to express the size, amount, or degree of something.
An objective is a desired position reached by Actions within a specified time. Objectives provide measurable performance indication and are commonly made SMART.15 With shorter duration than goals, they may be viewed as milestones en route to reaching goals.
A goal is a directional expression that may remain fuzzy or subjective to each observer . Although a goal may not be technically SMART, it is directional and on a long-term basis, a deep-reaching, fuzzy criterion, or a measurement that might decompose into multiple objectives (or key results).
A consideration is a binary (yes or no) management issue, constraint, or concern that will affect reaching the Vision .
Clearly defined Measures or success criteria including a range of objectives, goals, and other considerations.
Key Measures enable using measurements to calculate progress and the distance from reaching the Vision. Measures provide milestones that enable your group to better shape and define the most appropriate strategies, activities, or tactics (what to do to reach the vision).
Use the ideation activity of Brainstorming to draft and specify candidate Key Measures. See the Scorecard Tool (chapter 7) for additional detailed analytical support and scripting when analyzing Measures.
CAUTION: When purchasing a new vehicle, you may seek ample leg-room in the back seat. What is the unit of measurement for ample leg-room? If someone says “inches,” are we talking about linear inches, square inches, cubic inches, or a tesseract?
If linear inches, measured from what point to what point? For this exercise we need to know “linear inches measured from rear middle of the parallel seat in row one when fully upright to the front of seat where the knees bend in the second row” (or whatever we are told the measurement is). We do not need to know how it is measured, whether using a tape measure or a laser scope.
Be careful in your organization to document the source of the data. For example, if the unit of measure is “barrels of oil,” where are we obtaining the data? Which report? Which line item? We do not want participants to argue later over dissimilar sources of data.
The following discussion uses both THRIVE LLC and mountaineering as examples. Draw upon your own analogy for illustrative support.
THRIVE LLC objectives (SMART):
THRIVE LLC goals (fuzzy):
THRIVE LLC considerations (binary):
Provide a legend that explains the icons you will use to code their input (using mountaineering to illustrate). You will also need a legend or artifact that defines SMART:
Keep a Key Measures legend visible and easily accessible until you complete the Actions (such as strategies, projects, and activities) and Alignment activities later. The team will need to refer to Key Measures to justify proposed Actions and to clarify, add, or delete Actions.
Script your analogy by relating your analog to the three types of Key Measures. What measurements indicate progress toward reaching the Vision? Measures are appealed to continuously when analyzing the Current Situation to determine the most optimal Actions.
When the SMART measures have been fully built, and the non-SMART measures have been defined, close this Agenda Step. Move the agenda indicator to the next Agenda Step, Current Situation (also known as Situation Analysis). Emphasize that Key Measures are created to provide indication of progress toward reaching the Vision.
Keep this Definition Tool in your hip pocket and be prepared to use it whenever you encounter discord over the meaning of something. You may also need this Tool when you manage open issues (Parking Lot, chapter 5) and during your Review and Wrap if your participants do not agree or cannot remember what something meant.
Facilitators need a robust and objective Tool for defining terms, phrases, and other “things” mentioned by subject(ive) matter experts. The standards listed are demanding and include five separate activities.
I created this unique Tool to quickly build consensual agreement around words, terms, and phrases. However, for concepts like processes, a more extensive and illustrative Meeting Approach like Activity Flows (Process Decomposition)16 might be required.
When a term or phrase requires further definition or understanding, never rely exclusively on dictionary definitions.17 Instead, facilitate the group’s definition with the following five questions or activities:
Quantitative TO-WS (Threats, Opportunities, Weaknesses, and Strengths) Analysis reviews the Current Situation and is more frequently referred to as SWOT Analysis. While rare in use, I find TO-WS more appropriate, for these reasons:
I developed my Quantitative TO-WS Analysis in 1994 while attending Northwestern’s Kellogg Graduate School of Management because, unlike the four-list style, Quantitative TO-WS Analysis . . .
As this Agenda Step develops you will see how easy it should be to apply your personal analogy.
NOTE: Time and time again, my students with MBAs and PhDs have commented that for them, two “lightbulbs” turned on with my structured planning that had never been clear in school:
A numerical analysis that describes the Current Situation, Quantitative TO-WS makes it possible to prioritize hundreds of options (Actions). TO-WS Analysis helps groups visualize their current situation and prioritize hundreds of potential Actions on a single page or screen.
NOTE: Previously we have relied on words (narrative), icons (symbols), and drawings (illustrations). Because we confront hundreds of potential strategies, initiatives, products, or projects, the numeric Tool that I use here makes it easy to deselect weak options and focus energies on the best options.
This Tool describes the Current Situation by developing shared understanding that supports what Actions a group should embrace so that they reach their Key Measures (chapter 6), such as objectives (SMART), goals (fuzzy), and considerations (binary).
A quantitative view of the Current Situation displays the foundation for justifying Actions. Actions that currently work well are potentially reinforced and renewed alongside new Actions that get approved and developed.
The term used to describe Actions will change depending on your level in the holarchy. For example, an organization will refer to Actions as strategies, a business unit may call them initiatives, a department or program office may call their Actions new products or new projects, and a product or project team may call them activities or tasks. For each group respectively, the term used represents what the group is going to do to reach its Key Measures that were established to ensure that the group achieves its Vision (chapter 6).
The Current Situation provides consensual descriptions of the following:
This Agenda Step may be completed one of two ways:
Figure 6.2. Blank TO-WS Worksheet
I call this analysis TO-WS because most experts agree this is the best sequence to consider:
To conduct this analysis, do the following:
NOTE: While the four-list style for Situation Analysis is normally called SWOT, technically, there are only two lists, both with a positive and a negative end of their continuum. If the factor is external and you do not control it, by definition it must be a threat or an opportunity (TO). If the factor is internal and you control it, by definition it must be a weakness or a strength (WS).
REMEMBER: NEVER allow a group to define an internally controllable weakness as an opportunity for improvement. If it is controllable, by definition it is a weakness and not an opportunity.
CRITICAL NOTE: Carefully enforce the operational level in your holarchy and meeting scope, because the strengths and weaknesses must be within control of this group, not simply the company or organization. For example, a department may not control its budget, so financial resources may be viewed as a threat to the group because they do not control the budget or financial assets.
Some questions to generate threats include these:
NOTE: Some factors might include new or existing competitors, competitive alternatives, slowing market growth, adverse government policies, vulnerability to recession and macroeconomic factors, changing buyer needs or tastes, adverse demographic changes, and so on—but do not bias participants with content.
Some questions to generate opportunities include these:
NOTE: Some candidates might include new market opportunities, complacency among rivals, market growth, exogenous economic factors, regulatory trends, supply channel technology, vertical integration, and so on—but do not bias participants with content.
Some questions to generate weaknesses:
NOTE: Some candidates might include lack of strategic direction, obsolete facilities, lack of management depth, operating issues, underperforming R&D, narrow product line, brand image, distribution network, marketing, financial prowess, excessive cost basis, and so on—but do not bias participants with content.
Some questions to generate strengths:
NOTE: Some candidate strengths might include financial resources, purchasing power, economies of scale, patents, proprietary technology, cost advantage, brand image, marketing, product innovation, experience, and so on—but do not bias participants with content.
Figure 6.3. Illustrative One-Person TO-WS Worksheet
NOTE: Participants should think about each cell in a column carefully when asking “What do we need to do to defend against this threat?” or “What can we do to seize this opportunity?” They might write their thoughts on a separate sheet of paper and when they have completely analyzed a column, go to the cells that represent the most important ideas and put the most points in those cells.
NOTE: In quadrant analysis, proactive organizations will find most of their points allocated to the upper right quadrant, leveraging strengths to take advantage of opportunities. Reactive organizations will find most of their points in the lower left quadrant, shoring up their weaknesses to defend themselves against threats.
Figure 6.4. Illustrative 11-Person TO-WS Worksheet
The Quantitative TO-WS Analysis Agenda Step takes from a few hours to a couple of days to complete, depending on the level in the holarchy being facilitated. To maintain cadence, limit the scoring grid to the top six of each category of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. PowerBalls (chapter 7) can be used to complete quick prioritization within each of the four TO-WS categories.
Technically, when the quantitative matrix is complete, this Agenda Step is also complete. The Current Situation is available immediately, albeit in numerical rather than narrative form. Therefore, the next Agenda Step called Actions converts the numbers into narrative expressions and follows seamlessly once the Quantitative TO-WS Analysis is complete. Move your agenda indicator to the next Agenda Step—Actions that result when translating the Quantitative TO-WS Analysis matrix.
Actions articulate the what (needs to be done) portion of any plan; they constitute a segue, from human beings to human doings. Keep in mind that the term used to describe Actions changes depending on your level in the holarchy. For example, an organization will refer to its Actions as strategies, a business unit may use the term initiatives, a business department or program office may call its Actions products or projects, and a project team may call its Actions activities or tasks.
NOTE: Be careful to distinguish the operational definitions of terms. “The strategy,” “a strategy,” and “a strategic plan” are not the same thing. The word “strategy” is like “quality” and has a life of its own. The term can, however, be used intelligently if it is used with clear perspective.
Henry Mintzberg wisely differentiates between strategy formation (“strategies”) and strategy formulation (“the Strategy”). The results of strategies are frequently used to shape the overall Strategy.
A concise description and plan of Actions—what we will need to do to meet or exceed the Key Measures and thus ensure we reach our Vision. Each proposed Action indicates some level of priority and criticality.
Any strategy, initiative, or project represents a program of action for reaching Key Measures. Quantitative TO-WS Analysis allows us to interpret what to do at any level in the holarchy, whether strategies, initiatives, projects, or activities—what needs to be done. I will refer to them collectively as Actions.
Actions (or, what) are the core of any plan. The rest of the plan is meaningless without Actions to achieve results. Actions require revisiting the Key Measures (chapter 6) and Quantitative TO-WS Analysis (chapter 6). Each Key Measure should have at least one proposed Action in support of it. Each proposed Action should support at least one Key Measure.
NOTE: Fortunately, we have the holarchy to keep this all straight. Regardless, whatever you call a strategy, it represents an Action that must support reaching at least one Measure (objective or goal) or else remain impotent and dormant—hardly a strategy.
The numeric conversion from Quantitative TO-WS Analysis into Actions takes a few hours. People know what they had in mind when they completed their assessment of the Current Situation. The question now is straightforward: What should we do differently tomorrow to reach our goals and objectives, which have been lined up to ensure that we get to our Vision (chapter 6)? It also takes longer to develop consensual agreement around organizational strategies than equivocal Actions for product or project teams.
Since executing Actions will consume resources, mostly time and money, advocates are sensitive to the amount of investment required. Additionally, since responsibility for the Actions will be assigned to participants in the room, advocates will not recommend Actions they are incapable of leading successfully. So when participants appear satisfied, move immediately on to Alignment (next section). We can always return later for ideas about other Actions. Remember your analogy and move the agenda indicator for a smooth transition.
In the example in figure 6.5, without going into too much detail, this group might have recommended a dozen or more strategies. Referring to “large numbers” for support, translation might have resulted in something like the following:
Figure 6.5. Highlighted TO-WS Worksheet
Using the law of large numbers, participants convert numerical scores from their Quantitative TO-WS Analysis into the what (needs to be done) portion of any plan.
NOTE: You may also look at the totals in each row of your Situation Analysis to see which strengths or weaknesses provide the greatest impact on reaching the Key Measures.
Alternatively, or additionally, you may ask the participants to describe what Actions they plan to perform—for example:
The more thoroughly you have developed answers to the following questions, the quicker and easier Actions will proceed. Answers to the following questions stimulate conversations by clarifying intent when participants convert scores from the Quantitative TO-WS Analysis back into narrative expressions.
Consider including or building competitive analysis to predict competitors’ future behaviors.
Alignment compares each proposed Action (chapter 6) against each Key Measure (chapter 6). Building consensus around Alignment helps groups identify gaps, omissions, and overkill (wasted resources) to confirm appropriateness and balance from the proposed Actions.
DEFINED: Alignment induces the judgment that the proposed Actions are the right things to do—there are no gaps or redundancies to calibrate or fix.
Identification of any missing Actions, deletion of Actions that cause unnecessary overlap, or modifications of Actions required to establish proper balance among proposed Actions and resource allocations.
Alignment ensures that there are enough Actions (strategies, programs, projects, or activities) to reach every Key Measure and that none of the proposed Actions are consuming too many resources for the benefits to be realized.
Use the Alignment Tool in the next section. There you will find the intersection of each criterion (Key Measure) with each strategy (proposed Action) fully explained, resulting in a diagram (see table 6.4).
Alignment may cause additional or deleted Actions. Once the group is comfortable that the final list of proposed Actions provides them with the confidence that they will indeed reach the Key Measures (specified to ensure reaching the Vision), move on to Roles and Responsibilities (chapter 6). Remember your analogy, and move the agenda indicator for a smooth transition.
Table 6.4. Illustrative Alignment
Criteria / Strategy |
Profit |
Revenue |
Customer Satisfaction |
. . . |
Retire debt |
||||
Office in China |
||||
RFID WMS |
||||
. . . |
Alignment compares your options to your decision criteria. For our purposes, in what follows, the Actions (chapter 6) represent options, and the Measures (chapter 6) represent decision criteria. Normally, building consensus around Alignment can be challenging, especially relying on narrative analysis. Here, PowerBall icons (figure 6.6) are appropriate and powerful.
Proposed Actions (options) are aligned against Key Measures (criteria):
Figure 6.6. PowerBalls
NOTE: Each Action must support at least one Key Measure. Each Key Measure must have sufficient Actions to enable success.
We learn from the Alignment matrix (in table 6.5) that the mentoring strategy (option) will have the greatest impact supporting the goals (criteria). Facility expansion has the least impact. We also see that the expansion criterion is receiving the greatest support, while the confidence criterion is receiving the least support. The impact of marketing and fundraising is comparable while the support behind the knowledge and leadership goals is also comparable.
If confidence was our most important goal, we would need to add an additional strategy. If expansion is not that important, we would kill the infrastructure strategy and redeploy the financial resources to more important strategies.
Define the roles and responsibilities for any project, plan, or group using a Responsibility Matrix.
Table 6.5. Alignment Illustration
Goal/Strategy |
Confidence |
Leadership |
Relations |
Knowledge |
Expansion |
Mentoring, community involvement |
|||||
Community awareness, marketing |
|||||
Fundraising |
|||||
Facility expansion, infrastructure |
In the Responsibility Matrix, you develop assignments for making the Actions (chapter 6) come to life. Remember, begin by importing the Actions confirmed in the prior Agenda Step along with the business units, departments, functions, roles, or titles to be represented during the session.
NOTE: Avoid using participants’ names or making assignments to some person or position not in attendance or being represented. Rather, assign to business units, organizations, departments, or positions. If an individual departs or is reassigned, that person’s replacement will inherit the assignments.
Some organizations use a C for Consults instead of an S. Because “consults” can be a nebulous term (contronym), avoid using it. With Consult, it is never clear whether I am giving them something or they are giving me something. If both, then the code should be an “S,” because Supporters both give and receive.
RASI completes the plan by assigning “who does what, by when” and develops consensual understanding about each participant’s Roles and Responsibilities.
Use the Roles and Responsibilities Tool that follows.
The Responsibility Matrix ensures that we leave the meeting with our deliverable, consensual understanding about who does what. The assignments provide confidence that the plan the group developed will be implemented. Remember your analogy, and move the agenda indicator for a smooth transition.
Build the following matrix at any level of the holarchy. Your what (Actions, chapter 6) or assignments may take the form of different terms including strategies, initiatives, programs, projects, activities, or tasks (see figure 6.7).
As you increase the resolution from the abstract (for example, strategy) to the concrete (for example, task), expect to increase the resolution of the role or title of the responsible party. For example, strategies may get assigned to business units, while tasks get assigned to individual roles such as business analyst or product owner.
The who dimension might include business units, departments, roles, or people but must be consistent across the board and match closely to the appropriate level of responsibility for the nature of what needs to be done. For each Action item, define one of five areas of support:
Figure 6.7. Basic Roles and Responsibilities Illustration
In portrait view, when using an easel or flip chart, write the who (units, job names, and so on) across the top and the tasks, jobs, projects, and so on down the left-hand side (the what). In landscape view, build a matrix on a whiteboard or other large writing area with the what across the top and the who down the left-hand side.
CAUTION: The biggest challenge facilitating a RASI chart remains the mechanics. You must plan the mechanics of building the matrix well in advance. Large whiteboards, flip charts, or electronic spreadsheets or templates are the most conventional means to capture the information. You can always make it pretty after the session is completed.
First, consider footnoting the A since it is likely that the person or group with authority has authority for the entire scope of work. If not, record unique or shared A’s as appropriate.19
Next, and most important, is the Big Bold R—one and only one per assignment. For each Action, determine who will be responsible to ensure that you have enough time to complete. Whether you use paper, whiteboard, or electronic means, use a bright Big Bold R to document responsibility for each Action.
NOTE: Remember, one and only one Big BOLD R. Do not allow people to be “nice” and share responsibility. If you do, you risk finger-pointing later: “I thought he was working on this,” and “I thought she was working on this.” Confusion arises because we were too nice.
Time permitting, consider capturing the deadline, resource request (for example, FTP or currency value to complete the assignment) so that you can convert your RASI chart into a project planning tool such as a Program Evaluation Review Technique (PERT) chart, a Gantt chart,20 a value stream diagram, and so on (see next section). Time permitting, go back and work horizontally across each Action to complete the other relationships (cells) as appropriate with an S or an I or leave it blank.
Follow these rules:
NOTE: I call this the “power of a cell” (figure 6.8). Rather than using all of the available space for one letter, break the cell into four sections. When the information is available or can be approximated, also capture the approximate financial resources required to support the action, an estimated due date, and approximately how much time or labor is estimated to be consumed (FTP). Allow subject matter experts a range of freedom, such as plus or minus 50 or even 100 percent. Each cell captures an estimate, not a budget.
Figure 6.8. Enhanced Roles and Responsibilities Illustration
Here are some, but not all, real-life variations of the Responsibility Matrix being used today:
It’s a clever idea to sound like we were all in the same meeting together. The Communications Plan may also be referred to as the Guardian of Change.
Here you build a communications plan to report back to others on what was accomplished during the session. The Communications Plan adds extraordinary value, especially when there are translation or transliteration challenges as well.
Use the Communications Plan Tool that follows.
NOTE: Empirical research shows that it is better to guard and protect messages than to simply shout out. Different audiences may need distinct messages and may react differently to descriptive terms used and the media or form used to communicate the messages.
Consider a 3*30 Report, a written summary of results that should take no longer than 30 minutes to write and no longer than three minutes to read and reply. The 3*30 Report may be ideal to direct at executives and other team members who are interested but not fully invested.
At the very least identify a consensually agreed-on message that answers one or both of the following questions:
This Agenda Step nearly concludes your Planning Meeting. Final review occurs in the next Review and Wrap Agenda Step. When your Communications Plan is complete, immediately move on to your Review and Wrap.
At minimum, team members need an “elevator speech” that can deliver an effective synopsis of the meeting results. At the other extreme, if the meeting is strategic, there could be numerous audience types such as the investment community, regulators, trade personnel, and so on. If so, identify the key audience members before determining the message, medium of communication, and frequency of communication for each.
When it is important that it sounds like the participants attended the same meeting together, consider agreeing on the rhetoric and specific terms used (or not used) to describe meeting results. Typically, at least two major audiences are intended:
I use a basic T-Chart with two column headings, such as “Superiors” and “Stakeholders.” Next, ask the group for their “elevator speech” or “coffeepot” description or “water cooler” messages for each column.
After identifying multiple target audiences, ask for each, “What are we going to tell ______?” List the messages as bullet points intended to homogenize (create consistency) the meeting participants’ messages as they talk in the hallway about what was accomplished.
If necessary, identify how to communicate with the target audience such as face-to-face, by email, and so on. For even more complex communication plans, further determine frequency or how often to set up regular communications.
An actual Communications Plan involving multiple audiences, messages, vehicles, and timing should be taken one step at a time since there is a one-to-many relationship throughout. Each audience may require multiple messages, and each message may require multiple delivery methods and each delivery method may require scheduling or sequencing. So, identify one at a time . . .
NOTE: It may be necessary to schedule the communications so that the superiors are informed before other stakeholders. Failing to plan, meeting participants will use varying methods and different rhetoric that may cause confusion among stakeholders and potentially problems as well. Amplify this confusion when there are additional language translation requirements.
Follow the four-activity sequence for the Review and Wrap more fully explained in chapter 5. None of the four activities should ever be skipped entirely, so expand and contract based on your situation and constraints.
NOTE: Daniel Pink’s research on timing (2018) indicates the Review and Wrap is more important than a smooth Launch because the recency effect of “what did we accomplish in that meeting” reverberates louder and stronger in the hallways than the primacy effect of a smooth beginning.
Effective leaders will not disband their meetings until participants have been offered a final opportunity to comment or question, actions have been assigned, messaging has been agreed to, and feedback for continuous improvement has been solicited.
You now have both the tools and logic to facilitate any type of planning session, from the boardroom to the boiler room. Stay focused on the questions rather than terms like Mission. Structure your logic so that why comes before what comes before how.
I find it interesting that the input to planning is why and the output is what. If you conduct further analysis during project or product support, you will discover that the input is what and the output is how—the trichotomy, or transformation from the abstract to the concrete.
NOTE: While executive teams go off-site for strategic planning, it’s unlikely they will permit the accounts payable department to go to an island resort to conduct planning. However, the accounts payable department is entitled to answers to the same questions, such as these:
Therefore, while we may not complete a discrete Mission, Values, and Vision for accounts payable, we still need to know why the department exists, what it is doing to help the organization reach its Measures, and so on. Therefore, in chapter 7, “Deciding about Anything,” we will learn about the Purpose Tool (chapter 7), a powerful device that integrates Mission (chapter 6), Values (chapter 6), and Vision (chapter 6) into one cohesive expression.
1 Artifacts describe a collection of handheld notices that may be used with online meetings by simply pushing them in from the camera. Rather than turning to another slide or screen, artifacts add texture to online meetings and are more fully explained in chapter 9.
2 See Geoffrey Moore’s Crossing the Chasm (1995) for a baseline that many others have modified.
3 Scrubbing and Prioritizing Tools are explained in chapter 7.
4 The agenda indicator is simply a mobile arrow, tab, highlight, or some indicator of where we are in the agenda.
5 For the source of the term “brainstorming,” see Applied Imagination, by Alex Faickney Osborn (1963).
6 “While brainstorming became a tool for creative problem solving in this general way, it is very different from the fundamentals of the original description of the brainstorming process designed by Alex Osborn.” Hanisha Besant, “The Journey of Brainstorming” (2016).
7 Round-robin is a name used by seamen for some promise or agreement on which they sign their names “round a circle” to prevent the ringleader from being discovered if the agreement is found. In this context, a round-robin is a method of giving participants an opportunity to contribute or say “pass,” which normally proceeds in the form of a circle or some rotation around the room, either in person or using a virtual seating arrangement for online meetings.
8 As of this writing, Mural and Miro are popular online technology platforms.
9 Never discount the power of laughter as “medicine,” because groups that laugh together perform better together. Laughter positively affects group communication and group dynamics—even when there’s nothing funny going on. See research from North Carolina State University that examined the role of laughter in jury deliberations during a capital murder case: “No Laughing Matter” (2010).
10 For example, Brian Hall, PhD, author of the Hall-Tonna Values Inventory; see Brian Hall and Barbara Ledig, Lifestyle Workbook: A Guide for Understanding the Hall-Tonna Inventory of Values (1986).
11 See Ken Blanchard and Jesse Stoner, “The Vision Thing: Without It You’ll Never Be a World-Class Organization,” Leader to Leader, no. 31 (Winter 2004), http://www.partnerswithnonprofits.org/uploads/1/0/7/3/10733039/the_vision_thing.ken_blanchard.pdf.
12 With only a few colors, or to provide enhanced accessibility to people who have difficulty distinguishing colors, use shapes such as dotted lines, dashed lines, boxes, ovals, and so on to distinguish probable clusters.
13 Please remember to be more creative with team names than the Zoom default of Room 1, Room 2, and so on.
14 CTQ would substitute the following questions for the SMART test: Is it specifically stated with upper and lower specification limits? Is it directional so that we can objectively determine whether it is increasing, decreasing, or staying the same? To what extent is it linked to specific customer needs connected to the objectives of the project?
15 Please be careful. Some consulting firms propagate definitions contrary to mine. Some claim that “goals” are SMART while “objectives” are fuzzy. While I remain agnostic and defer to the cultural preference, there is no universal standard or answer. Therefore, please ensure that participants within your culture apply consistent definitions. Facilitating Measures is not the time or place for contextual argument.
16 Removed from this book to reduce bulk but available at https://mgrush.com/.
17 We are not fans of dictionary definitions because none of us participated in the writing. Dictionaries do not agree among themselves on definitions. If you do use dictionary definitions, use them after the definition has been first built by the participants. Use the comparison to see whether anything critical is missing.
18 Time for technology. It once took a chief financial officer and me around 90 minutes to manually add up a dozen handwritten sheets with 169 cells each and come up with an aggregate scoring sheet.
19 For figure 6.7, *A = Board of Directors since they are Authorizing the proposed Actions.
20 A Gantt chart illustrates a project schedule and is named after its creator, Henry Gantt.