Skip to main content

Acid Pour - Group Initiative

Acid pour is a game (group initiative) to investigate styles of leadership such as: command-and-control versus self-organizational teams, styles of communication and behavior of groups.

I have used this game to teach teams the difference between Agile and using a command-and-control style of leadership.  In this scenario the group elects a CEO that appoints 4 managers, the rest of the group is assigned the role of worker.  Restrictions are place on the worker such that only communication is allow to flow from the top.  For example: when the workers approach the containment area they must put on the protective suits (blindfolds), however only the 4 manager suits have intercom systems, therefore the workers will not be able to talk, nor see.  The managers will instruct them (control).  The CEO will direct the action via planning with the managers for 5 minutes, and then by announcing new directions as needed.

This scenario is very restricted, typically fails to succeed, so I allow them to try multiple times, switching roles among the group.  Then we change the paradigm.  We become an Agile company, and allow the team to make suggestions for company improvements.  Typically someone wishes we would buy better protective gear that had intercoms and that had better vision - done - retool - invest.  Remove the blindfold restriction.  Remove the CEO as controller - allow the whole team to plan - not just managers.  Allow another attempt or several (it is fun and success is desired).

Debrief (if you don’t have time to debrief - do NOT do the initiative).

Acid Pour (aka: Toxic Waste, Nuclear Meltdown)

Materials
  • boundary markers (rope works well - you’ll need 2 ropes)
  • bicycle inner tube
  • strings (1/4” line - one per participant - approx. 10’ long)
  • plastic container (office trash can)
  • small metal container (large coffee can)
  • aggregate (water, stones, packing peanuts, or other)

Set Up
  • Place the aggregate in the smaller metal container (not to heavy).
  • Fill the plastic container 1/3 - 1/2 full of water.
  • Set both containers side-by-side inside a small marked off area (5’ dia.).
  • Make a larger boundary area with a width longer than 1 string length (15’ dia.).
  • Leave inner tube and strings set outside of boundary area.

Group Task

To empty the contents of the smaller metal container into the larger plastic container, without entering the containment field (denoted by the markers).

Brief
  • Your group must neutralize this highly toxic and volatile chemical (in the plastic bucket) by pouring the agent in the can into the bucket.
  • You may use only the materials provided (strings and rubber tube).
  • You may not enter the outside containment area.
  • Neither container can leave the inside containment area.

Safety Considerations
  • Monitor blind participants (if using that option).

Common Stories

  • Meltdown in a nuclear power plant and the metal container has the water to cool the reactor.
  • Toxic waste or a volatile acid must be neutralized by adding another chemical.
  • The Toxin or acid is eating through its old container and must be put into a new, stronger container.

Options & Variations
  • Only allowing each participant a limited amount of time to speak, as if they were in protection suits with a limited amount of air.
  • Having the group elect a foreman to supervise the transfer of materials and only allowing the foreman to speak.
  • Blindfold half the group before they see the task; only blindfolded participants can touch resources. Describe the task to the sighted participants so that the blindfolded ones can’t hear it. Sighted folks must direct the others to perform the task. This is very difficult, so often good to allow them to regain sight at the end, if success is important for the group developmental stage.
  • Strings can be already tied to the tube (best for blindfolded version) or separated.

Common Issues

  • Teamwork
  • Communication
  • Leadership
  • Follow-ship
  • Creative problem solving
2 comments

Most Popular on Agile Complexification Inverter

Exercise:: Definition of Ready & Done

Assuming you are on a Scrum/Agile software development team, then one of the first 'working agreements' you have created with your team is a 'Definition of Done' - right?



Oh - you don't have a definition of what aspects a user story that is done will exhibit. Well then, you need to create a list of attributes of a done story. One way to do this would be to Google 'definition of done' ... here let me do that for you: http://tinyurl.com/3br9o6n. Then you could just use someone else's definition - there DONE!

But that would be cheating -- right? It is not the artifact - the list of done criteria, that is important for your team - it is the act of doing it for themselves, it is that shared understanding of having a debate over some of the gray areas that create a true working agreement. If some of the team believes that a story being done means that there can be no bugs found in the code - but some believe that there can be some minor issues - well, …

Elements of an Effective Scrum Task Board

What are the individual elements that make a Scrum task board effective for the team and the leadership of the team?  There are a few basic elements that are quite obvious when you have seen a few good Scrum boards... but there are some other elements that appear to elude even the most servant of leaders of Scrum teams.









In general I'm referring to a physical Scrum board.  Although software applications will replicated may of the elements of a good Scrum board there will be affordances that are not easily replicated.  And software applications offer features not easily implemented in the physical domain also.





Scrum Info Radiator Checklist (PDF) Basic Elements
Board Framework - columns and rows laid out in bold colors (blue tape works well)
Attributes:  space for the total number of stickies that will need to belong in each cell of the matrix;  lines that are not easy eroded, but are also easy to replace;  see Orientation.

Columns (or Rows) - labeled
    Stories
    To Do
    Work In P…

Webinar: Collaboration at Scale: Defining Done, Ready, and NO.

I was invited to participate in a Scrum Alliance Webinar.  Maybe you would like to listen to us in a discussion of techniques to collaborate at scale (remotely and with many people).  The topic is one that I've got some experience in discussions - yet I never seem to get to done...
Collaboration at Scale: Defining Done and Ready and NO for Distributed Teams
With Joel Bancroft-Connors, Agile Organizational Coach; David A. Koontz, Agile Transition Guide; and Luke Hohmann, CEO and Founder of Conteneo, Inc.


14 February 2018 11 a.m. ET (USA).




The Scrum Guide is pretty clear on the criticality of the definition of Done: "When a Product Backlog item or an Increment is described as "Done," everyone must understand what "Done" means. However, the Scrum Guide ALSO says that the definition of Done can "vary significantly per Scrum Team." This leads us to examine when and how the definition of Done should vary, how distributed teams should cr…

A T-Shaped 21st Century Knowledge Worker

Knowledge workers in the 21st Century must have many areas of deep knowledge, while also be capable of collaboration across multiple other domains with dissimilar T-shaped individuals.  This description of a person is a metaphor.  Compare it to the shape of the "I" in the classic saying there is no "I" in Team.


I first read about Scott Ambler's term "Generalizing Specialist" - but it's so hard to remember the proper order of the words... get it backwards and it has an inverted meaning... T-Shaped is easier to remember. 
A generalizing specialist is someone who:
Has one or more technical specialties (e.g. Java programming, Project Management, Database Administration, ...). Has at least a general knowledge of software development. Has at least a general knowledge of the business domain in which they work. Actively seeks to gain new skills in both their existing specialties as well as in other areas, including both technical and domain areas.  General…

A FAILURE to Communicate

I was working with a failing team some time ago.  I use "failing" to describe the outcome of the team - not the people on the team.  Are you OK with that description?



An issue arrose in the stand up - a team member that was to verify the quality of a procedure did so and reported that there were a few records that didn't match expectation in the data set.  Upon inquire the number of records not matching was over 2000.  Most people acknowledged immediately the exaggeration - I could tell by the laughter.  After about 10 minutes of discussing the details of the problem - it appeared the team had a handle on the specific situation.

I stopped the discussion and inquired if they could name the impediment.  One team member did a great job of describing the impediment as a _communication gap_.  Wonderful - I could work with that - the problem had a name and it didn't include anyones Proper Name.

"If the problem has a first name; we are going to have a problem."

I&#…