Sebastian

[Sebastian]

Hi Enrique, would be glad to fill in the survey.
Unsure what youre after and whether its product or process innovation, iterative or disruptive innovation but I have held innovation workshops in Citibank, Honda, ANZ, Louis Vuitton, Danone etc using a mix of TRIZ, Design Thinking, Kaizen, LEAN 6 Sigma, etc. The usefulness I find is:
Creating an innovative mindset.. especially in Asian banks where zero error is the norm. They start realusing that innovation can be done by anyone and there is a methodological approach.
Exploring real innovations in the workplace product, process, etc.
Filtering ideas based on impact and feasibility to ensure they are implementable post workshop.
When I do a series for one client I usually find that some ideas explored 3 to 4 workshops ago have already been implemented or approved for implementation. I also found that in some classes managers are disseminating the innovation approach they learned to gheir subordinates.
As Eli says a lot of the post benefits are anecdotal and certainly would not pass stringent academic verification.
But the beauty is clients in the business world dont really care, they’ll grab any tool that seems to work.

[Sebastian]

Hi.. this sounds interesting as a title but am rather confused what it is, what does it do and what is its potential sinergy wirh LSP?
I visited the links but am still unsure what it does?

[Sebastian]

Eli had a very good explanation of how humans (kids and adults) process metaphors. Incidentally I also do workshops with children from ages 4 (speaking age) to early teens and I have found that their grasp of understanding, modelling and explaining metaphors through LEGO (or any other physical object) is generally the same as adults. It is just a matter of reference subject matter that is different.
In fact in corporate client testimonials a common comment is: “We were quite worried and hesitant in the beginning as to how we as directors, managers would be able to use the tools productively and be engaged with children’s toys. Instead we found that we quickly become like children and started building metaphors and discussing them and found that we became very creative and issues emerged beyond our expectations” (I am summarizing and paraphrasing here).
I am always worried at the beginning of every workshop, usually because I get infected by the HR people who retained me and who are worried they may be gambling money on an unorthodox methodology and get reprimanded. However after 100’s of workshops I have yet to have even one workshop fail where adults could not build and discuss metaphors of simple or complex issue.
Eli may be able to better explain the scientific basis for why it works but I just generally tell the client ” I’m not really sure why it works, but it normally does… just trust me and my experience with other clients”. I then give them the contact of the other clients (with permission) to verify.
Regarding concepts whether it is modelling Truth, Leadership, Government Corruption, Why Mummy and Daddy have to Work, What is God, Integrity, Inefficient Systems, Life Goals, The Meaning of Life, Inter Departmental Budget or Strategy Alignment, Innovation and Disruption in Brands and Products… we’ve covered them all and they all worked.
The approach I use is to normally to:
1. explain the 4 Core Steps,
2. get them to build something simple (a bridge, a tower) in the skills building phase
3. Modify their simple model into another concept (Leadership, Customer Service, Integrity)
4. If some participants seem hesitant or confused I just tell them: ” Don’t think about it, don’t plan it, just get the bricks and start building, your hands will figure out what to do. You may not understand what you have built but when you start sharing and touching the model, the ideas will come to you.

I know it sounds simplistic and rather unscientific but it works 99% of the time. Also remember there are other participants quicker on the uptake and act as role models for the others.

Cheers!

[Sebastian]

Hi Joy,

In answer to you questions “..how do you in corporate settings get adults who haven’t played with LEGO before or not in 30 years to figure out how to convey ideas into bricks?”;

I have been doing LEGO SP in corporate settings for several years now with thousands of participants.. staff level, middle managers, Board of Directors, Minsters etc. Ages ranging from early 20s to late 60s, both from Western and Eastern Cultures. I have found that actually using LEGO is one of the easiest tools to communicate and express ideas for people who normally have difficulties doing it in normally ways such as Seminars, presentations, group discussion, etc.

The adult vs kids comfort levels in communicating and building ideas are actually done away with very quickly.. normally within the first 30 minutes to an hour.

I have had maybe 2 failures to engage adults.. in both cases the participant had what I can only call Spatial Dyslexia.. they have a problem with LEFT vs Right and UP vs Down when handling objects.

Apart from that LEGO SP is the easiest way I have found for adult to engage in learning (within Conceptual bounds).

I am sure all other practitioners here will say the same

[Sebastian]

I also use the Blue transparent DUPLO brick at the start of every session to explain the concept of metaphors. I always state “This brick represents my Mother in Law…. Why?” They then have a good time guessing size, transparency, wisdom, eight kids, calm, peacemaker, loves jewelry, etc. Its amusing and they get the point very quickly that youre not building creative art, just metaphors.

The other thing is I have found you do not need even LEGO pieces to run an LSP workshop. Its better if you do of course.. because of the colors and familiarity. I have used figurines, matchboxes, clay, phones, shoes, money, coins, etc. Anything that helps the discussion and stimulates the mind is okay.

[Sebastian]

Hi Melissa,

12 should not be an issue if you facilitate the sharing and discussion well.
I have run a table of 14 at one go with no major issues though I do not recommend it.
I find that 6 is an ideal table size for time and richness of input.
As Eli says having cofacilitators or even assistant facilitators is best and also distfibutes ebergy and focus well.
Just be sure to notice the body language of your participants and manage accordingly. One trick is involving them as managers of the energy and flow in thd group.
FYI I am conducting a workshop today with 165 pax and 6 facilitators and Im sure it should run just as well.
A trick is to have a Pleno table at the end where the findings of each table are consolidated.
Good Luck!

[Sebastian]

Hi Idan,

In my experience the amount of activities you wish to implement are rather ambitious for 23 people in 2.5 hours. The questons are interesting enough though.

[Sebastian]

Hi Ariel I have used a similar approach though applied to processes in banks.
I used a LEAN and TRIZ Creativity Matrix Canvas for each group to:
1 Identify the current process chain and process components in the system to be improved.
2. Identify Process Waste, Redundancy, Inefficiency using LEAN 8 Waste Matrix
3. Using TRIZ, identify process chain components to Eliminate, Add, Modify, Transform or Copy
4. Prioritize each improvement potential by Umpact and Achivability
5. Create PARETO based Action plan.

I use connectors to connect the process components

Cheers

[Sebastian]

Hi Phek,

Mathematically it should be in the 10s or hundreds of thousands of combinations or permutations or possibly even more..
In reality in my experience if I ask 50 people to build ducks.. about 3 to 4 would be similar though not exactly so.

However all 50 are building a duck according to how their hands and minds sees a duck.

If you transpose this the possibility for different ducks in a group if people would be about 92 %…

In a demo workshop of 6 to 8 people noone has ever built similar ducks.

Hope this helps.

[Sebastian]

Hi Gabriel,

re the Real time Strategy for Teams.. an alternative method to use is the The Five Dysfunctions of a Team. By Patrick Lencioni model.
Basically the exercise would be:

LSP Skill building
Johari Window.. each participant builds:
1. their own perception of how they behave in a work team
2. how they perceive another person behaves in the work team

Each pax then shares their view of themselves and the other person (anonimously). (During this exercise someone needs to jot the characteristics on a flipchart. Alternatively each person has a check sheet that they fill in as the sharing is being done.
At the end all pax have to guess who the anonymous other person was.
DEBRIEF: Compare description of self and that built y someone else. It is rare that all the descriptions of own’s self main team behaviour characteristics match tha built by others. This dovetails into the fact that if you dont know your team member or his/her perspective on team behaviour then you have potential for team dysfunction. It is also fun and breaks the ice to go into the following exercise:

The Five Dysfunctions of a Team. By Patrick Lencioni model – summary in : http://flpbs.fmhi.usf.edu/pdfs/Five%20Dysfunctions%20of%20a%20Team.pdf

The basic of this are that a team needs the following:
1. They trust one another.
2. They engage in unfiltered conflict around ideas.
3. They commit to decisions and plans of actions.
4. They hold one another accountable for delivering against those plans.
5. They focus on the achievement of collective results.

EXERCISE:

Depending on time:

Accept the above 5 functions as ideal team identity / Behavior

– Each builds their perception of how the above would look like at work by building LEGO models.
– Share and combine into one model for each dysfunction/function
– Place each model in landscape mode on table .. spread out as five separate ideal objectives to aspire to.

– Everyone starts building solutions/initiatives/actions that are within their power to implement in small LEGO models.
– Place each solution model on a line distance to each function ideal based on the AGREED IMPACT of each solution (High. Medium. Low).
– Share, Discuss and compromise on which main actions they should choose to implement to achieve the 5 Ideal Team Functionalities. Ideally do not choose more than 3 main actions (SGP).

Alternatively the above step could just combine all 5 functions in 1 model if pressed fro time, but I find separating them makes for a clearer and uncluttered discussion.

At the end each person makes a personal commitment as to how he/she would personally implement the SGP at work and also critically HOW THEY WILL MONITOR AND MEASURE the implementation. I always use a short Survey Monkey on line survey on a 2 week/monthly basis to measure. Or make it a small part of their agenda at their monthly meetings.

You should be able to do this in a day

Hope this helps

Cheers

[Author]

Posts