Comments on: On constructing rules of engagement http://www.edmitchell.co.uk/blog/2008/12/18/on-constructing-rules-of-engagement/ Half web producer, half group facilitator. Groups support: online and in the physical world. Sat, 01 Oct 2011 07:24:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Steve Dale http://www.edmitchell.co.uk/blog/2008/12/18/on-constructing-rules-of-engagement/comment-page-1/#comment-3345 Steve Dale Fri, 19 Dec 2008 14:28:23 +0000 http://www.edmitchell.co.uk/blog/?p=326#comment-3345 Does this not come back to what the purpose of the platform is? Presumably someone somewhere is responsible for its existence and support and may only be interested in the commercial aspects e.g. cost recovery or revenue generation and will consequently be less interested in the conversations and more interested in the number of users. if the purpose of the platform is to encourage knowledge flows, efficiency improvements or innovation then it is an incumbent upon the platform owner to ensure the facilities exist to encourage those sort of activities. The rules of engagement should normally be around protecting reputational risk and compliance with any statutory regulations e.g. privacy. It should then be up to the community members to define their own operational charter, which will define the way they work together. If the rules of engagement are too restrictive then quite clearly they will go somewhere else. I believe it will be the community itself, or certain allocated roles within this community, that will listen to the patterns and encourage common language and shared mental models to emerge. I've tended to think this will be a facilitator that takes the lead in this role, but I'm not quite clear whether is the same as the 'Social Artists' referred to by Etienne. I may be in the minority here but I firmly believe that an unfacilitated community is destined to drift aimlessly between social networks, never quite achieving any goals. Does this not come back to what the purpose of the platform is? Presumably someone somewhere is responsible for its existence and support and may only be interested in the commercial aspects e.g. cost recovery or revenue generation and will consequently be less interested in the conversations and more interested in the number of users.

if the purpose of the platform is to encourage knowledge flows, efficiency improvements or innovation then it is an incumbent upon the platform owner to ensure the facilities exist to encourage those sort of activities. The rules of engagement should normally be around protecting reputational risk and compliance with any statutory regulations e.g. privacy. It should then be up to the community members to define their own operational charter, which will define the way they work together. If the rules of engagement are too restrictive then quite clearly they will go somewhere else.

I believe it will be the community itself, or certain allocated roles within this community, that will listen to the patterns and encourage common language and shared mental models to emerge. I’ve tended to think this will be a facilitator that takes the lead in this role, but I’m not quite clear whether is the same as the ‘Social Artists’ referred to by Etienne.

I may be in the minority here but I firmly believe that an unfacilitated community is destined to drift aimlessly between social networks, never quite achieving any goals.

]]> By: chris macrae http://www.edmitchell.co.uk/blog/2008/12/18/on-constructing-rules-of-engagement/comment-page-1/#comment-3342 chris macrae Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:26:41 +0000 http://www.edmitchell.co.uk/blog/?p=326#comment-3342 I see no practical evidence that platforms have moved on in any way that improves deep understanding and collaboration around actions. Much better off we were in 1997 mainly with email I see no practical evidence that platforms have moved on in any way that improves deep understanding and collaboration around actions. Much better off we were in 1997 mainly with email

]]> By: David Wilcox http://www.edmitchell.co.uk/blog/2008/12/18/on-constructing-rules-of-engagement/comment-page-1/#comment-3341 David Wilcox Thu, 18 Dec 2008 17:20:14 +0000 http://www.edmitchell.co.uk/blog/?p=326#comment-3341 Thanks Ed, how timely. As you know, I've been thinking about membership organisations and the platforms they develop, with tensions around walled gardens, centralised control, often mixed with the exhortation "we wish members would do more for themselves". Well, they might, if there were fewer rules. Recently I was impressed by Etienne Wenger's ideas for <a href="http://socialreporter.com/?p=474" rel="nofollow">social spaces and the social artists</a> who may help create them. So, wouldn't it be great if an organisation thought: How can we help people (e.g. our members) create the cross-platform social spaces for networking, discussion, learning, collaboration that they need, rather than impose our own platform and rules. What can we offer that attracts people to us, and the joined up patterns of spaces we are helping create? What is to be a broker and convenor within and between the spaces? Where does the new value lie? Thanks Ed, how timely. As you know, I’ve been thinking about membership organisations and the platforms they develop, with tensions around walled gardens, centralised control, often mixed with the exhortation “we wish members would do more for themselves”. Well, they might, if there were fewer rules.
Recently I was impressed by Etienne Wenger’s ideas for social spaces and the social artists who may help create them.
So, wouldn’t it be great if an organisation thought:
How can we help people (e.g. our members) create the cross-platform social spaces for networking, discussion, learning, collaboration that they need, rather than impose our own platform and rules. What can we offer that attracts people to us, and the joined up patterns of spaces we are helping create? What is to be a broker and convenor within and between the spaces? Where does the new value lie?

]]>