How to get good input into a project

How to get good input into a project

by | - Grouping storylines, - Public Health, - Synthesis, Architecture, Blog

This evening we helped Carla prepare for some conversations with senior health researchers that offers some insights for us all. 

The fun thing with this piece is that it doesn’t fit one of our patterns, and so we need to work from first principles. 

I’ll explain in three parts: 

  1. Outline Carla’s situation  
  1. Discuss the options we explored  
  1. Describe first principles approach 

Carla’s situation: Carla was preparing for meetings with experts whom she might collaborate with on her Masters’ Project. 

Carla was seeking input for a research project. As part of her Masters’ program, she needs to collaborate with experts interested in designing acute psychiatric wards in ways that are part of the therapeutic treatment. The idea is that the facility can be designed to deliver some of the treatment. 

For example, access to daylight helps heal those experiencing acute psychosis. Likewise, the right kinds of sound exposure can help some patients. 

She has been overwhelmed with interest from academics and industry leaders and now needs to identify which experts she will work with. The risk is that she is swept up in other people’s agendas rather than balancing those agendas with her own. 

Options explored: We balanced the need to remain open to input while maintaining some control over the research direction. 

Option 1 – crafting a list of questions would have opened her to the risk of needing to reject help and get these esteemed industry experts off side 

We discussed developing a well-grouped (of course!) list of questions for Carla to ask but decided this left the conversation too open. 

While it can be useful to do this on a pure fact-finding mission, her goal here was more specific. 

She wanted to see whether the researchers were interested in collaborating with her within her broad area of interest.  

Although open to their input, she didn’t want to go too far off her desired path to prioritise the researchers’ areas of interest over her own. 

Option 2 – Couching the story as a discussion starter rather than a locked-in proposal offered the right balance 

We limited the frame for discussion to her area of interest while also keeping the door open for significant suggestions. 

Although we weren’t initially aware of this, the order of the points was pivotal to maintaining control. We began with the idea that she was most confident in, which was the area she wanted to focus on. We then moved toward the areas that she needed more input on. 

We built the story together as a grouping that operated from first principles rather than using a pattern. Here’s how that went: 

So What – outlined her high-level goal. This was to find the best way to contribute to making inpatient care more restorative and so reduce the need for restraint and seclusion.  

Top line supports – outlined her preliminary thinking. We worked from the things she was most confident about to the areas where she needed most help.  

Point 1 – Area of research focus 

Point 2 – Research areas she’d already identified and was keen to test 

Point 3 – Initial ideas about research methodology 

Point 4 – Ideas about what success might look like 

Note that I have outlined here the topics she was covering, but not the messages. See the storyline below to review how those came together. 

I did this deliberately to reinforce another idea. We want to make sure all points are fleshed out as messages rather than topics that can be misconstrued. 

First principles approach: We worked from first principles rather than using a pattern as none of the seven fitted the situation 

You can see from the skeleton above and the example below that this does not fit one of our patterns, but rather is from first principles. 

Here’s what I mean by that. 

We have a short introduction (as usual) with a context, trigger and question. 

There is one main message, a ‘so what’ which provokes a single question. In this case, that question is ‘why?’. 

We then answer that question with a set of reasons, each one covering off a different topic. 

The Pitch and Traffic Light patterns are based on this generic ‘why story’ structure. Both put forward an idea and then support with a list of reasons. 

So, even when you can’t find a pattern, you can still use the storylining principles to build your story. 

I hope that helps. More next week.

Kind regards,
Davina

PS You can watch the full session below to see us using first principles in action.

 

RELATED POSTS

Exercise – Working from first principles

Exercise – Working from first principles

by | - Exercises, - Synthesis, Top-down thinking

We have had a few sessions at Clarity First where we have experimented with the difference between working bottom-up and working top-down. Universally, working top-down has delivered better results.

Working bottom-up leads you to rewrite what is there, whereas using first principles to work top down leads you to deliver what is needed.

Today's coaching session highlighted that reality, and set up a beautiful exercise for you all.

As a teaser, here is the original along with the desired outcome.

Desired outcome …
As a result of this email, I want working group members to complete the pre-reading, so they are ready to contribute at next week’s meeting.

Original draft …

Good afternoon working group members,

You will recall that following endorsement by the Board, Project Fruit is underway with support from ABC consulting. The first two steps having now been completed, the first involved understanding the ‘on the ground’ capability with the completion of surveys by all groups followed by workshops to socialize the findings and key themes. ABC has now provided the results which are attached for your information.

These findings will be presented by ABC at Friday’s meeting followed by a workshop session to discuss and agree the initiatives you would like to recommend to the Board to proceed to an options analysis. It would therefore be beneficial to take the time to review the results ahead of the meeting if possible.

Any immediate questions please let me know otherwise I look forward to seeing you all on Friday.

Cheers,
Fred

 See what you can come up with. You can download the exercise and solution below.

I hope that helps. More next week.

Kind regards,
Davina

Download Exercise
Download Solution

RELATED POSTS

Exercise – Email rewrite

Exercise – Email rewrite

by | - Emails, - Exercises, - Synthesis

It's time for another exercise!

Email alerts are commonly bashed out quickly to let teams know when systems are broken.

Consequently, they often use templates designed around key questions.

This I think leads to emails that are hard to read and which lead to confusion.

Take a look at this one and rework it. Let's see if you can cut the word count by at least 50% and in fact go further: write it so that your stakeholders don't even need to open the email.

You can download the full exercise and solutions below.

I hope that helps! More next week.

Davina

PS – A fabulous new podcast has dropped. Watch for the separate email with ideas for helping a senior stakeholder come back from a misstep. You can also find it here or in Cutting Through on your favourite podcast player.

Download Exercise
Download Solution

RELATED POSTS

Thinking harder about the context

Thinking harder about the context

by | - Synthesis, 1 - Design your strategy, Context

You will I hope be familiar with the Ten Point Test by now, and may have even used it to check whether your storyline is robust.

As much as I think this is a robust tool, the question for testing the context has been niggling me as incomplete.

Having ‘noodled on it', I now have some thoughts on how to improve that question.

Here's the new question: Is the context timely, topical and tight? Let me break that down for you.

Timely: Make sure the material is recent for the audience.

Try to avoid, for example, starting every project update with a description of the project which has been in play for some time.

Rather, use the context to remind your audience what you covered in your last interaction with them about that topic. For example:

In our last SteerCo we explained that Project X was on track across all metrics except budget, which we planned to correct this coming month.

Topical: Introduce aspects about the key topic that should be known to the audience.

This anchors your story around the right issue and sets you up to use the trigger to explain why you are discussing that topic with this audience right now.

It also doesn't surprise them with potentially controversial ideas that are unfamiliar to them and which may stop them reading further.

Tight: Keep it short, ideally less than 15% of the whole story.

If you find yourself going beyond that, you are most likely adding too much detail which flags two potential problems. You are

  1. explaining something, which means your audience doesn't know it and raises questions about whether it is appropriately ‘topical'
  2. about to bore your audience by ‘drowning them in data'


I hope that helps. More next week.

Kind regards,
Davina

A ‘hack’ for helping you synthesise your so what

A ‘hack’ for helping you synthesise your so what

by | - Articulate your Answer (So What), - Q&A Recording, - Synthesis

​It’s not often in a working session that we are reflecting on hospital entrances! This morning we were helping one of our new members craft her manifesto as an architect.
 
It was fascinating on two fronts. We learned more about the nexus between architecture and people and were again reminded of the value of inviting people from vastly different disciplines to help each other think through a proposition.
 
Being an ‘objective outsider’ who knows and understands the process but isn’t too close to the detail is hugely helpful.
 
From a more technical standpoint, however, there was another takeaway that related to techniques for synthesising the so what message.
 
My suggestion is to focus on the recommended action and the reason for undertaking rather than stepping through the steps to get there.
 
Let me use today’s example to illustrate what I mean.
 
Here is where we landed after reviewing the process steps in the original (below) with the sections annotated separately.
 
The whole ‘so what' …
 

Architecture should be seen as an interdisciplinary approach for designing and delivering restorative experiences that enhance health and wellbeing.

 
The ‘so what' broken into two sections for your reference …
 

Part 1 – recommended action – Architecture should be seen as an interdisciplinary approach for designing and delivering restorative experiences
 
Part 2 – reason for taking that action – that enhance health and wellbeing. It might also help to think of this reason as a benefit rather than a feature. The list of ideas in the original version could also be described as a feature of this approach.
 


Here is the original version with the highlighted process steps that we tied together by asking ‘why are we taking these steps?’
 

Architecture should be an interdisciplinary practice [that draws on humanistic and scientific disciplines to build with an intimate knowledge of human nature and the natural environment to improve health outcomes in healthcare facilities]


 
Focusing on ‘what is to be done’ and ‘why that is a good idea’ is a simple hack for lifting the quality of the synthesis in the so what.
 
I thought this was a perfect example to illustrate that point. You can watch the full recording below.
 
I hope that helps.

Kind regards,
Davina

EXERCISE: Strengthen your ‘synthesis muscles’

EXERCISE: Strengthen your ‘synthesis muscles’

by | - Articulate your Answer (So What), - Change management, - Emails, - Exercises, - Finance, - Risk management, - Synthesis, - Technology, - Test your structure

 

Synthesis is at the core of everything we do at Clarity First, and so when I saw an example come across my desk this week I couldn't resist turning it into an exercise.

This email is laid out nicely and yet there are a couple of areas where synthesis can be improved.

When reviewing this one, remember our ‘value ladder' that lays out the different kinds of messages and ask yourself some questions:

  1. What level are these messages at?
  2. How can I synthesise to make it easier for the reader to glean the messages by skimming?

I have included the latest version of the Value Ladder here as reference as well as download links for the before and after versions.

I hope you find it useful.

Dav

 

PS – Those of you who have been following our ‘synthesis project' will note two things with this version of the ladder.

  1. ‘information' includes data that may be catalogued and categorised.
  2. ‘synthesis' can be both informative and insightful. I have labelled that extra level of insight as ‘flair'. We can no doubt debate this more in our next Momentum session!

 

DOWNLOAD ORIGINAL
DOWNLOAD SOLUTION

EXERCISE: Rewrite this invitation so your grandma could understand it

by | - Emails, - Exercises, - Grouping storylines, - Human Resources, - Q&A Recording, - Synthesis, - Test your structure, 2 - Develop your storyline, Calendar Invite, Writing

This week we worked on an email and ended up discussing another truism that can be very hard to execute on.

This morning’s one was: ‘Write it so your grandmother could understand it’.

As an idea it is both good and infuriatingly difficult to execute on.

How to do that?

The key to this morning’s example was to focus on the substance of the message, rather than on the ‘process’ required to gain accreditation.

Here are two steps to take to transfer the learnings into your own work:

In general, focus more on the ‘why’ …

  1. Introduce not just the topic but why it matters. In the example below you can see there is an embedded assumption that the audience knows why this accreditation process matters. I have added some definitions on the slide for those unfamiliar with the human resources landscape.
  2. Dig further into the ‘why’. Ask yourself why you are communicating to this specific audience about this specific topic that they now understand is important.

Practice this by leveraging the example we used in the working session.

  1. Take note of the graphic below that highlights some of the problems with the original.
  2. Download the original, be inspired by these problems and rework it yourself.
  3. Review the recorded working session where we wrangled with it as a group
  4. Check out an enhanced version of our ‘after’ for your reference. I took what we did in the group (which was helpful but not ‘finished’) and refined it further using my knowledge of the actual situation.

I hope you find that useful.

Have a great week.

Dav

DOWNLOAD ORIGINAL
DOWNLOAD AFTER

Diving Deeply into Big Picture Thinking and Synthesis

Diving Deeply into Big Picture Thinking and Synthesis

by | - Articulate your Answer (So What), - Problem Solving, - Q&A Recording, - Synthesis, - Thinking Skills (general)

Over the first half of 2022 a small group of us have been working on a conundrum: what process can we use to synthesise ideas?

We observe that this is a huge challenge for people when communicating and solving problems that storylines and issue trees help solve.

 However, in making full use of them we need more.

 So, we resolved to meet monthly, use the problem-solving tools discussed in the Clarity in Problem Solving course as a process map and work on it.

 This is the third discussion in that series which might start to be useful for those outside the sessions themselves. Do let us know if you would like to join the working group.

Why not to use tables alone when recommending which option to use

Why not to use tables alone when recommending which option to use

by | - Articulate your Answer (So What), - Problem Solving, - Synthesis, Options

When I heard that NASA spent millions of dollars trying to find a ball point pen that would withstand the challenges of space I didn't query it too much.

Until I heard that the Russians went with a pencil, that is.

What's wrong here?

While not being present in either decision-making process, it highlights the value of thinking hard before proceeding.

It might also point to the value of pushing ourselves to think through options, which was the topic of a client discussion this week.

We observed that providing a table with ticks and crosses to discuss a series of options is, although common, inadequate. It requires the audience to interpret the table rather than you sharing your insights about what it means.

So, this week I offer a framework to help you develop and chunk your criteria so you can avoid leaving your insights ‘on the table', if you'll pardon my pun.

I offer three steps to employ this idea:

  1. Familiarise yourself with the framework
  2. Think about how to use it
  3. Refer to an example.


Familiarise yourself with the framework. Here are the four considerations that I think need to be canvassed when evaluating options for solving problems:

Strategy – Does this option help us deliver against our strategy? If so, how? If not, why not?

Return – Does this option help us deliver a strong return? ‘Return' might be considered many ways. It might be purely a financial measure, or alternatively consider softer issues such as social or environmental returns.

Practicality – Is this option easy, or perhaps even possible, for us to implement?

Risks – Does this option raise risks that will be hard for us to mitigate against? Or not?

 

Think about how to use it. As with all frameworks, we can use them to generate and to evaluate sets of ideas by helping us identify and fill gaps in our thinking.

Frameworks such as this stimulate us to ask whether we have covered all relevant issues, and whether we have done so well or not.

It is then up to us to measure our options against each criteria, draw out what this means for our decision making and make appropriate recommendations.

The framework helps you prioritise each of your criteria so you can calibrate your tradeoffs more effectively.

Refer to an example. This is a set of criteria for evaluating a set of options relating to a case study, which we explored in a program MasterClass some time ago.

The class focused around options for solving a disagreement about the best way to run races close to the daylight savings changeover when days are short.

Note how I have grouped the different criteria that emerged from the the discussion about the options.

In doing so, the tradeoffs become apparent given the first and third options have the same number of ticks and crosses each.

This then leads us to make a tradeoff between return and strategy: which one is more important?

That way we can decide which option is better. 

 

I hope that helps. More next week.

Davina

PS – this follows on neatly from last week's email about pros and cons (click here to read the post). 

What to do with ‘pros and cons’?

What to do with ‘pros and cons’?

by | - Articulate your Answer (So What), - Problem Solving, - Synthesis, 2 - Develop your storyline

I had a fabulous question this week: where do we fit ‘pros' and ‘cons' in our storyline?

That is a ‘ripper' of a question.

My answer is this: lists of pros and cons don't belong in your communication, they help you think through that message. 

Let me explain.

If we provide lists of pros and cons for an idea we are providing information rather than insight. This matters, because we are asking our audience to do the thinking work for us. Let me illustrate with an example

Pros of skiing in Whistler in January

  • Skiing is fun
  • There are lots of things to do when not skiing
  • Terrain is amazingly diverse
  • Resort is huge, with lots of different areas to ski
  • Altitude is relatively low, so altitude sickness and asthma risk are lower than other resorts
  • Easy access from Sydney (single flight + short bus ride)


Cons of skiing in Whistler in January

  • Snow can be patchy, especially early in January
  • Skiing is expensive
  • Snow can be ‘heavy' compared with other resorts
  • It rains more here than some other resorts
  • Costs have risen since Vail took over the mountain


If, instead, we do the thinking for our audience, we will deliver insights that emerge from our own analysis of that pros and cons list. In comparison, here is what that might look like:

Despite Whistler's snow not being as light and fluffy as at some other resorts, it is the best place for us to ski this coming January.

  • The skiing is incredible (diverse, expansive, sometimes fluffy snow)
  • The village is fun when off the slopes
  • It is easy to access from Sydney (single flight + short bus ride)
  • Costs are manageable (know lots of people to ski with so don't need lessons, can invite friends over to eat in, etc)
  • The low altitude means vulnerable family members stay healthy


If your audience is explicitly asking for pros and cons lists, pop them in the appendix. Focus your main communication around your interpretation of that list instead.

I hope that helps.

Kind regards,
Davina


PS – For those of you in our recent group session who were asking about the recording in the portal about ‘taking a great brief', click here to access. 

How do we storyline when not making a recommendation?

How do we storyline when not making a recommendation?

by | - Articulate your Answer (So What), - Clarify your purpose, - Synthesis, - Understand your audience, 1 - Design your strategy, 2 - Develop your storyline

Have you ever wondered whether a storyline is the right tool to use when you are not providing a recommendation?

Perhaps you have been asked to undertake some analysis or are concerned that your audience may not want you to be too assertive or direct?

If so, you may enjoy some insights from this week's coaching discussions which conveniently follow on from last week's focus on communicating details.

When delivering analytical findings, particularly to a sensitive audience, summarise your findings rather than synthesising or recounting your analytical process.

Provide a summary answer rather than a true synthesis. The examples below illustrate how to offer a summary rather than a synthesis:

  • Level 1 focuses on ‘what' you found or what needs to be done by illustrating ‘what we found', or ‘what we need you to do'.
  • Level 2 offers the implication of those things by placing them in a context. In these examples we are either offering a comparison to other options or explaining how these actions will help.

Avoid describing what you did to deliver your findings, but rather focus on what you found.

This played out perfectly this week when a data analyst in a pricing team for an energy company needed to backtest the pricing model. His goal was to assess whether the model was accurately reflecting the market by checking actual versus predicted market pricing over the past quarter.

The temptation was to explain the steps he took to confirm that the model was accurate rather than explaining that it has proven to be accurate this past quarter because it ‘ticked all the boxes'.

Listing all the steps he took required the audience to work through his analytical process rather than focus on the outcome.

This is a common challenge I see at play among analysts, which could also play out if you were trying to navigate cultural sensitivities about being too forward.

Allow your audience to make the decision if you are concerned about cultural sensitivities around assertiveness.

When I was based in Asia, particularly in Hong Kong helping consultants communicate with mainland Chinese clients, we had to be very careful about how we couched our messaging.

Our advice was not going to be welcome if we were too assertive, and we needed to respect a specific cultural need for leaders to be seen to make their own decisions.

The role of consultants in these contexts is different than in more direct, Western environments so we tailored our approach accordingly.

The example on the left of our value ladder is more useful in this context, with level one being pretty clear that ‘Black' is the way to go without going as far as saying that. Some interpretation is still required by the decision maker, which allows them room to ‘make the decision'.

This approach can be used more broadly when making a recommendation without being seen to recommend.

I hope that helps. More next week!

Kind regards,
Davina

PS – please note that in the example to the right you will see we jump from ‘four things to do' to ‘two ways to help'. This is because in the actual example we grouped the four into two parts as we elevated up the storyline hierarchy.

Related Posts

How to tell a story when you can’t offer a recommendation

by | - Case studies, - Finance, - Q&A Recording, - Synthesis, 1 - Design your strategy, 2 - Develop your storyline

I am often asked a question that goes a bit like this: “How do I use a storyline when I can't or don't need to offer a recommendation?”

There is at times a concern that storylining isn't fit for purpose in this setting.

We saw a terrific example of this play out in a December coaching session, which I'll unpack here for you.

The easy answer is that although we don't offer a pattern for this, you can easily use a storyline to provide a summary at the top and supporting levels.

Here is what that might look like at the top line for the stock review we discussed

For example, when writing a stock report you might want to offer a recommendation like this:

“We recommend adding Aristocrat (ALL) into your investment portfolio”
as this could be out of the scope of the work you have been engaged to do.

If you were to take this approach, the supporting points would be reasons, explaining why you recommend adding ALL to the portfolio. You would most likely use a version of the Pitch Pattern.

However, in some settings this is prohibited or unwanted. Your financial services license may not permit you to offer ‘advice', or your client may have specifically asked for your findings only.

If this is the case, you might offer a summary (akin to an ‘observation') that says something like this:

“ALL's acquisition of Playtech opens new avenues of growth and an early EPS uplift given the financial structure of the deal.”

This describes what has happened in the past quarter without saying ‘buy this stock'.

If you were to take this approach, the supporting points would still be reasons, but would put forward a different kind of argument. They would be explaining why it is true, or what evidence you have, to support the idea that the acquisition opens up new avenues of growth.

In either case the supporting points could follow a classic Grouping Structure.

You can download the example and/or watch the video of this session below.

Download Handout