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

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.

Here’s the blurb:

Bristol’s latest Skillswap considering the ins and outs of user experience, usability and accessibility.

Welcomed guest speakers to frame the subject on the night are:

Patrick Lauke
James Box
Joe Leech

Following their three position pieces, our very own venerable Skillswap members (that’s you by the way) will be discussing, sharing, learning, debating, drinking and more in another rollicking Bristol styled networked DIY learning session.

Register to attend on the event page here

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.

It was great as I got to talk about sport stuff, and communities, and virtual tools, and facilitation – almost a perfect triangle for me.

Watch the presentation here

The aim was to show how virtual technologies can support actual existing real communities (as opposed to building them online) in different ways, in order to give Sport England and the other people there an idea of the range of options ahead of them as they roll onward into the social media world.

I identified and discussed one very real community I know and love (Bristol Climbing Centre), and had a look at all the disparate communications/collaboration tools we use to co-ordinate ourselves, then considered the new activmob model (currently in pilot down in Kent) as a contrast, and drew a few benefits/key points out of the comparison.

Watch the presentation here

Digital networks and computer systems remain obscure to most people until something goes wrong. What if everyone had a role in designing them and deciding how society used its digital technologies? This one-day workshop shares methods taken from performance and drama developed to engage people in thinking about technology and what they want from the designers of the systems that will surround us in The Not Quite Yet.
Link to event page

… And please tell me all about it.

This ties in with a long held passion of mine which is that we still don’t understand enough about what we mean when we start designing systems, and we aren’t involving the right people in the design process, or dropping them into unsuitable spaces and expecting them to behave. And when we wave the word ‘engagement’ around, it’s getting serious. And when we try to facilitate people in unsuitable spaces, of course it leads to issues…

We have inherited ‘social’ software from a history of people who tell us it is ‘social’ so there (at least it’s not big centralised enterprise systems, or heavily monitored communities we are told), but is it really that ‘social’? What does it mean? For whom? For what purpose?
Aren’t we now just throwing all the new widgets at a social requirement and hoping some of them stick? Shouldn’t we be understanding the requirements much more fully?

Are we sure that we aren’t still stuffing humans into communication technology frameworks from the top down that don’t give them what they need or want? Even if we adopt agile, get busy with UCD, drum up many use cases, throw personas around like billy-ho, watch punters through one way mirrors, and whatever new process is going, isn’t that still a bit abstract and top down?

It still doesn’t sound democratic and co-design to me. Still sounds like people being given stuff and told to use it – not necessarily for their benefit.
Where are the people in this process?

How can we connect with them in order to explain to them the implications of their decisions?

The gap remains and I think this workshop is part of the facilitation meets strategy puzzle.

Other people thinking about this include David Wilcox who has an excellent series of workshops designed to flatten the power laws of supplier-punter by cascading the right questions at the right times, and Nancy White with the Technology Steward idea, which takes online facilitation into this realm, and I’m sure others (hello!).

I’m working with Dan Dixon on a workshop applying Pattern Design principles to a new system before we even use the ‘community’ word, which we will be writing about in due course…

Umm. Yes, well. Err. There you go. Soap box moment over. Go to the workshop, and let me know.

1. A local technical outfit recently changed strategic direction after a couple of years’ work building a software product. Naturally the change is somewhat disruptive to the technical team, so I suggested to the team leader that he do a little lessons learnt type session with the team to get their responses out as a group, and to learn some lessons for the future as a group for them as individuals, instead of getting down to some predictable sadness and pointless moaning that can all too easily occur when ‘organisational change’ happens.

He did a grand job, using De Bono’s hats method and I am very proud that he did it, and that they all enjoyed it so much. He said it was easy to do, fun to partake in, and productive for everyone.

The thing he found the weirdest about ‘being a facilitator’ was that he was part of the system and had things to say too, and he knew that was OK, but he still felt weird adding things to the process. So he was ‘hosting’ in Chris words. And it was fine.

2. Chris’ points about hosting, systems and communities as vectors I totally agree with:

Hosting is leading from the field, and it is a very different path from “facilitation” and it operates out of a very different worldview about the kinds of systems in which we live. Anyone can do it, and in fact it works better when there is more “hosting consciousness” in a group. That way the power of a traditional facilitator is not needed, and the group’s capacity to take itself to the next level is increased.

Couldn’t agree more. When I started as an ‘online community manager’ it was seen as an external agent who ‘moderated’ ‘facilitated’ ‘re-purposed content’ etc. for a ‘thing’ that existed largely in isolation to its relations around it. Now I insist that I work with clients who take their own communities onboard themselves, build clear relations with HQ, the membership etc. and work with people within the community system to enrich it because I don’t believe that me being an external agent works for the system. We will work hand-in-hand, but it’s theirs. Only by being this way can the community come close to self-realisation. Lyndsay Rees-Jones and I are outlining how we tried to do this for The CILIP communities at our slot at Online Information soon.

And back to Chris:

Hosting from within the field however is more aligned with the nature of complex systems, where there are no answers, but instead only choices to make around the next question, and the paths where those questions lead us. There are no end states. The idea of a healthy community is a vector, not a point. It is a direction to move, not something that can be acheived and then crossed off the list.

Oh gosh yes, yes, yes. I have seen people use a gardening metaphor to explain online communities to people wanting to understand them more, and it’s OK. But I think a climbing metaphor is far more powerful for the reasons Chris outlines above.

We are not in control, we can’t predict the future, and by creating ambitious community development plans, we risk that old project manager hell of spending more time updating Microsoft Project than surfing the potential of the group.

Also, all of this reminds me a lot of the work Nancy White, John Smith and Etienne Wenger are putting into the concept of a Technology Steward, upon which I draw much inspiration for assisting groups of people define their needs at different times in their community’s lifecycle.

Good work all!