Events & timeline

Triggers the facilitator throws into the meeting

Authors
Affiliations

Gesellschaft für Informatik

deRSE

Gesellschaft für Informatik

deRSE

Florian Goth

Jan Phillip Thiele

Jan Linxweiler

Anna-Lena Lamprecht

Maja Toebs

For the facilitator. These cards steer the dynamics of the role-play. You throw them in one after another during the running meeting – verbally, as a printed card handed to a role, or via chat/note. Each event deliberately stresses a different competency of lateral leadership. You don’t have to play all events: E1–E4 are the core, E5–E7 are reserves for fast or large groups.

The event cards

E1 · Core

Data protection sounds the alarm

The data protection officer gets in touch: the video recordings of minors are not stored in a legally compliant way as things stand. New consents and an anonymisation pipeline are needed before work on the video data may continue.

Who introduces it: facilitator (call) or role 5 (partner school).
Stresses: communication · conflict resolution · planning under constraints
Expected conflict: unplanned scope vs. “but that was already settled”.

E2 · Core

The conference deadline

Petra (PI) announces enthusiastically: the project should be presented at the specialist conference in 8 weeks. The abstract (4 pages) is due in 2 weeks – with first results. “I’m sure we can manage that – and tell me what you need for it!”

Who introduces it: role 2 (Petra / PI).
Stresses: leading upwards · the power of language (convincing, not pressuring) · self-leadership
Expected conflict: “first results” vs. “data model first”.

E3 · Core

Doctorate in trouble

Mara needs a special data export this week for a dissertation chapter – otherwise she misses a submission deadline of her own. “Just the table, quickly, it’s really no big deal.”

Who introduces it: role 3 (Mara / domain).
Stresses: mindful leading of others · prioritisation · expectation management
Expected conflict: urgent individual request vs. a sustainable platform.

E4 · Core

Resource loss

Two pieces of bad news: the requested student-assistant funding has been cut, and Tobi is largely unavailable for two weeks during the exam period. A planned task slips.

Who introduces it: facilitator + role 4 (Tobi / student assistant).
Stresses: structuring the work · expectation management · conflict resolution
Expected conflict: commitments from min 0–15 suddenly become unrealistic.

E5 · Reserve

The partner school wavers

Sabine makes it clear: without a simple dashboard that shows the school the learning progress of its own classes, the school management is considering pulling out of the study. Without this school, important data is missing.

Who introduces it: role 5 (Sabine / partner school).
Stresses: stakeholder communication · negotiating without power · scope
Expected conflict: external benefit vs. research roadmap.

E6 · Reserve

Buy instead of build?

A reviewer has noted that one should check whether a commercial tool might be cheaper than building it in-house. Petra would like a short market analysis by next week – curious, not pushy: “Maybe we don’t need to build all of this ourselves – what do you think, Robin?”

Who introduces it: role 2 (Petra / PI).
Stresses: the power of expert knowledge · arguing on the merits · self-efficacy
Expected conflict: the very justification for the whole undertaking is on the table.

E7 · Reserve

“Just find the interesting patterns”

Mara wishes: “The platform should automatically show us the interesting patterns in the learning trajectories.” When asked about criteria: “You just recognise them.”

Who introduces it: role 3 (Mara / domain).
Stresses: requirements gathering · the limits of what is technically feasible · questioning technique
Expected conflict: a vague expectation vs. a decidable specification.

Pacing notes

  • Don’t overload. Only throw in an event once the previous one has been worked on (not necessarily solved). The goal is friction, not overwhelm.
  • Dock onto roles. An event works most strongly when the facilitator passes it to the fitting role and that role presents it out of its own interest.
  • With strong groups combine E5–E7 (e.g. E6 right after a self-assured plan – this tests the RSE’s self-efficacy).
  • With groups that have stalled, leave out an event and instead pose an open question to the RSE via a role (“What exactly do you expect from me, and by when?”).