Understanding How Collaboration

Improves Productivity

Paul Boos & Laura Powers

Agenda• Learn the rules and execute the Power of 13

Collaboration Game through several 'scenarios’

• Compare and debrief the results

• Discuss and post the highlights of learning

• Compare experience to various models used to describe team dynamics and communication

• What can you do to improve collaboration

• Discuss how participants will use the game

• Describe possible extensions and how this game has been used by the facilitator/co-facilitators

Collaboration:

Power of 13Simulation

This game was created at Agile Games 2014 by –

Jamie Gaull

Robert Smith

Peter Barzdines

Bobby Zhakov

Paul Boos

Power of 13

Goal:

Work off the the number of cards equal to the number of people within your iteration’s length

Mechanics:

• We need a ‘Scrum Master’ and ‘Product Owner’ – everyone else is a development team member

• Each card is worked off whenever a 13 is rolled on 3 dice (~10% chance per roll)

• The product owner will count off the number of cards completed using a deck of cards

• The scrum master will use another suit of cards to count down your iteration of 13 work days (3 week Sprints, the other two days are sprint review, retro, and planning = 15 days)

• We will mark down what day you meet your goal and the total # of cards worked off

Power of 13 :: Round 1

This round will simulate developers working alone in their silos/cubes

• Each developer is responsible for completing a card from the backlog

• Each developer rolls the dice once per day; the scrum master keeps track of the 13 work days using the suit of cards he or she has

• If a dice roll has a sum total of exactly ‘13’, they state “my card is DONE.” The product owner turns this card over from his stack. The developer stops work and pats himself on the back.

• Record cards completed as each person says they are ‘DONE’; also record what day the required # of stories was completed.

Power of 13 :: Round 2 This round will simulate pulling additional work after you complete work

• The team is still responsible for completing at least the a number of cards from the backlog equal to the number of developers

• Each developer rolls the dice once per day; the scrum master keeps track of the 13 work days using the suit of cards he or she has

• If a dice roll has a sum total of exactly ‘13’, they state “my card is DONE.” The product owner turns this card over from his stack. The developer pats himself on the back; however they may now continue to roll on subsequent days and declare another card done for each ‘13’ they roll.

• Record cards that were completed and what day the required # of stories was completed.

Power of 13 :: Round 3

• This round simulates collaborative pairing to complete work

• The team is still responsible for completing at least the a number of cards from the backlog equal to the number of developers

• Each developer rolls the dice once per day; the scrum master keeps track of the 13 work days using the suit of cards he or she has

• Once each developer has rolled, they work together in pairs (or triads for an odd numbered group) to pull as many sums of exactly ‘13’ on 3 dice as possible; each ’13’ identified equals a card worked.

• Record cards that were completed and what day the required # of stories was completed.

Power of 13 :: Round 4

• This round simulates collaborative swarming to complete work

• The team is still responsible for completing at least the a number of cards from the backlog equal to the number of developers

• Each developer rolls the dice once per day; the scrum master keeps track of the 13 work days using the suit of cards he or she has

• Once each developer has rolled and placed the dice into a common pool, they work together to pull as many sums of exactly ‘13’ on 3 dice as possible; each ’13’ identified equals a card worked. The product owner turns these cards over from his stack.

• Record cards that were completed and what day the required # of stories was completed.

Collaboration:

Power of 13Simulation

Debrief

For the next 3 minutes, write down learning points

or observations you had from playing the game.

Write one item per sticky.

Then over the next 5 minutes discuss at your table

to find the common learning points or observations

people feel were seen. We’ll share these.

Part 1

Collaboration:

Power of 13Simulation

DebriefWhat did you notice happening?

What did the dice/rolls represent?

How did the effectiveness change in each round?

How does or does not this correlate

with how real work happens?

How did the coordination

in the last round feel?

What did allowing a person

to continue work simulate?

Part 2

Let’s Look at Some Models

Important to Understanding

Group Dynamics

Remember: All models are wrong

and some are useful!

Group Communications

Patterns

Linear

Hub

&

Spoke

Network

Network Pattern: as Nodes

Grow, Maintaining the Network

Itself Grows

Communications Paths = N(N-1)/2

where N = number of people (as nodes in the graph).

Realistically, this limits the amount of productive two-way

communication.

How so..?

Some Interesting Data…Based on -

log(N) = 0.093 + 3.389 log(CR) (1) (r2=0.764, t34=10.35, p<0.001)

This equation places the upper limit of how many people with

which we can regularly communicate and maintain stable

relationships (aka social grooming) based on neocortex size.

150

Based on –

Tribal Reciprocity; the limit on the number of people that will

give with an expectation they will receive in kind.

50

Based on –

The lower limit of short term memory limit for bits of information

used in judgement; we can retain only about 7±2 items in

memory.

This limits the number of people with which we can have deep

communication.

5

Evo

lutio

na

ry

Psy

ch

olo

gy

Cu

ltura

l

An

thro

po

log

yC

og

nitiv

e

Psy

ch

olo

gy

Team Performance Predictors

ENERGY

“…when someone announces a new discovery in the same group, excitement and energy skyrocket as all the members start talking to one another at once.”

ENGAGEMENT

“all members of a team have relatively equal and reasonably high energy with all other members, engagement is extremely strong. Teams that have clusters of members who engage in high-energy communication while other members do not participate don’t perform as well.”

EXPLORATION

“…seek more outside connections…”

Communications Patterns

Predict Successful TeamsSuccessful Teams:

1. Everyone on the team talks and listens in roughly equal measure, keeping contributions short and sweet.

2. Members face one another, and their conversations and gestures are energetic.

3. Members connect directly with one another—not just with the team leader.

4. Members carry on back-channel or side conversations within the team.

5. Members periodically break, go exploring outside the team, and bring information back.

Sociometric Measurement of

Team Communications

The Johari Window

Known to Self Unknown to Self

Kn

ow

n t

o O

the

rsU

nkn

ow

n t

o O

the

rs

OPEN

AREA

BLIND

AREA

HIDDEN

AREA

UNKNOWN

AREA

The Johari Window

Known to Self Unknown to Self

Kn

ow

n t

o O

the

rsU

nkn

ow

n t

o O

the

rs

FEEDBACK

DISCLOSURESHARED

DISCOVERY

OPEN

AREA

BLIND

AREA

HIDDEN

AREA

UNKNOWN

AREA

The Johari Window

Known to Self Unknown to Self

Kn

ow

n t

o O

the

rsU

nkn

ow

n t

o O

the

rs

TELL

ASK

FEEDBACK

DISCLOSURESHARED

DISCOVERY

OPEN

AREA

BLIND

AREA

HIDDEN

AREA

UNKNOWN

AREA

The Johari Window

Known to Self Unknown to Self

Kn

ow

n t

o O

the

rsU

nkn

ow

n t

o O

the

rs

TELL

ASK

FEEDBACK

DISCLOSURESHARED

DISCOVERY

OPEN

AREA

BLIND

AREA

HIDDEN

AREA

UNKNOWN

AREA

Anyone have a 4?

I have

a 4!

Information Transfer Occurs Both

Explicitly and Tacitly

Tacit transfer builds trust

Explicit transfer creates artifacts

Focusing = (Heads-Down) Work Alone

Collaboration = f( [WorkF])

Learning = Building Knowledge with Explicit Thinking

Socializing = Building Trust + Building Knowledge Innovation

Σn

1

Nonaka Model

More Data

“82% of white collar workers feel they need to partner with others throughout the

workday to get work done”

Knowledge Work = Social Activity

Tuckman Stages of Group

Development

Fo

cu

s o

n W

ork

Relationship/Trust

Forming

Storming

Norming

Performing

Tuckman Stages of Group

Development

Fo

cu

s o

n W

ork

Relationship/Trust

Forming

Storming

Norming

Performing

First day or

two…

Tuckman Stages of Group

Development

Fo

cu

s o

n W

ork

Relationship/Trust

Forming

Storming

Norming

Performing

Days 2-3 to 5-

7…

Tuckman Stages of Group

Development

Fo

cu

s o

n W

ork

Relationship/Trust

Forming

Storming

Norming

Performing

Days 5-7 to 8-

9…

Tuckman Stages of Group

Development

Fo

cu

s o

n W

ork

Relationship/Trust

Forming

Storming

Norming

Performing

Days 8-9

on…

As a Team Forms, Only Explicit

Info Is Known

People know about you some,

perhaps you tell them a few

things.

People will focus on

performing their own work

(utilizing what they know

tacitly about themselves)

and sharing information only

explicitly.

Next is Storming; People Still

Share Explicitly

People still know only what

you have revealed and they

are unlikely to give you

feedback, so your Blind Area

remains that way – Blind.

People lose some focus on

performing their own work,

but collaboration suffers

more.

On to Norming! Now Things

Begin to Get Cooking

As norming occurs, people

begin to reveal more

information and ask questions

so they know more how they

fit in. These help build the trust

and relationships.

Focus and collaboration

come back and learning

starts happening as

informal settings begin to

take hold.

Performing; People Share Informally

and Comfortably Frequently

More and more information is

shared about each other,

leading to greater and

greater trust, increasing the

ability to get more done.

Informal settings (casual

discussions, greater sharing

of mental models, higher

use of shared metaphors,

etc.) takes place. The

amount of information

transferred regularly is

enormous.

That was interesting, what

should we do with it...?

We’re going to look at this from 3

different viewpoints:

• Team Member

• Leader

• Influencer

Team Member

Has a need to be bound to social

achievement of a common goal

• Forming sets the goal, but shared

understanding of it may be missing

• Storming is a natural progression, but progress

deteriorates – we want to progress through

this stage quickly

• Norming is where the shared understanding

for the social achievement is created

• Performing is where this shared

understanding is used effectively

Improving Teamwork

• Increasing the Open Area increases trust

– Disclose information about yourself willingly

– Request feedback to receive it

– Establish working agreements and project

charters (explicit transfer) to help establish

the metaphors, shared understanding, and

casualness that is acceptable (tacit transfer)

• And as we saw, increasing trust, increases work focus productivity

Only focusing on the goal misses the need for also

having the good relationships needed to produce.

The Leader

Has a need to accomplish goals through

others AND are only indirectly involved in

the social achievement

• Often they set the initial goal(s) and

environment in Forming

• During the remaining stages, they usually

only involve themselves when ‘needed’;

depending on how this is done, this may

impede performance through the social

achievement in progress

Supporting Teamwork

• Model the behavior needed to increase the open Area– Disclose what help teams can get from you

(and under what circumstances)

– Disclose pertinent vulnerabilities

– Ask for and graciously acknowledge feedback (do this more than asking for info)

• Taken together these increase trust because you aren’t just about them achieving goals, but you are showing you have both interest and empathy

Building good relationships with teams gives them

license to set the behaviors they need to produce.

Influencer

Has a need for the goal to be successful but has no direct interest (or authority) in the social achievement

• During Forming, often sets expectations for performance needs tangential to the first order team goal

• Often may be a trigger for deepening lack of focus during Storming

• Usually consulted when a team attempts to Norm

• Often ignored if a team is Performing

(Individual or External Stakeholder Group)

Encouraging Teamwork

• Increasing the Open Area increases trust with the teams– Disclose information about yourself willingly (coaching role)

– Disclose what the relationship of your tangential goals to the team’s and the help they can get from you for achieving these (and under what circumstances)

– Establish working agreements specifically around a protocol for interaction (explicit transfer) to help establish the metaphors, shared understanding, and casualness that is acceptable (tacit transfer) during all phases of the team’s phases

– Ask for and graciously acknowledge feedback; particularly on interventions you make to to help the team’s effectiveness

• Taken together these increase trust because you aren’t just about them achieving goals to your tangential needs, but you are showing you have interest in their success as well

Building good relationships with the team allows you

to influence their behaviors they need to produce.

Collaboration – What Helps &

Hinders• Break into groups of ~5

• Create a list of items that promote collaboration.– What forces are at play that help people to

want to collaborate?

• Create a list of items that impede collaboration.– What forces are at work that hinder people

from wanting to collaborate?

• Assign a weight to each item from 1-5

• Timebox of 5 min

• Elect a spokesperson.

Promotes Impedes

Collaboration – Forcefield Analysis

ResourcesLuft, Joseph; Ingham, Harrison (1955). "The Johari window, a graphic model of

interpersonal awareness". Proceedings of the western training laboratory in group

development (Los Angeles: UCLA)

Tuckman, Bruce (1965). "Developmental sequence in small groups".

Psychological Bulletin 63

Pentland, Alex "Sandy”(2012). “The New Science of Building Great Teams”.

Harvard Business Review, April 2012

Nonaka, Ikujiro; Hirotaka Takeuchi (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company

(2008) “Inside Innovation,” Business Week, April 28, 2008

Steelcase WorkSpace Futures (2010). How The Workplace Can Improve

Collaboration, June 2010 Whitepaper on Supporting Collaboration

Spradley, Jonothan; McCurdy, David W. (2012). Conformity and Conflict:

Readings in Cultural Anthropology, Pearson Education

Miller, George A. (1956). The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some

Limits on our Capacity for Processing Information, Psychologicial Review 63

Dunbar, Robin I. M. (1992). “Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and

language in humans”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Volume 16 Issue 04,

December 1993