NetWork 2i™

Network 2i ™ Case Study

A tool for the assessment of effective management behaviour

Action Learning Devices have been developed by Interel in the USA since 1973. RSVP Design's long-term relationship with Interel allows us to bring you NetWork2i™, the latest advancement of a well-established and proven development and assessment tool.

NetWork2i™ fits all RSVP Design's criteria for being a relevant, simple, versatile and practical learning tool. It is a powerful means of evaluating and developing individual and group behaviour and the speed and simplicity of its operation makes it ideal for accelerated, iterative learning.

The exercise has tight time-frames built into it. Each short activity period follows a period of planning and rehearsal and is a genuine 'test' of a team's strategy in action. It also allows for on-going performance coaching. As examples, NetWork2i™ allows observation of the following 'task' skills:

• Setting challenging but achievable goals and targets
• Ensuring everyone involved in a project understands the objectives
• Setting high standards of quality whilst working within given constraints
• Managing time: effectively balancing planning, testing and implementation
• Briefing accurately, giving clear and precise instructions.

NetWork2i™ also allows observation of the following 'process' skills:

• Recognising and utilising individual team members' skills
• Offering support for ideas and positive feedback and encouragement
• Being willing to adopt new strategies in the light of experience
• Listening to team contributions and changing an unsatisfactory approach
• Noticing and integrating minor changes that will improve performance.

How does it work?

Participants work together to co-ordinate the movement of a marker pen which is used to mark specific points on a target board. Using light strings, attached to a frame, the pen is guided around a series of target boards upon which participants can score points by achieving increasingly demanding tasks.

The exercise is designed for indoor use with groups of 4-8 participants. The exercise appears 'business-like' and professional and is not out of place in the environment of a board room or formal assessment centre. It is well received by employees at all levels of organisations, including senior staff who may not be entirely receptive to 'learning games'. The simplicity of its assembly makes it ideal for setting up multiple copies on conference tables and the objective scoring system means it is excellent in situations in which inter-group competition is deemed appropriate and motivational.

What are the business benefits of this resource?

NetWork2i™ is simple, cost effective and allows assessors or facilitators to observe and give feedback about a wide range of demonstrated behaviour. Used in an assessment or development centre environment, the tasks can be tailored to match the desired management or team behaviour, with a focus on skills of productivity, leadership, coaching, group decision-making and supervision/performance monitoring. The exercise can run very quickly, allowing it to become a genuine practice ground for specific skills. Many repetitions of tasks allow genuine skills development that, combined with peer and trainer feedback, shapes new behaviour.

Give me an example of how it is used.

A US Financial Corporation uses NetWork2i™ for a self-evaluation exercise on the last day of a 3-day supervisory training session. The exercise involves 4 participants; each participant in turn supervises the activities of the other three. Participants are then asked to discuss their performance in terms of their own planning, communications and leadership skills, in preparation for developing an action-plan for on-the-job improvements.

Product Download

11-01-2008 - Network 2i ™ - Walmart & Ken Blanchard

Wal-Mart uses the NetWork 2i™ Action Learning Device in their Middle Management Development Program. The program develops core competencies including setting direction, communicating goals, supporting emerging leadership and recognizing nonverbal communication.

The 1-1/2 hour presentation of the NetWork activity consists of two rounds on the first day of the four-day program. The first round requires participants to work nonverbally to correctly mark the NetWork target. Then, after discussion of the first round, the participants are allowed to talk while performing a similar task in the second round. The debriefing that follows, with input from instructors, establishes a key experienced based conceptual foundation for the rest of the four-day program.

Dave Carrol, Senior Consulting Partner with The Ken Blanchard Companies uses NetWork2i™ for his Building High Performance Teams program. He uses the NetWork three different times during the two to three day programs. Each subsequent use builds upon the previous experience, encouraging the teams to utilize their learned skills with the new task. He has benchmarked the results of the NetWork activity to reflect real life work performance.

Dave has experienced that teams typically do not demonstrate high performance in an experiential activity when it does not exist on the job. The value of bench marking with NetWork is you can monitor a team's progress during the program. Dave said "some teams start the task sequence with very low performance, and later in the program when we do the last activity.

15-01-2008 - Building High Performance Teams with NetWork 2i™

FROM: Dave Carrol, Senior Consulting Partner, The Ken Blanchard Companies

SUBJECT: Building High Performance Teams with NetWork 2i™

During my Building High Performance Teams program I use the NetWork device three times. Using the NetWork this way each subsequent use builds upon the previous experience and allows the teams to utilize their learned skills at the given task. I make the task difficult enough so that the team is challenged and must make a conscious choice about improving their performance. That choice will show up in the results of the exercise. Some teams start the task sequence with low performance and by the time we do the last activity they resemble a pit crew changing a tire at a racetrack.

Since the companies I work with are all global competitors, I have bench marked the results of the NetWork task to reflect scores in a global competition. In general, the companies do not use their teams in the same way in the global competition and the perceived necessity for teams in one company can be quite different from another. In the class setting some teams do poorly on the benchmarked scale, which usually indicates that teams and/or teamwork is not a priority on the job. It is difficult for teams to demonstrate high performance in the learning environment when it does not exist on the job. So the value of using bench marking with NetWork is you can actually test a teams progress and ability to attain what Ken Blanchard has identified as the "D-4" zone.

The benchmark scores and D-level zones align as follows. I have seen scores as high as 895 for the last round of the activity.

The first time I use NetWork, I have the teams set up the device from a photo. They have just been taught the team development level stage analysis, so they realize they are at stage D1 on the device. I tell them the stage D1 benchmark is 0 -135. Without making this explicit, some will still think they will be able to achieve D2 or D3 level performance right from the beginning. I have also seen teams that did not build a solid procedural foundation that were able to score as much as 260. However the teams were usually not able to maintain the same level on rounds 2 and 3.

The second use of Network is after we cover stage D2 . The class must progress from stage D2 with NetWork to eventually get to D4 so the fit is perfect. They actually need to use stage D2 skills on themselves to improve their performance with NetWork. This takes some queuing up by the presenter, as many teams do not habitually use team-building skills on the job. They use plenty of "do the job better" emphasis, but not much team building emphasis, to do the job better.

The third use of NetWork is after the D-4 module is presented. I use it as the transition from the course to the job. "You built a D4 performing team here in the learning center and that is what we need to use on the job to gain achieve maximum performance."

15-01-2008 - NetWork 2i™ Device Activity - Top Marks Consultants

NetWork 2i™ Device Activity by Sharon Marks,

TOP MARKS CONSULTANTS, San Francisco, CA

Overview

The client, a corporate furniture company, was interested in providing training in anticipation of having to deal with new dynamics resulting from the organization's rapid growth. Part of that training included a session designed to focus the employees on their communication skills, and ways to refine those skills.

The objectives:

To enable participants to get their ideas across to a wide audience of listeners ranging from co-workers, to salespeople to customers

To identify ways in which to communicate so that time is used more efficiently to achieve the desired end result

To present ideas in a manner that will achieve buy-in and add value to the organization

The population varied widely in terms of education, language proficiency, reading ability, and job skills. The NetWork 2i™ device proved to be an excellent vehicle to engage everyone on an equal level while tackling the challenges this group faces in trying to communicate effectively and efficiently.

Process

1. The group was divided in two, approximately 16 people to a group

2. Half the group volunteered to operate the strings of the device, while the other half served as "communication partners".The "communication partners" were given written directions that were to be communicated verbally. The directions were not to be shown to the operators.

3. Rules were noted (no marking on line, only one finger controlling a string, etc.), and the operators were given a few minutes just to practice moving the strings.

4. The first round was stopped after approximately 3 minutes and operators were asked to identify the following:

• What were they doing well?
• What would they like to do differently (emphasizing that this question didn't indicate error, but perhaps a growing awareness of the need to handle some aspect of the way they were communicating differently)
• Who had responsibility for the communication and ultimately, the success of the task?

5. The round was completed (or stopped depending on time) and the "communication partners" were asked:

• What was challenging for you in communicating with your person?
• What do you think you did well?

6. The second round used new directions, a new and more complex target, and the operators were asked to wear blindfolds. The operators were also asked to switch roles so operators now acted as 'communication partners". The blindfolds were put on before the new target was put in place.

7. Play was stopped at a mid point and the operators, with masks still in place, were asked to identify one thing about the communication that was challenging for them.

8. The play resumed with the facilitator asking each group to have only one person act as "communication partner" for each group.

9. When the round was completed the following debrief occurred:

• What new challenges were created as a result of the operators having to wear blindfolds?
• How did having one source of communication help or hinder your effort?
• Without the visual component, what other elements became more important (i.e., trust, clarity, rapport, etc.)?

Key Points

Because of the large diversity in this employee population, the NetWork 2i™ Device was an excellent learning tool. These are people who are generally more comfortable working with their hands. Their own communication challenges often fell into one of two categories.

1. Problems with being understood because of accents or inability to convey clear information

2. Difficulties following directions because terms were unclear Through activity and discussion, participants surfaced a greater awareness of the issues.

• They found it is often difficult to identify what is working well, and thus ensure it is repeated.
• Participants came to understand that some listeners like all the information at one time, while others are more comfortable getting it in smaller amounts.
• They agreed that the responsibility in any communication involves everyone.
• The blindfold created the need to listen more closely and made people much more sensitive to the noise and other distractions that were being experienced.
• Having one source of communication allowed everyone to hear the same information. When directions were given to a specific individual other participants slowed down and noticed how the action of one person affected the action of others.
• Participants were able to see how the activity translated into their work environment and what practices were needed to have better communication.
• A three step process for improving communication was introduced and the insights developed during the debriefs of the two rounds were then tied into the specific steps to accelerate and reinforce the participants' learning.