Introduction to Technology of Participation (ToP)

International Association of Facilitators 1999 Annual Meeting Williamsburg, Virginia, USA

January 14-17, 1999 Thread #2: Group Planning

Introduction to Technology of Participation (ToP) ^TM

Jim Spee, Facilitator Assistant Professor Whitehead College University of Redlands Box 3080 Redlands, CA 92373-0999 909-335-4068x4148 Fax 909-335-5125 spee@uor.edu

Abstract

The Technology of Participation (ToP)^TM methods developed by the Institute of Cultural Affairs (ICA) over the last thirty years provide facilitators a wonderful starting point for increasing group participation in focused discussions, brainstorming, action planning, and strategic planning. This session will provide participants an introduction to four fundamental ToP^TM methods.

Focused Discussion

The purpose of the focused discussion is to move a group from a diffused set of observations, feelings, interpretations, and proposed actions to an informed consensus about what to do on the basis of consensus about what the group experienced.

Focused discussion is useful whenever a group needs consensus about its response to a shared event. The event may be traumatic, happy, sad, or work related. Stanfield (1997) gives 100 different uses for the discussion method including:

Conversations for evaluating and reviewing

Conversations for preparation and planning

Conversations for coaching and mentoring

Conversations for interpreting information

Decision making conversations

Managing and supervising conversations

Personal and celebrative coversations (vi-viii)

The method follows a cognitive model consistent with Argyris's work on advocacy and inquiry by moving participants up the "ladder of inference" together. The ladder of inference starts with concrete evidence and moves to conclusions about the meaning of the evidence. In the same way, the focused discussion method starts with objective questions about things that can be observed directly. It moves to reflections on the observations then to interpretations of why events caused the reactions experienced by the group. Finally, decisional questions help the group decide which actions to take.

Objective Questions

Objective questions focus the discussion on what the group saw, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled. After an emotionally charged event, it is very important to bring the group back to the direct observations of the members that led them to respond in a particular way. Emotions cannot be observed, but facial expressions, body language, tone of voice, and actions can. Because we often jump to conclusions about our own and others' emotional states, it is important to be clear on the facts before reflecting further.

Reflective Questions

Once the facts are clear, the facilitator begins to ask the group reflective questions that describe how members of the group felt about the event they are discussing. The event may have reminded them of something else that occurred before. It may have elicited strong positive or negative feelings. Reflective questions allow members of the group to vent in a constructive way and clear the air before going on to deeper analysis of the situation.

Interpretive Questions

After the group has determined the connections between what it observed and how the members responded to the events, it is time to ask for interpretations. In this step, the facilitator asks participants to make connections between what happened and why. The analysis does not have to be deeply theoretical, but should fit the facts and the group's reaction to the facts.

Decisional Questions

Based on the interpretation in the previous step, the fourth part of the method is to bring the group to a decision. First they must decide what sorts of decisions are implied by the interpretation of events generated in the previous step. Next they need to propose actions that the group could take and decide which is the best to deal with the situation. The table below summarizes each part of the Focused Conversation method:

	Objective	Reflective	Interpretive	Decisional
Focus of the questions	Data, facts about the topic, external reality	Internal relationships to the data	The life meaning of the topic	Resolution, implications, new directions.
	Objective	Reflective	Interpretive	Decisional
What it does for the group	Ensures that everyone deals with the same body of data	Reveals initial responses	Draws out the significance from the data for the group.	Making the conversation relevant for the future.
	Objective	Reflective	Interpretive	Decisional
Questions are in relation to	The senses; what is seen and heard and touched, etc.	Feelings, moods, memories or associations	Layers of meaning, purpose, significance, implications, "story," and values. Considering alternatives, options.	Consensus, implementation, action.
	Objective	Reflective	Interpretive	Decisional
Key questions	What objects do you see? What words or phrases stand out? What happened?	What does it remind you of? How does it make you feel? Where were you surprised? Where delighted? Where did you struggle?	What is happening here? What is this all about? What does all this mean for us? How will this affect our work? What are we learning from this? What is the insight?	What is our response? What decision is called for? What are the next steps?
	Objective	Reflective	Interpretive	Decisional
Traps and pitfalls	Asking closed questions, or questions not specific enough. No clear focus. Ignore objective questions because they are "too trivial."	Limiting the discussion to an either/or survey of likes and dislikes.	Abusing the data by inserting pre-cooked meaning; intellectualizing, abstracting, judging responses as right or wrong.	Forcing a decision when group is not ready or avoiding pushing the group for decision.
	Objective	Reflective	Interpretive	Decisional
If this level is omitted	No shared image of what the group is discussing. Comments will seem unrelated.	The world of intuition, memory, emotion and imagination is ignored.	Group gets no chance to make sense out of the first two levels. No higher-order thinking goes into the decision making	The responses from the first three levels are not applied or tested in real life.

Source: Stanfield (1997) pp. 26-28

Brainstorming Workshop

The Brainstorming Workshop is useful for facilitators who want to quickly gather the wisdom of an entire group in response to a particular question. It ensures that everyone in the group gets an equal chance to contribute their ideas. The Brainstorming Workshop has eight key components:

Focus Question
Experiential Objective
Rational Objective
Context
Brainstorm (Using large post-its)
Organize into categories
Name the categories
Reflect on the pattern

Focus Question

To use the Brainstorming Workshop effectively, you must first decide on a focus question that will direct the group's activities. Usually you have some idea of what the issue is before you start, but it is a good idea to finalize the wording of the question with the entire group before you begin the workshop.

Experiential Objective

Set the Experiential Objective based on the process outcome you desire for the group. It may be that they learn to work together better or become more cohesive as a group.

Rational Objective

Set the Rational Objective based on the content outcome you would like the group to achieve. Usually this means that they will gain new understanding of the issues that surround their focus question.

Context

Once the question and objectives are clear, it is important to set the context for the discussion. This could include a review of prior work or an explanation of why the issue is important enough to make it the focus of this workshop.

Brainstorm (Using large post-its)

Now that you have set the stage, pose the focus question to the group by writing it on a flip chart or white board at the front of the room. Ask the participants to jot down as many answers to the question as they can think of. At this stage, they all work individually. After about ten minutes, they will start to get restless. If the group is large, you may ask people to share their ideas in small groups before collecting the data at the front of the room. If the group is small, you can ask every participant to copy one idea onto a 8½ by 5½ inch Post-It. Ask for their most unusual idea, their most risky, or any other adjective that will get them moving. Stick the Post-Its to the wall in random order. After you receive about 20, ask the group if any of the ideas go together. Pair up cards that the group views as similar. Then ask for another round of cards. Continue until you have exhausted the new ideas coming from the group.

Organize into categories

The next step is to organize the pairs into larger groups. Ask the group which pairs go together. Create a set of labels using geometric shapes and use them to keep track of the groups. Non-verbal labels help the ideas flow without locking into a particular category name.

Name the categories

When you have finished organizing the ideas, ask the group to name each category. When they have achieved agreement on a name, ask one of the group members to write the name on a card and put a frame around the title. Put the title card next to the appropriate group.

Reflect on the pattern

With the categories named, it is time to ask the group to reflect on the work it has done and to give a title to the set of ideas they have brainstormed. The key to the Brainstorming Workshop is that although ideas may differ within the group, the issues underlying those ideas have come into focus. At the same time, people with similar ideas have seen that others in the group feel the same way they do. This strengthens the relationships within the group and energizes people's willingness to participate.

Action Planning

Action planning is a method that combines the Focused Conversation and the Brainstorming Workshop to help a group move forward on a short term basis. The workshop consists of the following eleven components:

Rational Objective
Experiential Objective
Context
Define the victory
Current Reality
Commitment to the outcome in light of current reality
Brainstorm actions to achieve victory
Organize into common categories
Name the groups of tasks and form task forces
Organize the tasks into a timeline.
Reflect on the plan.

Rational Objective

As with the workshop method, the rational objective is the content goal for the action plan. It might be to create a special event or to complete an important project.

Experiential Objective

The Experiential Objective is the goal for the process of making the action plan, such as achieving a more cohesive group.

Context

The facilitator sets the context by reviewing past work or asking members of the group to summarize where their progress to date.

Define the victory

The facilitator begins to define the plan by asking members of the group to visualize their success. One effective way to do so is by having them visualize a victory celebration the day after the special event or project is completed. Have members of the group describe what they see, taste, hear, touch and smell at the victory party. This question is similar to the Rational questions in the Focused Discussion method. The difference is that the events have not yet occurred. The facilitator lists statements on a flip chart and tapes each chart on the wall as it is filled.

Current Reality

The victory is not assured, however, because the current situation of the group intrudes and can impede its progress. In the discussion the Current Reality, the facilitator asks about the Strengths of the group, Weaknesses of the group, Benefits to the Group, Dangers to the Group. To collect the data, the facilitator draws a large oval on a flip chart and divides it into four quadrants.

Strengths of the group

The focus question for this stage of the process is "What strengths do we as a group bring to this action plan?" The facilitator enters their responses in the upper left quadrant of a flip chart.

Weaknesses of the group

Using a different colored marker, the facilitator records answers to the question "What weaknesses do we as a group bring to this action plan?" in the lower left quadrant on the flip chart.

Benefits to the Group

In the upper right quadrant, the facilitator records answers to the question, "How does completing this action plan benefit us as a group?"

Dangers to the Group

In the lower right quadrant, the facilitator records answers to the question, "What are the dangers to us as a group if we complete this action plan?

Commitment to the outcome in light of current reality

Next the facilitator reviews the victory flip charts and the current reality. Based on both their vision for victory and the current reality, the facilitator asks the group to summarize their commitment to the project in a short phrase or sentence. While the Victory segment defines everything the group would like to happen, the Commitment statement narrows that down to the key priorities of what the group feels is possible.

Brainstorm actions to achieve victory

Using the same techniques as in the Workshop method above, the facilitator assists the group in brainstorming specific actions needed to achieve the victory. The focus question for the brainstorm is:

What specific actions and tasks will we need to accomplish to achieve our victory?

Organize into common categories

The facilitator works with the group to pair up similar brainstorms and then organize them into larger categories.

Name the groups of tasks and form task forces

Naming takes place in the same way as for the Workshop method. This time the names of the categories have significance for the action planning process. Each category represents a set of similar tasks. The facilitator asks each member of the group to join a task force that will attack the tasks in a single category. Sometimes they will need to recruit participants from outside the group.

Organize the tasks into a timeline.

Each task force gathers the cards with its tasks and organizes them a long a timeline that starts with "Launch Activities," moves to "Ongoing Activities" and ends with "Victory Complete." Each task force presents its plan to the rest of the group.

Reflect on the plan.

Once all of the task forces have presented their plans, the facilitator helps the group look for interactions and critical paths in which one task force must finish its work before another can complete its task. With that accomplished, the group can choose a coordinator and schedule its next meeting.

At subsequent meetings, the task forces report on their progress according to the plan, update the group on timelines and make any changes necessary. The group celebrates each task force's accomplishment of its milestones on the way to completion of the plan.

Participative Strategic Planning

The ToP^TM Participative Strategic Planning Process is an antidote to strategic plans that are created by corporate planning departments with detailed analyses that no one reads. It creates a plan interactively using the input of every member of the organization that will be responsible for carrying out the plan.

It consists of four workshops that are variations on the ToP^TM Workshop method. The workshops are titled: Practical Vision, Current Reality, Strategic Directions, and Implementation. Each workshop can take from one to four hours to complete.

Practical Vision

The Practical Vision workshop is similar to the Victory segment of action planning, but with a longer time horizon, usually three to five years. The context for the workshop is the long term future for the organization. To facilitate discussion, the facilitator may say something like the following: Imagine that a colleague of your retired today and left for a five-year round the world cruise. He or she knows everything about the organization now but will not have hear any news when he or she returns. How will you describe the organization in five years? Who will be involved? What will they be doing? What will the facilities look like? Using the Workshop method, the facilitator gathers the brainstorms, organizes, and names them. After arranging the data cards in columns with the name of the category at the top of the column, the facilitator asks the group to reflect on the vision and to give it a name.

Current Reality

In the Current Reality Workshop, the group reflects on the future and the present by looking for contradictions with the vision that are present in the current situation of the organization. Most of the initial brainstorms will be in the form "Lack of…" In this workshop, unlike most brainstorming exercises, the facilitator must exclude these statements by asking participants to analyze why the "Lack of" situation exists and what holds it in place. Often the ideas that complete the "Lack of" statement are really part of the Vision. They describe what the participants want to see, not what is currently present. If the participants have difficulty analyzing the causes behind the "Lack of" statement, rewrite the card without the first two words and move it to the Vision brainstorm to see if it already exists. Work with the group until it begins to see that the Current Reality that blocks it from achieving the vision includes both positive and negative attributes. Arrange the brainstorms vertically under each category title and horizontally from longest list to shortest. Ask the group to name the Current Reality.

Strategic Directions

With the Strategic Directions workshop, the group returns to its earlier creative activities with a sigh of relief. The focus question for this segment is "What programs, actions, or activities will help us overcome the current reality and achieve our vision?" Brainstorming and categorizing go on as before, but the set up is slightly different. The facilitator prepares the room by taping up six to nine flip chart sheets across the front of the room. Each category is organized on a single flip chart sheet and given a name. Once this is done, the facilitator asks the group which categories go together and moves the entire category to be next to similar categories. When the categories are organized into lines, the facilitator asks the group to name the lines, which become the strategic directions for the group. The facilitator writes the name of each direction on a large triangle and tapes it at the front of the appropriate line of categories. For the final reflection, the facilitator asks the group to name their set of strategic directions.

Implementation

The Implementation Workshop is nearly identical to the brainstorm in the Action Planning Workshop. The group divides into task forces, one per strategic direction. Each task force chooses a few cards from its Direction. They may all be from one category or from several categories. IT is up to the task force to set priorities and choose what should be done first. Each task force brainstorms all of the tasks that will be needed to accomplish the program written on the card they have selected. Next, they arrange the brainstormed tasks into a timeline and present their work to the other task forces. The group reflects on the combined timelines, looking for critical paths. The group holds follow up meetings to celebrate progress toward the short term victory for each task force. When each task force is done, the group may choose to hold another implementation workshop or to reevaluate the entire plan.

Applications to practice

The Institute of Cultural Affairs and its students have used the Technology of Participation methods in a wide range of community and organizational settings for over twenty years. They are appropriate both for new groups and for existing groups. They all rely on one key element, however: members of the group must be willing to participate and make decisions on behalf of the group. In the case of Action Planning and Strategic Planning, they must be willing to serve on a task force and actually work on behalf of achieving the goals of the group. This can make the techniques very difficult to teach because students must care enough about the focus question to participate and know enough about the subject to make their brainstorms valid. The biggest danger for facilitators using these methods is that when it comes time to make a commitment toward action, members of the group may protest that they are just there to plan, someone else will have to do the work. To alleviate such protests, it is important to contract with the entire group and be sure that everyone agrees on the Experiential Objectives and the Rational Objectives for the exercise (Schwarz, 1994).

References

I.C.A. (1993) Introduction to Group Facilitation Methods. Phoenix: Institute of Cultural Affairs

I.C.A. (1994) Facilitation Methods-2 Participative Strategic Planning. Phoenix: Institute of Cultural Affairs

Schwarz, R.M. (1994) The Skilled Facilitator: Practical Wisdom for Developing Effective Groups. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass

Spencer, L. (1988) Winning through participation.Winning Through Participation Meeting the Challenge of Corporate Change With the Technology of Participation. Des Moines: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company

Stanfield, B. (ed.) (1997) The Art of Focused Conversation: 100 Ways to Access Group Wisdom in the Workplace. Toronto: ICA Canada

The Presenter

Jim Spee has been a student of group facilitation since 1986. He has facilitated strategic planning, action planning, focused discussions, and ground rules development for nonprofit agencies, schools, colleges, and small businesses.

Jim has been a member of IAF since 1996. In Santa Clara, he facilitated a workshop titled "Using ToP^TM in the Classroom" with about 15 participants. Jim holds MBA and PhD degrees in Management from Claremont Graduate University. He is assistant professor of management and business at University of Redlands and teaches working adults throughout Southern California.