This is an update to my slide deck for my Agile 2017 submission as well as workshops I will be holding in 2017.

1. Unlocking Team Productivity with
Collaboration
Paul Boos

2. Agenda
• Learn the rules and execute the Power of 13 Collaboration
Game through several 'scenarios’
• Compare and debrief the results
• Discuss and post the highlights of learning
• Compare experience to various models used to describe team
dynamics and communication
• What promotes or impedes collaboration?
• What can you do to improve collaboration?
• Describe possible extensions and how this game has been
used by the facilitator/co-facilitators

3. Collaboration:
Power of 13
Simulation
This game was created at Agile Games 2014 by –
Jamie Gaull
Robert Smith
Peter Barzdines
Bobby Zhakov
Paul Boos

4. Power of 13 :: Basic Mechanics
Played in 3 week iterations (Sprints), game flow is –
13 Work days
• Daily stand-up:
– review work completed last 24 hours, Product Owner puts a tick mark
on a scratch pad for each one (1st day has no work completed)
– Scrum Master turns over a card in the suit to track the day
• Everyone rolls their 3 dice once
= 13 work completed
≠ 13 (no work completed)
Iteration Goal:
Amount of work completed = # on development team rolling
Planning: new rules
Work day: stand-up & roll to complete work
Review/Retro: total work you got done
short instructor debrief
{

5. Valid Rolls for Completing Work

6. Power of 13 :: Iteration 1 Planning
This round simulates team working independently on work
assigned to them
• Each developer is responsible for completing one piece of
work from the backlog
• If a dice roll has a sum total of exactly ‘13’, team member
states “my card is DONE.”(Record at stand-up.)
• If you hit the iteration goal on that day, the Product Owner
should put a check mark above the tick.
• The developer stops work (stops rolling) when they
complete their piece of work.
• If all work is completed and there are days remaining, the
Scrum Master just counts down the cards, reinforcing
days going by.

7. Power of 13 :: Iteration 2 Planning
This round simulates team members still working
independently, but each person pulls from the task board
• The team is still responsible for completing as much work as
equal to development team members.
• If a dice roll has a sum total of exactly ‘13’, team member
states “my card is DONE.”(Record at stand-up.)
• If you hit the iteration goal on that day, the Product Owner
should put a check mark above the tick.
• The developer continues to work (by continuing to roll) when a
piece of work is completed.
HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL WORK WILL WE GET DONE?

8. Power of 13 :: Iteration 3 Planning
This round simulates collaborative pairing to complete work
• The team is still responsible for completing as much work as
equal to development team members.
• Team members pair (or create triads for odd numbered
teams); each 13 you get on EXACTLY 3 dice in each pair is
completed work. (It is possible to get two in a pair)
• All other procedures remain the same. (recording, continuing
to work, etc.)
HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL WORK WILL WE GET DONE?

9. Power of 13 :: Iteration 4 Planning
This round simulates an entire group working
collaboratively to complete work
• The team is still responsible for completing as much work as
equal to development team members.
• Team members roll their dice and combine them into a pool;
each 13 you get on EXACTLY 3 dice from the pool is
completed work.
• All other procedures remain the same. (recording, continuing
to work, etc.)
HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL WORK WILL WE GET DONE?

10. Collaboration:
Power of 13
Simulation
Debrief
For the next 3 minutes, write down learning points or
observations you had from playing the game.
Write one item per sticky.
Then over the next 5 minutes discuss at your table to
find the common learning points or observations people
feel were seen. We’ll share these.
Part 1

11. Collaboration:
Power of 13
Simulation
Debrief
What did you notice happening?
What did the dice/rolls represent?
How did the effectiveness change in each round?
How does or does not this correlate
with how real work happens?
How did the coordination
in the last round feel?
What did allowing a person
to continue work simulate?
Part 2

12. Let’s Look at Some Models Important
to Understanding
Group Dynamics
Remember: All models are wrong
and some are useful!

13. Group Communications Patterns
Linear
Hub
&
Spoke
Network

14. Network Pattern: as Nodes Grow,
Maintaining the Network Itself
Grows
Communications Paths = N(N-1)/2
where N = number of people (as nodes in the graph).
Realistically, this limits the amount of productive two-way communication.
How so..?

15. Some Interesting Data…
Based on -
log(N) = 0.093 + 3.389 log(CR) (1) (r2=0.764, t34=10.35, p<0.001)
This equation places an upper limit of how many people we can
regularly communicate and maintain stable relationships (aka social
grooming) based on neocortex size.
150
Based on –
Tribal Reciprocity; the limit on the number of people that will give
with an expectation they will receive in kind.
50
Based on –
The lower limit of short term memory limit for bits of information used
in judgement; we can retain only about 7±2 items in memory.
This limits the number of people with which we can have deep
communication.
5
Evolutionary
Psychology
Cultural
Anthropology
Cognitive
Psychology

16. Team Performance Predictors
ENERGY
“…when someone announces a new discovery in the same group, excitement
and energy skyrocket as all the members start talking to one another at once.”
ENGAGEMENT
“all members of a team have relatively equal and reasonably high energy with
all other members, engagement is extremely strong. Teams that have clusters
of members who engage in high-energy communication while other members
do not participate don’t perform as well.”
EXPLORATION
“…seek more outside connections…”

17. Communications Patterns Predict
Successful Teams
Successful Teams:
1. Everyone on the team talks and listens in roughly equal measure,
keeping contributions short and sweet.
2. Members face one another, and their conversations and gestures are
energetic.
3. Members connect directly with one another—not just with the team
leader.
4. Members carry on back-channel or side conversations within the team.
5. Members periodically break, go exploring outside the team, and bring
information back.

18. Sociometric Measurement of Team
Communications

19. Information Transfer Occurs Both
Explicitly and Tacitly
Tacit transfer builds trust
Explicit transfer creates artifacts
Focusing = (Heads-Down) Work
Collaborating = f( [WorkF])
Learning = Building Knowledge with Explicit Thinking
Socializing = Building Trust + Building Knowledge Implicitly
Σ
n
1
Nonaka Model

20. The Johari Window
Known to Self Unknown to Self
KnowntoOthersUnknowntoOthers
OPEN
AREA
BLIND
AREA
HIDDEN
AREA
UNKNOWN
AREA

21. The Johari Window
Known to Self Unknown to Self
KnowntoOthersUnknowntoOthers
FEEDBACK
DISCLOSURE
SHARED
DISCOVERY
OPEN
AREA
BLIND
AREA
HIDDEN
AREA
UNKNOWN
AREA

22. The Johari Window
Known to Self Unknown to Self
KnowntoOthersUnknowntoOthers
TELL
ASK
FEEDBACK
DISCLOSURE
SHARED
DISCOVERY
OPEN
AREA
BLIND
AREA
HIDDEN
AREA
UNKNOWN
AREA

23. The Johari Window
Known to Self Unknown to Self
KnowntoOthersUnknowntoOthers
TELL
ASK
FEEDBACK
DISCLOSURE
SHARED
DISCOVERY
OPEN
AREA
BLIND
AREA
HIDDEN
AREA
UNKNOWN
AREA
Anyone have a 4?
I have
a 4!

24. More Data
“82% of white collar workers feel they need to
partner with others throughout the workday to get
work done”
Knowledge Work = Social Achievement

25. Tuckman Stages of Group
Development
FocusonWork
Relationship/Trust
Forming
Storming
Norming
Performing

26. That was interesting, what should
we do with it...?
We’re going to look at this from 3 different
viewpoints:
• Team Member
• Manager
• Influencer

27. Team Member
Need to directly achieve goals through social
achievement
• Tuckman explains effectivness of team
• Nonaka explains how knowledge transfer in
different ways aids in creativity (innovation)
• Luft uses the Johari Window to show how
increasing the open area increases shared
understanding and trust

28. Improving Teamwork
• Increasing the Open Area increases trust
– Disclose information about yourself willingly
– Request feedback to receive it
– Establish working agreements and project
charters (explicit transfer) to help establish the
metaphors, shared understanding, and
casualness that is acceptable (tacit transfer)
• And as we saw, increasing trust, increases
work focus  productivity
Only focusing on the goal misses the need for also
having the good relationships needed to produce.

29. As a Team Forms, Only Explicit Info
Is Known

30. Next is Storming; People Still
Share Explicitly

31. On to Norming; Establish Patterns
for Sharing

32. Performing; People Share Informally,
Frequently, and Comfortably

33. The Manager
Has a need to accomplish goals through
others AND is only indirectly involved in the
social achievement
• Often set the initial goal(s) and environment in
Forming
• During the remaining stages, they usually only
involve themselves when ‘needed’

34. Support Teamwork
• Model the behavior needed to increase the
Open Area
– Disclose what help teams can get from you (and
under what circumstances)
– Disclose pertinent vulnerabilities
– Ask for and graciously acknowledge feedback (do
this more than asking for info)
• Taken together these increase trust because
you aren’t just about them achieving goals,
but you are showing you have both interest
and empathy
Building good relationships with teams gives them
license to set the behaviors they need to produce.

35. Influencer
Has no direct interest (or authority) in the social
achievement
• During Forming, often sets expectations for
performance needs tangential to the first order
team goal
• Often may be a trigger for deepening lack of focus
during Storming
• Usually consulted when a team attempts to Norm
• Often ignored (at peril) if a team is Performing
(Individual or External Stakeholder Group)

36. Encourage Partnerships
Building good relationships with the teams allows you to
influence their behaviors for meeting your goals.
Increasing the Open Area increases trust
• Disclose tangential goals and help you can give for achieving
these (and under what circumstances)
• Establish working agreements/protocols on interactions
(explicit) to help establish the metaphors, shared
understanding, and casualness that is acceptable (tacit)
• Ask for and graciously acknowledge feedback; particularly on
interventions you attempt to improve the team’s effectiveness
for your goals
Increases trust because you aren’t just
interested in them achieving your tangential
goals, but you are showing you want to allow the
team its success as well

37. EXERCISE: Forcefield Analysis – What
Promotes & Impedes Collaboration
• At your table, create a list of behaviors that
promote collaboration.
– What forces are at play that help people to want to
collaborate?
• Create a list of behaviors that impede
collaboration.
– What forces are at work that hinder people from
wanting to collaborate?
• Timebox of 5 min
• Assign a weight to each item from 1(lightest) - 5
(heaviest) in each column
• Timebox of 2 min
• Elect a spokesperson.

38. Promotes Impedes
Collaboration – Forcefield Analysis

39. Debrief

40. EXERCISE: Improving Collaboration
• Staying in your table group, examine the list
of items that help and hinder.
• Create a list of techniques or practices that a
team can use to amp up their effectiveness or
overcome a hindrance.
• Timebox of 5 min
• Elect a spokesperson.

41. Debrief

42. A Few Techniques I Consider
• Team Chartering (Launches) w/Team Working Agreements
• Coaching Alliances
• Open-Ended Questions
• Empathetic Feedback
• Retrospectives/Other Ceremonies as Facilitated Meetings
• Delegation of Authority (Delegation Boards)
• Pair/Mob Programming (Pairing in general as well)

43. Paul M. Boos
http://paulmboos.com
paul.boos@excella.com
@paul_boos
703-307-4322 (mobile)
Games for Agility, Learning,
and Engagement (GALE)
Agile Brambles
http://agilebrambles.org
Agile Dialogues
http://agiledialogues.org

44. Questions

45. Resources
Luft, Joseph; Ingham, Harrison (1955). "The Johari window, a graphic model of
interpersonal awareness". Proceedings of the western training laboratory in group
development (Los Angeles: UCLA)
Tuckman, Bruce (1965). "Developmental sequence in small groups". Psychological
Bulletin 63
Pentland, Alex "Sandy”(2012). “The New Science of Building Great Teams”. Harvard
Business Review, April 2012
Nonaka, Ikujiro; Hirotaka Takeuchi (1995). The Knowledge-Creating Company
(2008) “Inside Innovation,” Business Week, April 28, 2008
Steelcase WorkSpace Futures (2010). How The Workplace Can Improve
Collaboration, June 2010 Whitepaper on Supporting Collaboration
Spradley, Jonothan; McCurdy, David W. (2012). Conformity and Conflict: Readings in
Cultural Anthropology, Pearson Education
Miller, George A. (1956). The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits
on our Capacity for Processing Information, Psychologicial Review 63
Dunbar, Robin I. M. (1992). “Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language
in humans”, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Volume 16 Issue 04, December 1993