CHAPTER 4

Phase 2

Phase 2, Discovery, is my favorite part of every project. It is where facts meet perceptions, energy is created, a new perspective and understanding emerges, and the group becomes an effective team. In most projects, team members come together with a valid yet incomplete understanding of the current state. Each person holds his or her understanding with great conviction—it appears to be the “truth.” The team facilitator’s role is to productively channel the energy as a new “truth” emerges. The underlying feel of this stage is joint learning.

What’s Happening at Phase 2?

For the Project—Discovery

The purpose of the discovery phase is to create a complete picture of the current state—the good, bad, and ugly as illustrated by maps, artifacts, and data. The team may take some two to four weeks to pull together an objective representation of the current state. The facilitator utilizes dialogue and analytical tools that help the group collect and understand the information they need.

Once the team identifies the current state, they discuss and describe what’s working and what’s not working. Typical questions include:

It is important here to balance the input between positive and negative. The group will want to talk about all the aspects causing pain. It is human nature to go there first. The systemic weaknesses are only part of the story, however, and may be associated with a well-known failure or problem (making them more memorable). The team facilitator will ensure that both systemic strengths and weaknesses get due consideration.

The team uses a variety of tools to create a detailed picture of the current state including process mapping, affinity diagrams, Pareto diagrams, SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats) analyses, critical pathing, mind maps, and artifacts. The output of this process is often a graphical representation of the discovery information. For projects that don’t lend themselves to a graphical presentation it looks like a report. This information is maintained in the meeting space the group is using throughout the project. It provides a touchstone and is a resource to the group throughout the rest of the project.

For the Team—Storming/Norming

Storming and norming (from the Tuckman model of team development, see Chapter 1) team behaviors are normal and tend to show up during every project. The level of team drama experienced is often related to how painful or controversial team members perceive the project. Painful projects are those where two or more departments, or key individuals within these departments, have a history of not working well together, or is the result of controversy when organizational power shifts or roles change. It can also be a function of differing ideas or different styles.

When teams experience conflict or clashes (storming), the facilitator kicks into high gear to create an environment that supports having the tough conversations required to resolve issues while maintaining respectful relationships. Gathering data and mapping processes can be helpful in gaining an objective understanding of the current state. Even so, the underlying emotional issue is sometimes unspoken. The team facilitator helps by asking questions to bring the underlying issue to the surface or by naming the issue. This is commonly known as naming the elephant in the room. For example if listening for understanding was identified as a group norm during the forming stage the facilitator makes sure that it is followed as the project unfolds. If the facilitator sees a situation where one team member is not allowing another to express their thoughts then the facilitator should call that out and stop the conversation. The facilitator can tie it back to the initial norms to validate the reason for stopping. The facilitator would then redirect the conversation allowing the person who was not listened to have their say—demonstrating the desired behavior. The situation becomes a teachable moment for the group to calibrate what the norm actually looks like in practice.

When issues are candidly discussed the team grows together. The energy shifts—the conversation becomes authentic and heartfelt with the individuals and the group moving into a different state of being. Productive storming and norming team work sets the stage for the performing phase.

By the end of this phase the past has been discussed and acknowledged; disagreements have been surfaced and discussed from both perspectives; group members “see” the other side, although they may not agree. Team members trust each other enough to move forward.

For Individuals—Letting Go

The group and individual work is tightly intertwined during this phase of the Co-Create model. Team conversations during storming and norming typically deal with personal feelings, opinions, preferences, and relationship history. A great facilitator will ensure that each employee is able to tell his or her story, share perspectives, and feel heard. When we tell our story, we are able to express and deal with our doubts, concerns, and hopes. One of my favorite questions to ask the team at this phase is, “what do we need (as a group and individually) to let go of in order to create something better?” Our preferred approach is to handle the storming in the group context. If for some reason that breaks down we will end an unproductive exchange and reach out to people individually to explore issues and work on a resolution. The facilitator might readdress the issue at the next meeting or not—depending on the situation.

Pitfalls to Avoid

Silence and agreement are often not the same things. A team might be storming under the surface. They will not be able to do their best work unless unresolved issues are dealt with. The team facilitator and project owner must work together to bring issues to the surface so they can be addressed. The last thing you want is for an unresolved issue to cause problems in a later phase.

Considerations for Project Owners

Encourage an open and candid discussion of the current state. If teams cannot be “real,” you will not achieve the best results. Ensure that your actions or decisions don’t inadvertently encourage the status quo or an unrealistic view of how things work (or don’t work) in your organization. Also, expect that all teams will go through some storming and show your support.

Conclusion

The team is ready to move on to Phase 3 when they have created a detailed description of the current state and have dealt with any initial teaming issues to the satisfaction of the project owner and facilitator. The output is graphical in form and is key to getting people to a common understanding. Once this work is done, they “get it.” We often bring the sponsor in at this point to share what the team has learned. No one comes into the project with the full picture and this process enables discovery that is very useful.

Output Example—The 32-Foot Process Map

Here is a summary of what one team did during Phase 2. This was a labor of love and perseverance and took the team four weeks to complete. The work was well worth the time invested as it allowed them to have a common and complete understanding of the current state. This understanding provided the foundation needed to create a solution that worked.

Project Name: Database Publishing

What We Did