Appendix 3 ▪ Tools and Templates
Many of the forms shown throughout this section can be downloaded from https://www.barnesconti.com/CD/.
Affinity Diagram
An affinity diagram helps you to categorize or identify relationships among ideas, issues, or elements of a system.
Materials/Equipment:
• Postable notes
Process:
1. Conduct a “silent brainstorming” session, preferably using postable notes.
2. Ask the group to rearrange the notes, posted on a wall or table, into categories of similar ideas.
3. Ask the group to create titles that label the sets of ideas. Use brief titles or headings that describe the theme of each category.
Brainstorming or “Note-Storming”
1. After formulating a problem statement or question, remind the group of the rules for brainstorming. They are:
• Allow enough time for the activity to get beyond the tried and true ideas.
• Emphasize quantity, not the quality of ideas.
• Do not criticize, evaluate, or judge ideas, either for yourself or others.
• Post ideas where all can see them.
• Do not interrupt the process.
• Encourage humor, “wild” or unique ideas, and a playful attitude.
• Suspend hierarchical power.
• Don’t quit too soon.
2. Use either a Round Robin format (where each person contributes in turn) or a “Popcorn” style (where members contribute ideas as they occur).
• Record all ideas on flipcharts or whiteboard.
• Allow at least two 2-minute silences before stopping.
• Alternative: have the group write their ideas on postable notes and place them on large sheets of paper or a board, reading other people’s ideas as they do.
Consensus-Building
A consensus process results in a decision that will be implemented and supported by all members of the team even if they do not fully agree with it.
It is most useful when t here is a history of discussion or previous understandings about the issue and where there is now a need for agreement or alignment.
Materials/Equipment:
• Note paper
• Flipcharts or whiteboard
• Markers
Version One
1. Clearly identify and state the issue under discussion; for example, “How would you describe the purpose of this team?”
2. Each person on the team writes down her or his response.
3. The facilitator asks for each person’s response and writes it on a flipchart or whiteboard.
4. If there seems to be significant agreement, team members can try writing a statement that summarizes what each has said. If there are differences, go to the next step.
5. The facilitator asks the group to identify and highlight words or phrases they like in each statement, even if they do not agree with the whole statement.
6. Team members individually write a new statement, using as many as possible of the highlighted words or phrases. These are posted over the other ones and discussed. The group combines, modifies, and chooses a final statement with which they can all substantially agree. It may be necessary to repeat steps 5 and 6 another time to come closer to agreement.
7. If consensus is not entirely achieved, members who disagree are asked for the minimum change it would take to shape the statement to something they could support even if they don’t fully agree. If the rest of the team agrees, these changes are made. If not, another tool for resolving conflict or building agreement should be used.
Version Two
This version of consensus-building is useful when you are developing new agreements that you want the entire team committed to implement or align with. Use an actual or virtual whiteboard or large paper roll (36 in. or 48 in.) and white movable tape (both can be purchased at art supply stores).
1. Clearly identify and state the issue under discussion; for example, “What is the purpose of this team?” The facilitator begins by asking, “What word or phrase would you use to describe the purpose of this team?”
2. Team members record the words or phrases on 8% X 11 in. paper, writing with markers in large block letters so they can be read easily. They can record more than one word or phrase.
If you are using a whiteboard or large sheet of white paper as a background, use colored paper for the words and phrases.
3. Individuals, in turn, write on or tape their responses to the whiteboard or paper, reading them aloud as they do so. Others may ask questions for clarification.
4. The facilitator, with direction from the team, moves similar words and phrases into groupings on the board or paper.
5. The team reviews groupings and identifies themes. They may want to move phrases or words around.
6. The facilitator asks the team to identify the words or phrases that best represent the purpose (or other issue under discussion).
7. The group combines, modifies, and chooses a final statement using the words and phrases the group has selected. They may do this in open discussion or (especially if there are many introverts in the group) by writing their own versions, then posting them and having the group choose or modify the one that best states what people are agreeing to.
8. If consensus is not entirely achieved, members who disagree are asked for the minimum change it would take to shape the statement to something they could support even if they don’t fully agree. If the rest of the team agrees, these changes are made. If not, another tool for resolving conflict or building agreement should be used.
Cost/Benefit Analysis
Determining whether a solution is cost-effective is an important part of decision-making. Particularly when considerable resource increases are proposed, you will need to be able to show return on investment. This tool is also helpful in making decisions about whether to explore high-risk/high-reward options.
Materials/Equipment:
• Prioritized action ideas
• Cost/benefit forms
Process:
1. Identify the costs or risks involved in the solution you have selected. Are there any hidden costs?
2. Identify or calculate potential benefits.
3. Compare potential costs and benefits. Is it worth the effort to achieve this?
4. Consider which risks could be adjusted to decrease the probability or consequences of failure.
5. Identify other ways to improve the cost/benefit ratio and recalculate.
6. Discuss, then check “Go,” “Caution,” or “No Go” as appropriate for each action idea.
In summary, the results of a good cost/benefit analysis can be represented as follows:
Application: Cost / Benefit Analysis
Creative Controversy
One technique that can be used to derive both individual and organizational benefit from the conflict of ideas is called creative controversy.
Conflict, handled in this way, can become a stimulus for deeper and broader thinking on issues, using the content from entrenched positions either as the basis for a new synthesis or to generate innovative ideas. Instead of avoiding conflict, the parties embrace it through a series of structured activities. This may be done within the context of a team meeting or with the help of a facilitator.
The creative controversy process is basically as follows:
1. Clarify the issue with an agreed-on problem statement, and then develop clear position statements.
2. Each party to the conflict develops and presents the most compelling arguments in support of that position.
3. Each party listens to and clarifies the other’s position until they believe that they understand it fully.
4. The parties then switch sides and argue as forcefully as possible for the other position.
5. The parties work to agree on a new, synthesized position or develop a new alternative that they can both support.
This process is an efficient way first to capture the energy tied up in strongly held positions and then to use it for resolution and innovation. New ideas frequently emerge from controversy.
Select a partner to work with on the exercise, then select one of the following controversial issues (or create your own). Choose the side that is closest to your own opinions or that you can agree to argue in favor of. Find another team that holds or will take the opposite position to yours on the issue.
You will have 10 minutes to select your strongest arguments, write them down, and put together a case for your position. Choose which team will present their arguments first. Each team will then be given 5 minutes to present their arguments. It will be helpful to take notes of the opposition’s case. Ask questions to learn as much as possible about the other’s point of view.
After each side has presented their arguments, switch sides and argue as forcefully as possible for the opposite point of view. Each team will be given 5 additional minutes to argue the opposite position. Both teams will then attempt to agree on a broader, more-informed position that synthesizes the arguments from both positions.
Medical Research
A. Decisions concerning medical research should be made primarily based on the potential social and economic benefits to the larger society.
B. Decisions concerning medical research should be made primarily based on the basis of commonly held values, morals, and beliefs of the members of a society.
Stimulating the Economy
A. The best way to stimulate an economy that is in recession is by providing corporations with incentives to spend money.
B. The best way to stimulate an economy that is in recession is by providing individuals with incentives to spend money.
Organizational Focus
A. This organization would be more successful if it focused more on what it does best and quit dabbling in what it doesn’t know.
B. This organization would be more successful if it were to diversify more, so it could insulate itself from potential problems in one market sector.
Questions
• What, if any, change took place in your own opinion or position during the exercise?
• What helped move you to modify your position?
• How can you apply this experience to real controversies at work?
Diffusion/Integration Rule
This ground rule helps you keep the right balance between idea generation and decision-making. It should be discussed and agreed to early in a meeting or institutionalized as a team “norm” so it can be invoked at the appropriate time.
Process:
1. Divide the meeting or the topic into diffusion and integration periods.
2. During the diffusion period, generate as many different ideas as possible. No evaluation of these ideas is allowed. Members are encouraged to build on one another’s ideas. The rules of brainstorming apply.
3. During the integration period, develop criteria for selection. Then test the ideas against the criteria, evaluate, prioritize, or choose. New ideas are not encouraged during this period, though it is important to leave a flipchart sheet up where people can write new ideas for the next diffusion session. Alternate as needed, while moving ahead toward a decision. For example, the first diffusion session may generate ideas for areas to focus on, then the integration session results in selecting one. The next diffusion period may generate specific project ideas within the area, so during the integration period the team selects three projects. The third diffusion period generates sources for funding, and so forth.
This can be done very effectively via electronic media over a period of time, posting ideas where they can be read by all.* Strict time limits will have to be enforced, however, in order to keep the process moving. (For example, all members receive the message “Post all of your ideas about possible quick-start applications by Friday.”) It may be most effective to conduct the diffusion portion asynchronously to allow plenty of time for members to consider many possibilities and conduct the integration meetings synchronously.
Force Field Analysis
This tool helps you to identify the dynamics in a complex system that must be considered in resolving a problem or initiating a change.
Materials/Equipment:
• Flipchart or whiteboard
• Postable notes (optional)
• Markers
Process:
1. Identify the process, situation, or issue to be analyzed.
2. List forces that are moving the issue toward improvement or resolution as well as the forces keeping the issue in place or moving against resolution. Use a form similar to the one illustrated below. Participants can use postable notes that are then transferred to the form; otherwise, a facilitator can conduct an open session.
3. When ideas have been collected, identify positive forces that can be enhanced and negative forces that can be reduced or eliminated.
Framing and Reframing
A frame of reference is the general background or context within which we consider an idea. The frame we use often determines how we feel and react. The way we frame a problem generally predicts the set of solutions we will consider. The way we frame a debate suggests the positions that participants will take. Reframing is a technique for interpreting the available data surrounding a situation, result, or solution in an alternative way. To be effective, a reframe must:
• Take all relevant facts into account to provide a rational explanation or interpretation of those facts
• Align with the target person’s values, goals, and even model of the world
• Be acceptable to you as an alternative way of viewing the idea or situation. When reframing:
º Identify key goals, values, or elements of the target person’s worldview
º Identify relevant facts concerning the situation or idea
º Think of an alternate way to interpret those facts that fits the criteria above
Example:
• Your frame around the situation:
—“We should not use the vendor we have used before; they are not capable of the level of quality we require.”
Your Reframe:
—“Choosing this new vendor provides us with an opportunity to save some money and experiment with a new approach.”
From/To Analysis
This tool helps you to clarify goals as you begin to plan a strategy.
Materials/Equipment:
• Flipchart or whiteboard
• Markers
• Postable notes
Process:
1. On a flipchart, a long sheet of paper, or a whiteboard, draw a vertical bisecting line. Label the left side “From” and the right side “To.”
2. Ask the group to review their vision statement and then identify specifically where they are now and where they will need to be in order to achieve the vision. You may want to define specific areas, such as “Financial,” “Capabilities,” and the like. The group can use postable notes, or a leader can facilitate and record. As an alternative, use graphic symbols rather than words to promote a deeper discussion.
3. As an alternative, ask the question more generally, and use an affinity diagram process to cluster the suggestions into categories.
Is/Is Not Matrix
The Is/Is Not Matrix is a tool for organizing data in ways that expose underlying patterns. Discovering such patterns helps localize a problem, making it easier to identify the cause of the problem. This analysis both precedes data collection (so the team or person will know what kind of differences to look for) and follows it (so the team can discover which factors actually affected the results).
You can use an Is/Is Not Matrix to help pinpoint a problem by exposing where it does and does not occur. Such analysis lets teams avoid wasteful effort, directing their energies to the most potentially fruitful areas.
Materials/Equipment:
• “Is/Is Not Matrix—Example” or a simplified version on a flipchart or whiteboard.
Process:
1. Identify the problem or situation you want to analyze. Your process map may have identified a problem to analyze.
2. Use the Is/Is Not Matrix to organize your knowledge and information. This matrix can be re-created and used in virtually any setting. An individual may complete the matrix, or it can be used in a team.
3. Complete as many of the matrix cells as possible. The matrix cells can be filled in any order or sequence.
4. Look for relationships in the data presented. Some relationships or potential causes may be apparent once all information is entered into the cells. In certain instances, other problem-solving techniques or activities will need to be undertaken to further isolate causes and effects.
Is/Is Not Matrix—Example
Norm-Setting
Version One
For new teams or mixed groups:
1. Ask the group what ground rules they would like to have that will help them to achieve the results they hope for.
2. Brainstorm a list of possible ground rules or norms.
3. Ask for clarification so you can make the behaviors observable.
4. Ask for agreement. If someone does not agree, ask what it would take for him or her to “sign up,” then modify if possible and ask for agreement.
5. Ask how the group wishes to enforce the norms.
6. Rewrite and post the norms in a visible place.
Version Two
For existing teams:
1. Ask the group to list current norms for team meetings.
2. Identify which are explicitly stated and which are implicit but real.
3. Ask if, and how, they would need to be modified to enable the group to meet expectations and avoid negative outcomes.
4. Ask how the group will enforce them.
On the Worksheet for Team or Meeting Norms, several areas are named in which groups or teams may want to suggest norms for meetings that will promote constructive debates.
Worksheet for Team or Meeting Norms
Parking Lot
1. Place a flipchart page labeled “Parking Lot” where it can be seen by all team members (in person or by video conference).
2. When issues arise that are peripheral to the main topics of discussion, put them on the Parking Lot page.
3. At the end of the meeting, refer to the page and identify action steps for each item. Caution: If you don’t follow up with this step, this tool will be seen as an “idea-killer” tool.
At the end of the meeting, take a few minutes to evaluate the session. Ask the group to think about what worked especially well (Plus) and what they would like to change for the next time (Delta). List all comments and make a point of reminding the group of what they want to keep or change at the beginning of the next meeting.
Prioritizing
This is a method for getting a quick sense of a group’s opinions or preferences.
Materials/Equipment:
• Flipchart or whiteboard and markers
• Colored “dots”
Process:
1. Clearly identify and state the issue under discussion; for example, “What are the two most important goals for the team this year?”
2. The team brainstorms a list from which to choose. The facilitator or recorder posts the list where all can see it.
3. Give each team member six (or another appropriate number*) colored “dots” that can be applied to the flipchart paper (these are available at stationery stores). Giving each person a number of check marks that he or she can use is also effective and does not require any additional supplies.
4. Team members then apply as many dots (or check marks) as they like to the items. They can apply all six dots to one item or can distribute them among several items.
5. The facilitator identifies the items receiving the most dots. The target number of items is considered selected. If a tie results, members can move their dots from nonselected items to the items still in competition.
6. In virtual, synchronous meetings (such as video or computer conferences), ask members where they wish to place their “dots”—the facilitator then places them accordingly.
Reflection Break
Version One
For planned reflection breaks, questions can be prepared and written on flipcharts or the whiteboard. A good format for developing questions is:
• “What?” “So what?” “Now what?”
• “What happened?” “What did you notice?”
• “So, what does it mean?” “What have we learned?”
• “Now, what shall we do about it?” “How can we apply what we learned?”
Typical questions might include:
• “What did we learn from that experience/discussion?”
• “What worked well in the meeting today?”
• “What could we do differently the next time?”
• “How can we improve…?”
• “How were we able to accomplish…?”
1. Any of these or other questions can be asked as needed in the group—the member who is facilitating or another member can call for a reflection break. The purpose may be to “capture” learnings that might otherwise be forgotten or overlooked, to explore what has been going on in order to improve the process, or other purposes.
2. A time limit of 5 or 10 minutes is usually appropriate and should be stated up front.
3. The facilitator should make sure that everyone who has something to say is heard. If the team has one or two more extroverted members who tend to use more “air time,” have people take 2 minutes first to think and jot down their reflections. Then get people’s comments one at a time while you record them on flipchart paper. This slows the process down enough to allow most people to participate fully.
4. At the end of the time allotted, the facilitator can summarize or ask for a summary, then ask the team what they want to do with the information (get it copied and pass it around, give it to a person or subgroup to follow up on, or other).
Version Two
1. For a quick “learning intervention,” the facilitator can ask the team to step back from the task for 5 minutes and rate the process by holding up the appropriate number of fingers (1 = low, 5 = high). Use the following questions or others as appropriate.
“To what extent are you satisfied with the way the team is working?”
“To what extent are you satisfied with your own level of participation?”
2. Allow the team a few minutes to clarify responses and adjust the process, then return to the task.
Round Robin
1. Present the question or issue to be discussed in the meeting.
2. Call for a Round Robin. That means that each person gives her or his idea or opinion in turn before any of the ideas are discussed.
3. Give the group a few minutes to think about or jot down ideas. Ask someone to start by giving one idea or offering a suggestion or opinion. The person to her or his left is next; move clockwise around the group. It is acceptable to pass.
4. The facilitator may record the ideas and may (or may not) participate in turn. (This format allows the facilitator to participate in idea-sharing; it is better not to participate if the task is to give opinions or make judgments.)
5. The activity may continue for several rounds until everyone passes or for a specific number of times.
6. No comments on ideas or opinions are permitted until the Round Robin is over. Then clarifications and a general discussion can follow.
Summarizing
The leader or facilitator invokes a “rule of summarizing.” This means that new information cannot be added until the previous information has been reviewed and summed up to the satisfaction of the group or the other person. To be acceptable, a summary should be:
• Stated neutrally (“Your point of view is. . .” versus “You stubbornly maintain that. . .”); for example, shows neither agreement nor disagreement; does not judge
• Stated briefly
• Stated in one’s own words rather than “parroted,” thus showing an intellectual understanding of what the other has said
• Checked out with the originator of the statement; for example, “You think we should go ahead with the project over Engineering’s objections. Is that right, Susan?”
• Before proceeding with their statement, the next speaker summarizes either what the relevant points of the discussion were (if the tool is being used to move toward a decision) or the previous speaker’s statement (if the tool is being used to move toward resolution of a conflict).
• The leader or facilitator ensures that the summary has been accepted by the previous speaker(s) as substantially correct; that is, it shows understanding (not agreement) before the speaker continues.
* This can be in the form of an interactive “blog” or a discussion forum.
* In general, the number of dots should be two or three times the number of items in the final outcome; that is, if the goal is to identify the two most important items, four or six dots would be appropriate. This method balances the amount of support for each item with the level of interest and commitment by individual team members. If only considering the level of support, give each member fewer dots; the rule is that each dot must be applied to a different item.