Minutes of Meeting / Ergebnisvermerk
Page 1 of 3
Topic: Working Group Debriefing
Place: Telephone Conference, +49 69 97194299
Date / Time: 01.12.2019 / 15.00 – 16.45
Meeting Conductor: Zora Sorman
Keeper of Minutes: Zora Sorman Date of Minutes: 03.12.2019
P: Participant D: Distribution (or notification)
X X Zora Sorman (ZS), Switzerland X Mattias Malmros, Sweden
X X Torsten Jegminat (TJ), Germany X Matthias Grothues-Spork, Germany
X X Rolf Schäfer (RS), Germany X Christian Schneider, Germany
X X Martin Carlsson (MC), Sweden
X X Adrian Schmidlin (AS), Switzerland
TypeNo. S – Statement, D – Decision or Agreement, A – Action Due Date Responsible Do not edit agenda, because automatic table of conte nts
Agenda Welcome and Agenda Abstract Summary of the questionnaire outcome Debriefing Action Item List Any other Business
Welcome and Agenda
S-1 The agenda was accepted.
S-2 During the meeting 15th November with the organiser Oliver Berking and race committee from Flensburger Segel-Club (FSC), the Working Group did not uniformly represent the 22er sailors for the World Cup 2020, which engaged in discrepancies within the Working Group. After the meeting, the Working Group was shattered. On initiative and upon request from Rolf Schäfer, Zora Sorman was asked to „take up the threads again”.
Page 2 of 3
TypeNo. S – Statement, D – Decision or Agreement, A – Action Due Date Responsible
S-3 Zora prepared an agenda in form of a “script” for a telephone conference meeting. To analyse the composition of the Working Group, Zora worked out a questionnaire to reflect the participants’ personal perspective on the • function of the Working Group • own function in the Working Group and in retrospective off the Meeting Flensburg • working method of the Working Group
S-4 Zora called for a meeting and invited, only one 22 sqm sailor spokesperson (all German speaking) from the respective regions: • German Baltic Sea: Torsten Jegminat • Berlin: Rolf Schäfer • Sweden: Martin Carlsson • SESCA/NSK: Adrian Schmidlin This was a balanced representation of regions, and too many participants would go beyond the efficiency and time scope.
S-5 A telephone conference was made available by Torsten Jegminat. With a Doodle voting, Torsten settled the date to 1st December.
A-2 The telco took place at 15.00-16.30 hours. Zora conducted the meeting and the questionnaire was worked off together with the participants.
01.12.2019 ZS, TJ
Summary of the questionnaire outcome
S-6 Function of the Working Group: • The participants showed a common sense of the “mission” and “tasks” for the Working Group • There were no bigger differences in the core of the answers Own function in the Working Group / Meeting Flensburg: • For some of the group members, their role and tasks were not clearly defined • New members who joined the group, were not briefed about goals and work done present or in historical perspective • There were large differences between new members and old members in the common sense of what was expected by individuals Working method of the Working Group: • The group is not official and works voluntarily • Lack of easy communication paths • Lack of a written “guide” for the members • There were no bigger differences in the core of the answers
S-7 1. What happened? There have been discrepancies within the group. There is a conflict of interest. A topic was introduced during a meeting with an organizer, without advance notice by the member of the Working Group, and wanted an immediate decision. 2. Why did it happen? In the groupguide for the group. 3. Would we like / do we want to do our work / engagement differently in the future? The participants concluded that they would like to continue working for the 22 sqm sailors as a Working Group. What is needed is to improve work practices and communication.
D-2 The meeting participants were in alignment, that the continued existence of the Working Group and its work should continue, but must change the way of working and communicating.
S-8 The reflection visualised that simply working together as a group doesn't turn this group of people into an effective and productive team. The participants agreed about that the Working Group needs to build a common understanding by clarifying roles, priorities and goals and reach agreements about how the Working Group has to work in the future. The time was short and at the end of the telco, the participants listed examples such as: • Rules are needed for how the Working Group works and acts • Better communication • Communication form needs to be easy and effective • Organisational and competence questions about the Working Group need to be clear for the members • Working Group Specification (Pflichtenheft) or similar guide is needed • Publication of the Working Group Specification on the homepage • Etc.
Action Item List
A-3 Zora sends all participants a draft of her proposal of a “Working Group Specification” (Pflichtenheft).
Note: Lastenheft = requirements Pflichtenheft = specifications
A-4 Each participant reviews by adding proposed enhancements / changes to the specification and issues a statement on the proposal.
09.12.2019 TJ, RS, MC, AS
A-5 Zora assorts the comments and statements to the specification for further decisions to be done by the participants.
Any other Business
./., common understandings of the goals of the Working Group, roles, etc. was not sufficiently established. Rules on how to handle / record new topics for the group are not defined. It lacks a