As part of my role, I'm responsible for developing strategy. It's my belief that the best way to get people engaged in a specific direction is to get them involved in setting the course. Recently, as part of defining strategy, I decided to run a workshop activity to seek feedback in an interactive way.
The structure of the exercise I used was based on one demonstrated by Adele Graham in a training course that I attended. Adele split the class into groups of four or five people, then gave each group a set of three coloured cards that read:
Adele then made a statement and gave the class five minutes to discuss the statement in their groups. At the end of this time each group had to pick the card that reflected their collective opinion of the statement. There was then discussion among the class where differences existed between groups.
I decided to use this same exercise to get input on my strategic thinking, focusing on areas in which I was uncomfortable about making a decision. By opening these aspects to critique, I hoped that the group would bring forward ideas that I hadn't considered.
I had seen that the best discussion in Adele's session came where the statements expressed a polarity; my language had to be clear and absolute. I worked to frame my statements so that the tester favourite of "it depends" would be abandoned in favour of clear choices, yes or no.
I also decided to intersperse the strategy discussions with those that would give me insight into the existing opinions of those present, to give me confidence in areas that I felt my thinking was sound.
Ultimately, I had a set of four statements for discussion:
- A mind map is an easy way to present my test ideas to other people
- [PLATFORM] is the best way to create a [PRACTICE] community at [ORGANISATION]
- I could do [PRACTICE] in my current role at my current client
- One hour of training, once per month, is the best way for me to learn more about [PRACTICE]
I had planned to spend 20 minutes on this piece of the workshop. I estimated that I would need to allow three minutes for each individual group to decide, then two additional minutes for wider discussion in the case that there was disagreement between groups.
On the day, I had 23 people at the workshop. For this exercise, I split the attendees into five separate groups based on their current client engagement, in order to support discussions against the third statement.
We began, and agreement was reached on the first statement almost instantly:
We began, and agreement was reached on the first statement almost instantly:
Today I had 23 testers agree, no concerns, with the statement "A mind map is an easy way to present my test ideas to other people" #testing
— Katrina Clokie (@katrina_tester) May 15, 2014
This made me a little concerned that the exercise wouldn't achieve what I had hoped!
Fortunately, the remaining three statements created the type of conflict I was expecting to emerge and provided a good catalyst for opinionated group discussion. As a result, I felt that the group understood the types of compromise inherent in these areas.
My expected timing didn't hold true for each piece of the process. In every case the groups had decided well within the three minutes. However the resulting workshop-wide discussion was much more detailed than I had planned, as different opinions were aired. Overall, we hit the 20 minute estimate for the entire exercise.
My expected timing didn't hold true for each piece of the process. In every case the groups had decided well within the three minutes. However the resulting workshop-wide discussion was much more detailed than I had planned, as different opinions were aired. Overall, we hit the 20 minute estimate for the entire exercise.
I was happy with the breadth of thinking that appeared, and the conclusions reached where opinions were varied. I felt that this workshop gave us a strong foundation to begin from, as the strategy should now reflect the agreement reached here.
How do you seek input on strategic direction? Any other innovative ideas?