This blog has moved

This blog is now located at http://stsptc.blogspot.com/.
You will be automatically redirected in 30 seconds, or you may click here.

For feed subscribers, please update your feed subscriptions to
http://stsptc.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default.

PTC seven practices survey

We now have an on-line survey of the PTC seven practices of high performing teams. There are 30 numerically based questions: The seven practices plus several clarifying questions for each of the seven. In addition, there are 3 climate questions asking them to rate their team on morale trust, and productivity. The 7 general questions plus the 3 climate questions are required. All other questions are optional. In addition to the numerical ranking, there is a box for each question to clarify your answer with words.

We see this tool being used with intact teams. Before the training you would ask them to complete the survey and then again before a follow-up session with you the consultant/trainer.

Some hints for using this tool:
1. You need to give the participants a firm deadline for filling out the survey. The deadline needs to be two or three days before the training so we will have time to summarize the results for you.

2. I would suggest that you have them complete the entire PTC experience including ranking themselves on the 7 practices. After they have ranked them selves I would reveal the results of the survey and then compare that result with their ranking. If there is a difference, then it gives a good entry into exploring the "why" of the difference.

This follows an important principle that I believe one should follow when working with intact teams. Generally I believe it is best to go from the simulation to the real world. Never go to the real world and then to the simulation. If you start talking about the team's activity in the real world before the simulation, they are likely to get bogged down in analysis and defensiveness and you lose one of the main advantages of the simulation i.e., to work together as a team in a safe environment where one can make a mistake and it isn't going to count against them. Once the simulation is over the survey makes a perfect bridge into the real world and hopefully they'll then have the PTC common experience to use as safe examples for their discussion.

There is no additional cost for this service as we are learning how to best use it. If you would like to use the survey, call Mitch for the web address and the password.

What do I do with 11 participants and one team?

The two system solution:
The ideal number for PTC is 7 and 8 or 9 people on a team works fine. But what if you have 10 or 11 participants. Too many for one team and not enough for two teams. If you want them to work as one team, then I would suggest having them build two systems. (BTW we don't charge per kit because we want you to feel free to base your decision on how many kits to use on what's best for your program and not have to take in the organization's budget.) Asking one team to make two systems does not double the work if they are working as one team as they can share design information and other resources. If you have them build two systems, ask them to build systems that will allow them to deliver fluid to any one of the 24 targets not just the 12 targets of their system. The task of connecting two systems seems daunting at first but it really is quite simple. All they have to do is put two extra y valves after the pump: one to receive fluid from the other system and one to send fluid to the other system. The receiving y valve is right side up (like a "y") and the y valve sending fluid to the other system is upside down (see diagram) .

If they find it difficult, you can help them with the above hint i.e., "maybe you should consider two extra y valves after the pump." Both systems make the same design.

The Make It more difficult Solution:
We prefer the two system solution because it doesn't require a lot of extra explanation and it involves all of the participants fully. But if you don't like that solution, another one is to make it harder. here are some suggestions:

1. Requiring that each structure be between 60 and 62 centimeters high and require that they incorporate at least 3 triangles in each of the two platforms -the platform that holds the fluid and the platform that holds the fluid delivery system. The triangles can not be ornamental but must contribute to the weight bearing strength of the platforms. This is difficult. The most important piece of information is knowing how long the arms of the triangle should be. Again, if they have difficulty with this, a person could be taken aside and told that legs of the triangle need to be 47 centimeters long. The problem with this approach is that it may be that one "whiz person" may take on this part of the project and not involve the others.


2 Structure their team. Instead of letting them organize any way they want. Make the inventory of materials they will use available to them and require that they divide into sub-teams of three or four and require each team spend 30 minutes of the second simulated day (or begin in the first if they get have had enough time planning) developing a rough design of the fluid delivery system , the platform that holds the source containers and a design of the platform that holds the fluid delivery system. Then require each sub-team to bring its three designs to the whole team ( no matter how much progress they've made) and get agreement on the final design, first from the team. and then approval from Zegra. Zegra would then require that they get approval team approval of any design changes after the design is approved. This is very difficult with a prototype project and where they are unfamiliar with the materials. But it will fully engage them and you can give them help along the way.

3. Assign three people to use their computers (ask them to bring their laptops ahead of time) to: (1) document in detail the decision making process of the team i.e., who proposes solutions, how the decision is made etc.(2) one person to document the patterns of communication who gives directions to whom, who asks questions of whom, and, (3) the third person develops instructions on a latptop to teach the customer how to operate the system during the demonstration. The customer would be required to learn from the computer and only ask three or four direct questions. This creates a typical "finish to start" conflict in that in order for the person to complete the training program, the others need to decide on the design.

Real World Parallels: Rice and Straw "help" Iraqi's

In today's New York Times (4/6/06) there's an article reporting that the elected leaders of Iraqi resented the "help" that Secretary Rice and Foreign Minister Jack Straw tried to give them to form a government. All of the Iraqi officials said the effort was counter productive. Even those who were fighting with one another.

In Pumping we say that all teams must win for any team to win. On several occasions there has been one team out of a group that's struggling. The teams that are doing well discover this and make the decision to help the struggling teams. In almost every case the help is resented. Even when the successful teams can absolutely solve their problem by giving them just a few hints. The struggling team won't hear of it. On several occasions they would rather fail than accept the help.

I think what happens is that the people who are struggling are already operating in the reptilian, non-rational, part of their brains because of the stress that the potential failure puts on them. So when someone tries to help, they don't make a rational decision but an emotional one. To the people who are trying to help and who are operating in the rational parts of their brains, the rejection seems stupid and often makes them angry. The point is that to help someone or a group of people who are under stress, you have to work with them to move out of the emotional area and start to think rationally about the problem. The best way to do this is with one's best facilitator skills e.g. ask questions to help them solve their own problem and not offering solutions unless asked.

It makes me proud of our profession

April 3, 2006.

Garry Shirts

Last Thursday and Friday we conducted a train the trainer workshop for Pumping the Colors. All of the people who attended were trainer types who taught and valued the process of working together as a team.

I'm always impressed with the difference between the way a group like this works on the problem and a group of people who have not been trained in group processes. In this particular train the trainer group there was only one person who had any experience building with the pipes, connectors and equipment that we use in Pumping the Colors. Yet, because they knew how to listen, to work together, to give feedback, and use all of the other skills required by the 7 practices, they were able to accomplish the task faster and better than any team of people who have extensive experience in using the equipment and materials that are used in Pumping The Colors but do not know how to work as a team. For example, this group out performed by a country mile a group of machinists who recently went through PTC. These were men who had spent their lives building complicated machines but had very few of the team building skills. But what is even more important, if this group were an intact team they would continue to improve as a team and want to work together.

It makes me proud of all us who have chosen to help other people learn how to work together as our life's work.

Pumping in Arizona at Spring Training

Just returned from Spring Training and a rousing version of Pumping the Colors. Well OK so the two are not really connected but my long time quest to attend Spring Training was finally accomplished thanks to my fabulous client kicking off a significant management development process in Phoenix during the month of March.

I use Pumping for a rather aggressive kick-off event.

This four month long process is highlighted by small group, weekly coaching sessions. To make those sessions instantly productive I typically use Pumping the Colors to do both team building and team effectiveness training. A class of 20 is subdivided into coaching teams of 5 people. On the Pumping day I run 4 simultaneous teams. It's noisy, challenging, fun of course, and memorable. The small teams and tight timeframes create just enough stress to bond the teams and the energy levels feed on themselves. Running four teams means you really have to focus the debriefs to get to the team effectiveness issues but it's possible if you're really clear on the things you want to accomplish. The day goes by in a blurr but they have the pocket cards and weekly sessions to implement what they learned. Inevitably when we evaluate the program at the end of the four months Pumping is one of the highlights both from a participation and application point of view.

If you're interested in discussing PTC just give me a call @ 510-654-0312.

Birdi

Garry Shirts: Alternatives to outside person as customer

By R. Garry Shirts

One of the features I like about Pumping the Colors is asking a person who has no connection to the training to come in at the end and operate the system that the team has built. Even though the person is some one who has no connection with the group, the very fact that a stranger is going to use their system intensifies their desire to succeed. However, there are situations in which getting an outside person is difficult or it creates other problems. Here are some solutions to that problem.

When there are multiple teams and the time to test every system would be prohibitive.

Mitch and I ran Pumping The Colors for six teams here in San Diego a while ago. The training was held outside. We knew that if we had six people come from the outside to test every system, it would have taken way too much time. So we selected three of the teams to be in a Green group and three to be in a Red group. We told each team that they needed to prove to Zegra that they could pass all of the electives they had chosen such as the double whack test, the no leaking test etc. They also needed to demonstrate that they could train a person from the outside to operate their system if asked to do so. But, we explained, we would randomly choose only one system in the Red group and one system from the Green group to actually be operated by the outside person.

This meant that every team had to prepare as though their system was going to be tested by an outside person, but only one system would actually be tested. It worked very well. There was actually an unexpected benefit. This system created within group cooperation of the teams. Just before we selected the team to represent the groups, the other teams within the group began looking at the other systems in their group and offering suggestions for improving those systems. They wanted to make sure that their group did not fail the test. It gave us an opportunity to talk about competition versus cooperation between groups in an organization.

Sue Burish's solution

When I told Sue Burish about this solution she said that she tells the teams that I am going to ask one of you to operate the system when it is completed so you all need to know how it works. She then adds "and don't be surprised if Zegra chooses a team member who has not had a task that ensures that he or she understands the system."

She reported that this approach has the same effect as using an outside person.