Ingredients:

• 100+ Toothpicks (or something similar)
• At least one Die

Directions:

Participants line up in a row with a collection of toothpicks (or something similar) placed with the first participant. The first participant rolls a die to determine how many toothpicks to pass to the next participant. Each participant then takes turns rolling the die and passing the corresponding amount of toothpicks to the next player. The final player creates a stack of toothpicks based on his/her roll and then passes the die back to the first participant to continue with the next round. Play until it is obvious where the stacks are forming.

Learning Points:

• Even though all participants have the same odds, inventory still piles up. Tie this in to Value Streams and software.
• In software, requirements are your inventory. It is wasteful to process them all up front.

CREDIT: The Goal, Dr. Eliyahu M. Goldratt, 1984

Posted by Mike

Ingredients:

• 20-30 balloons per team
• Supplies for each team: construction paper, rulers, scissors, markers

Directions:

Start by showing the teams a balloon that you would like created. The balloon has a face made up of two round eyes, a triangular nose, and a semi circle mouth. Without any further instructions, tell the teams that they have 2 minutes to create as many of the balloons as possible, then have them bring the balloons up to be ‘accepted’. Eliminate any balloons that do not meet your criteria of ~10 inches wide, ~2 inch eyes, ~1 inch gap between eyes, ~1.5 inch high nose, and ~4.5 inch wide mouth. Very few teams will have balloons that meet the criteria. As you reject their work (waste), ask the teams if they’ve ever had a similar experience in software development. Before the second round, give the teams 2 minutes to discuss how they can improve for the next iteration. They should start asking more questions about the acceptance criteria, which you will happily offer. When round 2 starts, the teams will now apply the acceptance criteria to their work and some will even start building ‘test harnesses’ (e.g. paper templates for face, quick ways to measure balloon width, etc.) . The results should be better in round 2. Discuss how they changed the way they worked and what improvements they would make the next time. If needed, play one more round. This time, every team should be using a test harness and should therefore be producing balloons with much more efficiency and quality.

Learning Points:

• Defining acceptance criteria is not the same as writing tests, only to be applied after something is produced. They can be used as requirements, as tests, and as a target for developers.
• Automating acceptance tests (or executable requirements) can be very useful, as demonstrated by the test harnesses produced during the game.
• The investment in creating and automating acceptance tests is worthwhile and has a high return.

Posted by Mike

Ingredients:

• Origami instructions for half the participants
• Blank standard sized printer paper for half the participants

Directions:

Pair up participants and provide an instruction sheet (face down) to one person in each pair (the “instructor”), and provide a blank sheet of paper to the other member of the pair (the “folder”). Split the pairs into three groups:

• Group 1 sits side-by-side,
• Group 2 sits face-to-face, and
• Group 3 sits back-to-back.

On “Go!” the person with the instruction sheet flips it over and instructs the other member of the pair how to fold the origami.

• In Group 1, one person folds, but both can consult the instruction sheet as much as needed.
• In Group 2, the folder must not see the instruction sheet, but the instructor can watch the folder and provide feedback on progress.
• In Group 3, the instructor and the folder cannot see each other, but they can talk (over their shoulders) as much as possible.

As each group successfully completes the origami item, have them stand up. The facilitator may cut it off after a period of time, because Group 3 may not successfully finish.

Learning Points:

• Collaboration leads to faster results and better quality.
• Communication barriers on geographically dispersed teams can be disastrous, even if there is unlimited verbal communication.
• Visual maps are a useful communication tool.

CREDIT: Ken Howard, Improving Enterprises

Posted by Mike

Ingredients:

• Many coins of varying denominations

Directions:

A customer wants to hire the subcontracting vendor who provides the quickest estimate to sorting a bag of coins. Have teams of participants bid on the project by shouting out bids (in seconds). Let all the teams attempt the exercise and hold them to their bids by timing them. After they have finished, point out that what the customer actually wanted, was to have the coins sorted by date, not denomination.

Learning Points:

• Timelines are often set without due diligence.
• Assumptions are often made without involving the customer. These assumptions may hold true all the way to production.
• If a team had first sorted a sample of coins and demonstrated for feedback, the problem would have been caught before it became too costly.

Posted by Mike

Ingredients:

• At least 10 pages (8.5’ X 11’) per participant
• 1 marker per participant
• Stickers

Directions:

We are having a party, and we need to enlist everybody in the room to create invitation cards (3 per person). Begin by showing an example of what the finished card should look like:

1. fold page in half
2. draw a happy face on the front,
3. write a message on the inside,
4. sign the card,
5. stamp the back (sticker) and,
6. mail the card by dropping it in a box.

Once everybody is comfortable with all of the steps, start the timer and have participants build 3 cards each by completing each step to completion before moving on to the next step; this is known as batch & queue. Stop production about half way through and ask everybody what would happen if we decided to change the color of the paper. How much wasted effort would there be? How does this map to software? Let production continue and note the time when the first card is delivered to the customer and again when all cards are complete. Run the process again. This time, have participants complete a card before moving on to the next; this is known as single piece flow. Again, stop production about half way through and ask the same questions as before. Let production continue and compare the times with the first method. Obviously, the second method is much faster at getting something to the customer, but more surprisingly, the second method is also faster over all. Discuss why this is; if the participants say that it is because they have become more efficient, then run it again with the first method and challenge them to beat their time.

Learning Points:

• By taking a smaller set of requirements all the way to completion, you get something to the customer faster. Conversely, if all the requirements are processed at the same time, changes later in the cycle become more costly.
• Single piece flow is often faster then batch and queue. This is due to the fact that each cross-functional participant can take ownership of a module all the way to completion, reducing overall task-switching and hand-offs.

Posted by Mike

Ingredients

• People and space
• Notepads and pens for participant

Directions

1. The moderator whispers a short phrase, such as “The company is facing budgetary problems, and some of us will be let go,” in the ear of a participant. The moderator writes down what he whispered.
2. The participant then whispers the sentence that he heard in the ear of another participant and writes down what he whispered.
3. Repeat step 2 until everyone has participated.
4. The moderator then asks each participant to read aloud the sentence that the participant wrote down.

Learning Points

• The morale will deteriorate quickly, often in comical ways. Invite the participants to discuss why communication is intrinsically noisy. Discuss practices that promote good communication.

Submitted by Michael dela Maza <MdelaMaza @ drc.com>

Posted by Mike

30 mins

Ingredients

• Supplies for each team: play dough, pipe cleaners (chenille stems)

Directions

Each team selects one Business Analyst (or Product Owner) to come to the front of the class to look at a picture of an item that the customer wants built. The BA’s are instructed to only use imperatives and similes (no ‘rhymes with’) and to not use certain words when describing the item to the rest of their team.

• In round 1, the item is something simple (such as a chair), but the BA must communicate only in writing. This should only take a few minutes for the team to create using the given supplies.

• In round 2, the item is something simple (a teapot), but the BA can speak with their team. This should show how much easier it is to communicate by speaking.

• In round 3, the BA is shown an item that isn’t as easy to communicate (a motor-cycle RV or a make-up kit built in to a computer mouse for instance). Since items like these are not common, it should be much harder to build.

Note: A quicker alternative to this game is to have teams draw the items instead of using the supplies.

Learning Points

• In software, we are rarely creating something that already exists. So we are forced to communicate in imperatives and metaphors and, quite often, much is lost in translation.

Posted by Mike