1. Structure 1. The team’s process so far October November December
2. Observations
Sharing knowledge
Project management
Geographical distance
3. Personal learnings and feedback

2. Improving patients’ head-neck positioning for radiotherapy precision and user experience

3. My dataset from 3 months Slack’s channels “general”, “weeklyupdate”
Minutes of meetings in Google Drive
4 facilitated sessions
6 team meetings attended
1 pool party
Messaging and talking to team members

4. The team’s process so far
November
October
December

5. October: intensive working and task division
PD6 and the aussies and the sponsor here, went back home and divided tasks
Me: debrief session and divg-convg in PD6

6. November: division to subteams, hiatus
Me: planning session to set deliverables for the project
Subteams for areas of solutions
Final meeting: not many results to show from November

7. December: critical feedback, prototyping
PDP structure: CPM with staff and sponsor
Vio: feedback session
 Prototyping

8. The project’s progressing speed has varied
Something happened, but it was difficult to reason how it had brought the project forward (project plan, team meetings)
What caused this?
October
November
December

9. Observations

10. Boundaries hinder the sharing of knowledge
Subteams
Remotes
Manager
4 major stakeholders (not a detailed description)
4 major borders
Remotes far away and with time difference
Sponsor busy with all kinds of work, age difference
Manager overseeing the team and conveying information
Subteams sharing their progress with the team
Typical situation
Every boundary is two-way, and problems can usually not be blamed on one side only
Sponsor

11. Challenges in team management may have lead to communication issues
Subteams
Manager
Example: PM was the one to aggregate different parts of the PP  He was the only one who saw the whole thing, unless someone read it on their own from Drive
Example: Subteams were asked to show something they did in weekly meetings, but sometimes no-one from a subteam was present nor was anything sent to the team digitally afterwards/before
 It goes both ways!
 Such things can be demotivating and cause you not to feel your work has meaning

12. Lack of physical presence may have highlighted existing problems
Remotes
Internet connection, time differences, software IDs, scheduling
Result: hearing, seeing, energy level, leaving in the middle
Example: meeting in Aalto at 12:00, Australia 21:00, work early in the morning + people a bit late  Gotta go sleep at 22:00 and not much was discussed
Sponsor

13. External wake-up calls forced the team to proceed, not my facilitative interventions
Checkpoint meeting with course staff and sponsor
Halfway presentations
External situations make the team work despite the borders
I wasn’t one of these external wake-up calls!
 So, did I make a difference?

14. Facilitator feedback & role

15. I was most useful early on, despite lacking experience in facilitation
PD6: ideation, idea categorization, picking the most promising, allocating tasks
Practical things: The whiteboard getting really really full & crowded & difficulty to arrange ideas when they weren’t written on post-its
Videolearning: watching team members look at each other in confusion after giving them instructions

16. Questions? Subteams Remotes Manager Sponsor
The team had borders that made it difficult for them to work
But thanks to external pushes, they are now making progress
And in the meanwhile, I learned a thing or two about observing people and providing guidance through facilitation
Sponsor