The Co-Create Model—A Map for the Journey
When we were developing the Co-Create model, we asked ourselves how we could combine what we felt was most important (the ideas) with best practices from project management, change management, and team development. We continued to tweak the model until we felt we had an excellent practice. This chapter describes the four underlying ideas and then uses six distinct phases to help teams achieve results.
Figure 1.1 offers a visual description of the Co-Create model. At first, it might look a bit complicated, but it is actually very straightforward. There are six phases that teams use to launch and complete projects and produce results. These six phases are highlighted in Figure 1.2 and include defining, discovery, co-create the ideal, implementation planning, execution, and fine tuning.
Figure 1.1 The Co-Create model
Figure 1.2 Highlighting the “project” phases
The project phases help us build robust solutions to new opportunities. These six phases keep us on track and remind us to spend time where it will be most beneficial.
People complete projects, so during the work we attend to two types of experiences, the team or group experience (highlighted in Figure 1.3) and each individual’s experience (highlighted in Figure 1.4).
The Six Project Phases
The six project phases represent a process for individual engagement, team creation, and project execution. Each phase of the Co-Create model is explained in more detail in the coming chapters, but here is a brief description:
1. Defining: We spend a lot of time at the beginning of each project to ensure that we adequately define and describe what we want the project to accomplish and the roles people will play in helping to support and manifest project goals. During this critical first phase, every project owner creates a white paper (or Charter) for their project. We have found that the time invested upfront improves everything that happens throughout the project.
Figure 1.3 Highlighting the “group” experience
Figure 1.4 Highlighting the “individual” experience
2. Discovery: During the discovery phase, the team creates a robust and detailed picture of the current state. All team members participate and this tends to be a very energizing process. The information they generate is critical to analyzing and creating solutions that work.
3. Co-create the ideal: The team leader guides the group in generating possibilities and creating a plan forward based on the whitepaper from Phase 1 and the current state analysis from Phase 2. They discuss, agree upon, and document the conditions for success for the project.
4. Implementation planning: During Phase 4, the team gets into the nitty-gritty to determine what needs to happen, by when, and by whom. This phase is the most similar to traditional project planning processes. As you will discover in Chapter 6, however, our action plans are much more than a long list of to-dos. They contain methods to enhance successful implementation.
5. Launch: The team launches the project and because their conversations have been open and collaborative thus far they are able to flexibly implement the project plan and meet or beat the desired results.
6. Fine tuning: As the name implies, this phase of the project enables the team to make additional adjustments (they measure and adjust throughout the project) and tie up any loose ends. The team closes out the project.
These project phases ensure that our projects are well planned and executed. Most organizations focus on Phase 4 and Phase 5, but few start and end with the deliberate and open project management practices like we use in the Co-Create model. The extra work we do upfront serves several important purposes and improves our results. Do our projects take longer? I would argue no. We start slower and with more initial discussions, but this work paves the way for a less troublesome project implementation with fewer post-implementation issues.
At the same time the team is working through the six project phases, they are experiencing their work as a team and as individuals. How people work together and experience change is important. Until we developed the Co-Create model we did not have a way to proactively help our team members understand what they were going to go through. We also didn’t have a comprehensive map for our project leaders. Taking the mystery out has benefited both.
You can probably recall a situation where a well-planned project underperformed because of poor team dynamics or low collaboration. And you may know individuals who are more talented than is evident by their contribution to the team. The group experience and individual experience elements of the model build in the structure we need to ensure that we consider the people part of the project.
The Group Experience
To build a great team experience, we use the Tuckman model of team development (Tuckman 1977). Teams go through recognizable stages of development—and they go into and out of these stages many times during their work together. Dr. Bruce Tuckman presented a model that identified five stages that teams experience. Figure 1.5 shows the stages of the Tuckman model, which are: Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing, and Adjourning. Tuckman’s model explains that as the team develops maturity and ability, relationships and coping skills strengthen. Project setbacks or victories will also affect how the team works together. For the Co-Create Model, we have overlaid the stages of team development with our six project phases. We do some very specific activities throughout the project’s life cycle to help our teams work well together and quickly identify and deal with any setbacks.
Figure 1.5 Tuckman model of team development
I am frequently asked whether the need to do team development is reduced as team members work on more than one project together. The answer is yes and no. We certainly benefit from the synergies, relationship building, and learning that have occurred on previous projects. That said, every team is a new team and project roles and tasks are different. Sources of potential conflict or discomfort are often tied to particular topics or tasks, and so we need to attend to the team’s developmental stages—in some degree—on every project. By understanding the stages of team development and the corresponding team leadership and executive support actions that best support each stage (and movement to the next), we have found that we can better help teams do their best work. Here is a brief description of the stages of the Tuckman model of team development:
1. Forming: The initial stage of team development where members are getting oriented to one another and seeking to understand their roles and boundaries.
2. Storming: This stage of team development is characterized by style clashes, conflict, and working out differences. We find that familiar team members can go back to this phase when a new project or task brings disagreements to the surface.
3. Norming: The team is getting to know each other and is working through how to work well together. Their efforts look and feel more cohesive.
4. Performing: The team is utilizing the strengths of their relationships to get more done. Their ability to collaborate and solve problems is a competitive edge. Roles are flexible but clear.
5. Adjourning: The team creates closure for their work and feels complete in the task of marking the project’s end.
Teams can skip forward or backward in development when new members join or when they are affected by unsettling changes. In addition to group health and drama, we also need to deal with how each team member is experiencing the demands of the project, interactions with his or her colleagues, and the work processes.
The Individual Experience
To help our employees connect with their individual experience we draw upon the work of Peter Senge, Otto Sharmer, and Betty Sue Flowers. In their 2005 book called Presence: Exploring Profound Change In People, Organizations, and Society (Senge et al. 2005), the authors offered a model of individual change or transition called the U model that we use throughout the six project phases of the Co-Create model. Here is a quick review of the elements of the U model:
1. Sensing (suspending): Gathering and considering information and mental models about the current state.
2. Redirecting: Seeing things from a systemic and holistic way. Becoming aware that we may need to think about things differently and modify their current work activities.
3. Letting go: Letting go of definitions of success and mental models that no longer serve our goals. Opening up our minds to new possibilities. Being more coachable.
4. Letting come: This is the creative work that comes as much from the heart as the head. The essence or seed of the solution becomes conscious.
5. Crystallizing: Bringing together the new ideas to build a path forward.
6. Trying out (prototyping): Experimenting with new approaches. Learning from the process of trying. This step involves iterations—making adjustments based on the learning derived from trying it out.
7. Locking in (institutionalizing): Adopting and forming new habits and regimens. The new becomes your natural way.
The U model helps us understand and improve individual growth and development. By discussing this model at the beginning of a project it helps each individual team member know what’s coming. As the project progresses it provides a touch point for additional discussion especially when points of view diverge or the group is having difficulty with an idea that may be very different than current thinking. The Co-Create model would be incomplete without the individual experience phases.
The practices we use as part of the Co-Create model reinforce the importance of paying attention to the project, the group dynamics, and individual’s reactions to the work. Ignoring or skipping any will reduce results. The task of the team leader is to be conscience of the interactions of the project, team, and individual phases, and to manage the project and these three perspectives simultaneously. This is where the art and science of facilitation and team performance converge.
Roles and Responsibilities
Many people, united by a purpose, help ensure team performance and success. Each project is different, but we typically define the following roles. These folks ensure that each project is well defined, aligned with the strategic plan, and executed well.
• Executive group—This is typically the president and the vice presidents who are responsible for identifying the major issues or strategic opportunities facing the organization. Their job is to provide high-level direction about what needs to be developed to support the strategy.
• Sponsor—The sponsor is a vice president or senior manager who translates the strategic direction into a project. When projects span functional areas, either the two VPs co-sponsor the project or the president will serve as the sponsor. The sponsor contracts with the team facilitator for project design. The sponsor secures the required resources—people, money, time, and so on—and works with the project owner to write the project whitepaper. Once the work begins, the sponsor and project owner monitor the project to ensure alignment and are available to help with critical decisions as appropriate.
• Project owner—Most often this is a director level manager who has responsibility for the functional area where the majority of the project is taking place. They write the whitepaper with some help, attend all team meetings and actively participate in the work as a team member. This person is the primary contact for, and coworker of, the team facilitator. They work closely together to manage the approach, specific meeting agendas, and the many details of the project. The day-to-day leadership is shared by the project owner and the team facilitator.
• Team facilitator—This person is responsible to facilitate the team’s process. For major projects this role is fulfilled by someone from a corporate organizational development or HR function or an outside consultant. For smaller projects, the team facilitator is someone from a functional area who has been trained in the Co-Create system. This includes leading team meetings, developing meeting notes, and working with team members as they develop the discovery (Phase 2) visuals and design implementation communication or training programs.
• Team members—The team is comprised of front line employees who represent key stakeholder groups and bring specific expertise to the work. Their job is to provide information and input and to participate in the implementation process.
• End users—The people outside the team who will be receiving or using the project output, which could be a new workflow process, software changes, or a new structure. The team may consider input from this group during the project. The team keeps this group updated on the progress of the project.
• Outside vendors—External partners who provide products or services to the group. Examples include software vendors and legal advice.
These roles, and any others as applicable, are specifically identified in the project whitepaper, which is completed during Phase 1 of the project.
Before I explore each phase of the Co-Create model in detail, here are the answers to the questions I most get from people when they first learn about our approach.
Q: How long are the projects and how large are the project teams?
A: Major waterfall projects have ranged from three months to two years in length. The average project is 9 to 12 months long. The team size typically ranges from 6 to 10 members.
Q: This model uses a waterfall approach for projects. Can it be used with Agile methods.
A: Absolutely! At a high level Agile compresses the time and scope of projects allowing faster implementation of project components. You can insert the Agile method of your choosing into the project phase area of the model. At the end of the day you still have the opportunity to enhance commitment beginning with the big ideas at the beginning of the sprint. Additionally the team and individual dynamics do not change—unless artificial intelligence eventually replaces us all!
Q: How long did it take for you to get buy-in from senior leader on the more “touchy-feely” aspects of the model?
A: The soft side of the model must be consistent with the organizations culture. If the culture is conducive and the model is properly explained, the business case for the soft side is readily apparent and hard to argue. The model was ultimately embraced because of the results we achieved.
Q: Does using the model pay off financially?
A: Yes it does. Two projects that I worked on were (1) to reduce cost of goods by $1 million and (2) acquired $10 million in business, which had to be completed in a 60-day period. It’s difficult to estimate the total financial contribution of all the projects using this model over the years. If I had to venture a guess about either the total sales or profit impact I would say it influenced somewhere between $50 and $100 million.
Q: What if I am worried that my organization is not ready for something like this?
A: You will find an organization readiness checklist in the conclusion, which starts on page 66.
Q: How is participation on a team connected to your performance management system?
A: For many of our key positions project participation is listed as one of the responsibilities on their performance management document. For individuals who participate only occasionally on teams it is not formally listed as a responsibility and would be acknowledged in the comments or as an addendum to the performance management document.
Q: How does a team member balance day-to-day responsibilities with project work?
A: Our expectation is that individuals figure out how best to balance their overall workload. For example, they may be able to juggle it all successfully and meet their obligations. They may approach coworkers and ask for help to cover some aspect of their responsibilities for a period of time. Or they may negotiate with their boss about delaying a certain task until a project is over. The bottom line is that the individual is responsible to figure out the plan—to use their creativity to see what’s possible and to ask for help. I would encourage them to begin with the question “How will I meet my daily obligations and participate on this team?” In our culture, we have a core value around service to others—this is a perfect opportunity for a coworker to lend a hand.
Q: Do team members follow through on their project assignments? How do you ensure accountability?
A: This has not been a major issue for us. Situations do come up that require flexibility but overall the use of simple project management techniques works well. For instance, the facilitator captures all the action items at the end of each meeting along with the responsible party and due dates. This information is documented in the meeting minutes and is available in OneNote. The facilitator then begins the next meeting by reviewing the action items from the previous meeting. If someone is having difficulty getting an action item done we use that as an opportunity to explore the issues. In the rare case where an individual continues to miss deadlines I’ve seen the group exert pressure on them or if the problem is legitimate, invariably someone will volunteer to help out.
Considerations for Leaders
The leaders at Hubert have supported the organic growth and development of the Co-Create model. They have seen the tangible and cultural benefits that this way of working brings to the business. As a leader, what questions do you have about an approach like Co-Create? I recommend that you gather a small group of your peers to discuss the type of performance environment you want to create and whether this approach might get you there.
Conclusion
I hope I have piqued your interest in how the Co-Create model works. In the coming chapters, I will drill down on how we use each phase of the model and I will share several specific examples from real projects and project teams.
