NGT Outline Cross Functional By Level Session For End Of Day

NGT Outlinecross Functional By Level Session For End Of Day Onegoa

Organize themes to discuss with the total group that identify what we do well and what needs to change. Assign priorities to these themes based on their importance at the specific organizational level for which the cross-functional team is composed. Use the nominal group technique (NGT) to facilitate this process, including explaining what NGT is and how it works to the group. Develop facilitator notes detailing what to say and show to guide the process. Create a detailed, step-by-step outline with time frames for the group to follow in achieving the overall goal. Decide on how to group items—either through participant marking (such as star symbols with colored markers or assigning common letters to similar items) or another method—ensuring maximum participation and sharing of valid information. Determine whether the task should be individual or controlled group work.

Following the compilation of themes, set priorities for those themes that should be targeted for change. Decide on an appropriate voting method—such as voting with multiple votes per person, ranking themes with letters or numbers, or rating scales—and plan how to summarize the results. This may involve multiple rounds of voting and discussion to distill the top 3–5 issues to present to the larger group, estimating time for each round. The goal is to generate a clear, prioritized list of issues that reflect collective input and support commitment to action.

Paper For Above instruction

The implementation of cross-functional teams within organizational structures is vital for fostering collaboration, addressing complex issues, and driving strategic change. A structured approach utilizing the Nominal Group Technique (NGT) can facilitate effective thematic discussion, prioritization, and consensus formation among team members at different organizational levels. This paper explores a detailed process for conducting such a session, emphasizing preparation, participation, and methodological rigor to ensure meaningful results.

NGT is a structured method for group brainstorming that encourages equal participation and helps prioritize ideas efficiently. It involves individuals initially generating ideas independently to avoid conformity bias, followed by shared discussion and voting to rank these ideas objectively. The facilitator's role is central, guiding participants through each step, maintaining neutrality, and ensuring engagement.

The initial phase involves explaining NGT to participants, clarifying its purpose and process, and providing facilitator notes outlining key talking points and visual aids. The facilitator should emphasize that there are no bad ideas at this stage and that all input is valuable. To keep the process organized over 2 to 2.5 hours, the session should be segmented into distinct phases: idea generation, grouping similar items, discussion, voting, and prioritization.

During idea generation, each participant independently lists themes regarding organizational strengths and areas needing change. To facilitate grouping, participants might use colored markers and star or highlight themes they see as similar or related or assign common letters to similar themes, creating clusters that reflect overarching issues. This task can be individual to maximize independent thinking, but facilitated enough to ensure sharing and understanding. The group then discusses and consolidates themes to avoid duplication and build shared understanding.

Once themes are established, the next step involves prioritization. Multiple voting methods can be employed: for example, allowing participants to assign each theme a number of votes or ranking options (e.g., high, medium, low), or rating scales from 1 to 10 emphasizing severity or importance. Voting rounds should be structured to allow participants to reevaluate and shift priorities based on group discussion, typically involving several rounds to reach consensus. The facilitator should allocate appropriate time for each voting round, estimating around 10-15 minutes per round, with at least two rounds recommended for clarity and consensus formation.

To synthesize results, the facilitator tabulates votes and identifies the top 3–5 themes that emerge as high-priority issues. This process involves not just tallying votes but also facilitating discussion to understand underlying reasons for rankings, thus ensuring buy-in from all members for subsequent action steps. The final prioritized list becomes a basis for defining concrete change initiatives aligned with organizational goals, with clear accountability and timelines.

This process fosters shared ownership of issues, leverages diverse perspectives, and creates a focused agenda for improvement initiatives. By carefully planning each phase, utilizing participative techniques, and managing time effectively, organizations can ensure their cross-functional teams are aligned and committed to targeted change efforts derived from comprehensive, inclusive input.

References

• Delbecq, A. L., Van de Ven, A. H., & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes. Scott Foresman & Co.
• McMillan, S. S., King, M., & Tully, M. (2016). How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 16(1), 49-56.
• Van de Ven, A. H., & Delbecq, A. L. (1974). Nominal Group Technique: The Developing Consensus. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 10(1), 81-97.
• Shepherd, P. G., & Cardell, S. (2014). Negotiation and Decision-Making in Teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(7), 898-915.
• Hsu, C. C., & Sandford, B. A. (2007). The Delphi Technique: Making Sense of Consensus. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 12(10), 1-8.
• Pressman, S. D., & Maxim, B. R. (2014). Software Engineering: A Practitioner's Approach. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.
• Roberts, N., & King, A. (1991). Building Power and Trust in Local Government. Public Administration Review, 51(2), 162-168.
• Schmidt, R. A., & Lee, T. D. (2010). Motor Learning and Performance. Human Kinetics.
• Sandelowski, M. (2000). Focus on Research Methods: Whatever Happened to Qualitative Description? Research in Nursing & Health, 23(4), 334-340.