Ed Mitchell: Platform neutral

This is a brief report and things we learned about the experimental ‘knowledge networking’ and ‘social reporting’ facilitation work done at Online Information 2008, co-authored between David Wilcox and Emma Wallace and me.

We worked with Lorna Candy and the team at Incisive Media to help them provide more networking opportunities for delegates and speakers before and during the conference, online and offline, using different tools.

Background:

We approached it from a ‘blended facilitation’ perspective; here is a working definition of ‘blended facilitation’ from earlier work findings:

‘Blended facilitation’ is an understanding of how to facilitate a group’s development using different tools and interventions in the two different domains (virtual and physical) in a structured framework.
(Media Sandbox report, November 2008)

A number of us have been circling this subject for some time and building an open body of experiments and lessons learned since Contactivity in 2006, Media Sandbox and Unbla in 2007 and 2gether08 and many others.

Before the event:

The first thing we did was read the lessons learned from our work at 2gether08, where David had used Crowdvine (the event social networking platform) intensively and Ed had worked on an early knowledge networking experiment called ‘tag surfing’.

As a group with the Incisive team, we defined the purpose of the event itself, and how the facilitation would fit into that. Incisive set up a free version of Crowdvine for the event and we configured the profile questions to reflect a ‘knowledge-y’ enquiry (‘What topics do you have experience in’ and ‘What topics do you want to learn more about?’).

As delegates entered this information as part of their profiles, this gathered two ‘tag clouds’ which reflected the interests of the attendees and gave them a natural route to finding eachother. We printed these out and made them public at the event too:

(Topic tags from online network)

We put together a ‘facilitation plan’ with Incisive, outlining the different platforms and activities in the run up to the event. The agreement was to not intervene unless necessary; we could have put lots of effort into conversational engagement to drive up activity, but that was not the purpose of our experiment. Instead, we asked some of the speakers to write a brief description of their sessions and left it at that. I also put together a few simple ‘howto’ walkthroughs for those who could not understand how to use the platform but these were used once or twice only – a good sign.

In the run up to the event, the platform had 115 users making 193 ‘connections’ (adding others as ‘friends’, ‘want-to-meet’, ‘fan’). This is approximately 16% of the event attendees (approximately 700).

Having set the platform up and tried it with some speakers, Incisive sent emails to everyone who had registered inviting them to try it out. Integrating the platform with the booking system wasn’t easy, as there is no process to support this so as the booking process proceeded, not all delegates received invites to the platform. This integration element (both technically and socially) is clearly something that will improve.

On the last day before the event itself we sent a reminder to the platform users to print out their ‘who I want to meet’ sheet with some further information about the interventions we would be trying at the event, packed our bags and moved to Olympia for the week…

During the event:

Knowledge networking:

In line with the work done at 2gether, we were interested to see how we could support event delegates meet eachother based on interest. This began with asking people to express their interests on the online networking platform, and we needed to carry that across to the event.

We did this with some facilitation boards and a bunch of post-it notes in true old facilitation style.

In the morning tea break, we (helped by Josh Connor of Bond Associates) handed out post-it notes to delegates, explaining the purpose of our experiment and asking them to write keywords representing their interests, and to hand them back or add them to the boards themselves. This generated a bunch of post-its on a board:

(David and Emma with the boards filling up with topics)

During the next conference session, we grouped the topics but did not add titles to them. The boards were an attraction in themselves – many delegates came to look at the work ongoing and we asked them to re-arrange them as they saw fit; one or two people did:

(Attendees moving the post-its around)

During the conference session after lunch, having asked the delegates to alter the post-it notes groupings if suitable, we labeled the groupings and put those labels on tables around the centre with a handy board describing which table had which topic. There were 12 high level topics:

(The most popular topics became table-based topics)

In the afternoon break, delegates were invited to sit at these tables, meet others with similar interests, and have whatever conversation they chose. Approximately half of the tables were attended; some noticeably not (see lessons learned below for more detail). One or two tables were taken by people who did not want to discuss the labeled topic. Those tables that were attended thoroughly enjoyed it:

(The learning table had never met before but had a lot in common)

We did not repeat this experiment as the intervention was best done over one day in this context, but we did leave the resultant mindmap onsite along with the experiment’s lessons learned during the reset of the event which received a continuous flow of interested observers.

During the event:

Social Reporting:

Crowdvine provided a very easy way to post video shot at the event, and this was done in three ways that you can see on the site:

1. Phone: Using a mobile phone (Nokia N82) and Qik software to stream directly to the web, and then taking embed code from the site and pasting directly into a blog post, as you can see here.
2. Videoboo: Using a laptop with Videoboo software to record interviews through the webcam, and then automatically uploading to YouTube. There’s an example here.
3. Video camera. The Clay Shirky interview was shot to higher quality on a Sanyo Xacti, then edited and uploaded. It would have been time-consuming to do more of that.

Each of the first two was made possible – or certainly easier – by having a wifi connection. The phone could have been used with a 3g connection, but it would have been slower and less certain. The files from the laptop could have been uploaded later, but it would have been a lengthier process.

Interviews are easiest when people are just “hanging out” … having informal conversations with others, rather than engaged in group conversations, queuing for lunch or coffee. Most people were fairly busy in sessions, so trying to get interviews during breaks can be intrusive.

In these situations the laptop was easier, because it was possible to approach people with the offer of trying a portable videobooth – something in which they might have a professional interest. They could then decide whether or not to record an interview.

The aim of the video socialreporting was:

• a) partly to create an informal record
• b) partly to add content to the Crowdvine to increase networking, and perhaps
• c) also to add something to conversations … for example, asking people to summarise a discussion around the topical tags.

a) We did get some record from interviews with speakers and others. The Clay Shirky interview provided a fresh story – he recommended asking for examples of what didn’t work, not just “best practice”. In order to do more of this, it would be best to arrange with event organisers in advance which speakers to cover, and when they might be available. It can difficult to get “opportunistic” interviews if speakers are not expecting to be asked.

b) There was little commenting on the items on Crowdvine, perhaps because not many people brought laptops and/or expected to engage online.

c) In this instance social reporting didn’t really add anything to conversations. It wasn’t expected, and people were wary.

(Lessons Learned from the experiment available for all to see)

Lessons Learned:

Social Intervention lessons

• Mindmapping: was very popular both as an activity and as an object. The board proved very popular amongst those taking photographs of the event. Some are starting to be been published to Flickr and some photos of the post-it tags are receiving virtual world tags and comments.
• Instructions are absolutely vital – you need to be able to explain the purpose and process of your intervention very simply
• Language Barriers:  a language barrier became apparent after many Northern Europeans with English not as first language attendees approached the facilitators to understand the meaning of the boards. Once they understood the concept, many where happy to participate.
• Must Approach: very few people will approach the boards out of interest and convert to adding a tag. Approaching and chatting to people is critical for success.
• Time to Think: many participants like to think about what they want to add before jumping in. Allowing them time is invaluable.
• Definition of Networking: feedback from previous events had suggested that more networking was wanted. Facilitated networking involving meeting with others about shared topics and talking with them wasn’t necessarily the only way – while the mindmap was popular, the discussion break-outs weren’t universally wanted.
• Real World 90-9-1: as with online interaction analysis, there are far more people who want to observe than actively participate!
• Personalities: there was much discussion about the relationship between levels of ‘chatting’ and type of topic. Perhaps some people are drawn to certain subjects of interest and they are equally chatty/non-chatty?
• Surprisingly Disruptive: it was!

Social reporting lessons:

• While those attending had expressed an interest in more networking – and social media was one of their concerns – the expectation was that they would mainly receive information rather than use social media to enhance their experience.
• The format of the event – in line with those expectations – meant that a lot of social reporting could have been seen as intrusive. It was not a “conversational” event.
• Because most people were not online during the event they were not able to respond to anything we posted.

However, this was a good opportunity to explore what might be appropriate in future. I would suggest:

• Agreement with speakers that they would be available for interviews on the day, and if possible one of the organisers to assist the social reporter in the logistics of this.
• Setting up a videobooth, perhaps explicitly linked to discussions after sessions, so that people could contribute something while engaged with a topic.
• Shooting some video before the event that would be available on Crowdine to show what’s possible, and start commenting

General lessons:

• Official Twitter channel: engaging at the earliest opportunity with an official Twitter channel. The social intervention team were tweeting but not through the official channel. There was some confusion around this onsite.
• Guide people using Twitter: use the Twitter channel to guide people to and around official channels (website, Facebook, Crowdvine, physical world activities).
• Hashtags to aggregate content: make sure the official tags (#hashtag) are published so that those who want to can use them and find each other’s content easily. Unique tags (if possible) are essential i.e. ‘onlineinfo’ on its own is too general. Make a new tag every year i.e. ‘#onlineinfo2008’, ‘#onlineinfo2009’.
• Not as add-on: facilitation of this nature bringing together physical world, live tagging, online tagging social networks and social reporting is most effective when worked into the event formally.

Quotes and things we overheard:

Feedback has been taken from official and unofficial channels including Face-to-Face at the Event, Twitter, Blog Networks, Flickr and Facebook Network, Crowdvine.

Positive

Twitter Coverage:

• LBrad: #onlineinfo table12 social networking: was social & interesting debate – hard to leave & go back to the next session. More please (view Tweet)

Flickr Coverage:

• Photo on flickr

Blog Posts on Clay Shirky Interview:

• Dave Briggs
• Steve Dale

Blog Posts on the Tagging Experiment:

• Information Today

Negative

Technology:

• karenblakeman: “Tags at Online Information are a mess. For searching Twitter I am now using onlineinfo2008 OR onlineinfo08 OR onlineinfo OR online2008″
• Karen Blakeman (on the Crowdvine network): “But the feeds aren’t updated and I am not sure where one starts a discussion. There seem to be bits and pieces everywhere.”

Thank you to everyone who tried the experiment and shared their opinions with us. As we said at the beginning, it was an experiment and we all approached from a learning perspective, so that next year can be more effective.

The main lesson to emerge is that facilitated interventions, social reporting and use of social media need to be more than an add-on if they are to be deeply successful. They have to be designed into the event, with a clear purpose, briefing for speakers and others, and specific arrangements on the day. That will, however, only be appropriate if those attending really do want a more interactive experience.

Incisive gave us a good start in this area which made it all possible. The conference industry is well entrenched with specific business models so we know it was a step into the unknown for them!

The level of engagement we tried on this occasion was probably appropriate given the expectations of those attending. By next year many people attending may have had more personal experience with social media, and also be professionally “hungrier” to understand what’s possible. If that’s the case, we could consider an early session that offered some hands-on demonstrations, providing people with the opportunity to follow through and try the interventions for themselves. Even if 3-4 people were interested it would help move them from an external add-on into something relevant to professional practice.

We all hope that this provides you with some clues, ideas, tips and so forth. If you have any questions, please get in touch.

Well done all! Sharing is caring