Menu: Facilitation

Convergence pattern

Find connections between clusters the group treats as separate.

Purpose

Find arrows that cross from one cluster to another. Participants fill the part of the board they know, and connect it well. The connections between parts often belong to nobody, so there's a chance nobody will draw them.

Those arrows are often the most valuable on the board. They show how one group's problem becomes another group's problem.

When to use it

Timing

Allow a few minutes for each pair of clusters. The pattern runs inside Group or Connect and uses their time.

Steps

  1. Step back until the whole board is visible. On a digital board, zoom out.

  2. Pick 2 clusters with no arrows between them. Favor clusters that different functions filled.

  3. Point at both, and ask:

    I see 2 separate clusters that might be related: this one about deals, and this one about releases. Does anyone see a connection between them?

  4. Wait. Participants need time to read a cluster that is not theirs.

  5. Draw the connection between 2 specific nodes, not between the clusters. If it runs through something that is not on the board, add that node first.

  6. Ask who else sees it from their side.

    Does anything else feed this?

  7. Move to another pair of clusters, or go back to the step you were in.

Tips

Traps

Variations

Example

The first pass of Connect in the renewals session left 5 well-connected clusters and almost nothing between them. Sales and product had drawn the arrows in deals and roadmap. Engineering had drawn the arrows in releases and reliability. The facilitator pointed at both and asked whether anyone saw a connection.

Step 1 of 3. Two clusters the group has treated as separate: deals and roadmap, and releases and reliability.

The convergence pattern on the renewals board, step 1 of 3: Two clusters the group has treated as separate: deals and roadmap, and releases and reliability. 8 nodes and 6 arrows: 3 root / problem, 3 action / intervention, 2 desired state / outcome. A text version follows the diagram. Deals and roadmap Releases and reliability [P]Sales promisescustom featuresto close deals [P]The roadmap isreshuffled forevery big deal [A]Lock the roadmapeach quarter,with one slotfor deals [O]The roadmapholds for a fullquarter [P]Releases ship inbig monthlybatches [A]Release weeklybehind featureflags [A]Roll out to 5%of customersfirst [O]No outagesduring themorning rush Legend [P] Root / Problem [A] Action / Intervention [O] Desired State / Outcome Flow: roots (bottom) → outcomes (top).

Step 2 of 3. Does anyone see a connection? Engineering: the reshuffled roadmap is why reliability work never makes it into a sprint.

The convergence pattern on the renewals board, step 2 of 3: Does anyone see a connection? Engineering: the reshuffled roadmap is why reliability work never makes it into a sprint. 10 nodes and 9 arrows: 4 root / problem, 4 action / intervention, 2 desired state / outcome. A text version follows the diagram. Deals and roadmap Releases and reliability [P]Sales promisescustom featuresto close deals [P]The roadmap isreshuffled forevery big deal [A]Lock the roadmapeach quarter,with one slotfor deals [O]The roadmapholds for a fullquarter [P]Releases ship inbig monthlybatches [A]Release weeklybehind featureflags [A]Roll out to 5%of customersfirst [O]No outagesduring themorning rush [P]Reliability worknever makes itinto a sprint [A]Reserve 20% ofevery sprint forreliability Legend [P] Root / Problem [A] Action / Intervention [O] Desired State / Outcome Flow: roots (bottom) → outcomes (top).

Step 3 of 3. Support adds that escalations eat the same time. One question connected 3 parts of the board.

The convergence pattern on the renewals board, step 3 of 3: Support adds that escalations eat the same time. One question connected 3 parts of the board. 11 nodes and 10 arrows: 5 root / problem, 4 action / intervention, 2 desired state / outcome. A text version follows the diagram. Deals and roadmap Releases and reliability [P]Sales promisescustom featuresto close deals [P]The roadmap isreshuffled forevery big deal [A]Lock the roadmapeach quarter,with one slotfor deals [O]The roadmapholds for a fullquarter [P]Releases ship inbig monthlybatches [A]Release weeklybehind featureflags [A]Roll out to 5%of customersfirst [O]No outagesduring themorning rush [P]Most tickets areescalated toengineering [P]Reliability worknever makes itinto a sprint [A]Reserve 20% ofevery sprint forreliability Legend [P] Root / Problem [A] Action / Intervention [O] Desired State / Outcome Flow: roots (bottom) → outcomes (top).
Diagram as text: The convergence pattern on the renewals board

Steps:

  1. Step 1: Two clusters the group has treated as separate: deals and roadmap, and releases and reliability.
  2. Step 2: Does anyone see a connection? Engineering: the reshuffled roadmap is why reliability work never makes it into a sprint. Changes: added "Reliability work never makes it into a sprint", "Reserve 20% of every sprint for reliability". new arrows: "The roadmap is reshuffled for every big deal" influences "Reliability work never makes it into a sprint"; "Reliability work never makes it into a sprint" influences "Reserve 20% of every sprint for reliability"; "Reserve 20% of every sprint for reliability" influences "Roll out to 5% of customers first".
  3. Step 3: Support adds that escalations eat the same time. One question connected 3 parts of the board. Changes: added "Most tickets are escalated to engineering". new arrows: "Most tickets are escalated to engineering" influences "Reliability work never makes it into a sprint".

After the last step:

Nodes:

  • Root / Problem: "Sales promises custom features to close deals" (in "Deals and roadmap")
  • Root / Problem: "The roadmap is reshuffled for every big deal" (in "Deals and roadmap")
  • Root / Problem: "Releases ship in big monthly batches" (in "Releases and reliability")
  • Root / Problem: "Most tickets are escalated to engineering"
  • Root / Problem: "Reliability work never makes it into a sprint"
  • Action / Intervention: "Lock the roadmap each quarter, with one slot for deals" (in "Deals and roadmap")
  • Action / Intervention: "Release weekly behind feature flags" (in "Releases and reliability")
  • Action / Intervention: "Roll out to 5% of customers first" (in "Releases and reliability")
  • Action / Intervention: "Reserve 20% of every sprint for reliability"
  • Desired State / Outcome: "The roadmap holds for a full quarter" (in "Deals and roadmap")
  • Desired State / Outcome: "No outages during the morning rush" (in "Releases and reliability")

Arrows:

  • "Sales promises custom features to close deals" influences "The roadmap is reshuffled for every big deal"
  • "The roadmap is reshuffled for every big deal" influences "Lock the roadmap each quarter, with one slot for deals"
  • "Lock the roadmap each quarter, with one slot for deals" influences "The roadmap holds for a full quarter"
  • "Releases ship in big monthly batches" influences "Release weekly behind feature flags"
  • "Release weekly behind feature flags" influences "Roll out to 5% of customers first"
  • "Roll out to 5% of customers first" influences "No outages during the morning rush"
  • "The roadmap is reshuffled for every big deal" influences "Reliability work never makes it into a sprint"
  • "Most tickets are escalated to engineering" influences "Reliability work never makes it into a sprint"
  • "Reliability work never makes it into a sprint" influences "Reserve 20% of every sprint for reliability"
  • "Reserve 20% of every sprint for reliability" influences "Roll out to 5% of customers first"

An engineering lead answered first. Every time the roadmap is reshuffled for a big deal, the reliability work planned for that sprint is the first thing dropped. That became a new problem, "Reliability work never makes it into a sprint," with an arrow coming in from the roadmap cluster. A support lead added a second arrow: escalations eat the same engineering time.

The new node later got 5 votes. The path through it, from sales promises all the way to outages, was one of the 2 insights the group named during Close.

The facilitator had suspected this connection for months. She asked the question and stayed quiet. The connection meant more coming from the people who live with it.