What are the key factors in making a project successful? What has been preventing us from improving the quality of our application? What initiatives do we want to fund in 2015? What are the key requirements for the mobile and tablet versions of our product? These are just some of the critical strategic questions that fall on our shoulders, sometimes heavily, and that do require cat herding skills.
We’ve been using the KJ Method at Alliance Global Services during User Experience Jumpstart initiatives. It can certainly help to align a group around product road-mapping. In addition, it can be tremendously helpful in answering questions that require an organization to have a clear answer.
Created in the 1960s by the Japanese anthropologist Jiro Kawakita, the KJ Method of prioritization is meant to reach consensus of a group based on subjective data rather than hard-fought battles, politics, or ego.
Just this week I had a chance to facilitate a KJ session with a group of leaders from one of our customers to answer a very fundamental question: How do we define the success of our engagement together? We had surveyed each participant in advance to get their general opinions around the priority of some key dimensions including quality & metrics, predictive delivery & estimation, technical skills & thought leadership, size of team & cost. Based on this, we had a general sense going into the session where the group would have consensus already and where they may not as well as where they may want to spend the most time. So here’s how the KJ Session went down:
- Each participant got their own sticky notes with their own color (the post-it note companies must really love Agile!) In this particular case, it was helpful to reference each person’s comments this way; in other settings you might want to avoid this sticky note naming and instead have them color coded by a category instead.
- I explained to everyone the fundamental, core question we were focused on answering. In addition, I showed the group posters hung around the room with each of the five dimensions that their responses may fall into. I also created a sixth “other” category to allow the freedom to think of areas outside of these dimensions.
- Then I stopped talking… and just let them think independently. The entire point of the sticky notes is to give each person their own time to process and document their ideas. They each filled out one sticky note per response and stuck them on the appropriate dimension poster when done. As they put up their notes, they also took time to read some of the other responses, which triggered some of them to come up with additional sticky notes. What I really love about this part of the session is that it allows introverts to have a voice and puts everyone on equal footing. Literally everyone has their own voice. This process was time boxed to 12 minutes.
- The next part of the exercise gets interesting. This is where the group looks through the responses (we did it one poster at a time, starting with what they deemed to be the highest priority. The participants get clarification from each other and group repeat responses together in stacks. Certainly, themes arise from the responses, which is a natural occurrence. But also, there are some sticky notes that are “lone wolves” – and that is encouraged too. The group was given 10 minutes on the clock for this part.
-
Now comes the fun part of prioritizing the sticky notes in order as a group. This particular group was generally agreeable to whomever would speak up on each poster with the first idea of priority. In some situations, the group debated the order of a couple, but after a couple minutes did make a joint decision. And as a facilitator with definite opinions on the topic, I had to hold my tongue a couple times and NOT weigh in. It is important to have the group come to consensus on their own. This took about 20 minutes.
Certainly the job of ‘herding cats’ can be more difficult depending on the personalities in the room, the culture of the organization, the hierarchical roles in the group… this is where, as a facilitator, you do have to set some ground rules and uphold them, and at times, stop an overbearing participant from dictating and call on the quieter members of the group to share their opinions. It also may require voting or other decision making techniques.
- This exercise concluded once we felt we had a solid answer to our core question that everyone felt good about. We knew at the end of the session what we valued at a strategic level in order of priority, setting the tone for how we moved forward.
And the most amazing part? This method took us one hour. Let me repeat that. One hour.
So what’s so special about the KJ Method, and how is it different from traditional prioritization sessions or, what is often incorrectly referred to as affinity diagramming? With KJ, your starting point is critical, and that’s with a fundamental, “core” question that everyone really cares about. It’s important to get the question right. The other difference is that the responses should be about the facts. Real data gathering, rather than just random brainstorming. The other difference, one I particularly like, is that individuals get to put ideas on paper and share them in a way that their voice is completely heard. As a cat herder, I’ve done many sessions where I know everyone is just deferring to the head honcho, and I’m not getting an accurate outcome. The pensive silence that does take place a few times in this hour is where some of the best ideas come to fruition, both independently and later, as a unified group. And finally, the difference that is perhaps most important, is that you walk away with a conclusion statement that provides a powerful strategic direction.
The Alliance UX Practice includes great cat herding facilitators for KJ Prioritization Sessions. Please reach out if you would like some assistance!