The Bamboo Project Blog

Reflections on an Open Space Conference

Last week I ran an Open Space conference for 50 service providers who work on connecting individuals with disabilities to employment. For the uninitiated, Open Space is a format that encourages dialogue and problem-solving around key topics, rather than pre-set presentations. Just wanted to capture a few thoughts/reflections while they're fresh:

• I worked with a team of about 8 people to put the conference together. We did it entirely through teleconferencing, a project wiki and some emails--not a single face-to-face meeting. Logistically, the Forum went off without a hitch, proving to me once again that face-to-face for planning can be overrated.

• We violated one of the tenets of Open Space by identifying the topics/issues to be discussed ahead of time. I did this because we felt like it might be too much to go from traditional conferencing to the wild frontier of a self-organizing conference with nothing in between. It worked well, as it gave people some focus for the discussions. Next time we may go totally Open Space. 

• We ended up being a little more old-fashioned than I wanted when it came to note-taking. Ideally, we would have had people working directly in a wiki, projected onto a screen. Unfortunately we had last-minute tech issues that forced us to go with the old "flip chart" approach. I must admit that I'm spoiled at this point and was glad that someone else will be typing up those notes.

• Several of the individuals attending the conference--and a few of our facilitators--have disabilities, including visual impairments and brain injury. A few were in wheelchairs. I was concerned about moving people around to different rooms, taking notes, etc., which forced me to be much more aware of the issues that people with disabilities face in the workplace. Interestingly, these challenges were not difficult to overcome--they just required us to think ahead a little and be prepared.

• We got rave reviews from participants about the effectiveness of using the Open Space format. We had them focusing on ideas for addressing a number of different challenges, so they basically had an entire day to brainstorm and network with colleagues. Apparently this was a massive relief to people who are sick of attending "death by PowerPoint" conferences. They felt like their voices were heard and that some actionable ideas came out of the groups.

• Our "next step" plan is to put everything on a wiki so that people can see the ideas that were developed. Interestingly, at the closing session when we were discussing this, a few people kept saying that "you" (meaning the group that organized the Forum) needed to follow up on the ideas the group generated. I pointed out that the power of both Open Space and a wiki is that ANYONE can take charge of an idea that interests them, so we were transferring the ownership back to them. Not sure this was totally appreciated, but at the same time, it's where we need to be.

What seemed to work well for us was providing people with Open Space guidelines prior to the Forum and then reviewing those guidelines again during the opening. We also identified facilitators ahead of time, but then asked for volunteer notetakers in each group. This seemed to get people engaged as  co-creators.

I'm not sure what I would change for the next time, other than diving deeper into Open Space. The group seemed like they could handle it and I think it would be an interesting experience for them. I'll also be sure that we have the technology to put our notes directly on the wiki so that we avoid having to re-type them.

"An Ideal Conference Helps to Define a Community"

Over the holidays I had a chance to watch this video interview with Robert Scoble and Tim O'Reilly. Some good stuff on the differences between BarCamp (open to everyone) and FooCamp (invitation only), but the money quote for me was when O'Reilly said:

"An ideal conference helps to define a community."

I love this quote. It puts the notion of community-building at the center of conference-going. It says that the best conferences aren't about the workshops or the vendors or the location. They are about the processes that are in place to help create and define a sense of belonging and membership.

This is where a lot of conferences fail. Conference designers assume that communities are formed based on things like our job titles or industries or membership in an organization.  This is true to some extent, but many of us are not particularly passionate about our job titles or the industries in which we work, sad to say.  Real community is fueled by passion and interest, not solely by our membership in a particular group. The best conferences help us tap into the passion and harness it for connections and creating "aha" moments for participants.

Last month I helped organize a conference for youth practitioners from across Pennsylvania. We used a modified Open Space format where we defined some "big questions" to explore and then spent a day collecting everyone's thoughts about those questions. There was no pre-determined agenda other than the questions. We had no PowerPoints or "presenters." It was just a bunch of people in different rooms with flip chart paper and some issues they  cared about.

For most of us, it was one of the best conferences we'd attended because it helped us better understand who we are and what we're trying to accomplish in working with our young people. It helped us define our common purpose and re-connected us to what makes many of us passionate about the work.

It was also a little scary for some. There was less structure than they were used to, no experts to define the parameters or tell them what was important. This is part of community-building, too, though--helping each member of the community find and feel their own power to contribute. Some are more comfortable with this notion than others, but it's a necessary part of the community-building process.

As I continue to work with several professional groups to develop events and design the right processes for creating connections and sharing best practices, I'm going to keep this O'Reilly quote in mind. I think it's something to bank on.

What do you think of this quote? Is your idea of the ideal conference one that creates community? And what kinds of processes/activities make you feel that sense of belonging?

How Do You Faciliate Activities for a Large Audience?

Blogger and friend Christine Martell will be presenting next week at the VizThink conference where she'll have the (dubious) honor of facilitating a 30 minute visual activity with 300 participants. Over at the VisualsSpeak blog, Christine and business partner Tom Tiernan are wondering how you facilitate for a large audience, and more particularly:

• Are the group dynamics of a large audience different than small groups?
• How do you prepare for an audience you’ve never met?
• How do you make sure your program is tight enough in order to minimize disruptions?
• How do you use any tools or props?

I've seen Christine facilitate and she's awesome, but I think that for even the best facilitators 300 people and 30 minutes presents quite a challenge.

Christine plans to write about her experience in the VisualsSpeak email newsletter next month, but I'm sure would be happy to get ideas and guidance from those of you who have had experiences working with large groups. If you have advice for Christine, please feel free to leave me something in comments or to go leave something over at Christine's place. I'm happy to write up a summary if we get a lot of feedback, so hit me with your best shot. In the meantime, I'm going to be doing some thinking about this myself.

Photo via Peter Lambert

Why Face-to-Face Still Rules

Yesterday's plea for rethinking face-to-face meetings apparently struck a nerve, as a lively discussion broke out in comments and Jane of Wandering Eyre weighed in on her blog.

As you'll recall, I was complaining that a group I'm working with wouldn't use online tools to gather information, preferring to meet face-to-face and I suggested a few reasons why I thought that might be true.

I was initially going to keep the converations going through comments, but too many people had interesting things to say, so I'm bringing them into another post.

Here's what I've learned so far.

First, I'm not alone in wishing that we could figure out how to get people to move online, at least in certain circumstances. Writes Shannon of Random Mutterings:

This has been a very challenging question for our organization as well. As a nonprofit with globally dispersed staff, face-to-face meetings are expensive, often unfunded by donors, difficult to coordinate. But yet there seems to be no progress without them -- it is almost as if people don't become "real" until you meet them in person. I think this resistance is more pronounced in cultures where technology is not so prevalent. I don't have any suggestions or solutions, only frustrations. But I am open to all suggestions for how we can make virtual teaming work when the reality is that there is no substitute for face to face, but costs and other concerns often prevent it.

This made me feel somewhat better, because after I wrote the post I started to think I was just being unnecessarily crabby. But obviously other people struggle with the same issue. And I think that Shannon's point that people aren't "real" without face-to-face contact is an interesting one. I certainly know that it's one reason why I like bloggers to include their photos on their site so I can at least picture a person doing the "talking."

That said, a number of people had some additional suggestions for why so many resist moving away from f2f meetings. First up was Harold Jarche, who suggested that people are simply uncomfortable with online tools and that if we could just expose them and let them poke around, it might be an easier sell. I tend to agree with this, although in my particular case, the group I'm working with is apparently familiar with things like blogs and wikis, but have no interest in using them because it "takes too much time." Which I find interesting, given that they're willing to give a day and night to a trip that will accomplish less.

Then Jane at Wandering Eye suggested that people might be uncomfortable with the transparency and accountability that comes with online meetings, something that definitely hadn't occurred to me:

When you hold a meeting over chat, develop an idea on a wiki, discuss solutions to problems on a discussion board, or collectively edit a document, you leave little traces of the process everywhere. There are transcripts, different versions of documents, and there is an actual record of who made what comment and contributed what material.

In a f2f meeting, we rely on a person to take notes. We all know that Meeting Minutes are nothing more then a list of decisions and action items. Meeting minutes do not reflect the decision process, the tension a topic may have induced, or the crazy idea that got thrown on the table and very quickly was swept under the rug. Meeting minutes are the sanitized version of what really happened. Sometimes, they are so sanitized as to be completely useless to those who were not in attendance.

Conducting committee work on the web can be dirty, it can be chaotic, and, in most instances, it is open for all the world to see. Moving committee work to the web is the picture of radical transparency and that scares people. Big organizations hate admitting failure and process can look like failure.

Wow! Very true, I think, although I also wonder if people have been that strategic in their thinking. Or is this something that they intuitively understand and dread? Regardless, this is a really powerful point that probably does have an impact.

Another reason to keep meeting face-to-face was suggested by Bronwyn Maudlin--the "trust factor":

I think there's something more going on here that goes beyond relationship building and motivation, or lack of comfort/knowledge of web 2.0 tools, and that's about trust. It's about looking people in the eye, seeing their body language and being able to react appropriately to all those nonverbal cues. It's the ability to react instantly when a question or concern is raised, rather than waiting for cumbersome written messages to make their way back and forth across the ether. As humans, we're built with a lot of communication tools that we often aren't aware we're using.

Michelle Murrain echoed these thoughts and added that to her, face-to-face is the "glue" that holds virtual groups together. She also made a plea for balance, arguing that while she didn't want to spend all of her time traveling, she also didn't want to spend all of her time in front of a 14" screen either.

I think that it's important to find the balance, and understand that people who might seem simply wedded to old ideas might actually have a point. It's not really about efficiency of information transfer, it's about information transfer of the kind that can only happen when people are physically in the same room together.

One final suggestion for why face-to-face persists came from Chris, who suggested that the real issue here is that 70% of us are extroverted, which means we tend to get more out of talking and face-to-face interaction and less out of reading a website or adding to a wiki:

There have been many studies in this area over the years. Basically, only about 30% of us are satisfied with quickly interacting for the exchange of data.

That leaves a whopping 70% who want to meet in person, and who will NEVER prefer to do otherwise. In short, these people draw their enthusiasm and personal energy from direct contact with other people. Video does not satisfy that need. Podcasting does not satisfy that need. It involves more than sight and sound.

Now if Web 2.0 tools could pump human pheromones across a "meeting enhancement" wiki, then you might have a hope of prying those people out of the face to face meeting mode. Apparently, the scent of others who reach agreement is part of the face to face crowd's need. . . .
Anyone up for developing a pheromone releasing keyboard?

This is something I'd considered after I wrote the post. I'm definitely an introvert, so to me, social media is a dream come true--social interaction and information sharing on MY terms! But I also do a lot of work with an extrovert who HATES all things Internet. At a minimum she needs to talk to (at?) me over the phone in order to get her thoughts in order. In her perfect world, though, I would be on call 24/7 to capture everything she says because she's never sure when she's going to come up with something good. Her response to just about every situation is "we need to have a meeting." I say this lovingly (we have a great relationship), but she's one of the people I have in mind to avoid by doing more things online. To me it would be so much EASIER to get to what I need.

So where does this take us? Tim Davies has one suggestion:

There is something interesting about looking for the 'bridging' technologies. The ways of meeting, or holding a conference call, that bring in benefits of social media and online technologies alongside an existing meeting/discussion practise - so that face-to-face meetings without their online compontent become unthinkable... and the online compotent without the face-to-face becomes a bit more thinkable...

I've been exploring this a bit with conference calls, using parallel online workspaces for note-taking (http://www.thinkature.com was particularly interesting to use), and through making sure from meetings information is captured and fed back to people through an online tool - rather than as an e-mail attachment / paper minutes. By offering the online element and tools 'in-addition', no-one is forced at first to engage any of the extra features (or as they may see - complexity) - but as participants come to experience the added value - the hope is that they choose to use these tools and that they transition away from inefficient ways of meeting...

Very true and this feeds back into what Harold suggested, which is finding ways to get people comfortable with the technology.

I also think that at a minimum, we need to do a better job with structuring meetings and outcomes and being sure to share that information on the web using tools like tagging and RSS so that people see how information can be better categorized, accessed and used when we put it online. One of the beauties of online meeting, I think, is the creation of re-usable bits of knowledge that can always be accessed and re-packaged long after a meeting is over.

But at the same time I recognize that at least for the foreseeable future, people will still want face-to-face. It may be something that we've evolved to need, as Chris and Bronwyn suggest. Or it may just be that it makes us comfortable. Regardless, I'm afraid we'll always have meetings. The best I can do is to figure out how to eliminate some and then make those that remain more productive.

A Plea to Re-Think The Desire to Meet

Question for the Day: Why does the face-to-face model of sharing information persist?

Currently I'm working with a state-wide group of youth providers working on a specific grant.  One member recently circulated an email asking if people were interested in meeting for a few days and if they were, what did they want to accomplish?

Within minutes, several emails came back indicating that 1) getting away to a meeting would be difficult and 2) if they were to meet, the main reason to do so would be to share information and answer some specific questions they have about how to operate their programs.

Since I've immersed myself in social media tools, I've found that in most situations, I will now ask myself if this is something that could be done more effectively and efficiently on the web. In this case, the first thing I thought was "Why do we need to meet? We should just set up a wiki with the questions and then have people post responses and resources to answer them." Apparently I'm alone in this thought process, though, as meeting organizers are forging ahead.

This got me thinking--Why is it that within certain circles, the first response to information-gathering is to have a meeting?

Having a meeting makes no sense to me when people are short on time to begin with and when many would be traveling 3-4 hours and would have to stay overnight to participate. Finding an online solution would be more cost-effective, make better use of everyone's time and would also provide a permanent repository for the information that these people will undoubtedly need again at some point.

Sometimes I think I'm missing something. Is it possible that because I'm so web-enabled I'm forgetting about the importance of face-to-face meetings and need to quit thinking that the answer can always be found online? (Of course, there's irony in the fact that I searched for answers to this question on the web).

Cliff Allen at SuretoMeet has a good answer to this question, I think:

As his chart suggests, if people are short on time and they need to gather information, then online is the way to go. If, on the other hand, they are seeking to build relationships and to become motivated and inspired, then face-to-face is the answer.

In the case of the group I'm working with, the clear reason for the meeting is to share information. Many members are already working together, so relationships aren't the focus. They may want a little inspiration, but in my experience with this group, the meetings they hold don't necessarily accomplish that objective.

So why does face-to-face persist? A few reasons, I think:

• They've always done it this way.
• They haven't moved into that web-enabled mindset of asking if it's something that could be better accomplished with online tools.
• They have (in my mind, unfounded) faith that when people meet, there is actually a structured transfer of information.

On that last point--if meetings were such a great way to be sure that people had the detailed information they needed to do their jobs, why is it that we continually revisit the same questions in every meeting? In the case of the group I'm working with, the questions they want answers to are questions they've wanted answered in every face-to-face gathering we've had in the past year! Obviously face-to-face isn't working too well for them.

I suppose that this is all part of the issue of technology stewardship--helping people realize when it makes sense to use technology to get things done. Sometimes I'm frustrated, though, by the persistence of the old ways of thinking. Or maybe it's just that I don't want to have to lose a day in order to get the information I need when there are better ways to do the job.

Am I off-base?

If you liked this post, you may want to sign up to be automatically notified when I post new articles. You can learn more here.

The Rise of the Do-It-Yourself Portal

In the past few days, I've found a number of new portals online. I'm starting to wonder if we can't learn a thing or two from what's happening.

First, via Eisenblog, came Open Learn University's portal, created by Stuart Brown in Netvibes to support OU students and instructors.

Then I find Crimson Connect, the student-run Harvard University portal, developed in the wake of student dissatisfaction with Harvard's "Official" website. (Take note--if you don't create a useful website for your organization, someone else might take matters into their own hands).

And finally, last night I see that Impactiviti has launched a Training Bloggers portal using Pageflakes, featuring feeds from some of the best bloggers in the training and development space. This on the heels of two other portals they've created--Pharmacentral for the pharmaceutical industry and the Marketing Bloggers portal for marketers.

So why should we care?

First, take a quick look around each portal. Harvard's includes access to email and Facebook, shuttle schedules, Boston weather, feeds to student clubs, athletic events and activities, the library--even dining hall menus. Open Learn University's portal has video lesson feeds, feeds to each of their departments, and a keyword search of their content. The Training Bloggers portal includes feeds to several different categories of T&D blogs, pre-selected for quality.

Think about how these types of portals could be used in the nonprofit world:

• Create a "cause-related" portal that includes feeds to related blogs, audio, video, etc., as well as a calendar of events, etc. I've written about this before and I'm really seeing the possibilities now.

• Create portals to support better conferencing. A few weeks ago, I was thinking about how to improve the conference experience. Portals are another option. Imagine sending an email out to all conference participants with a Netvibes or Pageflakes portal link that includes feeds to weather, newspapers, events, etc. in the location where you'll be holding the conference. It could also include a calendar of events and feeds to the wiki pages I suggested that you use to develop the conference agenda and get the conversation started. It could also include access to MySpace and Facebook modules, audio and video feeds on related content, email, etc. This can also become a way to follow-up on a conference, by adding feeds to those bloggers who are blogging the conference.
  

• Create an organizational portal for staff and volunteers and make it the start page for staff so that they can be updated daily on what's happening in the organization.

Putting together a portal is really not that difficult. It's a matter of finding the content you want to include,  setting up the tabs in Pageflakes and/or  Netvibes and then sharing them with the world.

You can see how other people are already doing it. Tony Hirst blogs here about how he created the predecessor to the Open Learn University portal.  PC World  has an article about creating a Netvibes portal or you can check out this screencast that will give you the basic elements of setting up and configuring an account and using tabsharing. If you're interested in Pageflakes, then this tutorial can help get you started.

The tools are there. Many people are already using them. It's just a matter of us figuring out how to use them on an organizational scale to create value for various stakeholders. As I watch what other people are doing with these tools, I can't help but feel that we may be missing something big if we don't act soon.

Building a Better Conference

In the education/learning parts of the blogosphere, there's been a lot of talk lately about professional conferences and how to increase their value. I want to follow this trail because it led me to some thoughts of my own.

Tony Karrer started things going by asking what we could do to make conferences better. He made several suggestions, including:

• "Expert Only" time
• Unconference within a conference
• Better fun activities
• "Passionate Keynotes aimed at Us"
• Demos
• Cheat sheets
• Free wifi

This led to a great discussion in the comments on his post on the relative merits of each idea, new possibilities, etc.

Then Tom Haskins suggested that blogging and engaging in conversation with other bloggers was a form of conferencing.  And I still had Tom's post on Indie Professional Development floating around, wondering where the "long tail" is in this arena.

I've also been following the National Educational Computing Conference (NECC) held in Atlanta this week. According to several bloggers in attendance (David, Brian and Jeff to name a few), they got the greatest value from the Blogger's Cafe where informal conversation and Web 2.0 tools reigned.

So all of this floating around in my brain . . . which got me to thinking about why we go to conferences. Yes, for professional development, but also to connect with other people, to have conversations and, most importantly, to talk about the things that really matter to us

I was also thinking about the beauty of Web 2.0 tools, which invite collaboration and interaction and engagement with content, provide immediate access to information and so forth. So some of my own thoughts on creating better conferences. (Warning--bit of a brain dump here.)

• Use an open, web-enabled process to set the conference agenda

• Build sessions on the fly by listening and responding to conference conversations

• Use "citizen-journalists" to create learning synthesis

• Where possible, web-enable the conference and provide attendees with "cheat sheets" that show them how to make the most out of the tools at the conference.

• Create a Companion "Virtual" Conference

• Create "Value-Add" Follow-Up

Use an Open, Web-Enabled Process to Set the Conference Agenda
One of the reasons that I love unconferences and Open Space Technology is because the agendas for these conferences grow organically from the passions and interests of the participants, rather than from the politics and egos of conference organizers. Further, Web 2.0 has taught us that bottom up, community generated solutions work better. So why don't conference organizers set up a wiki to post conference proposals and let prospective conference attendees vote on the sessions they'd most like to attend? Allow individuals to post comments, ask questions, etc. These could then be used both to select sessions and also by the speaker to improve the quality of his/her presentation. This process could also build "buzz" for sessions prior to the beginning of the conference and allow people to connect prior to the conference with people who share their same interests.

I'd use the same process for selecting keynoters (assuming you wanted to have one). I would use the wiki to ask people to submit their ideas for keynote speakers. I'd also have the keynoters submit videos of themselves, along with other key information re: their presentations. I'd upload to the web and have people vote, comment, etc.

Build Sessions on the Fly
Building on both Open Space and the NECC experiences with the Blogger's Cafe, I'd monitor the conversations that were happening, both in person and through web-enabled channels like live blogging, Skype, Twitter, etc. and then pull together panel discussions or facilitated conversations on those topics. The point is not to artificially redirect valuable informal conversation, but to recognize when it might be valuable to pull together what's occurring in conversations in various areas to create a synthesis of ideas.

Use "Citizen Journalists" to Create Learning Synthesis
The best conferences are a form of ongoing learning and conversation, not static presentations. But often what happens at the end of a conference is that we lose some of that learning. We miss larger patterns, we don't pull together various strands of thought. This is starting to change as bloggers reflect on their conference experiences, but I'm still not sure it happens in a more comprehensive way that is useful for people.

One strategy for addressing the issue would be to designate individuals to be in charge of taking a look at all of the channels of information and conversation that developed during the course of the conference. They would look for patterns, new ideas and questions, suggestions, etc. and document that as part of the follow-up to the conference.

Web-Enable the Conference and Provide Attendees with Cheat Sheets Ahead of Time
Liveblogging, Twitter, Skypecasting, Flickr photos, etc.--these are all tools that are beginning to enliven and engage conference-goers. But not everyone knows how to use them or how to use them at a conference. One "value-add" for pre-conferencing might be to provide conference goers with instructions and ideas on how they can get the most from the conference through these tools. Give them instructions on how to set up a blog or sign up for a Flickr account. (You can create quick screencasts for this if you want). Give them examples of how others have used these tools at conferences. Help "newbies" figure out how to use these tools of personal learning, which will enable them to get the most out of the conference. (Note--take a look at this post from Jeff Utecht  and scroll down to see the ways he observed Twitter being used at NECC. Could be a good start to a cheat sheet)

Create a Companion Virtual Conference
If you're going to web-enable your conference, think about web-enabling things for people who can't attend. I'm actually thinking that this is one of those areas that could benefit both conference organizers and conference-goers. Not everyone can afford full conference fees and travel expenses. But people might be willing to pay a smaller conference fee to "attend" the conference virtually. For this to be a worthwhile value proposition, virtual attendance would have to mirror as closely as possible actually being there. But this is doable, I think, with careful thought and use of tools, although there may still be time barriers for international conferencing.

Create Value Add Follow-up
People generally leave conferences energized, engaged, etc. But there's often nothing to do with this energy except maybe to stay connected to the people you met. One of the interesting things I've read recently about Web 2.0 that I hadn't really considered is that it's about people connecting over objects/things they have in common. Yet when a conference is over, we're not always providing people with some more things to which they can connect.

One major thing to consider is that if you used a wiki to set up your conference, you can use it to provide follow-up. Have presenters record sessions and then upload them to the wiki, along with their handouts, slides, links to other resources, etc. This would also be a place to include summaries of learning you had your citizen journalists create, new ideas or questions that arose during the conference, etc.

I know that to a certain extent, this kind of follow-up exists. Many times when you leave a conference you can access handouts online. I think what I don't see as much of is thinking about how to use conference follow-up as a way to continually engage people in new learning and connecting, to provide them with something more than just a chance to download the handouts from the sessions they weren't able to attend. I'm not entirely sure how this would look, but I think that there's more here if we think about it.

Some Final Thoughts
Here I've focused on enhancing our current paradigm of conferencing. I still think that there are possibilities in entirely virtual conferences, but there are obviously major hurdles to deal with, not the least of which is the time factor. When you go away, then you know that you're committing yourself to attending conference activities. If you're "attending" online, you're much less likely to give a conference the same time and focus.

Also, I feel like I didn't pay enough attention to enhancing the informal connections that are so valuable in conferences. There's probably more that could be done on a pre-conference level with using social networking to connect people, as well as creating more activities like the Blogger's Cafe that take advantage of people's tendencies to meet and talk informally.

Lots of possibilities, I think, in taking conferences to the next level. It will be interesting to see where things go. I'd love to hear from people about other examples of conferences they enjoyed or specific conference enhancements that they found particularly effective.