Massimo Mercuri

[Massimo Mercuri]

I was thinking about not responding :P
Jokes aside, I believe with the LSP Team script you have a great way to bring to the table what you already look for and be ready for surprises … I have used it for problem resolution. Is very important that the facilitator is not involved personally in any of the issues, If you facilitate then resist the temptation to give your own opinion!

[Massimo Mercuri]

Very sensitive subject … I have conflicting feelings about this.
On one hand, after more than 100 workshops (we are 3 facilitators in DSM and we co-facilitate often to learn from each other and improve) we have become convinced that the “plain vainilla” script is the best you can do to achieve meaningful impact. The power of the method is the connection and harmonization of the minds that play together, that goes beyond collective intelligence and include the emotional intelligence of the participants.

On the other hand, we have to recognize that the weakness of the method -and the reason why the executive layer prefers to use it when there is no other way available- is that the extraction of tangible deliverables on the spot, is poor. Management acknowledges the “soft” result of teaming and alignment immediately, but in business the actual value generation comes later and only very intelligent people are capable to make the connection to the LSP experience they had maybe six months or even years before. We have a project that started in 2013 and just finished last week, the project manager invited me to the final drinks because he recognized the collaboration would not have been possible without the initial LSP workshop. But that is just one case and the higher you go in the C-scale is usually representative of a shorter attention span: executive will not remember or simple cannot connect the business success to the LSP workshop you did a long time ago. That is why many will consider LSP a simple “ice-breaker”.

How did we solve it? by specializing it, adding tools from other methods around the workshop to capture the outcome in real time. We added one, sometimes two people, to fill up mindmaps, quadrants, charts and even write down in some project brief document sections while the workshop is happening. That way the participants have a tangible confirmation that there is a documented knowledge that can be cascaded or transferred to others in the organization. In that way becomes easy to communicate strategy, project planning, risk assessments, stakeholder analysis and so on.

In short my point is, the actual capital of the method is the method itself and that should not be undervalued just to have everybody using it. We have to be careful that popularization does not become “making it cheap” in value generation. There are too many facilitators doing ice-breakers for free and that is only damaging the image of the methodology.

I also believe that many facilitators certified just because they like playing with LEGO and they think that the method will give them the purpose … that is very naïve, because any method is empty if it does not relate to the situation or circumstance (and language) of the group or organization that is applyin it … maybe we should be more careful and certify people who have already good experience in some fields beside facilitation and plan to improve their impact by aquiring a powerful method like LSP. Otherwise all the mass-training generate facilitators who do not understand the intrinsic effects of the method in regards to individual and organizational learning. I would not have been capable to achieve the results I did in the last 3 years if I did not have previous knowledge to fit the method to the circumstance, I think the worst enemy of the popularization of the method is the mass-training of facilitiators.
LSP is about System Thinking, and that is a scarse knowledge in the general population. Probably we should make it more exclusive and that will automatically make it more valuable for the customers who are spending a lot of money in “team building” or “strategy” activities that are much more expensive than a two-day LSP workshop … and maybe that is precisely why they do not ask for it, it’s seen as “cheap” due to the way it is marketed.

having said so (and sorry for writing a lot) we all have the right to disagree, but I am sure this will trigger some thoughts.

Keep the discussion going!

[Massimo Mercuri]

Hello Enrique, Let’s get in touch.
I am an innovation manager for a big multinational and during the last 3 years have introduced LSP combined with Design Thinking in practice. And of course do not underestimate there is a LOT of research done around play …
Shoot me a mail to massimo@massimomercuri.com

[Massimo Mercuri]

It works in a one-to-one via Skype or Lync, I have done a few but not too long because you cannot maintain the attention of the player directly, you rely on being inside a box :) It must be quick and high level, not too deep.

I am waiting for the opportunity to have a small group via the corporate videoconference … with the big screen and HD video camera I hope to be able to interact better

[Massimo Mercuri]

Proposal: why don’t we have a workshop ourselves to design the event?

[Massimo Mercuri]

I’m interested … greetings from Limburg!

[Massimo Mercuri]

mmmmmm … thinking …. the Duck exercise is adding time but little meaning. The duck in itself is a stand-alone demo and does not mix well with others … I would remove #2, then move #3 to #2, and then add new #3, to build their own personal “superpower”.
That way they are still doing skill building but they are also sharing their own personal reason to exist. It always works (basically replaces the “mother in law” that in this case would be a waste of time)

Danger: If you want to do the future view and then also the shared model, you will run out of time immediately, and the participants will not be able to capture any learning, so the whole experience degrades. Be careful. More games does not mean better quality, nor content. You need to let them enjoy what they learn, or they will lose the flow effect. With two hours I would not attempt to make also a shared model. Stay with the personal future view better.

I would add the Simple Guiding Principles at the end, because it is a very powerful exercise. in this case if you can simply make them build one “golden rule” for success of the team. I have observed they tend to understand the concept of Golden Rule much better that Simple Guiding Principles, it’s just a matter of language, they mean the same but are better understood :) And have them ranking them with the 3 bricks. It is always an eye-opener for the team, specially because almost always there is one or two models that get no votes. AND the team can actually use the outcome in their daily strategy.

Anyhow this is just my point of view, remember that what works is what you feel most comfortable with :-)

if you wish, I have a two hour script that we did with 20 people in two tables for a two-team collaboration project kickoff. The participants and the project manager gave excellent feedback on how the session positively impacted the project outcome.

[Massimo Mercuri]

Prima di tutto credo che bisogna essere prima facilitatori, poi imparare il metodo, per avere risultati di impatto per il cliente.
Un facilitatore professionale no si mette a vendere un metodo solo per dire che lo fa. In quel caso si certifica.

Peró …. e qualcuno lo deve dire un “peró” … forse c’é un valore a mantenere un album.

Penso alla possibilitá di gente che non é certificata sputtana il metodo … e il cliente paga il conto.
Penso che uno certificato potrebbe perdere l’oppotunitá di un’esperienza del cliente, perché un ciarlatano lo da gratis … e poi sputtana il metodo!

Insomma, un album previene lo sputtanamento? non son sicuro perché a volte ci sputtaniamo da soli, ed io non no un catalogo delle mie parti certificate, anche se magari qualcuna potrebbe essere da museo … dell’orrore!

Caffé ?

[Massimo Mercuri]

Allora, cosa posso dire?
Facilito con LSP dal 2012, in tre lingue. Per lavoro a DSM, per hobby al CERN, e per amore dappertutto.
Credo nei “simple guiding principles” sopra tutte le altre verità.
Non credo nei Kits pre-inscatolati, ma nel potere del metodo e nella magia dei mattoncini.

[Massimo Mercuri]

Io non credo negli ice-breakers, a meno che servano a qualche cosa.
E non uso gli starter kits a meno che sia perché voglio pubblicizzare il metodo in se. ed a volte lo faccio, soprettutto se é la prima volta in una nuova organizzazione, ed i giocatori sono “influencers”.
Comunque, con qualsiasi insieme di mattoncini vari, mi piace aprire sfidandoli a fare una torre in 10 o venti secondi, anche con il countdown degli ultimi cinque. Una volta anche con il fischietto da arbitro (use only if it is a large group. I had 40).
A volte invece, secondo del tipo di esperienza che si vuole evocare, vale invece la pena di lascierli sognare con la torre, senza dargli nemmeno un limite.
Ho provato a far la torre e poi usarla per esplorare l’identitá, ma quello funziona solo se nel primo esercizio gli dai a scegliere fra la torre ed il ponte, cosí c’é giá un effetto personale e la torre passa da essere una semplice construzione ad essere invece un modello.

Peró se puoi fai almeno Torre (o toore/ponte), Explain This, and Metaphors. Ognuno puó contribuire al contenuto. Fare attenzione al Flow! aiuta avere rotte alternative in mente e decidere secondo di come avanza il processo del gruppo, come sará il prossimo esercizio

[Author]

Posts