Development Programs / The Current State-of-the-Practice
An ongoing global study of what organizations are doing and their
Best Practices.
June 2009
By Dan Hogan
INIFAC Board of Director
Overview
In 2008, INIFAC launched the Partners in Facilitator Development Program and when we realized there was no coordinated global effort to measure the Current State-of-the-Practice we commenced this ongoing study to track the state-of-the practice in organizations around the world. We welcome any one to join.
Goals
· Encourage organizations to create and sustain an Internal Facilitator Development Program.
· Create and manage an international (CoP) Community of Practice.
· Provide up-to-date ‘study’ data on Best Practices.
Table of Contents
Current Statistics 3
Overview 3
Details 4
About the Study 5
Best Practices 7
Certification 7
Training 8
Application 8
Administration 10
Who is INIFAC? 11
Current Statistics
Overview
As of June 25, 2009
Details
These organizations have been contacted. Some have responded and some have not.
INIFAC © Copy write 2009 www.inifac.org Page 11
AIM Advisors, Inc.
Aker Solutions
Ameren-UE
Assurant Solutions
Baker Hughes
Bank of New York Mellon
Bechtel Corporation
BP Exploration
Cameron International Corporation
Cellular South
CenterPoint Energy
Chevron Energy Technology Company
ChevronTexaco Overseas Petroleum Co.
ConocoPhillips
Eni US Operating Co. Inc.
ExxonMobil Upstream Development Co.
Hewlett-Packard Company
Houston Community College System
IBM
Kellogg Brown & Root
Lyondell
PGS Technology
PNC Bank
SBM
Seton Healthcare Network
Shell Oil Company
Stewart Enterprises, INC
The Wood Group
URS
Wellspring
Wilbros Group
INIFAC © Copy write 2009 www.inifac.org Page 11
In the future, we will report more detail data in formats such as the following.
No / Yes / Program ComponentsCompany / Organization / No / No … but have unorganized facilitators / Yes … a standalone program / Yes… but it's integrated into other HRD services / Internal Training Classes are Offered / Internal Certification / Dedicated & Organized Internal Facilitators / Facilitator Request & Assignment Process / On-going Education & Development activities / Measure ROI
Saudi Aramco / yes / yes / yes / yes / yes / yes / yes
ExxonMobil Exploration / yes
Rijkswaterstaat - Dutch Ministry for Public Works / yes / yes
CDC / yes / yes / yes
Hilti / yes / yes / yes
About the Study
This Study was launched in May 2009 and is being conducted by a small volunteer INIFAC staff. This is an evergreen Study and the new data will be published once every four to six weeks.
These are the questions we asked.
Check the appropriate box(s)
1. Does your organization have a formal and organized Facilitator Development Program?
¨ No
¨ No, but we have unorganized facilitators.
Additional comments: ______
¨ Yes, we have a stand-alone program
¨ Yes, but it is integrated into other HRD services.
Additional comments: ______
Does your Facilitator Development Program include or offer:
¨ Facilitation training courses
¨ Internal Certification
¨ External Certification support / encouragement
¨ Internal Coaching
¨ Facilitator Request and Assignment Process
¨ Ongoing education and development activities
¨ Tracking program ROI & customer satisfaction
2. What were any best practices / worst practices in:?
Certification – internal or external
Training – initial and/or continuing education
Application – matching facilitators with organization needs; client satisfaction
Administration – Governance
______
3. Demographics
Organization name:
Classification:
¨ For Profit
¨ Non-Profit
¨ Government
¨ Education
¨ Non-Government Agency
¨ Other
Contact Name / Source of Information:
Number of Full Time Employees
Head Quarters Location: City - Country
4. Do you wish to participate in this International CoP – Community of Practice?
¨ Yes
¨ No
5. May we published your information in the INIFAC study?
¨ Yes
¨ No
Best Practices
The following practices were collected and categorized in one-on-one interviews with Dan Hogan.
Certification
This covers internal and external certification.
1. In one program, when a person completed the six-month program, they were put into a pool of facilitators who were available to be assigned to projects.
a. The internal certification process included a Master Observer who watched the participant conduct a series of practice sessions.
b. Those sessions were videotaped. After training, participants were given the videotape and were required to view & give a self-critique of their sessions within 24 hours.
c. Within 48 hours, the participant met with the Master Observer to complete the feedback process and to create a development go-forward plan.
d. This part was a BEST PRACTICE according to the person being interviewed.
2. One interviewee said, “We should have done internal certification because it would have minimized or eliminated a number of mismatches we had between the leader’s need and the facilitator’s ability to facilitate.”
Training
This covers initial training and ongoing education.
3. One organization created a detailed six-month learning / training program.
a. It was an open-enrollment program but people were heavily recruited.
b. To participate in the facilitator pool they had to graduate the training program (be internally certified) and they had to have their supervisor’s approval.
c. Additionally graduates had to sign a commitment letter that they would work to improve their facilitation skills going forward.
d. After people were in the pool, their performance was tied to their individual performance evaluation.
e. The program was heavily behavioral-based and the evaluations were based on those behaviors.
4. One program said, “Facilitators rotate every two years so that when a facilitator leaves they go back into the organization and bring their facilitator skills with them.”
5. After the training, the facilitator would receive a certificate of completion. One person said, “Even thought the training was good, I felt that approximately 50% of the students who completed the training were not necessarily ready to facilitate by themselves. We need to improve our up-front assessment of potential facilitators.”
6. Continuing education: one program…
a. Conducted a one hour meeting once per month to share experiences and that same organization…
b. Conducted a forum once per quarter where some of the facilitators managed the event (i.e., facilitated modules to practice). This was an opportunity to introduce facilitators to associations, external certifications and /or facilitator tips.
Application
This is about matching facilitators with organization leader needs as well as client satisfaction.
7. In one program, there was a ‘facilitator request form’ that went to the program (coordinator/matchmaker) leader and he matched the facilitator to the job.
a. Sometimes the business leader preferred to have a facilitator from outside the business unit and at other times it was just the opposite.
b. In time, facilitators created a personal reputation and were asked by business leaders to facilitate.
c. A particular challenge for internal facilitators was to be able to facilitate meetings that included higher-grade level participants.
8. One program conducted a number of marketing ‘road shows’ to build interest in using the pool of facilitators. This was, at times, a difficult process.
9. It is important to teach leaders how to effectively use facilitators.
10. One program ensured there “was a mix of people on the facilitation team and from different departments.”
11. Personal coaching was given in one program to improve facilitation skills.
Administration
This is about how the program is managed and governed, as well as the value proposition.
12. The program was piloted and lead by one full-time leader. After three years the program has momentum and is successful.
13. One program started off well due in part to the executive sponsor. Now that the sponsor has retired, the new sponsor is not as committed and the program is losing momentum.
14. Value Proposition
a. One program got started by linking the facilitation value proposition to the organization’s effort to implement Baldridge criteria.
b. After one organization’s annual strategic planning meeting, there would be a number of projects and/or committees that were suitable for good facilitation / facilitator.
c. One organization set up an entire department with the intention to globally maintain the ethics and values of the organization.
d. One organization said they worked very hard to show the business case for using the internal facilitators, for example….
i. “We are spending money on outside facilitators when we could use internal folks.”
ii. “We spend a lot of money and effort on current programs like Six Sigma and we are not leveraging those investments. This effort ensured we got more value for the money we’re already spending.”
iii. They worked hard at showing how facilitation and effective meetings impacted the organization in achieving its strategic objectives ….i.e., less time in meetings; more time doing work to achieve objectives.
15. One program was endorsed by the CEO.
Who is INIFAC?
The International Institute for Facilitation (INIFAC) was created in 2003 when five facilitators came together to develop a certification program at the masters level that would achieve several objectives:
· Define a set of facilitator competencies and sub-competencies, with input from facilitators and clients, that define the knowledge and skills needed to achieve outstanding facilitated sessions.
· Establish the highest degree of rigor and consistency available by implementing defined scoring guidelines for each competency and sub-competency.
· Promote the highest standard available for facilitator quality by requiring an 80% or higher assessment score in each competency.
Today, INIFAC is a non-profit organization and the mission is:
to maintain and promote a program of certification for facilitators at the Masters level.
Four services are offered:
1. CMF – Certified Master Facilitator – credential
2. Video Assessment
3. Training Course Accreditation
4. Partners in Facilitator Development – an internal certification process for organizations
INIFAC © Copy write 2009 www.inifac.org Page 11