This report covers the period of January 2009 until December 2011. It is made up of some contextual background, brief outlines about the central project elements, two key stories, some figures, and a budgeted timeline. There is much more behind this report; to dive into more detail read Ed the author’s blog, or contact him directly with questions.

It is a big thank you to our funders, Tudor Trust, for giving Transition Network £50,000 for an unspecified and unknown web platform. We feel that we have used the money sensibly to build the new platform and open up new channels for the movement, and hope that Tudor feel that they made a good investment.

Another purpose of the report is to encourage other people responsible for web projects to do it themselves; take ownership of their project, accept the unpredictable outcomes and have a more resilient, affordable web system than an external service provider could produce.

(Picture: Most of Transition Network staff and board after web project approved, June 2009)

This blog post has the introduction and the context and role sections (without the nice pictures). It does not have the other sections on:

• The central project elements (Technologist group, core information directories, webhosts, content strategy, community emergence, web survey results, the Sharing Engine)
• Two case studies (Ingredients directory and Social Reporting ‘Stories’ project)
• Budgeted timeline
• Achievements and figures
• The big last thank you

For those you need to download the documents below:

The whole report

• Download big pdf file of whole report (19MB) from Sendspace
• Download small pdf file size of whole report (1.14MB) from this site

Just the case studies sections

• Download modestly big case studies section (ingredients and stories) (5.53 MB) from Sendspace
• Download the smaller file size case studies section (ingredients and stories) (0.5MB) from this site

Introduction

Working in complex situations on multi-stakeholder systems can be like being dropped into an intimidating forest, but seeking others to do your work isn’t the answer! In this sense, the report hopes to be like a breadcrumb trail in the forest, left by a group who mapped their context, and want to support others who doing the same thing.

The big lesson from our experience is that it would not have been possible to have predicted where we would be now, then. Because so much changes as you progress.

If we had produced a detailed and fixed project plan with a product roadmap (which we could have done) it could have felt reassuring in ‘the deep in the dark forest days’ of early 2009, but it would have been wrong for late 2011.

The web project we see now has grown out of experiences and connections from all of the stakeholders, working together in a ‘constellation’ on and offline, facilitated rather than project managed, in iterative technical and social loops hung together with communications and agility, rather than control at its core.

(Picture: Transition Technologist group meets for the first time, November 2009)

This is illustrated with the two case studies which show that our two biggest products were at best just twinkles in peoples’ eyes in 2009, and the result of exploring the connections between people and ideas and technology, rather than having a big vision, then trying to predict, control and micro-manage the future and the unknown.

This is also a thank you to all the staff at Transition Network, the Transition Technologist group, and all the Transitioners who got on board with the project, all of whom worked on an un-defined project that deliberately tried not to control the future, but share responsibility for understanding and optimising the present.

“It gives a wider perspective on transition activity than the local group can achieve. I think it is important to continue showing the bigger picture and offering encouragement to local groups as it can sometimes be a struggle to remain upbeat.”

“Helps us remember that we’re not alone, because it can be hard to keep up the big effort required.”

(2011 web project survey response)

Context and role

A great deal has changed since the web project officially began. Indeed it could be argued that ‘change’ itself is accelerating in a world that seems to get more and more bizarre and challenging every day.

Amid this context, the Transition Towns movement has grown rapidly in numbers and matured broadly in concept. Every day there is something new from somewhere new. Initiatives are springing up all over the world facing different challenges with different people trying different projects in different cultures, with different needs.

Needless to say, Transition Network offers pragmatic support for the emergence of the movement; it is grassroots led so we do not seek to control it. It is a highly charged and creative environment, making for intense professional and personal challenges. There is never a moment at which things are quiet, or ‘the same as yesterday’, or something is not urgent, or brand new and requiring immediate action.

Thus the web project began in an endlessly changing context. Unlike a standard organisation, it is keeping up with a movement that is moving too fast and unpredictably to second guess. This is a challenging situation, particularly if you try to predict what ‘web product’ a movement will need in the future.

In light of this, the web team focused on three interconnected things:

1. Identify the boundaries. Build a shared view of a Transition web ‘constellation’ or ‘field’ with all the various initiative websites, social networks, blogs, etc. and the flows between them, and do not put Transition Network in the middle
2. Work with the ‘field’. Build relationships with all types of users and facilitate the emergence of supportive social groups (editorial, technical, facilitation) across the field to share roles and responsibilities as they spring up
3. Produce a robust, flexible technical platform that any reasonable developer can learn about, and work on without too much trouble. See it as a hard working shared bicycle rather than a specialised work of art!

In this plan, the platform could be extended in many directions with a facilitation model to handle the social requirements arising and share the power among the users. Then, ultimately, the Transition Network ‘website’ could move from being a highly visible, central website owned by Transition Network toward a transparent web service, moderated by Transitioners to support and promote the initiatives websites.

(diagram to explain the wide array of Transition related activity on the internet, and how the Transition Network website is not in the middle of it, preferring to see itself as part of a ‘constellation’ supported by a ‘Sharing Engine’ using web standards and services)

This worked for us. Transition Network is comfortable with navigating the unknown, and changing plans when the need arises, rather than sticking to one grand plan.

Importantly, it also promotes the concept of accepting responsibility for unknown outcomes, successful or not successful, without blame. This means that individuals carry great responsibility in the team, but not fear of blame in case of failure; indeed ‘failure’ is seen as an entity where no learnings were extracted from an unsuccessful piece of work.

This is common sense to us, but we found that it is contradictory to most organisations’ web strategies, which are there to reflect a central institution’s self-image, and indeed, many people’s expectations; we are trained to respect centralised power. Our plan had been from the start to challenge centralised power – especially our own.

(Picture: Charlotte (Stories editor) and Mike (Newsletter editor) at the 2011 Transition Network conference)

After an initial burst of work to get the platform up, technical work was handled in focused phases with small budgets, delivering required enhancements and maintenance, identified by the users and prioritised by the web team.

“… It keeps me well intentioned, to create something that the world can believe in. I am so excited when I see my project featured on the side of the projects map, after adding content to my page. This keeps my project exciting, that there is a global network which my project is connected with, despite its small size. This is good, I believe, because despite its small size, the potential is there for great ideas to spawn. thanks, so much”

(2011 web project survey response)

…

For more, please download…

The whole report

• Download big pdf file of whole report (19MB) from Sendspace
• Download small pdf file size of whole report (1.14MB) from this site

Just the case studies sections

• Download modestly big case studies section (ingredients and stories) (5.53 MB) from Sendspace
• Download the smaller file size case studies section (ingredients and stories) (0.5MB) from this site

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!

The launch event for Media Sandbox 2009 included an exercise we called ‘Golden rules‘ which is now providing me with invaluable salient wisdom and advice as I put the Transition Towns web platform together. Here’s one of them:

One of the golden rules for platform development which is now very significant to me

To round off this year’s work, they are holding a showcase, and they’ve published a lovely book about it all too, which is beautiful and inspiring. I’ll be going along for sure.

If you fancy going along, check the events page on the Media Sandbox website.

In the meantime, here’s the blurb:

Media Sandbox Showcase & Publication Launch
Tuesday 20th October 2009 | 16:00hrs | Cinema 1 | Watershed, Bristol

The creative media industries are going through a period of rapid change. The uncertain economic environment has made it harder to find the time and space to dedicate to nurturing new ideas. The Media Sandbox development scheme was set up to give new ideas a safe environment in which to grow. Sandbox made six awards earlier this year, to innovative projects researching emerging possibilities in multiplatform technologies. From HMC, Drake Music and bibic’s multi-sensory environments for children with additional learning needs to Indie Mobile’s new music focused campaign tool, all the projects respond directly to the challenges of modern society.

This event celebrates the achievements of those six commissions and will include a showcase of all six, plus open discussion addressing the challenges posed by multiplatform technologies. The event will also coincide with a launch of a new publication that celebrates two successful years of the Media Sandbox scheme and an exciting announcement about next years’ scheme.

16:00hrs:
Project presentations and panel discussions with Nicole Yershon, Director of Innovative Solutions at Ogilvy; Richard Hull, Researcher in Pervasive Technologies at HP Labs; Mark Leaver, Director of Development at South West Screen; and Clare Reddington, Director of iShed.

18:00hrs:
Evening Reception including informal demos of this years’ projects and the launch of the Media Sandbox Publication. Drinks and light bites will be served.

If you would like to attend, please check the events page on the Media Sandbox website, or call Watershed Box Office directly on +44 (0)117 927 5100.

Bioblitz is a new model; think: nature watch meets science engagement meets family fun and geeky naturalist kind of affair:

The BioBlitz is a 30-hour race again the clock event where scientists, naturalists, students, members of public, schools and community groups work together to find and identify as much wildlife as possible in the Ashton Court Estate. (About page)

The technologies were deployed in order to extend the reach of the engagement exercise across the web, explore how to use different media for this new model, offer visitors more opportunities for interaction, and a quick updating mechanism.

The blog was a great success while the flickr group attracted some great photos.

(screengrab of free WordPress Bristo Bioblitz Blog)

Setting up the blog and flickr stuff took only a few moments and the only cost was getting a flickr pro account. Asides to that, all I did was lead an informal training session in the Pervasive Media Studio for all the voluntary editors and add everyone to the blog.

We discussed the technical stuff (step by step posting, pages, tags, photo and video embedding walkthrough), some facilitation stuff (approve all comments, especially the negative ones, apart from nonsense or abuse), and I expect I shared some of my fine blunders using Social Media in the past (of which there are many).

The reporters grasped the blogging stuff immediately; I learnt later that no-one had a single problem with the admin; it was that easy.

Paul Appleby, ex-BBC and Bristol Media chap, co-ordinated the reporting schedule (made up entirely of volunteers), lead the editorial decision-making, and onsite reporting. The goal was to have regular coverage of the activity as it unfolded, a regular ‘tally‘ of species found, some interest stories etc. He did an excellent job of providing a robust and professional editorial framework.

(Bristol Bioblitz media team hard at work: Thanks Flickr)

The thing that stood out to me; and reminds me of one of the mantras that I repeat to anyone who will listen is that:

“… you can have all the tools and gadgets you like, more social media than you can shake a stick at, and it isn’t worth a fig unless it is being wielded effectively and suitably by people who care and have passion” (Ed, 2009)

The reporting team were absolutely excellent.

Sat in a marquee in Ashton Court, they found and reported on stories, kept a tally, reported on the people involved with the event, shot and edited video, shared hundreds of photos, wrote beautifully and funnily, engagingly, slightly geekily and humanly, and generally shared the essence of the event with much aplomb.

I was deeply impressed – exceptional quality indeed.

Proof that the secret is in the content. And that can only come from passion.

Good work all!

(The bat survey going out; wish I had been there: Thanks Flickr)

Some of my favourite posts:

• Macro montage
• Fun-guys
• Ever thought how amazing trees are?
• On the Orchid trail
• Serotine Bats

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

Do you or your organization have a question about how to use digital communication technologies that you would like a room full of experts to workshop for free?

Are there people you feel you could engage with in new ways with these new technologies? A campaign you want to support? A service you wish to provide? An idea you can envisage? A change you want to encourage?

On December 15th, iShed is launching Media Sandbox 2009, its second R&D commissioning scheme supporting research into emerging technologies. As last year, I am designing and facilitating the events and mentoring the virtual facilitation.

Media Sandbox is:

“…a development scheme which offers a ‘safe space’ for collaboration between creative talent, technology companies and content commissioners. It is an entirely unique opportunity for creatives from the South West of England to collaboratively create radical new products and processes – pushing forward understanding and potential usage of  interactive digital media…”

We will have a room full of experienced programmers, designers, academics, project and business managers, artists, writers, innovation people, gamers and other digital media types.

(Media Sandbox 2008 workshop action, CC: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mediasandbox/)

We need some real issues to work on and want to apply ourselves to regional questions. That’s where you come in.

Can you think of something you would like to be ‘workshop-ed’ on December 15th? For free?

Maybe it could become a commissioned project (receiving £8,000 budget and more).

A couple of (very high level) examples:

1. How can we design a campaign to engage our target demographic with our message in an innovative way?
2. Our association needs to reach out to a wider group using a mix of technologies. What’s the best way to do it?

We are collecting questions from as wide a range of organisations as possible on our online network in advance of the event. Attendees will be able to see the questions and who they are from and will decide which ones to workshop on the day. We can’t promise your question will be chosen, but it’s worth a try. You can always turn your question into a proposal for the scheme afterwards.

You are welcome to pose a question to the group whether you come to the launch event or not – naturally you are welcome to come to the event, but we understand if you don’t have time (the event is between 2pm and 6pm on December 15th).

To pose a question for the group to work on:

1. Sign up to the Media Sandbox event network
2. Fill in your profile information – the more the better – it will help provide context for your question
3. Post a message to the group by clicking on ‘Messages’
4. Click on ‘Compose’
5. Type ‘question’ into the ‘To’ field
6. Add the question title in the ‘Subject’ field
7. Add your question in the ‘Message’ field. Please provide as much background as suitable, a clear question and desirable outcomes.

Those links again:

• Media Sandbox event network (for questions and networking)
• Media Sandbox formal registration page (for coming to the event in person)
• More information about Media Sandbox 2009 (about the scheme, proposals, etc.)

It covers all of our strategic planning, the tools we used, activities we pursued (and chose not to pursue), the lessons we learnt and the metrics we measured by. And there are some handy diagrams.

Download the full report here:
Which Widget for What? Media Sandbox 2008 Report

Here’s the intro:

“…Much has been made of the potential of web 2.0 or social media technologies to harness knowledge and network distributed communities, but how easy is it for organisations to effectively use these widgets and websites?

In November 2007, as part of the Media Sandbox commissioning scheme,  iShed set out to explore how organisations could integrate and deploy digital technologies and new facilitation methods to support collaborative research and build a Community Of Interest around a research topic…”

We set out on this trip with a mutual agreement to share our findings with others interested in the suitable application of all this web2.0 stuff in an organisation. I am proud that we got there and are publishing it.

Many thanks to Clare Reddington of iShed for being a pro-active, approriately daring, and wise collaborator.

If you have any questions, do not hesitate get in touch. The only constant is change and the learning never stops.

Download the full report here:
Which Widget for What? Media Sandbox 2008 Report

Other reports from this project:

• Launch event report
• Early case study
• Final event report

I am suddenly inspired to write this up after enjoying Ron Donaldson‘s excellent ecological explanation of web2 and Dominic Campbell‘s admirable work for Barnet Council at Unicom’s social tools conference this week (great write ups of the sessions from Suw on Corante).

Three pieces came together for me at the conference today:

• Judith Lewis from iLevel said “… the internet taught me to be an extrovert…”
• Ron Donaldson said “… the early adopters patterned our direction…” (when describing how all these www2 tools have been adopted and the patterns of their use laid out)
• earlier conversations with Dominic Campbell (who told me to write this up in April) about twitter and personalities and public declarations as how we may be experiencing “declarative immaturity”

This is a piece about networking: past, present, and future.

(See the presentation on slideshare)

It’s meant to be delivered with a mix of semi-serious bafflement about these www2 tools which I use all the time (and the stupid things I have done with them) combined with moderate rage about how we are in the middle of some briliant changes but also a huge amount of hype and evangelism which can alienate the very people we want to enthuse.

Without a doubt, the comedy angle of it will be lost in my rambling verbiage write up, so remember it’s half curmudgeonly, half comedic observation. And I will go on a plain English course, soon.

The current setting is an industry with software providers and agencies primarily interested in shifting product or selling adverts on web services with some brilliant editorial and specific technical affordances designed to encourage ‘growth’.

Compering this situation are somewhat evangelist early adopters encouraging certain patterns of use that they have found suits them personally (see Crossing the Chasm for the risks of this in marketing speak).

On top of that is our great societal paradigm of ‘Growth’ (which was built on unfeasible debt, astoundingly greedy bonuses and the gradual transfer of state monies to the private sector).

On the growth theme, we’re also seeing a cultural tendency in these softwares and practices towards celebrating quantity in our lives as we count and publicly display our ‘value’ in terms of numbers of friends, comments on our blogs, size of our name in our friends’ tag clouds, recommendations on linkedin etc.

It’s like being a teenager obssessed with how many friends you have, but it all being laid open for all to see. Yes you can ignore it, but it’s tough.

I’m not saying that people don’t value their online interactions qualitatively, but too often I have seen inferences that people are better than others or more qualified for work because of how many contacts they have.

Think of the old addage ‘it’s not what you know, it’s who you know’ but on gnarly stimulants. People do this for themselves – they ‘game’ these social networks to see how many contacts they can get; groups are set up with the sole purpose of being the ‘biggest’ group.

The message is written (not so) implicitly all over the networking technology: ‘more friends is better’.

Dunbar’s theory on the practicalities of this aside, this all makes me feel rather uncomfortable and un-loved (ah poor me) when I foolishly compare myself to others. For some time I thought it was just me being so neurotic in a curmudgeonly response to fads, but further to sharing these feelings it seems others feel the same way.

In parallel to this, we are learning what is public, private, personal and political, and what to say in public with our social tools.

I have made some amazingly stupid (but harmless) blunders on almost every social tool; but it’s a new world and thus it’s OK to do stupid things as long as we learn from them. The boundaries between these four are blurring rapidly and different people’s ethics come into play.

(See the presentation on slideshare)

For example, an indignant and possibly righteously furious ex-employee of an organisation might be tempted to tell the world how they have been badly handled; whether this is ‘professional’ or ‘public’ or not is up for debate, let alone the discovery that the world doesn’t really like hearing this sort of thing; it discomforts people to hear of others misfortune and, frankly they would rather not know. Either way, airing your wounded pride may not necessarily be the best thing.

I am well aware that I could simply not use all this groovy new social networking stuff (as I have been told when I am also being called a neurotic curmudgeon), but I like it and I range from helpless declarer of things or total recluse.

If ‘networking is the future’, along with transparency and open-ness as we are repeatedly told, then more ‘quality’ needs to go into the design of the products and the messages sent out by early adopters.

We are also in the middle of a huge wave of new bottom-up, open, cheap, inclusive, participatory, engaging conferences, driven by the people for the people.

I’m a big fan of them. I design and run them. I’m one of the early adopter evangelist types in this instance (my blended facilitation work uses online social networking before and after the conference too), dragging people out from the quiet corners, forcing them to collaborate, waving my horn around.

Although I keenly try not terrorise the shy people, and try to include interventions that benefit all types of person. Ahem.

(See the presentation on slideshare)

Likewise, network and community facilitators may make efforts to ensure that the ‘power laws of personality’ (whereby popular confident people get more popular and thus are identified as more important etc.) are handled sensitively in order to help groups achieve their goals by including everyone’s offerings. A similar subject is seen at a recent debate around Open Space facilitation for example.

In the land of online communities, the KPIs are still focused largely on numbers of people, numbers of comments, ratio of readers to commenters etc. In the ‘knowledge’ world, assessing ‘knowledge’ transfer or transformation still eludes beleaguered knowledge management professionals, so the temptation is to place value on quantity (docs, contacts etc.). Hmm…

People who don’t make endless comments in online communities are called ‘lurkers’, and community managers are told to drag them out into the open and ‘convert’ them – success being seen as them making comments, which can be counted and presented in a fancy report to management.

It’s wrapped up in nice talk about engagement, but if not handled sensitively, rather whiffs of centralised community dictatorship. I’ve been there and know that when you obssess over this as the facilitator, you make a rod for your own back when you have other routes to ‘success’.

For example, when we decided to publish the first community book on KnowledgeBoard, we found that many of the people who stepped forward to voluntarily write whole chapters (not ‘metoo’ comments in a forum or empty nice comments to blogs) had not made any comments onsite ever – it just wasn’t their thing.

Who are we to (albeit non-directly) tell people to behave in a way that suits us?

(See the presentation on slideshare)

We are in a time when it is considered very important to behave in a highly extroverted manner with a public display of how many people we know.

What about the shy people? Those less confident than the highly literate www2-ers? They who aren’t attracted to shiney new gadgets? Those who just don’t get ‘technology’. How about the busy people? Those who feel uncomfortable in big groups? People with no small talk?

It breaks my heart that people using social networking technology can be made to ‘feel small’ by a friend of theirs’ tag cloud (and before you snort derisively, they do). That is not good design; that is blunt and myopic. And the business logic behind it? If you convince people they have to make more friends, they will see more pages, which means more advertising.

Do we all have to learn to be extroverted? That would be a new tyranny – the tyranny of ‘social’.

I referred to the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) to express the point about how we are all different. I know it attracts disparate opinions but dont’ get hung up on it.

(See the presentation on slideshare)

My point being that networks, communities, events, pubs, offices, squats etc. are composed of people who are different. Being that they are different, I bet that they would want different approaches to their social interactions, not this new tyranny.

Odds on, some of them won’t be good at having millions of friends, and might prefer to have deeper relationships with fewer people. Yes, they can still use the technology, but all the messages in and around it are implicitly discouraging this, which makes them feel bad.

Now if you don’t mind, I’m off to feed the cats and worry that I’m publicly declaring nonsense…

So – some ideas about the future of networking:

• People will tire of the relentless networking ‘growth’ paradigm just as most bloggers eventually tire of relentless blogging (links from one google search ‘taking a break from blogging), and others learn to turn their mobile phones off
• We’ll start seeing the networkers being network-ed out and taking a break and telling us how great occasional solitude is.
• The software providers will adjust their packages’ design to afford deeper relationships between users
• ‘Networking’ will move from ‘growth’ to take more purposeful ‘knowledge-y’ stuff into account, and services like twine will focus on groups congregating around activities and objects rather than random chat and endless expansion, while other services like the Cynefin software will finally bring qualitative analysis to the fore
• ‘Unconferences‘ will increasingly focus on specific issues and become more ‘constructivist‘
• Community and network facilitators will learn to know their members better and focus on network optimisation based on qualitative interaction analysis rather than ‘number of members’
• ‘Engagement planning’ will consider people in their context long before processes and technology appear on the agenda
• Those who say that ‘Community’ has gone from being local to being interest-based and global will find that the ‘local’never went away, it just didn’t need any sell-able technology (beyond door knockers on your neighbours’ doors)

From August 2006 to July 2007 I worked with CILIP‘s Department of Knowledge and Information to help them prepare for, establish and nurture their online membership communities. It was a wonderful experience; we all worked hard breaking new boundaries, and we all learnt a huge amount about all sorts of things one encounters while getting online communities up and running in a membership association.

I remain very proud of the job and am a great admirer of the communities team who pulled together magnificently in the face of a brand new challenge.

At the end of the project, we had a ‘lessons learnt’ session in order to capture as many of the findings we found as possible. I am pleased to say that the resultant document is now available to all for downloading and reading.

Download the document here (approx 61k, MS Word document)

The document is structured chronologically – into findings from the pre-pilot, kick-off, pilot, live, and evaluation phases. It ranges from organisational findings in a membership association context to technical findings while using Community Server (with very few adapations, and then in it’s early days). It’s the bare bones of our honest and open analysis of the situation and we all hope that it can help others in a similar situation, providing guidance, learnings, wheel non-re-invention, and whatnot.

Download the document here (approx 61k, MS Word document)

Other CILIP related learning materials on this site:

• Membership engagement story (presentation for Online Information)
• Membership communities story (Social tools conference presentation)

Enormous thanks to the CILIP communities team for agreeing to sharing their learnings.

All too often we chose not to share the ups and downs of our work, preferring instead to keep quiet about stuff in the name of ‘private-ness’ or ‘professional-ness’ or whatnot. But how can we all learn together if we don’t offer eachother the fruits of our experiences? So well done to CILIP I say.

My main point of contact was Lyndsay Rees-Jones (Senior Advisor, Membership Support Unit), who was working closely with Patricia McHugo (Web Officer), Stephanie Baxter (Web Editor), Alan Cooper (Web Manager), Hilary Morris (Deputy Information Manager), Kari Channell (Head of Corporate Marketing and Membership), and Mark Taylor (Marketing Executive), who were all admirably managed by Jill Martin (Head of Knowledge). The technology (Community Server) was provided by cSCape and I was subcontracted to do the consultancy work by Sift.

Our local pub, The Cadbury, is something of an institution in Bristol. It is raucous, bawdy and fun, has good ales, a great garden, and attracts plenty of controversy. There is a cigarette lighter on the wall that apparently dispenses cigarette lighters, but not according to a local who stuck the following on it:

So you’re the new landlord, Wayne. Do you:

• Remove the sign in a huff and admonish the complainant?
• Check the machine and sort it out?
• Ignore it or laugh at it?
• Poll the locals to see if they actually want it?
• Something else

This made me think of a few questions around supporting or launching virtual communities, the relationship between community members, facilitators, and the tools they are given to do their thing, and issues around the ownership of space:

• If the members don’t like a tool, do you keep it?
• If a tool doesn’t work, who is responsible for deciding whether to keep it or not?
• If members want different tools, how do you extract this information and sort it out?
• Do the members have the tools they actuall want and need, or are they the tools you installed as part of a platform?
• If the members make their opinions felt in a manner that isn’t strictly ‘polite’, how do you respond?
• If the members don’t like some activity or tool, but the group sponsor needs it, what do you do to resolve the difference?

Like I say, only questions; revolving around technology stewardship, online facilitation, and that all important balance of power in shared group spaces.