Fa i ta tor (plural fa cil i ta tors) noun
1. Someone who allows something to happen: someone who helps or assists in a process, especially by encouraging people to find their own solutions to problems or tasks.
2. Meeting Planner: Someone who organizes and provides services for a meeting, seminar, or other event.
That’s what an online dictionary says an “enabler” is or does.
An excerpt from a project management training manual says this:
“There are stages to team development and you should be able to determine the current stage and how to get to the highest stage. If you can’t make the determination, you should call a facilitator. A facilitator is to assess team dynamics or development stage They should also be able to give suggestions on how to get to the next level. forming (very little or no work is being done); assault (very little or no work is being done); Norman (first time significant work is done); and running (The highest stage and the work happens efficiently).”
Seemingly the standard perception of the profession of a facilitator is like a firefighter called in to put out a fire that has gotten out of control. Unfortunately, there is no professional qualification such as “Project Facilitation Professional – PFP” (yet) to help us narrow the field to find the best facilitator for our project.
However, one thing that a PM can do in their search for an effective facilitator is to use fundamental behavioral research to approach the problem in a different way: “You can’t do things the way you’ve always done and expect different results.” If we want to find a facilitator who can be more than just a “firefighter” when team development struggles, we will have to reconsider many things:
- The way we see the facilitation process as a whole
- The way we look for a facilitator
- Review what we expect of him or her
- Reconsider how we structure your relationship with the project.
- The way we see the facilitation process as a whole
The sooner the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) admits that a project is an organizational microcosm focused on people doing work rather work that people dosooner it will become apparent that an organizational development specialist (the future PFP) needs to be a member of the team from the start, and not just on call in case of a fire.
If we take enough time during project initiation to look at the people first and lay the groundwork for effective interaction with each other, the job will almost get done just because these are technical professionals. (If they weren’t, why would they have been hired?)
But if all our focus is on the work while the people doing it are an afterthought, it’s no wonder we get a stage of development called a “storm”! The very fact that we name it is an admission that the work, not the people who do it, is foremost on our minds.
Wouldn’t it be much easier to do things from scratch? that prevent fires instead of having the firefighter waiting because we assume that sooner or later we will need him?
The way we look for a facilitator
We can quickly narrow the field of applicants if we approach the dilemma of facilitating the selection from another perspective. let’s see the big project the image first before we see the facilitator part.
Take a moment and write down your definition of a successful project. Not for a specific type of project, but rather for a general model. Many PMs will write something like: “Project success means that all deliverables and results were as promised. All expectations were met and we are paid by the client.” (You can add the boilerplate comments about “world class,” “cutting edge,” and “industry hater” later, if you like.)
Now suppose you added this sentence at the end: “Everyone involved agrees that we would like to work together again as soon as possible!”
Would that make any difference to your criteria for selecting a facilitator, what you would expect from him, and whether he would be a semi-permanent part of your project or just a helper when the fires got out of control?
I add this line because I have seen projects in the past that, by the definition of all deliverables, promises and expectations were met and we were paid by the clientthey were successful, but the participants were eager to get away from the site and vowed never to work together again.
If that were a twenty-four month project, the team members would have wasted two years of their lives that they want to forget as quickly as possible. How could an experience like that be considered “successful” for anything other than meeting contractual specifications and getting paid?
But, if we broaden our definition of success beyond the contractual aspect of the project and look forward to working with that team again, the last two years could become fond memories that we want to re-experience.
How might “warm and fuzzy” feelings like those from a former customer, vendor, or other project manager enhance your career as a Project Manager? (If you’re not sure, just consider the opposite position: what professional impact would it have on you if the former project managers thought you were an absolute disaster from a relationship perspective and never wanted to see you again?)
If you agree that revising your definition of a successful project should include that extra phrase, you now have a very focused and insightful question to ask facilitator candidates: “How, specifically, would you design a team-building process for duration of our project? Would that make the team members want to work together on another project as soon as possible?”
Some of the topics they should be able to discuss (and provide implementation details if you want to know more) are:
1) How could you help us prevent (or reduce the impact of) these disadvantages associated with a typical project matrix organization?
a) Team members with little or no focus on the project
b) Team members with greater motivation and innovation.
c) Double report
d) Supervision and control of performance
e) Lack of alignment of objectives with management
2) How would you help us develop a value system within the project team that guides how we work with each other?
3) How would you help us shorten (if not completely eliminate) the typical development cycle of a team through the formation, storm, normalization stages and quickly getting to the performance stage?
4) How could you help us to avoid or overcome these typical communication barriers in a project?
a) Educational levels
b) Perceived social status
c) Attitudes
d) Different values
e) Working pressure
f) Conflict of priorities
g) Frictions and interdepartmental conflicts
5) What products would you deliver from a project “kick-off” meeting? What would the agenda contain? Who would you suggest attend? How long should it work?
Review what we expect from him or her
Just as a project is likely to have technical experts available on an as-needed basis, the facilitator is the project’s āorganizational developmentā expert and their input should be valued as much as other technical experts.
They may be designing the development, interaction, monitoring and measurement components of the team during the project initiation stage while other technical experts are working on their scheduling, estimating, procurement, etc. components
I was recently looking at an RFP for a facilitator on a construction project that read, in part, “Tell us what you would do in an initial meeting of no more than a day and a half and we anticipate one, or two at the most, additional meetings during the project.” “.
Essentially, that’s what I’m talking about in rethinking how you, as a PM, look at a facilitator.
Instead of defining the scope of the project’s requirements for facilitation services and asking, “How would you meet our needs?” and by allowing the facilitator candidates to respond, the PM was telling the facilitator how long it would take him to do his job.
I suggest that if PMs don’t tell engineers, architects, accountants, or any other project professional how to do their job, they shouldn’t tell the facilitator how to do theirs either. “Define the scope and I’ll give you a budget” is the way a company bids a project. It is also how the PM should negotiate with a facilitator.
It should be obvious by now that the facilitator should be a member of the project team from the start rather than on call in case there are problems. This does not mean that the facilitator needs to be there full time, but rather that he needs to set a schedule (time and price) that he can live with and that will get him the results he wants. After all, his success means their success: all he has to do is tell them what he wants and let them do it.