I bet it hurt a lot; I mean – that much conflict and anger and finger pointing and this and that, it’s going to take it’s toll isn’t it?

As community managers, we find ourselves in an interesting position – we’re right in the middle between brands or organisations or institutions, and the people they are trying to support or service or engage with via the online platforms. This is an environment that runs enormous risk of stress and burnout; we have huge responsibility yet varying authority, we represent the movement to the organisation and vice versa.

We’re facilitating like mad in an endlessly changing context, looking for paths through this complexity, seeking a balance of power, and ‘genuine’ atmosphere, and other good things.

Asides to the workload, that’s a tough emotional challenge. Especially when it kicks off like it does sometimes, and people behave astonishingly badly and you have to maintain your cool throughout. I thought I might burst into tears if that sort of ferocity kicked off on my patch to be honest. I know I would have real problems trying to keep calm, and keep the outburst in perspective, and not take it personally and other feelings.

Of course, I’d deal with it, but I wondered if anyone had any ways of understanding our own emotional response to these situations and methods to ‘ease the pressure’. Like counsellors – who have regular counselling sessions of their own in order to help themselves handle their responses to their clients’ sessions.

So I had a question or two:

• How do you handle your emotional response to punch-ups in your spaces?
• How do support your facilitators when it kicks off?
• Do we account for the stress inherent in our roles and how that will affect us?
• Do we have mechanisms to help us stay calm, and reflective time to process the experience?

The next Gurteen Bristol Knowledge Cafe is going to be held in the exceptionally ethical Pervasive Media Studio, Bristol, on Thursday February 11th, from 18:30. The cafe proper will begin at 19:00 prompt as usual.

It will be introduced by Andy Wistreich from Essential Education, who has kindly offered to raise the topic of ‘Ethics’. This is an important, complex and often problematic issue for the individual and society.  By sharing our perspectives we can all learn something to help us in our ethical challenges.

Here’s the blurb:

It looks like ethics is about right and wrong, but it is never black and white.  For me the fundamental issue is motivation – why do or not do something?  I am also interested in the fact that laws and ethical codes seem to come from out there in society whereas our choices about how to behave seem to be made in here in our minds.  Again, this is not a simple division.  I’ll try to introduce these general points in the intro and then people can take it where they want with examples from their own work and practice.

Ethical consumerism is still consumerism

As usual, please come along and enjoy while meeting and deepening your understanding of this topic, and book yourself in using the event booking page below.

If you want to stay up to date via the email distribution list, the link follows, and if you’re a facebook kind of person, Michael Corbett is the man behind the Bristol K-cafe group and is usually around for a good conversation…

Event booking and venue information link

Bristol Gurteen Knowledge Cafe mailing list link

Bristol Gurteen Knowledge Cafe Facebook group

beta

Over at Transition Network web project HQ, we are delighted to launch the first ‘public beta’ (working prototype) of our ‘projects database’, featuring case studies from a range of transition food projects. This is an important part of, and the first public element of the wider web project and we need your help and input.

What is the ‘projects database’?

The projects database is designed for people engaged in transition food projects to share and discuss essential information about their projects, enabling others to learn from their experience, get in touch and build supportive networks of people doing similar things around the country. We chose food as a topic as it is close to all of our hearts and there are lots of fascinating projects to share.

It is an easily searchable database of ‘we did this and that worked, but watch out for that, it didn’t work’ kind of thing. It is a way to share information across distance about community learnings drawn from doing projects.

It is not a replacement for conversations, it is a stimulant; a context setter, an introducer. It is a way for ‘initiative a’ to share its learnings easily so that ‘initiative b’, when starting a project, can benefit from those experiences. It is not an ‘efficiency machine’ best practice database, it is a ‘resilience support experience base’ for the movement as a whole.

By sharing project information in this way, we believe that the Transition movement can broaden and accelerate its utility enormously.

What can I do?

It will only be useful if you use it, and we’ll only know that by giving it a try. So we have added some case studies from Tamzin’s book, but these are a starter for ten; the magic is up to you. Please go and have a look at the beta, give it a testing, add some project experience…

• Do you have experience in a food project?
• What worked?
• What didn’t work?
• What outcomes, expected or not, came out of it?
• Do you have any web links or other resources for reference?

If you favourite nephew tugged on your sleeve and said “I’m going to start a food project in my neighbourhood”, what would your advice be?

Please note – it is not a finished product – think of it as a ‘diamond in the rough’ that you are helping to hone to how you want it.

All of our web services will evolve ‘iteratively’ in line with regular use from those who use it – so we are looking for transition people to come and have a look, read some projects, add some of their own projects, spread the word to their mates who are into food, and generally give it a good public testing.

All of the project information will be kept so none of your additions will be lost (although it will be moved when we move to our wonderful environmentally efficient micro-data-centre using second hand servers running open source software but that’s another story).

How to participate:

1. Visit the Transition Food website and peruse the case studies at your will and make a comment if you fancy that. Try using the ‘guided’ or ‘nested’ search list on the left hand side of the screen – there are lots of ways to find the information.
2. If you want to join the forums, or add a case study yourself, register an account on the site. It is quick and easy, and your data is safe with us (TT web has a 100% spam free promise)
3. To add a Transition food project, create a case study to tell everyone else all about your project.
4. There is also a discussion forum to talk about food projects and other food-related Transition issues, so feel free to jump in there and get involved. (The forum content may not be permanent).
5. Add your experiences, with the site, your likes/dislikes into the forum; it’s how we learn
6. As new case studies appear, we will start a little competition; the winning case study (based on the number of votes in a simple poll) will get a free copy of the Transition food book.

If you have any enquiries, drop us a line from the contact form and one of us will be in touch.

Some heartfelt words of thanks:

The first bunch of projects’ information has been kindly shared by Tamzin Pinkerton, the author behind our newly published book: Transition Food. We keenly recommend you buy it; it’s great. The whole food database was mastered, researched and driven by the irrepressible Jon Walker with excellent technical support from Graham Mitchell, worldly Knowledge Management advice from Cathy King, and facilitation support from Melissa Worth.

Over the next few months we will be launching a few new services as ‘betas’ as we gradually deliver the web project, so this is the beginning of a rolling development schedule. Buckle up everybody! Web project ahoy!

Ciaran, Tim, Michael and Philippa kindly wrote up some of their reflections which I include along with my own.

Phillipa gave an excellent presentation on the subject, considering some different definitions, the context (from personal to eco-system), whether we can ‘build’ it, what the properties of a resilient system could be, and a few further thoughts.

You can see the presentation here:

Write up from Phillipa:

Ciaran on the tension between building resilient systems that have redundancy, and “efficient” systems – e.g. for power generation.  The argument goes that although micro-generating, distributed systems might be more resilient, they cost twice as much.  But is the real question how you cost these things appropriately?  As with the banking crisis, the cost of fixing everything after the disaster is absolutely enormous.  There’s also the question of the real environmental costs of building massive power plants, as well as the toll on people’s lives who live near them etc.

K-cafe group

Write up from Ciaran:

We discussed how resilience is an emergent property of well balanced communicative systems and this can be viewed on different levels:

On a personal level resilience requires balance between the conscious will to achieve or act in a certain way and the reflective state of just being and so able to be receptive and allow creative flow.

This second way of being requires inner confidence and/or supportive surroundings where explicit goals or other directive and judgement thinking are not at play. It is this space that allows for the creativity and innovation to emerge.

These two ways of being are reflected at community, organisational and societal levels, but often run counter to the pressure to be more efficient and productive. Similar to the individual, a balanced community for example would include some individuals allowed more time to be reflective whilst others more directive. A balanced society looks for reflective thinking in academic institutions and by supporting diverse artistic communities (the example of Ireland allowing poor artists to pay zero tax was cited). Striking the balance is key to resilience. Too much of one or the other can lead to problems. These different aspects to ourselves and communities etc. need also to be communicating well with each other.

Our group discussed how currently organisations and society generally seems particularly focused on the drive for efficiency and the education system has become increasingly directive, with too little room for more reflection and genuine creativity and diversity. Combined with a narrowing of cultural perspectives due to globalisation of the western socio-economic paradigm, we have been left very rigid and so vulnerable to changes. Examples of how Australian aboriginal culture approaches ‘problem solving’ reminded us how there are in fact many other ways to be that we have little or no experience of and we carry many assumptions about what is possible and what will be in the future. We discussed how these assumptions along with our aspirations are looking very shaky if not plain stupid! Paradoxically the times of plenty we have been through that might have offered the greater redundancy for more reflective states of being at all levels, has been somewhat swept aside by a consumer culture which fosters anxiety and lack of self confidence, so not conducive to development of personal or societal resilience.

(Ciaran Mundy)

Write up from Michael:

Resilience is linked to the esprit de corps (used in the sense of – common spirit of comradeship, enthusiasm, and devotion to a cause among the members of a group) of the community.  EDC comes from a lot of things including the ideology, the “community code” (which dictates how community members treat each other, how they help each other, how they behave, etc), and the ongoing interactions that keep the community alive.

So I think forging a powerful community code is a thing that community leaders need to do (by example, by fiat or whatever) and ensuring that community members have community minded interactions with each other.

(Michael Corbett)

K-cafe big circle

Write up from Tim:

Breakout group discussion

For resilience you need slack in any system, otherwise it’s fragile. There needs to be room and time for experimentation so that adaptability and flexibility can happen.

Robust doesn’t equal resilient. Robust suggests something won’t fail. Resilient suggests it can fail and bounce back – sometimes failure can be good, for development.

Working targets, which are an ubiquitous method now, are about cutting out slack from the system, hence they tend towards eliminating resilience.

Can a system break down and then be rebuilt? Is that resilience?
That’s not resilience for the system, but could be resilience for a higher level of system containing it.
So we have to be clear what level is our focus within the hierarchy of systems.

Personal resilience is the struggle of Will (or Intention) and Emotion. When we pursue something we use our will to keep our intention and action continuing. When we meet obstacles and failures we often feel discouragement. If our feelings get too negative that drains our energy and saps our will to continue. Philippa’s slide showed Positivity as a component of resilience.

The word will may suggest a drive towards a goal. If so, intention may be a better word. We always have some intention, even if only to keep behaving according to our own values, which isn’t goal-focused or active behaviour.

Can resilience be lost? If things are too easy, complacency can lead to loss of responsiveness, like lack of exercise leads to loss of muscle tone.

Action must be balanced by review and reflection – this is the slack. So there’s a need for people to ponder and experiment, perhaps even dedicated people for those tasks. The Irish government recognised the value of this to the whole of society and they said so when they stopped artistic vocations being liable for income tax.

Targets and league tables in effect claim to define perfection and how to get there. Setting them implies that reaching or exceeding the targets means reaching the ideal. But having an ideal of perfection leaves no room for innovation and creativity to improve the ideal. So if everyone’s energies are taken up in meeting targets the system can’t evolve.

The harder you strive to extend yourself to achieve a hard goal, the less resilient and more vulnerable/fragile you are. The last straw can break your back.

Whole Group Discussion

When a thing is resilient it implies that it continues despite obstacles. But what continues? It’s not always obvious, especially if there is evolution and adaptation that changes a lot of the original. So there has to be some essence that does continue and is the thing that is resilient.

Castro has been a very resilient dictator. Has that been helped by the tension and opposition from the USA? That very opposition has created activity and strength, like resistance exercises a muscle. Muscles are resilient, but through actively using that resilience they grow more and more resilient. Unused resilience leads to weakness, using it repeatedly leads to strength.

So tension is perhaps a key to resilience. Muscles have tone, which is an optimal level of tension even when relaxed. A cat is the epitome of relaxation yet is ready to spring. A tennis ball is very resilient and can take a lot of challenge yet return to its form and function undamaged – it’s the tension inherent in its construction that gives that ability. Perhaps resilience requires plenty of latent ‘potential energy’. Elasticity is resilience.

Ideas and religions can be resilient. They (or some) do compete, evolve and adapt. So they are in tension and face resistance. The idea of memes put ideas into a context of being objects that compete for survival.

Too settled a state leads to loss of resilience, like loss of muscle tone. e.g. Woolworths was once very strong and presumably resilient, enough to fend off all threats. But then its settled state led eventually to it becoming something else – flabby, rigid, stagnant? – until it was very vulnerable and collapsed.

Efficiency seems opposite to resilience.

How do you measure resilience?

(Tim Sheppard)

Nice picture of some pigs as it's cute

Write up from Ed (that’s me by the way):

It was fascinating all the way through, with huge amounts to reflect on and consider. Among many things, what stuck out the most for me was a question raised about the relationship between personal and communal resilience. As well as its relevance to Transition initiatives, I suspect that this is an important point for David Wilcox and the work around Local Communities.

With my facilitator hat on, the balance between individual and group dynamics is a core issue for event design, and something I deal with when helping groups identify and achieve their goals. Every event I design tries to take into account that we are all human and not perfect ‘expressors’, indeed that many of us don’t like being in groups, and find the now ubiquitous ‘sharing’ something of a tyranny. In light of this I try to make space for different behaviours; not expecting everyone to behave in the same way. But this isn’t necessarily about ‘resilience’ per se; more a background to the following questions.

A knowledge café attendee once told me that she felt intimidated before coming to a café as she thought that she might look stupid. She is not stupid at all. This response is partly her responsibility about her confidence (as responsible for her self) and mine (as responsible for the group reputation, language and dynamics). This is difficult for her, an issue for me (who wants everyone to be happy all the time – one of my personal issues), and possibly a reflection on this individual/group crossover, and possibly a learning point for the café model and the language used.

This individual confidence issue is touched upon in a recent post from Rob about Transition Oxford’s story; among other things about people feeling a lack of confidence, and the language used, and I reckon a jump off point for the following questions in my head:

• Is personal resilience a necessary pre-condition for resilient relationships with others (intimately, friendship-ly, and in groups and beyond)?
• How can we assess our own personal resilience, and be aware of our strengths and weaknesses when relating to others?
• How can we understand the effect we have on our relationships?
• Does success as a group rely on each group member being personally resilient?
• Or can a group’s structure and dynamics be designed (or emerge) to overcome our individual issues and bring out the best of us?
• Is it necessary for a group to have a clear purpose in order to overcome our personal issues?

So more questions than anything else from me then!

So good work all and particular thanks to Phillipa for speaking, and the contributors for their thoughts above

Our introductory speaker is Philipa Bayley, acting head of the Centre for Public Engagement, Bristol University (and full on neuro-science doctor geek but don’t tell her I told you that).

Our subject is ‘resilience’; we will be hearing a lot of this word soon, that’s a guarantee.

Here’s the blurb:

None of us knows what the future holds (not even Mystic Meg) but chances are there are some not-too-nice things up ahead.

Whether we’re thinking about the challenges that individuals, communities or nations face, resilience is about how we deal with those challenges and not only bounce back, but ‘bounce up’.

Come and discuss what makes people and organisations resilient, and how we might build that capacity in from the start.

As usual, please come along and enjoy while meeting and deepening your understanding of this topic, and book yourself in using the event booking page below.

If you want to stay up to date via the email distribution list, the link follows, and if you’re a facebook kind of person, Michael Corbett is the man behind the Bristol K-cafe group and is usually around for a good conversation…

Event booking and venue information link

Bristol Gurteen Knowledge Cafe mailing list link

Bristol Gurteen Knowledge Cafe Facebook group

Some other handy links:

Definition of resilience on wikipedia

Interesting piece from Dave Pollard on resilience

jellyfish on flickr

We have had two open meetings to date, several small projects under our belts, a range of new ideas and related groups emerging; it’s all good. We have learnt a lot from these events and wanted to share some suggestions; these aren’t neccesarily Transition specific, mind; nor are they meant to be comprehensive so if you have other ideas, let me know.

(A bit of ’speed networking’ usually goes down very well)

Things we would suggest to bear in mind for holding meetings:

General:

• Network with other (Transition and not) groups and subgroups; invite other initiatives along
• Have a talk from another group
• Have a talk from an expert
• Keep ‘talks’ short and sweet
• The group’s needs will evolve: lead with content at the early stages; people need ideas and projects to get involved; aim for full Open Space style activity as the group matures; projects are underway, people know eachother
• Hold meetings regularly
• Build a sense that the attendees own the events: get them to help; moving chairs, clearing up, etc.
• A good venue is worth working for: quiet, spacious, light, airy
• If you get a good venue, respect it! Leave it tidier than you found it
• Include local characters: Councillors, GPs, Police, Landlords, Shopkeepers etc.
• Stuff you might need: flip chart paper, marker pens, blu tack, post-it notes, bicycle horn, a watch, address labels for name badges
• Shadow eachother; learn what eachother is up to in order to share the skills and roles; we’re about community focus, not individuals holding all the knowledge about their specific area

(Event plan showing planned and actual times)

Before the meeting:

• Plan the event beforehand as a group: Purpose, People, Processes
• Plan not just the event but what will happen afterwards too (write-ups, etc.)
• Agree an agenda, tasks and roles
• Leave extra time in the plan for over-runs, late starting etc
• Rotate responsibilities across events; share and swap roles

(Having and explaining a clear agenda lets all know what they’re in for)

During the meeting:

• You will start late; people show up at (and slightly after) the official start time
• Capture emails on a book on a reception table
• Introduce the event clearly and explain who is who (e.g. host, facilitator, speakers, etc.)
• Clearly display and explain the agenda
• Stick to the time as far as possible; be flexible but don’t lose the timings
• Brief speakers beforehand, and as they arrive, on how long they have and how you will manage them
• Keep the talks short
• Breakout leaders can be tough to manage; they will not want their groups to end
• Remind breakout leaders that they are looking for input, not leading one in their image
• Ask breakout leaders what they need before the event
• Ask breakout leaders to scribe their groups and write it up afterwards
• Spread breakout groups as far apart as possible in the room
• Refreshments are very popular
• Keep the event lively and informal (but not badly run); encourage chatback
• Take photos (and ask at the beginning of the event)
• Breakout groups need: Scribe, Email collection, Briefing in advance

(Having the local police kept our ambitions within do-ability)

After the meeting:

• Tidy up! Make it tidier than when you arrived. Keep the venue owners sweet and they’ll be happy to have you back
• Go to the pub
• Capture stuff from the meeting, bash out a little update, publish and send it out on email within one week

And there you go. Got any other ideas, suggestions?

James Richards (BBC Learning Development) and Myles Runham (BBC Learning) co-hosted the event with Clare Reddington (Ished); I designed and facilitated it with help from Jack Martin Leith. There were approximately 65 attendees, made up of 15 BBC folk and 50 creative (and) technology types from around the country.

This report is split into the following:

• Event purpose
• Event outcomes
• Event design
• Event report
• Event documents for download

Event purpose:

• To profile the work and properties of BBC Learning to a community of pervasive media practitioners
• To communicate BBC Learning’s thoughts and ambitions in the area of creating new pervasive media projects with the BBC’s properties
• To work collaboratively over the day to create a range of high concept propositions
• To provide a networking opportunity for attendees to meet and interact

For the attendees it was a chance to:

• Meet and interact with others working in this field
• Gain unique access to BBC Learning commissioners
• Surface and discuss proposition ideas with BBC Learning staff as a group in an innovation lab format

Event outcomes:

At the end of the event, out of as many ideas as surfaced during the day, the three most suitable ideas (for BBC Learning) were identified by the BBC crew. These ‘idea holders’ would then work them over a bit more after the event, negotiate and discuss with BBC Learning and iShed, before one final idea will be chosen. This idea will then receive financial and organisational support by BBC Learning and iShed in order to put together a formal pitch to the Beeb.

In line with iShed’s keen dedication to brokering relevant and constructive relationships between different actors in the world of creative technology, an important underlying theme for the event design was to afford as many productive conversations between the different groups in the room. This was primarily to get the BBC folk to meet and work with non-BBC folk;  so a lot of attention was paid to ensuring that happened.

Event design:

I was very keen to introduce some (apparently) more informal, emotional stuff into this event. Our previous events for Media Sandbox have had a rather rational ‘knowledge’ edge to them – quite cerebral and purposeful – these have been sucessful, but after working with some of the Transition facilitators I wanted to explore some of the more unknown elements of human networking and decision making, and encourage the attendees to explore their responses to ‘ideas’ at different levels (head, heart and gut).

(event designing sheet)

Hence the event was structured to be relatively loose and informal in the morning, with a lot of movement and activity, no tables, lots of networking, some role play, different teams forming and discussing stuff. After lunch we got down to the serious business of brainstorming at tables, introducing a more formal, cerebral atmosphere.

Event report:

Welcome and Introduction

Clare Reddington and James Richards and Myles Runham introduced themselves as hosts of the event to set the context. James gave everyone an overview of BBC Learning Development and the types of project they are keen on.

Mapping and conversations:

Now we know why the event is happening, who the hosts are and what the outcomes will be, it is time to see who is in the room. All of the BBC folk came to the front and introduced themselves – enabling the non-BBC folk to work out who they wanted to speak to.

Then everyone jumped to their feet and we did some fast and furious networking based on a couple of parameters:

• Mac vs PC: human Venn diagram and conversations with one of the others
• How geeky am I?: line up from luddite to uber-geek and conversations with someone similar

(networking in action)

We were going to do a couple of others, but the event had started late so I had to make time, so we had to lose some of the networking. This is a shame, but the rest of the event was designed to make sure that as many relationships were brokered as possible (ie the networking is built into the interventions as well as being a session in itself).

The networking was very popular – always is – but I was surprised at how well everyone took to it and responded constructively.

BBC Learning-ness:

Being that we were aiming to encourage conversation around the department’s interests and commissioning process, and give everyone an idea of what is and what isn’t a suitable idea, we ran a session of ‘what is BBC-Learning-ness?’. As well as helping the group build a shared mental model and set the context for later decisions, it was also a great opportunity for everyone to see the BBC folk pitching in, and reacting to ideas in a short time under a lot of pressure (their gut instinct should come out here). Here’s how it worked:

1. James posed a question to the group: ‘In the app store in heaven, what are the two dream learning apps?’
2. Everyone broke out in groups of 6-ish and brainstormed 2 ideas
3. James and Myles stood by a board marked up with ‘Yes’, ‘No’, ‘Maybe’
4. A group rep came to the board, read out their apps
5. James and Richard classified it Y/N/maybe

(Myles and James and BBC Learning-ness board)

James and Richard had 1 minute to classify each app in front of everyone. Naturally this isn’t a formal process, but it does illustrate their gut reactions to things, immediate questions which pop into their heads, and, interestingly (for me) the things they said while thinking out loud (‘hmm not neccesarily a learning app, but knowledge might like that’). It was also a good excercise to get people working together (the BBC folk were spread out across the room) and further embedding the BBC-ness of things.

It was great fun and had a serious point. As well as this, it revealed something of them to us in a way that was open and human – large organisations can seem all wall from the outside, so good work to them for being game I say.

Although this was meant to be a very light-hearted idea generation quickie, some of the ideas produced definitely sparked off interest from the BBC folk. These ideas weren’t carried forward during the day; it was intended to get everyone in the mood around ideas. I think I could have integrated them better into later work (lesson learnt).

(BBC Learning-ness app ideas categorised)

Ideas preparation, analysis and discussion:

At this point, we needed to see who had an idea to work on in the afternoon. The idea holders identified themselves and how mature the idea was, and whether they wanted collaborators to help (in this age of collaboration-mania, I think it is totally fair to say ‘No, it’s my idea, I know what it is, I don’t need collaborators’).

This is a risky point in the event – no ideas means a radical and instant on the floor re-design of the event, too many ideas means a swift inclusion of a voting intervention… quite a lot of event facilitation relies on doing the sums on the fly; how many tables will we need for later? How much time do we give the idea holders to present their idea? etc. But I diverge into event design-ery pokery.

10 idea holders emerged. The perfect number. Uncanny.

The idea holders had 15 minutes to lay their ideas out on a flip chart sheet (we supplied templates). During this time, the ‘here to helpers’ broke out and did some more BBC-non-BBC networking.

We then brought the idea sheets back into the room, laid them out and everyone had 15 minutes to walk around, discuss, analyse the ideas without knowing whose they were from. Idea holders were not invited to comment or otherwise indicate it was theirs – for them it was a chance to see people reacting to an anonymous idea in an objective way.

Following this, each idea holder then had 3 minutes to present their ideas to the group, answer any questions they may have overheard during the earlier session, do a quick Q & A – whatever they fancied. They brought the ideas to life – which had been anonymous and objective earlier – giving them a face and language.

(presenting an idea in 3 minutes)

In the afternoon, attendees were going to work on the ideas with the idea holders at specific tables, so the ‘here to help-ers’ were also making some decisions as to which idea they were going to work on later. It’s also good practice for presenting to a group etc. etc.

Then we had lunch. Woohoo. During lunch, we brought 10 tables into the room and allocated one idea per table. Having been moving around all morning, everyone was going to sit down, work on one idea, get all cerebral and focused in the afternoon.

(the 10 ideas with names)

Case study:

In order to get everyone in the mood, a case study of actual projects from someone who had been commissioned was in order. Dominic Tinley has done exactly this and gave us an insightful and warts and all overview of some of the work he has been doing.

By now, everyone is at the table they will be at all afternoon, so Dominic’s case study was an excellent topic to get them talking about that in the context of the idea they will be working on.

Workshop working:

All the idea holders had a second template to complete for their idea. We used templates so the BBC folk could assess them from similar angles. There was much thought, scribbling with pens, scratching of chins etc.

(workshop working in session)

Top Three:

Now the crunch time. Which idea is suitable in this context, and why? This is another layer of learning for everyone. I have run events where attendees voted for their favourite idea etc. but, being that that would not reflect the real commissioning process for the BBC, the BBC folk were asked to select their top three.

This is not an easy task for the BBC folk – they rarely get a chance to be together from different departments, and don’t have to make such quick decisions.

They had 15 minutes to assess each idea as a group. One BBC person had been on each table so they could represent it. I scribed while they discussed. It was a fast moving conversation.

(BBC folk rapid decision-making for top three)

There was a clear top three – based on suitability for BBC Learning. Interestingly, almost all the other ideas had great merit and interest factor and the BBC folk felt that they could find other homes for the ideas. Hence it was agreed for each idea to have a ‘champion’ who would help the idea holder connect with someone suitable and interested in the BBC.

Good work all – dishing out tough love is a hard thing to do.

Then James and Myles ran through the decision, firstly looking at the top three and then discussing the others – why they weren’t suitable, why they might be more suitable elsewhere etc.

Closing, and a few jars of ale:

And that was it. Following a few rounds of applause, thank yous, questions etc., we retired to the Watershed bar for a few ales after a productive day. I was delighted to see the groups mixed up and chatting happily, swapping contact details and generally making the most of eachother.

(well earned pint of ale)

Event documents for download:

• Event design document
• Briefing sheets for idea holders

These things are challenging to get off the ground, but Dan Weisselberg and the other early members are putting a lot of effort and inspiration into it, having already organised a neighbourhood clean up (particularly fine thank you poster), found some excellent community space in a local (old) school, building local networks of interested neighbhours etc.

A bunch of us will all be in the old Fairfield School for both days, explaining what it’s all about, having some fun putting a community timeline together, and other stuff.

Here’s the flyer:

Come along.

Steve Bridger gave us a great presentation around and about the subject of Generosity which left us with plenty to think about, personally, publicly and professionally. And Jesus’ social network, but that’s another story…

After a whistle stop tour ranging from big brands to personal sharing, religion to altruism, giving to taking, he left us with six things to think about:

1. Start with people
2. We are what we share
3. Is the social web making weak ties stronger than blood ties?
4. Successful brands are exceptionally generous
5. Create experiences that mirror people’s aspirations
6. Do we need new metrics for generosity?

There was a lot of discussion about society and culture, sharing in general and our expectations of selves and other. Maslow’s hierachy of needs came up along with some clarity about the term ‘survival of the fittest‘ (whereby it could be said that the Capitalist hegemony related the term ‘fittest’ to a blindly competitive theme rather than ‘that which is most suitable to its context’, which gives it a very different feel:

What’s more, although the phrase conjures up an image of a violent struggle for survival, in reality the word “fittest” seldom means the strongest or the most aggressive. On the contrary, it can mean anything from the best camouflaged or the most fecund to the cleverest or the most cooperative. Forget Rambo, think Einstein or Gandhi.
(New Scientist article: Evolution myths)

We thought about why we give to charity, the implications of dis-intermediatory bodies like Kiva, Freecycle, Swop, School of Everything etc., whether big corporations actually can give, why, and what that means.

People explored how ‘brands’ could be generous, what impact that might have on ‘competition’ and ‘control’, and what it was that people were being generous with, and why.

• What are the implications for the world when my ‘generous’ act of sharing a photo means a professional photographer doesn’t get any money for producing a better one?
• Is ‘mega-corp multinational’ really being generous when it shares some of its codebase with a developer community, or simply sensible (and resourcing cheap innovation)?
• If we have a ‘competition commission’, are they the good guys or the bad guys?
• Can our market model exist side by side with a culture of ‘we are what we share’?
• If someone does what could be seen as a generous act for selfish reasons, does that make it less generous in outcome?

It seems we’re not alone in pondering this subject. On a corporate note, an interesting article appeared about this very subject:

Has it ever been important for corporations to ditch the greed and embrace generosity? It’s something that countless individuals have already started doing, of course: giving is the new taking, and sharing is the new giving. And yes, we do realize that this month’s Trend Briefing is massive, but in this business climate, can you really afford not to spend some time figuring out how to get a little closer to your customers?…

GENERATION G | “Captures the growing importance of ‘generosity’ as a leading societal and business mindset. As consumers are disgusted with greed and its current dire consequences for the economy—and while that same upheaval has them longing more than ever for institutions that care—the need for more generosity beautifully coincides with the ongoing (and pre-recession) emergence of an online-fueled culture of individuals who share, give, engage, create and collaborate in large numbers.

In fact, for many, sharing a passion and receiving recognition have replaced ‘taking’ as the new status symbol. Businesses should follow this societal/behavioral shift, however much it may oppose their decades-old devotion to me, myself and I.”
(Trendwatch article on Generation G)

The resounding note for me was that it is easiest and most rational to share within the boundaries of our ‘communities’ (however they are described), and sharing between them would involve some form of exchange. As ever, the issue of trust came up, and how we define our boundaries (which reflect our intentions, which define what we can and can’t share).

As ever, thanks to The Pervasive Media Studio, for their kind loan of the excellent space, and all attendees who came and had a good think together.