Coaching-as-a-Service
Or, What Collaboration Tools Can Borrow From Online Games
I’m going to put on my near-futures hat for a moment…
One of the (many) topics and opportunities that interests me is what I’ll describe as Coaching-as-a-Service, building knowledge and best practices into the (digital) tools we use.
🤨
Let’s take OKRs (Objectives and Key Results) as an example.
We have established heuristics and generally agreed upon best practices for writing a good OKRs. And yet… Most of the OKRs I’ve seen are, uhm… Lacking in some way.
I find myself frequently saying basic things like ‘KRs should focus on outcomes, not output.’ or ‘Your Objective should inspire — it should be the reason teams get up in the morning; this doesn’t do that.’ One solution to all this is more training, consulting, coaching, etc.
But…
What if these best practices and heuristics were baked into the tools we use?
In the same way that we do real-time validation on password fields…
…what if we got similar, real-time, feedback on fuzzier things, like OKRs?
Extended to other areas, this coaching-as-a-service approach could extend then to all manner of written phrases with clearly defined heuristics: Job Stories, Problem Statements, KPIs, Assumptions & Hypothesis statements, Bold Vision Statements, User Acceptance Criteria, and so on.
But, play this out, and Coaching-as-a-Service isn’t limited to just written phrases. We could also extend this to group activities where facilitation and preparation is needed.
This is what I mean by Coaching-as-a-Service: Building knowledge and best practices into the (digital) tools we use.
And no — this is more than bolting on the latest AI large language model.
Read on…
Context for all this
Teams today work in fast-paced, uncertain environments, wrestling with all kinds of tough problems. Fortunately, there are established ways of working that help with many of these challenges. We have…
- Templates from canvas tools like Miro and Mural.
- Books like 101 Design Methods and Gamestorming.
- Facilitation resources like from groups like HyperIsland and SessionLab.
- Training from groups like LUMA Institute and Strategyzer.
- Resource roundups from sites like WRKSHP, TOOLBOX TOOLBOX, and Untools .
- Card decks like those from Pip Decks, Method Kit, and Facilitator Cards.
- Oh, and then there’s all the stuff related to Scrum and Agile processes.
- Plus, the open sharing of ideas (check out this recent post from Butter).
And on.
And on.
FWIW, I used to maintain a list of sites that curate tools, methods, etc., until I gave up keeping track of it all! (Though, I do still share these kinds of things via the Thinking Things newsletter.)
Whew.
We now have countless methods and tools — think templates, frameworks, canvases, workshop activities, and so on — widely available to us.
So. Many. Resources.
It is worth nothing that this wasn’t always the case. Early in my career, I would eagerly snatch up things like the IDEO Method Cards or pore over obscure pages on the IIT Institute of Design web site, where I might learn about the design and discovery methods being taught to students.
But now — 20 years later — we have no shortage of access to methods.
In many cases, these methods work and simply need to be popularized.
But… (and here comes the Big Opportunity!)
👇
I see many teams struggle to use these methods well.
- People need training to use methods effectively
- Companies that pay for training often don’t have budget needed to scale that training to every team
- Identifying the right tools for a particular situation can be a challenge
- Certain methods can often require a lot of manual work
👆
It’s increasingly easy to use — and abuse — a selected template. This is true of everything from writing OKRs to leading an ‘assumption mapping’ session to filling out a JTBD Canvas. There’s often a nuance, that if lost, puts the perceived relevance and usefulness of otherwise great facilitation methods at risk. This eventually leads to statements like “We tried that, it didn’t work.”
What is missing is an understanding of how, when, and where to use these tools effectively.
I’d say this is where we’re at now, and where we’ve been for the last decade or so. We have a metaphorical garage full of useful tools. And IF you pay for the training, buy the books, or do your own research, then you are part of a relatively small group of folks who know when to reach for which tool, and perhaps how to use that tool well.
This is the current state of many job functions.Most notably I see this in R&D, Strategy, and marketing, though I see other professions (HR, Sales) going though a similar evolution.
The importance of expertise:
Here’s the problem, stated a different way: Someone…
- Grabs a really powerful tool (😃 Yay!)
- Uses this tool poorly (😲 Oh no!)
- Decides the tool is no good (😱 Nooooo!)
No judgement here — we’re all learning and trying new things. But, understanding how to wield a tool effectively can make all the difference between success or failure.
First, there’s selection of the right tool…
Selecting the right tool for the job
[Leaning too heavily into our garage analogy…] Sure, you can use the back of a screwdriver as a hammer, but… you’ll have more success with a hammer. And more success using a screwdriver to drive screws. ‘Fit for purpose’ and all that. Screwdrivers and hammers are kind of obvious examples, but as we talk about things like specialized cuts and the jigs we can use for those, you kind of need some awareness and exposure to these tools.
So that’s selecting the right tool for the situation. But what I see on the horizon is more than choosing the right tool for the situation. It’s also knowing how to use that tool effectively. And, as I’ll get back to: Not needing to know how to use a tool well.
Using the tool well
[Returning to our garage analogy…] It’s useful to knowing the difference between different kinds of screw heads, but also good to choose the right sized screwdriver, so you don’t strip your screw heads. It’s about knowing more than which tool to use for cutting a piece of wood, it’s about knowing which tooth size saw blade you should use to crosscut that really dense piece of hardwood you just picked up.
It’s one thing to give people and businesses tools — and something else to train them to use those tools effectively. — Techcrunch “Best practices as a service is a key investment theme to watch in 2021” [Source]
Okay, enough with the garage analogy!
The nuanced details
I recall going through a train-the-trainer program, where I was taught how to facilitate a self-awareness workshop. The frameworks we used were the result of years of iteration and improvement. As future trainers in training, we’d spend days learning the ins-and-outs of a single worksheet, so we could understand the very nuanced boundaries between different boxes, why precise labels mattered, and how to sequence our questions for a successful time of self-reflection. For a half day workshop, we would — as trainers — spend as much a 2–3 days going through all these very minute details. Our speaker notes were rich with details and clarifications not explicitly called out in the tools themselves.
When I talk about how to use a team method well, it’s about understanding these kinds of nuances — the stuff in the speaker’s notes. It’s about understanding the context for the tool and being able to discern between what is sacred, and what you should try to modify.
[Obligatory reference to board games]
It’s a bit like understanding the rules of a board game, before you play the game. A board game is obviously more than the stuff in the box: the board, the cards, the pieces… You kind of need to know how to play the game! In other words, the rules. If it’s a great game, the game designers probably spent years play-testing all kinds of details, to create a balanced, engaging experience. Ignoring these details (explained in the rule book) will in most cases result in a sub-par game experience.
Rules. Nuance. Expertise. Yes, the details matter. But geez, that’s a lot to learn!
Not needing to be an expert
I mention this board game analogy for another reason. The rise of online board game sites like Board Game Arena are a kind of analogue for the opportunity I see in the business world. I no longer need to be an expert in every detail of a game to jump in and play. I no longer need to read through the rule book three times, just to play the game. What digital versions of these cardboard games do really well is to take all these rules and bake them into the game itself.
If I can’t place a card on a particular square for some reason, the game doesn’t let me.
If I don’t have the resources to buy something, that option is dimmed out.
If a particular action is not available to me at this time, I don’t see it.
Tedious activities like tallying scores — they’re automated for us.
Net result?
BGA makes games — especially more complex games — more accessible. The online versions of these analog games make learning the game easier, through rules-reinforcement, automation, feedback loops, and similar patterns.
Rules-reinforcement. Automation. Feedback loops,
What if we brought these same patterns to the business tools we use?
Imagine reaching for something like the Business Model Canvas or a Polarity Map, but now there was a built in coach (a metaphorical coach — we’re not talking Clippy!) to guide us through the tool? A bit of narrative sequencing would lead us through different stages. Entering a single box could become an immersive activity, where other boxes fade away and additional questions to consider and clarifying details are revealed. You might even zoom into an adjacent tool, before pulling back to add content for this one box. Content from one activity could pre-populate other areas. And on and on. What if a team retro felt more like playing Jackbox Games? No expert facilitator needed — all you need is someone to host and initiate the activity. Just push play!
When I think about Coaching-as-a-Service, it is precisely this: Baking expertise into the digital tools we use, to democratize using a tool well.
And… through repeated use, players become experts. Not through training or by reading a book, but through direct — machine moderated — experiences.
The expertise is out there, waiting to be bottled up (in a good way, that also benefits the originators of these methods!).
Experts across industries now have enough years of experience and expertise to reflect upon their learned experiences. These reflections can be found strewn across blog posts, presentations, videos, podcasts, webinars, and sometimes books. The knowledge is out there, just not readily available. What I’m proposing would bring all this expertise to us — in a way that is just-in-time and as-needed. Expert in a box. Training wheels for everyday team leadership and facilitation activities.
All of this is what I mean when I say Coaching-as-a-Service.
The AI elephant in the room
I’ve tried to avoid explaining how exactly, to do all this. But, I do want to address a knee-jerk reaction I sometimes get when I describe Coaching-as-a-Service: AI!
- Yes, large language models might be a part of this. Training a large langue model on content specific to a particular method would be something to explore. Though, this isn’t perfect. I’m keeping my eyes on things like RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) and other ways to improve the consistent reliability of results in very specialized domains.
That said, a lot of what I’m describing doesn’t require anything as heavyweight as AI.
- In 2019, I described an earlier iteration of this whole concept, where the idea I proposed did little more than facilitate highly-structured peer-to-peer (P2P) feedback. The advantage with this approach is everyone learns, practices and internalizes the best practices. [Here’s the concept for this— watch from about the 32:30 mark (link should start from this point) through to about the 37:30 mark.]
- Some methods require a narrative reveal — something that is easy to do IRL, but got lost in the translation to digital collaboration tools. For example, tools like Importance-Difficulty Matrix aren’t normally presented as a 2 axis matrix at all; the matrix is part of a “reveal” at the end of a series of prioritization activities. Transitions and sequences, common to video games, could make a world of difference where activities have this narrative reveal. Having an area ‘locked’ until certain conditions are met doesn’t need AI.
- Many times, all that’s needed is simple rules-enforcement. If there’s a rule like “task statements should begin with verbs” then it’s easy to check whether the first word of a statement is a verb, or not.
- Sometimes all that’s needed — technically — is a select button. From my own research, I’ve found 3, fundamentally different, structures for writing a good “How might we…” statement, each with their own set of pros/cons. I can boil all that research and expertise into something not unlike a pricing comparison page. Hard upfront work on my part (synthesizing lots of content and competing ideas), leads to a simple selection page for everyone else.
- Other activities — like the popular Buy a Feature activity— could be improved with a simple calculator that tracks spending and performs basic addition and subtraction.
Other things are also quite straightforward:
- Built-in timers to move things along
- Support for real time synthesis and visualizations, based on user generated content
- Probabilistic recommendations — How many times have we struggled to set baseline metrics, and asked around to learn what a good range is? If there was a common platform for this stuff, then a coaching system could suggest baseline metrics for types different activities.
I could go on.
All of that to say while AI might play a role in this, there’s still plenty of opportunity using little more than basic computational abilities.
My hot take
A lot of the pieces and parts, and content, and expertise, to make all this possible are out there. I’ve even found a few sites and apps backing into parts of what I’m describing —e.g. niche apps focused on some activity like Poker Planning. It just hasn’t happened in a big way, yet. Or, it’s happening in small strides. Parts and pieces, here and there.
Honestly, it feels like the kinds of technology features I’m describing are quite commonplace in video games. [Sigh. I’ll add this to my pile of “things business apps could learn from video games.”]
So why isn’t this concept more widespread?
One, timing. It may be that the timing hasn’t been right, until now.
But, I think it’s more than just timing. And it’s more than any technical challenges. I think, maybe, it’s perspective.
New ideas are born from prior experiences, and the mashup of these experiences. Seeing what others don’t (yet) see, has more to do with our ability to combine things that normally wouldn’t get combined (this is the fundamental idea behind combinatorial creativity).
In my case, I’ve spent a lot of time in a number of different circles — facilitation, design, tech, games, and so on, that when put together might make this seem like an obvious idea.
Specifically:
- I’ve found myself in roles where I was charged with scaling best practices across an org.
- I’m kind of obsessive about collecting and curating methods, best practices, and other things to think with.
- I work in tech, and have been building apps for more than two decades.
- I’ve moved between many circles: design, product, innovation, agile, coaching, therapy, organizational design, facilitation, and so on.
- Much of my work blurs the line between games, work, and play.
- And so on!
I mention all this to suggest that seeing this Coaching-as-a-Service opportunity may be a unique bi-product of a particular set of prior experiences, experiences I’ve had. [ALSO, THIS IS MY NOT SO SUBTLE WAY OF PUTTING AN IDEA INTO THE WORLD THAT I WOULD LIKE VERY MUCH TO WORK ON!]. I see a present gap between a need for templates and tools and the lack of training to use these things well. And I see ways to bridge this gap, born from years of experience in different worlds: Games. Facilitation. Product. Innovation. You get the idea.
Wrap up
When it comes to methods, I — personally — love learning all I can and experimenting with new ways of working. I love exploring the connections and contradictions between these methods. That said, I’ve also learned many more folks just want to get trained on a tool, and go about their business. And yet… the problem of using a tool well is still there.
I think digital tools with Coaching-as-a-Service built in will be commonplace in the next decade or two, but seeing the opportunity now is born from a place of inquisitiveness, experience, and not being beholden to the ONE right way of doing things (a blind spot for those selling their own proprietary ways of doing things).
Anyway, coaching-as-a-service.
The possibilities are endless.
The problem (and opportunity) is widespread.
The need is universal.
🖐️🎤
