Task Analysis
DESCRIPTION
This is a short activity that gives the groups a task to perform with a minimum amount of information and creates a situation in which assumptions are made.
SITUATIONS
This activity is useful early in a course, possibly following an introductory activity, and particularly useful when included in a management or supervision course, or one for technical staff who need to widen their work role perspectives.
OBJECTIVES
• To introduce the group to experiential activities
• To demonstrate practically the problems of communication
• To illustrate practically the ease with which assumptions are made and their related problems
• To introduce an element of challenge or conflict into a group experience
TRAINER GUIDANCE
It is highly likely that the post-activity discussion of this activity can cause emotions to run high and conflict to appear between the trainer and the participants. The level of these emotions and conflict will depend to a considerable extent on the way the trainer leads this discussion. In many cases, however, during the time that the trainer is leading the discussion, conflict will occur and the trainer must be prepared and able to: (a) handle and resolve it, or (b) accept it, having invited the reaction. This is particularly an activity in which, if the trainer has any doubts about his or her resilience or capabilities, he or she should not pursue the activity.
The results of the activity can, in certain circumstances, have negative interim impact and the activity can certainly produce a long-term effect. For example, the participants can at a later stage in the training event make excuses for “failure” in another activity by citing this activity and the way in which the trainer “misled” them on this occasion. Therefore, they were sub- sequently too busy looking for snags to devote all their attention to the task. This complaint can be real or simply an excuse.
As an example of long-term impact, I once attended a meeting where I recognized a participant from a course I had facilitated some ten years earlier. I had included this activity on that occasion with traumatic results. I noticed him looking at me with that expression, “Who is he? I’m sure I know him!” At an interval during the meeting, we met and his eventual comment was not, “Oh yes, you ran the course I attended,” but, “You, you’re that *** who had us doing that *** game about broken windows!”
METHOD
1. Divide the full group of participants into smaller groups of four, five, or six.
2. Issue a prepared activity summary that states the task requirement—the same one for each group. The wording depends on the nature of the task, which can be varied according to the course location and other conditions.
Examples of possible wording are:
• Produce an analysis of the hotel lounge. You have 15 minutes to produce this analysis that should be presented on newsprint / flipchart paper
or
• Produce an analysis of the cars in the garage. You have...
• Produce an analysis of the participants in this course. You have...
3. As soon as the requirements have been issued, one to each group, the groups should be told that the activity has now started and that the clock is running. The trainer should time the event, keeping a strict control over the ending of the “analysis,” and it helps to be theatrical to some extent about the start of the event and the fact that “the clock is running.”
4. The trainer should then leave the groups, and although not deliberately hiding, should make availability difficult, although not impossible.
5. Almost without exception, the groups immediately rush into the “task” and start producing a list of items, for example:
• Number of cars, colours, makes, registration years, etc.
• Size of room, number of chairs and settees, colours, carpets, etc.
Again, they usually follow the instruction to put their lists on newsprint or flipchart paper.
If, and this is exceptional, a member of the group is sent to find the trainer and does so, usually with the request to clarify for the group what is meant by “analysis,” a long-winded explanation should be given so that a large proportion of time is taken up. During this time, the group is likely to be going ahead with its assumptions about the analysis.
6. After the allocated time, the groups are called together in plenary and are invited to present their findings. (If one group has found the trainer and asked for further information, that group should be the last one to present.)
7. When all the reports have been taken, the trainer should thank the participants for their presentations, but remark that they have wasted about five hours of their time. Silence usually follows this statement, then the question about what is meant is asked. The trainer will then say “five hours (or whatever) represents 10 participants multiplied by 15 minutes (for the activity) multiplied by 2 (fifteen minutes each for the presentations) = 300 minutes = 5 hours—this has been wasted.” Again, the question “Why?” will be posed.
The trainer will then say that all the information obtained was good, but of little use as the analysis required was, “How many broken windows were there?” “How many broken windscreens were there?” “How many participants with broken arms,” etc.—in effect, a subject that the groups were unlikely to or did not include in their analysis.
The defensive reaction will naturally be, “Well, if that is what you wanted, why didn’t you say so?” The natural response tendency would be to say, “Why didn’t you ask me? You were the ones expending energy.” This can be an emotive response, although there may be occasions when this would be the appropriate one. A more realistic response might be to raise the question on what “analysis” means, without a specific definition of what to analyse. This introduction can lead into a discussion on accepting/assuming rather than questioning; or if unsure and unable to obtain further information, not doing anything; whether it is resource effective to collect all sorts of information if what is really required is not known, rather than be accused of doing nothing; and so on.
8. The discussion can then be led by the trainer to a comparison of the problems of the activity with communication in general and its problems in the workplace where insufficient or ambiguous information is given with an instruction to perform a particular job.
TIMING
About 20 minutes will be necessary to start the activity and allow time for the activity itself. If there are three groups, for example, approximately 15 to 20 minutes will be needed for the presentations and at least another 20 minutes or longer for the discussion. The exact length of time needed for the discussion will depend on the depth and extent to which it is taken.
MATERIALS REQUIRED
1. Briefing instructions—one for each group
2. Newsprint/flipchart paper and marker pens for each group
boz1