About 5 minutes per round. I typically like to run three or four rounds depending upon how quickly my class “gets it”.

Ingredients:

• Two people willing to play
• (Optional) Play money

Recipe:

I first was exposed to this game at a Toastmaster meeting. The facilitator only carried the example to the first round and made the point of cooperation. I’ve enhanced the game to make points about iteration retrospectives, specialization, and scaling.

The central activity in this exercise is a game of “Thumb Wars”. This is the same game you played as a child, in which the object is to pin your opponent (partner’s) thumb to their fist.

YouTube has many videos of this activity. A good example can be found here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=l649Ftx-0hM

When you run the game, some groups will figure out the messaging and techniques more quickly than others. Sometimes they never get it and you may have to walk them through it. Either way, it is very instructional and illustrates many lean and agile values.

GamePlay:

Demonstration: Ask the audience if they know how to play thumb wars. This question leads individuals to fond memories, anticipation and excitement. Then invite a member of the class to the front and demonstrate the game.
Ask people in class to pair off and tell them you will pay the person with the most wins a dollar for each win. (I have play money for this purpose)
Instruct that they will have a minute to play the game. Tell them that the object of the exercise is to “maximize gain”. Give them the “ready, set … go” and time them for about a minute.
Round 1 (Competition): In the first round of this game, the class typically thumbs it out. In round one, it is normal that I “pay out” four to six dollars to the person with the most wins. To conclude the round, I revisit the goal of maximizing gain, then ask players to discuss this with their partner for a while, then give them the “ready, set … go”.
Round 2 (Cooperation): Round two is usually characterized by a couple agreeing to cooperate and exchange wins. This works just like it sounds. Person A lets Person B win, then the reverse, and so on for the minute. I generally pay out about $30 per person to the winning team because, since they alternate, they tie in wins. The debrief includes a discussion about the value of cooperation over competition when people share the same goal. I once again remind the team that the goal is to “maximize gain”, give them another minute to discuss it and then “ready, set … go”
Round 3 (Specialization): Some members of the class will realize that an individual does not have to “win” to gain. The two people enter into a partnership in which Person A passively lays their thumb down onto their fist and Person B repeatedly taps it. I usually pay out about $120 to $180 to person A at the end of this round and they split the money per agreement. (if people can actually count that fast). The debrief discussion focuses on the value of role specialization and creativity in achieving gain. Sometimes we give the discussion a “lean” twist and talk about the waste associated with exchanging thumb positions in Round 2. We discuss again the goal of maximizing gain, do a brief retrospective, then “ready, set, … go”.
Round 4 (Scaling): Once again, some members of the class will realize that the instructions were “a dollar per pin” and “maximize gain”. Nothing was said about the number of playing fields. So some teams will realize that they can apply the knowledge gained from round 3 with both hands. Person A taps the thumb of person B with both their right and left thumbs and again as fast as possible, person A gets paid, then they split the money. But, by this time in the game, people cannot count the number of “wins”, so we give up on money. But everyone understands that the number is nearing $200 – $300 per person.

After I’ve debriefed Round 4, then we have a discussion of the value of retrospectives in increasing gain from about $6 to about $300.

Learning Points:

• Collaboration and cooperation maximizes gain over competition in groups with shared goals. (Competitive situations exist between functional groups in the waterfall process)
• Process retrospectives pay big dividends
• There are many different ways to improve a process. Creativity can lead to more efficient ways to cooperate, specialize and scale. If you can achieve such fantastic results ($6 -> $300) with this silly game, think what you can do with a complex software development project.
• This whole game, from end to end, can be presented as an exercise in value stream mapping and waste elimination if the facilitator wishes to take that approach.

This post was submitted by skillen.