Top Methods Checklists

From ToP Global discussion
Jump to: navigation, search

Developed by LENS International, Malaysia

ToP Consensus Workshop Feedback Checklist:

THINGS TO WATCH FOR: (Rank facilitator 1-5 -- 1 needs much improvement, 5 is excellent)

1. Followed the Process

2. Gave clear instructions: "Why" and "What"

3. Got people involved and kept them interested

4. Handled logistics invisibly

5. Effortless clustering

6. Pacing allowed ample time for naming

7. Pushed for adequate titles

8. Facilitated consensus in naming

9. Achieved an insight from the group

10. Kept focus on content of the workshop

11. Brief, clear wrap-up

COMMON TRAPS TO BE AVOIDED: (note if these were present)

1. Confusing instructions

2. Too much time for individuals to work alone

3. Not reading cards aloud

4. Making whole group plot EVERY card

5. Every card is different, so no groupings

6. Too much re-wording of participants contributions_

7. Lost focus in naming: either take anything or string together run-on titles

8. Let one or two people dominate the input

9. Too many people up front


ToP Focused Conversation Method Checklist:

THINGS TO WATCH FOR: (Rank facilitator 1-5 -- 1 needs much improvement, 5 is excellent)

1. Introduction that focuses the topic

2. Begins with answers from everyone

3. Questions in ORID sequence

4. Open-ended questions

5. Natural flow to the conversation

6. People spontaneously talk

7. Second & third level questions to pursue an insight

8. Questions have a focus, a clear topic to pursue

9. Handles group so that all contributions are heard

10. Conclusion that wraps up what happened

11. Questions relate to RA & EA

COMMON TRAPS TO BE AVOIDED: (note if these were present)

1. Confusing introduction

2. Yes- or no-type questions

3. Everyone talks to facilitator only -- like running a quiz show

4. Letting “garbage” get by

5. Awkward O-level question(s)

6. Omitting R-level questions

7. Impossible or vague questions (facilitator has not answered them him-herself in preparation)

8. "You mean..." or "What you're trying to say..." demeaning responses_

9. Non-conclusion


ToP STRATEGIC PLANNING CHECKLIST

VISION

THINGS TO WATCH FOR: (Rank facilitator 1-5 -- 1 needs much improvement, 5 is excellent)

1. Vivid introduction and/or visualization that focuses the topic/question with written as well as verbal focus

2. Individual brainstorm of victory3- 5-10 years in future re. focus question before small group discussion

3.Lively pacing throughout brainstorm

4. Grouping of cards is fast paced, energetic, with placement according to underlying intent

5. Cards in each cluster are read aloud before asking for title

6. Title is phrased so that it names the vision reflected by cards in cluster

7. Titled clusters are re-arranged during reflection step to reflect greatest passion

8. Workshop is concluded by re-asking the focus question and re-reading the over-all titles and individual cluster titles

10. Facilitator points to next steps after Vision


COMMON TRAPS TO BE AVOIDED: (note if these were present)

1. Confusing introduction, no clear focus question, or irrelevant question for group

1a.No overview of entire planning process

2. Focus question too narrow for 3-10 year planning exercise

3. No individual brainstorm thinking first

4. Pacing is laborious; too slow and draggy

5. Naming does not relate to vision focus question

6. Reflection stage does not group clusters into meaning ful focus for next stages of planning

COMMENTS:

CONTRADICTIONS

THINGS TO WATCH FOR: (Rank facilitator 1-5 -- 1 needs much improvement, 5 is excellent) 1. Clarify why this step is necessary and how it contributes to whole process

2. Free the group to “open up” with irritations, frustrations, obstacles

3. Group cards by underlying cause, not topic

4. Push for underlying contraction in title; both group and facilitator know when contradtion has been described

5. Uses different questions for different clusters in coming with title (eg. doesn’t ask “why” each time)

6. Lets the group struggle in naming the real contradiction without too much dragging or “teeth pulling”

7. Knows difference between situation and contradiction and elicits a realistic description of situation cluster of issues points to

8. Shows how contradictions, when named, are doorways to future rather than problems to be solved

9. Combines insights in naming without trivializing by asking hard questions without intimidation and gets insightful answers

10.Knows the topic well enough to ask probing questions

COMMON TRAPS TO BE AVOIDED: (check if these were present)

1. Giving confusing instructions to small groups; not relating the issue brainstorm to the vision

2. Letting small groups list solutions in brainstorm rather than obstacles or issues relative to the vision

3.Letting a few people dominate the naming of contradictions

4. Letting the contradiction naming degenerate into a fault- finding or blaming exercise

5. Using “lack of” as part of contradiction title; superficial titles

6. Giving the impression that contradictions are negative

7. Letting group avoid facing up to their real situation - Pollyanna views

STRATEGIES

THINGS TO WATCH FOR: (Rank facilitator 1-5 -- 1 needs much improvement, 5 is excellent)

1. Review of whole process, followed by review of contradictions

2. Creative thinking exercise to activate right-brain thinking possibly followed by “what if” type exercise in dealing with contradictions

3. Give groups ample time to work out strategic actions; sample strategic action should be given as context before sending small groups to work

4.Provide assistance to teams in formulating strategic actions (rather than tactics or abstract goals)

5. Grouping of strategic action cards by similar actions

6. Naming of action clusters as strategies beginning with verb or action word

7. Reflection on Strategy clusters formed either as 3 strategic directions or 12 month priorities in wedge graphic

8. Workshop is concluded by announcing next step: implemen- tation projects

COMMON TRAPS TO BE AVOIDED: (note if these were present)

1. Not reviewing process or relating strategy development to previous steps

2. Forgetting the focus on creative thinking

3. Not giving one or more examples of strategy

4. Not giving teams ample time to develop substantial strategies

5. Letting teams create abstract goals instead of action- __ oriented approaches

6. Clustering of strategic actions by intent rather than action

7. Naming of strategies sound more like goals or vision

COMMENTS