From lab to plant: rewriting the project process together
TessalineInvented name
At a chemicals manufacturer, development and industrialisation worked in silos. In one day, some fifteen people from both teams stepped into each other’s shoes, reviewed their process phase by phase and drew a new one. The action plan was followed up for months.
- Sector
- Industrial chemicals
- Size
- Mid-sized group
- Format
- One day
- In the room
- Some fifteen people from two teams at odds, development and industrialisation, with their managers.
Context
- The two teams work in silos. The matrix structure gives them responsibilities without the recognition that should come with them.
- They do not listen to each other. Industrialisation is brought in too late.
- Choices between doing things in-house and outsourcing remain unclear.
The challenge
Clarify roles, build a shared project process, align ways of working and set up rituals. In one day, with people who had grievances against each other.
The design
Key ideas
Empathy before mapping
“In the shoes of”: in two mixed groups, everyone takes the other team’s place. Three lessons come out of it: be brought in earlier, understand the other side’s real constraints, name the different timeframes.
A before-and-after portrait
“How we see the team, how we want it to be”: a collective portrait in two steps.
The current process in three colours
Four teams, one per phase: frame, develop, deploy, optimise. A three-colour code: what works, what needs improving, what is missing or should stop.
The new process, gate by gate
Teams are reshuffled. Each one draws its phase with its decision gates, separating the in-house route from the outsourced one. Then a “questions and workstreams to launch” page and a What, Who, When table.
How the time was used
- Open
- Explore
- Decide
- Celebrate
9.30amOpen
Welcome and check-in
Mood and expectations, which the facilitator brings down to four levers: roles, links between teams, quality of relationships, clarity of the organisation.
Open
Portrait of the team
How we see it, how we want it.
Explore
In the shoes of
In two mixed groups, in the other team’s place.
Explore
Current process, phase by phase
Four teams, one per phase, three colours.
Decide
The new process
Reshuffled teams, decision gates, in-house and outsourced routes.
Decide
What, Who, When
Questions, workstreams to launch, action plan per phase.
Decide
Reading across
Common threads, including “visible decisions”, “safe handovers”, “formalise without weighing down”.
5.30pmCelebrate
Close
End of the day.
The seminar in miniature
Round the table
About fifteen people from development and industrialisation, with their managers, share their mood and expectations. The facilitator brings them back to four levers: roles, the link between teams, the quality of relationships, how readable the organisation is. Grievances become things to work on.
The team’s portrait
A collective portrait in two stages: how we see the team today, then how we want it to be. The wall gives a shared picture of where things start and where people want to go, before getting into the process.
In the shoes of
Two mixed groups, each in its own room, put themselves in the other team’s shoes. Empathy comes before any mapping. Three lessons come out of it: get involved earlier, understand the other side’s real constraints, name the fact that the two teams work on different timescales.
The current process, phase by phase
Four teams, one per phase: scoping, development, deployment, optimisation. Each one reviews the current process with a three-colour code. The walls quickly show where things work, where they get stuck and what is missing.
The new process
The teams are reshuffled. Each one draws its phase with its decision gates, keeping the in-house route and the outsourced route apart: this is where the choices between doing it yourself and outsourcing, unclear until now, get sorted out.
- Scope
- Develop
- Deploy
- Optimise
What, Who, When
Around the table, a page of “questions and workstreams to launch”, then a What, Who, When table, phase by phase. The plan was followed through: its statuses, done, in progress, to launch, were still being updated several months after the day.
Cross-reading and close
Before parting, a cross-reading of the whole day brings out where people converge, including “visible decisions”, “secure handovers” and “formalise without weighing down”. Words now shared by two teams that, at the start of the day, were not listening to each other.
The materials, redrawn
The project process, phase by phase
01
Frame
In-house routeOutsourced route- GO
02
Develop
In-house routeOutsourced route- GO
03
Deploy
In-house routeOutsourced route- GO
04
Optimise
In-house routeOutsourced route
- What works
- To improve
- Missing or to stop
The action plan, kept up to date
| What | Who | When | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Phase 1 | Done | ||
| Phase 1 | Done | ||
| Phase 2 | In progress | ||
| Phase 2 | Done | ||
| Phase 3 | In progress | ||
| Phase 4 | To start |
Deliverables and follow-up
- A full report, with an action plan for each phase.
- A plan followed over time: statuses (done, in progress, to start) were updated several months after the day.
What we take away
- Human tension responds well to process work, and process work responds well to empathy. “In the shoes of” comes before any mapping.
- An action plan is only as good as its follow-up. This one was kept and updated over the following months.
Working on something similar?
Tell us about your context. We will tell you how we would approach it, and what we would keep confidential.
Tell us about your project