Dixit cards are simply amazing for the subject, the colours, the size.
Here you can find an alternative way to use them to show how difficult could be to share within a team the attributes of a feature Business people may have in mind.

This game is played in pair: we have a Writer and a Painter.
You can have different pairs playing at the same moment independently.
Later you can find how to make this as a group exercise.

Round 1 – Basic communication

Identify pair(s)

1. Give one Dixit card to the Writer while Painter is getting out of the room
2. Writer has 2’ to write the description of the card on paper. At the end s/he cover the card (face down)
3. Painter enters and Writer exits the room
4. Painter has 2’ to paint the card reading the notes from the writer
5. Writer enters and with Painter compare the original card with the drawing and the notes
6. Painter and writer discuss the final outcome

At the end conversation about the communication process, how we can improve it…
What could be a more effective strategy? What is relevant in the card and what can be missed? Are there some essential information we cannot miss in the final outcome? How can we evaluate the “good enough”?
You can switch the roles and play the round again with a different card

Round 2 – Iterative communication

This round as like round 1, but with iterations to simulate iterative development.
Also we are using open?close eyes instead of getting in?out of the room to save time.

Identify pair(s)

1. Give one Dixit card to the Writer while Painter close their eyes
2. Writer has 1’ to write the description of the card on paper. At the end s/he cover the card (face down)
3. Painter opens eyes and Writer closes them
4. Painter has 1’ to paint the card reading the notes from the writer
5. Writer opens eyes and Painter closes them
6. Writer has 1′ to see the drawing from the Painter, compare it with the card and write more notes on how to modify the paint
7. Go to 3 and
8. Repeat for 3 times
9. Writer and Painter compare the card with the drawing and the notes

Notes from the Writer can only be textual, without any graphical support.

At the end conversation about the iterative process, how we can improve it…
How this is different from the Round 1? How the outcome is different?
Could the strategy of writer be different from Round 1?

Round 3 – Collaboration

Modify the structure of the round to create a situation of continuous collaboration.

The format of the session starts like Round 1

1. Painter exits the room
2. Writer has 1’ to write the description of the card on paper. At the end s/he cover the card (face down)
3. Painter enters and Writer exits the room
4. Painter has 1’ to paint the card reading the notes from the writer
5. Writer enters and, watching without without showing the card, s/he has extra 2′ to give information (not instruction) to Painter to iteratively modify the painted result without the opportunity to start it from scratch.

At the end conversation about the collaboration process, potential issues, how we can improve it…
How the process changed in 5? What is more effective stage? WHat was the turning point?
How can the conversation be driven to be more effective?
What is the most effective approach among the 3 rounds?

---

On this basic schema you can create different variations. Below some examples

More Painters with the same Writer

This situation is about making evident how the same message can be received in different way by different team members

Play any of the above described rounds where you have one writer and many painters.
The essence is that each painter has a different understanding of the same notes. This can drive to slightly different results
How can we be sure the message is the SAME MESSAGE? How can we create ALIGNMENT in the team?
Timing of the round can be the same as in original game. However keep in mid debriefing should be longer.

More Writers have the “same” idea

Play any of the rounds more writers collaborate to generate one single note for the Painter(s).
In this case we are creating a condition where we have many stakeholders that have a different idea of the same features.
How can be aligned BEFORE involving the team? How can we create CONSISTENT requests?
How can we NEGOTIATE requirements with stakeholders? Where is the VALUE of the feature?
Timing for the Writers’ activity should be 5′ because here is the essence of the exercise.
Eventually a facilitator to help Writers can give the opportunity to see the value of facilitation.
This variant can also be played with many Painters collaborating: this could be tricky but let the team find a way.

The role of the Writer

This situation is focused on showing real examples of prioritisation of requirements.

The Writer must write the notes in small chunks, each one on a sticky note, and sort them by importance.
Sticky must be placed in a pile with the top as most relevant, in a way the Painter can read just the one on the top and not the others.
When the one on the top is done, it can be removed to show the one below and so on…

In this case we are focusing on splitting a feature in smaller pieces that can be developed independently and by priority.
How can we split the work in independent chunks? INVEST protocol applied? What are the CRITERIA to understand VALUE?
What is the perspective from the Painter?
This variant requires more time for the Writer (3′) and a bunch of sticky notes.