LL-Feedback – De-escalation

Smart Structuring Methode LL-Feedback
Categorie De-escalation
Short overview Modern methods like Scrum bring a high agility with them. This is good for staying flexible and focusing on the business requirements of the customer. However, agility also brings with it the danger of expanding requirements and thus the expenses when resource availability is limited – especially for smaller development projects. LL Feedback focuses on how to ensure the reliability of the assignment or requirements and development framework despite a highly dynamic environment.
Developed by NN, based on traffic light map query
Online Reference https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinnwandmoderation
Book Wolfgang Rechtien, Die Macht des Arguments: Sicher auftreten, klar formulieren, mit Überzeugung gewinnen, 1991
Key words De-escalation, feedback, lessons learned, structure
Insights The structuring group card exercise (red/yellow/green) asks for the group’s feedback, but additionally involves the service provider/customer level. It thus relies on a combined inside/outside view. You can define four roles for the review of a development project: Service provider developer, service provider project manager, customer project manager, customer decision maker. The roles are assigned as far as possible in contrast to the real role. In other words, the actual developer takes on the role of the customer decision-maker. Of course, the real roles can also be filled and a feedback/lessons learned discussion with service provider and customer can be conducted together. However, this should be moderated neutrally in any case – de-escalation is particularly important in projects that are difficult to complete!

The procedure is based on the assumption that projects are only processed within the service provider. In other words, each role is filled by the internal team. Moderation by a neutral person is also recommended for an internal revision of a completed project.

  1. Role allocation and filling out maps
    Each role (service provider developer, service provider project manager, customer project manager, customer decision maker) fills out three moderation cards: Red – what I don’t want to see in the next project, yellow – what I would recommend for the next project, green – what I like/please continue with the last project.
  2. Card presentation
    Now each roll presents all its completed cards. Other roles must not justify themselves, but first ask questions of understanding.
  3. Clustering
    Afterwards (when all cards are hanging on the wall), the cards are sorted according to “Urgent need for action for the next project” and “Exciting but not urgent” – e.g. in a matrix.
  4. Need for action matrix
    Discussion of the urgent need for action. It is best to distinguish between symptoms and causes. Try to identify the few really important drivers for unfavorable project developments that have led to escalations. Only start working on these few. Less is more.
  5. Evaluate?
    Complaint exercise – if the red and yellow cards show that the customer is behaving “inappropriately”, for example, by making too many demands at the same cost, etc., the group reflects again on how the two service provider roles can prepare for this in future projects.
Best usage for… Review of marketing/development projects, creation of transparency.
Weak result when… No willingness to analyse the causes, team’s reluctance to engage in open discourse.
Template /
Needed time span Approx. 4 hours
Type of presentation Moderation cards, moderation board
Size of group From 3-4 persons, maximum 10 persons

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *