CAPTURING PROJECT LEARNING USING A MODIFIED CRAWFORD SLIP TECHNIQUE Errol Muir In engineering projects, working to a tight time

frame, problems are addressed on the run. Rarely are the problems or the successful and unsuccessful efforts to address them recorded to inform future project teams or to assist in developing systems to avoid them. The Crawford Slip technique, a form of brainwriting developed in 1925 by Dr CC Crawford at the University of Southern California, provides a time efficient and practical means of capturing project experience. This paper describes a recent use of the process, as advanced by RM Krone (Krone 1987), with some modifications. It outlines its use in analyzing start-up issues in four recent projects undertaken by a Melbourne firm of engineers and project managers. Engineering and construction projects operate under tight budget and time constraints. It is in the nature of these projects that unanticipated problems will arise. These problems are usually addressed directly by members of the project team; at times other team members will be unaware of either the problem or the solution. The time pressures on staff usually mean that attempts to record or reflect on the issues by way of workshops is not possible. But if an organisation is to learn from what it is doing it is essential to capture experience, to reflect on it and to incorporate learning from that experience into its systems. Using the Crawford Slip Method, it has been possible to capture information to provide the basis for the reflective observation and conceptualization suggested by Kolb, Osland and Rubin (1995, p67). Figure 1. Kolbs Learning Model Source: Kolb, et al Concrete Experience

Active Experimentation

Reflective Observation

Abstract Conceptualization

The Crawford Slip method provides a way of quickly capturing large amounts of information for analysis and system improvement. In two hours, it is possible to draw from participants, concise statements of their views on particular project issues. The concept is simple: people with the appropriate knowledge or skills are gathered in one

03/07/12

room, focusing questions addressing the issue to be examined are put to the participants amplified by some explanatory phrases. Participants are given a short time to write their views on 5x3 inch cards one thought to each card. A sample of the cards is read to participants to stimulate further ideas and finally the cards are collected and analyzed. The details of the process are simply explained by way of example below. Over the past three years, the subject company has been involved in four major projects with a total planned capital expenditure of $A2.3 billion. One project had been completed, one had been deferred after considerable work and two were ongoing. The company saw potential for significant saving in improving the way in which it dealt with the startup phase of projects. Teams from each project were invited to participate in a short review of the startup phase of their project and sessions were held on three separate days in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. Some 36 employees participated in all. At the beginning of each session the ground rules were explained. Participants were to write down any thoughts relevant to answering the focusing question. Both positive and negative issues were sought (though most of the issues raised related to problems rather than things that went well, a number of approaches that need to be continued were also raised). In filling out the cards, participants were asked to use one card per thought write lengthwise on cards, start near the top (to facilitate later sorting) use short statements write legibly use no abbreviations be self contained on each card as the cards will later be mixed write until ideas stop or until stopped by the facilitator (about 15 minutes) Arrangements to protect confidentiality were explained no names were to be written on the cards and the cards themselves were to be kept in the hands of the facilitator. For the questions selected, there were questions about what constituted project startup, when did it end etc. In this case these were addressed allowing flexibility for participants to include the maximum number of key issues, but in some other areas of study closer definition and control might be desirable. The issues to be addressed were explained and participants given copies of the statements (Figure 1). The issues are stated in general terms (Project Startup Issues) and amplified by an explanatory statement (Problems and learnings in startup) followed by a number of questions. It is important that examples are not given since they may bias participants towards certain issues and other important questions may not be raised.

03/07/12

Figure 1. Issues Addressed in Workshop Sessions

Target A: Project Startup Issues Problems and learnings in startup What things limited or enhanced your effectiveness in the early stages? List the roadblocks, bottlenecks, delays and frustrations you experienced What occurred which led to subsequent rework? Target B: Advice to Project Managers Building on what we know works and solving problems Provide your recommendations to resolve problems/issues What approaches, policies or actions have you seen which worked well? If youd been in charge, how would you change things to capture benefits or resolve issues?

Krone (1987) stresses the importance of these focusing statements or, in Crawford terminology, targets. The key to obtaining unbiased inputs from your group lies in correct targetingStart with two targets seeking problems and solutions at the general level. Do this even though you think you know just where the problem lies. If you target for a specific part of the system first you may keep hidden a large number of ills that are causing troubles but have not surfaced. In the first session, the facilitator indicated that the process had the potential to elicit most of the key issues involved and that there was an expectation of an average of 10 issues per participant (Krone 1987). In one subsequent session, through oversight, no targets were mentioned and fewer issues per person were forthcoming. At the end of 15 minutes, participants were asked to stop writing and to select the top 3 issues those that they believed had the most significant impact on their effectiveness in the startup phase and to write the corresponding number on the top left hand side of the appropriate cards. Item 1 was then collected from each participant and read out to the group to stimulate additional thoughts. Some, but few, additional issues were forthcoming as a result but the prioritizing proved very valuable in the analysis of the data. Prior to collecting the cards, to facilitate analysis, participants were asked to mark the cards in the left-hand side at the top with an A and on the reverse B. The cards were returned to the participants simply passed round with each participant removing their own to protect confidentiality. The second question was then addressed in the same way as above, key solutions prioritized and the data gathering session ended. Participants were invited to forward any additional thoughts they had on issues within the following week and in this way about 10 further points were collected. Some users of the Crawford Slip Method utilize the participants to do some analysis of key suggestions in group sessions immediately following the writing of the slips for the first target. (Zemke, 1993). This process, known as the buzz, allows participants in
03/07/12 3

plenary or small groups, to present their ideas one at a time in a round robin fashion until all the ideas have been heard. A free discussion then follows and participants return to undertake the solution round of slip writing. With time restraints, and with participants approaching the issues from significantly different perspectives, this process was not used. However, where the process was being directed at solving a particular problem, use of a buzz session would likely bring the benefits of group dynamics to the solution generating process. At the commencement of each session it had been explained that a secondary purpose of the exercise was to gather views on the effectiveness of the process. Accordingly views on this aspect were sought. There was universal support for the process. Participants believed that they had been able to effectively recall and record key issues and almost all valued the process as providing an opportunity for them to contribute their ideas to an improvement process. The efficiency of the process was particularly appreciated given other calls on time, particularly where the projects under consideration were still active. A number of suggestions regarding the process were also gathered from participants these related primarily to ensuring participation of the maximum possible number of participants. The analysis of the suggestions was carried out as a separate exercise by the facilitator. Krone (1987) identifies four steps to be followed: 1. Rough sort into many categories 2. Consolidate into fewer super categories 3. Refinement to develop a stable outline for the written product 4. Detailed editing for the final product. Krone then suggests a manual sorting of the cards. Aided by the advance in readily available computing facilities since publication of Krones article, I found it simpler to type the information on each card into a table so that problem and solution were side by side. It was then possible to categorise each issue e.g. (problem relates to) scope definition, or role clarity etc., assigning each a category a letter, A, B etc. The results are sorted into their category groups and then further sorted within the groups to bring similar issues together. This process enables large numbers of cards to be handled easily and permits solutions to be kept with the statement of the issue. It is sometimes necessary to refer back to the cards themselves and each card was numbered sequentially, with this reference number also recorded in the table. The typed record facilitated reading and where necessary, re-shuffling into different categories. It also made it easy to consolidate thoughts by cutting and pasting while retaining as much as possible of the original wording. Based on the consolidated record, a report can be prepared for distribution to management and participants. At each stage of the process it is useful to provide participants with feedback e.g. the consolidated record was circulated to each participant for comment. This was particularly useful since it enabled a second or third perspective to be given on issues. It is important to note that the process collects participants views on issues, not statements of fact. Providing the opportunity for other comment on the issues thus provides a valuable opportunity for other participants to alert the facilitator to differing views or errors.

03/07/12

Equally, there is a possibility that key issues might be missed. Clearly, this is dependent on the breadth and number of participants, the extent of their participation in the process under review and their seniority. In this case, the numbers involved in each project varied from 2 to 18, providing a reasonable spread of participants from most projects (though as indicated above, the suggestion was made by participants that a broader spread of participants could have been invited). Given the consistency of the results from project to project (Table 2) and the feedback from participants, it is likely that the main issues were captured. Table 2. Key Issues Identified by Project High Level Issues Scope issues Client & Team Alignment Role clarity Schedule issues Systems & Procedure issues Contractor issues Joint Venture issues Team working/ capability issues Resourcing issues Project 1 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Project 2 X Project 3 X X X X Project 4 X X X X X

Following analysis of the data and after further discussion with participants, the process is considered to be a valuable addition to the learning processes of the company. The process generated a total of 332 issues for consideration, most supported by suggested solutions. The direct feedback to individual managers and participants was recognised as useful learning but the most value will come from process improvements derived from the consolidated data this is the subject of further research. The process is particularly suited to environments where the participants are more introverted, requiring thinking time before presenting ideas. This contrasts with the more public brainstorming sessions that suit more extroverted participants. It is also consistent with research that suggests that individuals, not groups, best undertake creative idea generation. (Rossiter & Lilien, 1995) to avoid social loafing, and production blocking where people are prevented from reporting initial ideas while waiting for others to have their turn. It is important to impose (at least notional) time limits and expectations of the number of ideas expected. Setting of difficult targets generates more issues (Rossiter et al). Note that in the session for Project 3 the facilitator omitted to set a target for the participants and the issues per participant are significantly lower than in the other sessions.. Table 2. Number of Issues Raised Project 1
03/07/12

No of Participants 2
5

No of Issues Raised 22

2 3 4 Total

9 18 7 36

93 125 102 362

Analysis of the results of the Crawford Slip sessions and the determination of subsequent action are separate activities, not covered in this review. However, collection of data requires action, both to maintain credibility of the process and ongoing support for information collection, and to justify the investment in the process. The data collected provided the basis for recommendations to improve the setup phase of project teams; these will be described in future papers.

References Kolb DA, Osland J and Rubin IM, The Organisational Behaviour Reader, Sixth Edition, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1995 Krone, R.M. Management of Operational Knowledge through Brainpower Networking and the Crawford Slip Method, Proceedings, IEEE Conference on Technology and Management, Atlanta, 1987 Zemke,R, In search of good ideas. (Alternatives to Brainstorming), Training, Vol 30, n1, p46, Jan, 1993 Rossiter, JR and Lilien, GL, New Brainstorming Principles, Australian Journal of Management, Vol 19, 1, The University of New South Wales, June 1995

03/07/12