Modeling requirements, on the surface, to many of our stakeholders often seem easy or simple, but they are actually quite complex and can take a long time to master. This “complexity” is driven by many things including; different types of modeling (process, data, use case, interface, and scope modeling) size of project, methodology, approach, stakeholder preferences, and time to model. As a result, I often see Business Analysts frequently needing to repair, reconstruct, or renovate their requirements models which is not always a good thing nor does it always make sense. One of these works for me and the other two do not.

Renovation – it works. When I think of renovation, I often think of process improvement efforts. Continuous improvements. To reinvigorate something, make new, revive. It is about keeping value, being future focused. This concept for any business makes sense to me. This type of remodeling works because it is often driven by ideation, some kind of Enterprise Analysis, Six Sigma, Lean, or other approach. It, perhaps, can even be seen as an attitude or force that drives how you work, but it is different than repairs or reconstructions, which do not work for me.

Repairs and reconstruction – do not work. Why do we have to repair or reconstruct our requirements models? When I think of repairing or completely reconstructing requirements models, I think of rework. I do not like to work much as it is, so the idea of doing it again is not exciting to me. A classic example is the process flow diagram. Let’s run through a scenario:

1. Business Analyst schedules meeting with stakeholders to discuss process.
2. BA interviews stakeholders during meeting.
3. BA takes notes and goes back to cube to work on process flow.
4. BA schedules new meeting for review.
5. BA reviews process flow with stakeholders at meeting.
6. Stakeholders rip the process flow to shreds.
7. Go to step 3.

And there you have it. A potential infinite loop of rework! And this loop is costing a lot of time and money. Time you probably did not have to begin with. So we need to ask some questions. Did you understand your stakeholder’s point of view? Did you have the correct stakeholders? What approach to your model did you take? The approach is very important. It drives how and when you model. Is there a different way of doing this? How about this as an alternative:

1. Business Analyst schedules interactive process modeling meeting with stakeholders to discuss process.
2. BA facilitates stakeholders during meeting to “interactively” develop the process model together as a team during the meeting using white board, post-its, or other preferred materials.
3. BA gains agreement/consensus on the process model at the meeting.
4. BA takes picture of agreed upon process flow with smart phone and goes back to cube to create a final version in the company’s diagramming tool of choice.

Less steps, less rework = less cost and less chance of needing repairs! If you do your stakeholder analysis up front you can get the right people. The stakeholders, together as a group, will provide their viewpoints during the meeting. The approach requires less time. Remember, for this approach to work, the BA must be a strong facilitator (a theme in the BABOK®).

So with regard to repair and reconstructing requirements, I am not a big fan. An anonymous salesman once said, “Genius is the ability to evade work by doing something right the first time.” What you are really doing is evading the rework. I cannot agree more. Renovation will be needed some year in the future, but if we can avoid the repair and reconstruction on our current projects our work lives will be more enjoyable. Modeling is complex, but if we can do something proactively to limit repairs and reconstruction, well, that is where the true value of your requirements “home” will be kept up and you will not have to wait for the market to rebound.

The Big Remodel was posted at ProjectBrief Blog. | http://www.watermarklearning.com/blog

Of course, there is no “right” a lot of the time.  In my classes, for example, I instruct and inform, but I also facilitate discussions about the options, and the students decide what’s going to work for them.

This brings me to the recent Facilitation Skills Workshop class I taught.  In this class, we learn about different facilitation techniques and then the students do the work; they actually facilitate each of the 12 sessions throughout the class.

Maybe you are like many of the students in this class who are terrified of speaking in front of groups. Their hands shake, they sweat, and some have a hard time breathing.  This fear is not unlike other fears and there is often a visceral response.

It is amazing to watch those folks who are terrified of facilitating get up in front of a group and, with some preparation, tools, and guidance, actually help the group accomplish a goal.  It is enormously validating- for them, the participants, and me.

The last session of the 12 sessions is one in which the facilitator brings the class to consensus on the top 5 characteristics of a good facilitator.  My last class came up with the following Top 5 Characteristics of a Good Facilitator:

1.     Neutrality
The facilitator cares that the group achieves their goal in the session, but they don’t care what the results look like specifically.   

2.   Preparedness
A facilitator needs to be prepared for their session. Facilitation might look easy, but it is hard work. Taking time to understand the group and issues, as well as practice the skills and techniques to be used make for a far more effective facilitator and one who will be much more likely to help the group achieve its goals.

3.   Energetic
A facilitator needs to be neutral, but that doesn’t mean they should be comatose.  Bringing some energy to the session helps keep people focused and engaged. 

4.   Clear idea of Purpose/Agenda
A good facilitator needs to start with a clear understanding of the goal of the session and the tools they might use to achieve that goal.  In short, be flexible, but have a plan. 

5.   Positive
An effective facilitator makes the participants want to achieve the session objective.  Even if it’s addressing a problem, a positive tone will encourage participants to own their part of the outcome.

It wasn’t necessarily the list I would have come up with, although those are certainly things we talk about in the class.  As I sat in the back of the room watching them come to this conclusion together as a group, facilitated by one of the students, it was an interesting and, in some way, teachable moment.  For me.

Facilitation Top 5 was posted at ProjectBrief Blog. | http://www.watermarklearning.com/blog

One way to resolve persistent, negative thoughts is to do something to symbolize the elimination of the source of the negative thought and associated negative energy.  For example, you might write down your thought on a piece of paper and then tear it up or burn it to symbolize the destruction of what’s troubling you.  Psychologists call it ritual cleansing.

Projects can benefit from ritual cleansing.  Have you ever been in a meeting, for example, that gets derailed with negativity?  These meetings become dominated by people who just can’t move past what won’t work and why, or who’s wrong and how?

Instead of instructing people to be positive or trying to manage it with ground rules, give stakeholders a means of ridding their minds of ideas you don’t want derailing your session.  Institute a ritual cleansing of sorts.  Provide a “place” to dispose, drown, or bury all of those negative comments and ideas so you can keep your meeting free of distractions.  

Call it the Can of Can’t Do and place a can in the middle of the table and invite attendees to write their negative thoughts on a piece of paper, crumple it up and toss in the can.  Name it the Lamentation Library and tell people to “check in” their negative ideas (no checking out).  Maybe it’s a Cynicism Cemetery and plots are available for burial of unwanted thoughts.  The Pessimism Pool – it’s bottomless.  (OK, so you don’t have to go high camp with it, but you get the idea.)

Whatever you call it, designate a place for people to write comments that are negative or not constructive and allow folks to put their ideas in or on that place so they can get them out of their heads and get their heads in the real game of contributing ideas about what can be done and why it’s going to work.

This is not to suggest that all negative ideas should always be ignored.  In fact, sometimes it’s the skeptic that alerts us to risks we hadn’t considered.  But for a creative way to channel persistent and disruptive negativity, an occasional ritual cleansing may be just the thing your team needs.

Toss Negativity into the Trash with Ritual Cleansing was posted at ProjectBrief Blog. | http://www.watermarklearning.com/blog

Fortunately, I have not been in a situation in which I wondered if I should do that. Unfortunately, I think this student had a specific situation in mind. It’s a tough question, especially if the person who is being difficult is a peer or more senior than you.

I can’t think of how you would ask someone to leave a meeting without making somewhat of a “scene,” and I don’t think it’s ever in anyone’s best interest to do that, including you. Of course, how to handle this kind of situation depends on many things such as the purpose of the session, how long it is, who else is in the meeting, how much time is left in the meeting, and other considerations. But I can think of some questions I would ask before suggesting how best to handle this.

First, have all reasonable steps for controlling the meeting been taken? Have the objective and desired outcomes been defined ahead of time and included in the invitation, for example? Have ground rules been defined, agreed upon, and posted? Has an agenda been provided that includes time for each topic and topic owners?

What other attempts been made to corral this difficult behavior? For example, have they been asked to hold their thoughts? Have their concerns or ideas been captured onto the “parking lot” so the meeting can continue as planned? Have techniques been used that provide an equal opportunity for everyone to participate, such as going around the table and soliciting comments or ideas from each person?

If the answer to these questions is yes, and it truly seems that this person is really out of control, the best answer may be to call for a 10-minute break. At a reasonable point in the session, simply announce that there is going to be a short break. Note the current time and write the time you will resume on the white board or somewhere so that everyone can see it. (Even if people aren’t expecting a break in this meeting, people will get up and take advantage of the time.)

Then, during the break, task 1 has to be stabilizing yourself. Many of us would be riled up in such a situation. I would likely feel frustrated, angry, embarrassed, or confused in such a situation, so I would need a couple of minutes to collect myself. If this is the case for you, let the offender know that you would like to talk with them in a minute or so, and then go to your desk, down the hall, or wherever you can go out of site. Take a few deep breaths and get yourself calm and collected.

Next, talk to the offender privately. Sincerely ask them if they are aware of how distracting their behavior is and if they are aware that they are derailing the objective of the meeting. It may honestly be that they are not aware of their behavior and its consequences. It never ceases to amaze me how many students share situations in which a difficult person was confronted about their “difficultness” and they had no idea. Sometimes making someone aware of their behavior is all that’s needed to change it.

Finally, I would solicit their help in finishing the rest of the session. Remind them of the objective of the session and help them see how they are a part of achieving that, which is why, of course, they were invited.

Easy? Absolutely not. And I wouldn’t suggest that it may even be politically wise to do this if the offender is a person way “above” you on the corporate ladder.

But controlling meetings takes courage, and it’s not easy. If it were, all meetings would run smoothly and be a good use of organizational resources. And I don’t hear from too many folks who feel that’s the case.

What has worked for you in similar situations?

What to do with Meeting Saboteurs? was posted at ProjectBrief Blog. | http://www.watermarklearning.com/blog

Thought given to key elements of the meeting ahead of time can make for a more effective meeting.  Communication of those things insures that everyone arrives at the meeting with a shared understanding of why they are there and what they need to accomplish.

It’s fairly common practice, for example, to include an agenda in a meeting invitation. Topics to be covered and time allotted for each topic help to set expectations and keep people on track during the meeting.   Try adding two other things to your meeting invitations to take your meeting preparedness to the next level.

Specifically, when sending an invitation to a meeting in Outlook or whatever tool you use, specify two things:

Meeting Objective
Why are you asking for these people’s time?  What is the purpose of this get together?  Is it to brainstorm ideas for the new marketing campaign?  Prioritize software requirements for the new accounting application?  Resolve a conflict regarding the new patient intake process?  Make it absolutely clear as to what it is that needs to be achieved during the session. 

Desired Outcome
What is the desired outcome of the meeting?  What do the attendees need to walk out with at the end of the meeting?  Is it a list of ideas for the new marketing campaign?  Is it a list of prioritized requirements for the new accounting application?  Is it a workflow diagram for the new patient intake process along with signatures for approval from all attendees?  Whatever it is, be as specific as possible.

This is not particularly fun to do when you are the one sending the invitation.  It’s a pain to have to think specifically about the objective and what you need out of a meeting.  It’s a lot easier to just invite people who seem like logical attendees and then flush out the details later. 

But this practice forces the sender to give thought to whose names go in that To: box.  And that’s a beautiful thing when you’re on the receiving end!  

And, importantly, ending meetings is a lot easier and cleaner because we know when we’re done since we’ve named what it is we need! 

I’d love to hear about your meeting experiences and what approaches work for you.

2 Ingredients To Spice Up Meeting Effectiveness was posted at ProjectBrief Blog. | http://www.watermarklearning.com/blog

1)      Test your technology. If you have never used the software or hardware for your virtual meetings, make sure you practice with a small group first. If you are doing a formal presentation, I suggest you reboot your PC right before you make it. We recently did a product demo where the presenter’s PC froze up right at the start. It took some fancy “tap dancing” to recover and keep the meeting going. Better to reboot first than to recover later.

2)      Presenters: clear your desktop. There is nothing worse than seeing an incoming email notice popping up on the moderator’s screen, or seeing his or her calendar reminder saying “Pick up Amie from soccer practice.” If you are a participant and there’s a chance your screen will be displayed during the session, this applies to you, too.

3)      Participants: minimize your distractions. Don’t text or read emails when you should be participating. Pretend it’s a live meeting. How would you behave? (I know, some of you out there would be on your Blackberries during a meeting. Ha ha.) One method to deal with this issue is to call on participants to ask for their input or thoughts. Some virtual meeting tools provide an “attention” meter. Ours does. It’s very useful to see who has other non-meeting screens in the foreground. It’s also good feedback for the facilitator on how engaging the meeting is going. That can be a bit deflating, I’ll admit, but an impetus to try harder!

4)      Larger meetings: use your name. I was recently in a virtual meeting with people I just met and every one of them sounded the same! I could not distinguish them and I kept asking “Jennifer is that you?” or “Was that Tom who said that?” In retrospect, I should have asked at the beginning for people to announce their name as they commented. Better yet, I think it should be a standard ground rule for virtual meetings.

5)      Take notes as you normally would. Unlike an in-person meeting, though, announce you are pausing to write down your notes. If people can’t see you, the audio pause is disconcerting and vocal people will fill it and try and move the discussion along. If you want to successfully capture an action item or decision, tell people you are writing and ask them to wait a moment. Make sure you write fast, though…virtual participants are more impatient it seems to me than in-person participants.

What other “musts” can you think of? I’d like to compile a top ten list and post it to our site.

Top Fundamentals for Successful Virtual Meetings was posted at ProjectBrief Blog. | http://www.watermarklearning.com/blog