LinkedIn

I've long had a LinkedIn account that I've been idle with. I would accept requests to the dormant account, but wouldn't invite anyone. Until now.

Recently I've determined that the power of networks would be a useful resource in advancing some personal goals. I've requested that a few contacts join my network, and even requested a referral from some close colleagues and clients. I like the results. I'm confident showing people my LinkedIn profile as an alternative to a bio of any kind. It doesn't only speak to work history or interests, it speaks to an individual's living network.

Scott Allen wrote that "LinkedIn was designed to be more of an extended Rolodex than a virtual cocktail party. LinkedIn's core value proposition enables significant improvements in efficiency for search/discovery within your extended network". I've done the cocktail party thing with facebook and others. Used for its purpose - which I now have a need for - LinkedIn is a good tool. Some other business networking applications it's being used for:

• Prospecting/researching possible customers
• Prospecting/researching key people in organizations (often potential customer's organizations)
• Keeping information accurate, almost like a customer managed CRM
• Softening territory to do cold calls. I.e. "you know _________ from my network, we should chat"

With the endless professional and personal networks out there, how can one manage their contacts? I've recently been exposed to, but never used: WeMeUs. It's another thing to have to log in to, but it might help in centralizing what you or I are using now.

Neurotechnology and Communication

Back in May of '08, I posted this blog about monkeys using their thoughts to control machines. It is based on a New York Times article. There are practical prosthetic applications, and the video is pure hilarity, but the relevance to communication and collaboration was less obvious to me at the time of writing. But in a wonderful coincidence, this article and concept have re-entered my life, and there is great clarity around how it applies to communication.

I was "Session Captain" at a few sessions in Boston recently. See the 8:45 Focus Session on Neurotechnology at this year's CIMIT Innovation Congress. Note that the presenter was none other than John Donaghue, PhD, of Brown University. Donaghue is a leading expert in brain science, and was referenced and quoted in the NYTimes article that the previous post was based upon!

In the session, Donaghue shared stories told through media and personal accounts (masterful presenter, check him out if you have the chance and take note of his style) how minuscule brain implants can interpret signals from brain cells that are indicating to limbs - whether or not they even exist or function - how they should operate. These same implants can take that information and instruct prosthetics or say, a cursor on a computer screen, to move in a certain manner. We watched a video of a man with no control of his limbs control a cursor to draw a circle on a screen, directed only by thought. It was pretty unsuccessful his first try, but he was able to clear his screen and by the third attempt he had produced what you would recognize as a circle. Incredible.

Don't worry, I'm getting to the communication piece...

Also on the panel was epileptologist Dr. Anthony L Ritaccio from Albany Medical College. Instead of using invasive chips, Dr. Ritaccio is monitoring brain waves (see relevant posts here) to try and predict the onset of seizures. This is leading edge research, but another thing he said that stuck with me was how this kind of technology can one day do more than replace motor skills and forecast seizures. It can change the way our race communicates.

Since the early days of the homo sapien, we as a species have communicated syntactically. The way we communicate has not changed much since we were cavemen. We use symbols and noises. That could all change though. Advances in neurotechnology could see us mastering semantic communication in the future, sharing concepts with one another without common language or background. The possibilities for collaboration are limitless if/when this is achieved. I hope I live to see (or see? or think? or feel?) it.

Also of interest, all of the experts in these panels cited the multidisciplinary nature of the collaborations taht will need to take place to advance this field as perhaps the greatest challenge. Great recognition for a sometimes underappreciated problem.

Innovation Congress

I'm here in Boston at the CIMIT Innovation Congress. What an incredible study in healthcare, innovation, and convening this has been. With years of practice and success in their CIMIT Forum, the CIMIT team has become expert at connecting people - which in turn connect ideas, research, capital, etc, etc - to the benefit of health. Not just locally around Massachusetts General Hospital, but improving patient care around the world by putting the right people in the right environments and nurturing the conditions that stimulate connection and innovation.

I will post about some particular focus sessions and elements of this conference over the coming days. Be sure to check back, because this was an incredible experience with many great speakers bringing action to he purpose and structure provided them.

For now, I just want to comment on the conditions a bit. Like many conferences, the Innovation Congress shoulders focus sessions, idea exchanges and other breakout formats appropriate to different objectives with plenary keynote speakers. Creating a conference following this formula isn't a guarantee for success, although it's the formula that people (especially this clinical and academic audience) expect. CIMIT knows this, and has put great consideration into the meeting design.

For example, they don't give speakers a time limit and topic. They give them these things, as well as some guidance and requests. Much like the TED rules, they have philosophies that hope speakers can consider. Story sharing and interactivity are central. The moderators they enlist are elite in their field of expertise, but they are coached and encouraged to create a dialogue instead of a download. The results are amazing. This thoughtfulness and engaging faculty in advance makes for an entirely different, and in my opinion superior, meeting experience.

I had tried to offer some visual component to provide some frame of reference, but my damn webcam isn't capturing video! I'll see if I can link to CIMIT's blog if they post something.

Multiple Intelligences

Howard Gardner wrote his famous book "Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences" in 1983. The theory is generally well respected and accepted. As a matter of fact, most American universities have first year students study the different styles. A part of the curriculum is typically to have students practice study techniques that are best suited to their intelligence. For example, a Verbal/Linguistic student is advised to create flashcards about what they are learning. Or a Musical student is advised to tap to a beat while studying. An Interpersonal student might share what they are learning with someone else, etc.

Following a brief reading and paper to develop this personal "mastery", it's commonplace for students to consider how different intelligences among their classmates will affect the way they work together. Again, this is usually a bit of reading, perhaps a pocket of a lecture, and a brief paper.

Why is it that this theory is often lost in adult learning initiatives? Not only are professionals not often asked to be mindful of multiple intelligences, but I've seen enough learning and development programs to know that only a few great ones pay any heed to the various styles that make up a group of learners. I think the key piece is the awareness. How could learners benefit from each other if just given a bit of background around how their colleagues learn?

Has this theory become replaced by other interpersonal typing methodologies? Does an assessment that gauges how people receive and provide information, or conduct themselves in a group provide enough personal insight and understanding of others to make Multiple Intelligences obsolete? Here are a few typing methodologies that would be seen in professional development and adult learning more regularly that are designed to help people understand communication styles, preferences, etc:

• Myers Briggs
• Human Dynamics
• Strength Deployment Inventory
• i-speak
• True Colours
• Dennison Culture Survey
• Team Management Systems
• Personality Dimensions
• DISC

And there are several others. Many share the same trade-off that they are too difficult or time consuming for a significant number of people on a team to realistically learn, or they are niche or narrowly focused and only provide limited insight. As with anything, experimenting with a few varieties and starting simple is a low risk way to learn what you like.

The YouTube Phenomenon

The stats around YouTube are well documented and very relevant to markets, media, etc. Have a gander at this anthropological look at what YouTube has done and is doing, though. It's fascinating subject matter, and a great lesson in using media in presentations.

It's interesting to think about how YouTube or a similar concept could be used in support of collaborations. I'm facilitating a meeting soon where all participants have made a case for why their department should be entitled to certain resources in advance of the meeting. I'd way rather see the videos than read these documents, and I'm sure the rest of the group would too.

More aligned with this lecture would be a way to share profiles and connect people before a meeting. I can't see too many people biting on this idea, but I'm sure there's a group out there that's willing to expose themselves a la YouTube to accelerate a tight group dynamic in a meeting.

Text Polling

I've discovered and am quickly falling in love with a cool tool called Poll Everywhere. It allows for people to respond to questions using narrative, by using the tools that they almost certainly have on hand anyway.

You just create a poll online by typing in a question, and then project that question on the screen. The audience simply sends an SMS with the text "Cast (and your keyword)" plus their questions, suggestions, responses or input, to a constant number.

There is little one can do to synthesize the information once received, but it does create reports in Excel, and it's free or virtually free for an upgrade. There are more robust polling options, but they usually require specialized devices. This requires an internet connection, and wireless devices that are present in every meeting room, for better or for worse.

The advantage is that people can provide anonymous feedback in the moment. It can also help presenters to steer presentations in the direction that that is required of the audience. There are also multiple choice polling options.

The danger of course, is encouraging people to interact with a device that usually signifies a dying meeting or disengagement.

Some Cool, Useful, and FREE Tools

There is such a wealth of open source software and applications out there. Finding it can be difficult though. I try and stay abreast of the collaborative tools, but it's nearly impossible. I focus my searches to the simplest of the many options. I like toys where I can just pick up and play; no instruction reading required.

A simple collaborative software that's free to users and gaining more users all the time Google Docs. How it can be used to collaborate is limited, but it's a great place to start. It's a basic word processor, and multiple people can access documents if given permission.

Now there may be a superior set of tools out there under one umbrella, called Zoho. Zoho has a word processor to match Google's, but it also has a presentation (read: PowerPoint) utility, spreadsheets, wikis, planners, chatting tools, etc, all free. There's also some business applications, like webconferencing and databases. If not for free, then at least some free trials.

Check these out and give me some feedback.

Positive Deviance

I had the opportunity to meet with Keith McCandless this week. Keith is a master facilitator and practices a wide variety of approaches and methodologies, most of which he would call "liberating structures". One such structure is positive deviance.


Positive deviance is when a person or group of people learns from another person or group of people in the same conditions how to measurably improve their results towards a given challenge. There are some great examples of positive deviance leading to huge improvements in healthcare safety initiatives with lives lost as a measure, or improved nourishment within test villages in malnourished nations with child weight as a measure.

I had to ask Keith what the difference between positive deviance and best practices is. The difference, as I gather, is that best practices don't work. Best practices are commonly shared across organizations, across roles, and across other differences. Ignoring these differences is ignoring reality. Positive deviance focuses on people, communities or organizations with the same circumstances, and the exceptional model does not have resources or circumstances unavailable to the other parties.

I hope to elaborate as we continue to work with Keith in the coming months. In the meantime, are there any great positive deviance stories out there?

Arrow's Theorem and Group Decisions

Way back in 1951, Kenneth Arrow wrote a book called Social Choice and Individual values, in which he introduced Arrow's Paradox (aka Arrow's Possibility theorem, aka Arrow's Impossibility theorem). Slightly less back in 1972, Arrow won the Nobel Prize in Economics for his work.

To oversimplify and ignorantly sum up, democratic voting doesn't work when weighing subjects against various criteria. (Blogger's note: No pretenses; I'm not capable of understanding, let alone explaining this equation with any sensibility. Check out the link for that. I'm just running with my blanket statement, and what to do with that conclusion).

If alternative analysis can't be trusted, then how can the input of multiple people help get to a decision? One thought would be to use the results of a vote to surface opinions, and use these as a springboard for more focused discussion. This isn't a silver bullet. But, will there ever be? Will algorithms ever take insights and transform them into optimal decisions? Services like Expert Choice are apparently making strides. There may be solutions on the horizon, but engaging people in discussion surrounding voting inputs also produces new insights and further benefits.

To be fair, there's always a risk in opening up results to discussion, of course.

Rise of the Numerati

Interesting book with some potentially useful and some terrifying implications. The Numerati by Stephen Baker shows how human behaviour is becoming more and more quantifiable. With so much of our activity recorded as transactions, searches, navigation, etc on this interweb that everyone's talking about, it's easy to be monitored in great depth.

BusinessWeek has a an interview with the author, and their coverage of the book focuses on what could be a dangerously unethical side of this phenomenon. The article begins by saying that a very significant corporation will use mathematical models to "automate management". Automate management!? What kind of intrusiveness will the employees be subject to? And how can a complex organism be managed on the basis of complicated algorithms?

I have my reservations and even objections, but it will be interesting to see what we can learn and what we can predict based on tangible data. Done with moral consciousness, great things will surely come.

Also in this thread is Super Crunchers. It describes how people can and should leverage math. I prefer that to a description of how big brother can leverage math to commodotize tacit human knowledge.

Six... No! THREE Degrees of Separation

Milgram told us in the '60's that everybody was connected to everybody through 6 degrees of separation. We could count the world among those associate to us by no more than 6 associations. Of course, my generation didn't learn about the principle through Milgram, but through the more fun and infinitely more relevant Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon*.

Now French communications provider O2 tells us differently. With the proliferation of social networking and related technologies, the 6 degrees of separation is now 3. The study shows that we are each a part of 3 major networks:

1. Family


2. Friends


3. Work

We also fit into 5 interest network subsets that connect us, broadly defined as:

1. Personal interests (hobbies, sports, music)


2. Where we live


3. Religion


4. Sexuality (I hope there's no overlap with the family network here!)


5. Politics

An interesting find from the study is that although many people have more connections, 97% of respondents said they have stronger connections now than 10-20 years ago. Could it be that the tools that broaden our networks also deepen our connections? That would be a very compelling reason to incorporate more social networking technologies and platforms into work and into meetings.

Somewhat unrelated, but check out this job hunting approach to leveraging the 3 degrees principle. What other ways are there to apply this finding and work the networks?

*Follow this link if you do nothing else productive today!

Working the Tags

I appreciate all of the comments I get, but have to remark on an interesting trend I've noticed in some over the last month. Click on any of the below to see the relevant posting, for which the comments will be listed below.

1. Glance - In a posting about webconferencing options, a representative from an organization called Glance offered the comment that their solution is one more alternative, and offered me an extended free trial to one year. I am taking advantage of the trial now. Clearly there's an expectation that I react to the product in this arena. I'll report if I use it for anything groundbreaking. For now, I will neutrally say that it is definitely easy to use. For pure screen sharing, it does the job very well and with no hassle to participants at all.


2. Dan Pink - Talking about fundamental decisions, I commented on Johnny Bunko. Author of the book, Dan Pink, actually offered a comment. Kind of trivial in that it thanked and acknowledged, but didn't offer much insight to speak of besides a correction of the terminology (I'd used "fundamental maneuvres", he uses "fundamental reasons". Worth noting the difference here)


3. Wired - After the Crowdsourcing post about the Jeff Howe podcast, WIRED staffer Jim commented that I should check out a link to an interview he had done with how. I will of course check it out, and I will of course blog about it.

It's clear that these people are searching and reacting to relevant tags (see below this posting for an example of those). This can help people identify relevance and seek communication and even marketing opportunities amongst the infinite number of blogs out there. In this we see the real web characteristic of blogging.

How can you or your organization seek an audience or develop influence using tags as a tool?

Crowdsourcing

Check out this video/podcast from Wired Magazine's Jeff Howe, who also happened to author the book "Crowdsourcing".

http://www.wired.com/wiredsmallbizprogram/video.html?section=1&vid_index=1&autoplay=1

Not surprisingly, the theme is crowdsourcing. Not only is the notion of outsourcing work that was formerly done by a salaried employee to the masses relevant to any business, but it's also relevant to the meeting designer.

How can aspects of meeting design be crowdsourced? And when is it appropriate to dedicate a problem to a meeting, and when instead should the problem become a crowdsourcing opportunity (i.e. using your own crowd, or the faceless virtual "crowd")?

Also note the interesting presentation components that make this more than a talking head. Pics and video in sync with words, dealing with literal examples and metaphor. Good stuff.

"Business" Plan for Life

If you haven't read Johnny Bunko yet, then take the 20 minutes and read it. The first thing you might notice about the book is that it's done in manga format. The medium shouldn't (and for me doesn't) dominate the message, though. What sticks with me from this book is the call to action. The call for individuals to assess their approach to a career and make changes if necessary.

In his story, Dan Pink distinguishes between fundamental and instrumental manoeuvres. Overplanning and overcommitting to very distinct directions (instrumental manoeuvres) can be limiting. Making good decisions that can open up new doors (fundamental manoeuvres) are all up-side.

In an effort to make some quality fundamental decisions, at the suggestion of a mentor I went ahead and created a life plan for myself in the format of a business plan. In an exercise like this of course, the "plan" is worthless by the time you've finished typing. The purpose isn't to create an instrumental plan. The idea is to list some of your areas for growth that you can match your strengths to, and to decide on some actions that will point you in the right direction. Don't be afraid to acknowledge areas that you're not too good at. It's a great introspective and iterative process.

To get very personal, I'll share some of my directions shortly. Stay tuned.

Further Paradox

I posted the Abele article with some commentary about the Collaboration Paradox some time ago, found here. I read something from Graham Douglas recently that looks at another paradox, or contributor to the same paradox. It is from his new Integrative Thinking Module.

Douglas spoke of the Will to Power and Will to Dependence (note: this link is to dependent personality disorder, which may be an extreme of the universal affinity) as conflicting innate social programming. You can look up his works for more, but my interpretation is below.

Our wills to power, excellence and animalism drives us to be independently successful, leaders of the pack. But because we are social animals, we also have this will to dependence, and the yearning to be a part of a family, team, or tribe.

How can we balance our wills to effectively collaborate with those experiencing the same internal conflict? If one individual with a strong will to power is in a position of power - which logically, they would instinctively gravitate towards - then how is that person challenged without making them with their programming feel that they are not threatened? How can that person or leader ensure that their team is candid and challenges them, when they may tend to see that person as the alpha personality that has a monopoly on excellence or answers?

Webconferencing Options

The webconference is being touted as the answer to meeting in a carbon-emissions-conscious and gasoline price terrified society. There are a million options out there. Which one is the best?

Impossible question to answer. It depends so heavily on what your requirements are. What are you hoping to achieve? How much functionality do you want, and how important is simplicity or intuitive use to you?

I’d suggest starting with Skype to see what it can do for you at little or no cost, then move on from there. I've just been turned on to Dimdim. It's free for webconferences up to 20, and upgrading from there is also reasonable. My favourite part is that that it's simple and requires no downloads of administrator or participant.

Adobe Connect is a pretty complete option, and enables multiple users to edit documents shared in a “meeting room”. Sexier still would be a ProtoSphere virtual world, where work can be conducted and documents edited, but there’s the novelty of avitars, virtual spaces, and if you like; virtual 3D constructs of physical items you would like to display or manipulate with your conferees. There’s also a lot of support for Learning Management Systems. Of course, there’s also a lot of price tag associated.

A few things to consider that you may or may not be looking for when you check out these and other options:
· Ability for participants to edit documents (not just view them)
· Ability for participants to upload or share documents (not exclusively an administrator function)
· Polling function
· Chat
· Whiteboard
· Ease of connecting – do a participant need to follow a link and enter a code, or do they need to login, register, download applications, etc

In the spirit of being an honest broker, here are a few other options that I've experienced as a user or arbitrarily found in the simplest of Google searches. They range from enterprise solutions to basic user products:

• webex
• WebConCentral
• wiredred
• GoToMeeting

Human Slavery (The Arts and Change)

Having been introduced to some films, I've begun to realize how terrifically (and pleasantly) ignorant I am. I was not surprised to learn that slavery exists on this planet Earth. I was astonished to learn the magnitude of the tragedy. Please follow these links to see what the film community is working to expose:

http://callandresponse.com/
http://www.madebysurvivors.com/content/holly-film-about-human-trafficking

I'm grateful for these projects that create and enhance awareness around social issues. Done well, a film or other artistic works cannot only develop awareness, but can inspire action and trigger the connection of resources. The challenges they seek to address are also being considered as the focus of many social change meetings and conferences.

My question is, how can the meeting arena better use or nurture artistry to achieve social change? Creating visual models is one thing, but how are meetings evoking emotional responses?

FogScreen

The future is upon us! Actually, it's not that new, I first heard about FogScreen a few years ago, but now they've got something to look at. Check this out.

FogScreen, as the name implies, is a screen made out of fog. It's like any screen that images and media would be projected upon, but the light from the projector is actually reflected from minuscule droplets of water instead of a solid surface. The effect looks like a hologram. Obviously anything remotely holographesque is by it's very nature cool in that nerdy sci-fi use of the word cool.

They position the technology as a marketing display tool or nifty element for a swanky nightclub. But screens are also big in meetings. We meeting nerds also deserve access to these novelties.

Replacing a regular screen in a meeting with one of these would be sacrificing some image quality for coolness sake. Possibly worthwhile, depending on the objectives of the meeting. Spectacle can be a good icebreaker. But apparently there is greater advantage than spectacle now. Somehow (I have to assume it's magic), the FogScreen can now be used as a touch-screen. Gathering people around something similar to a hologram and having them manipulate images or documents may be a legitimate benefit over existing options because people can view it from all angles.

Fears and Anxieties

British psychologist Ernesto Spinelli was in Toronto this week, and delivered a presentation about the psychiatric malpractice of instructing patients to overcome fears and anxieties rather than deal with them. Healthzone covers here. The long and short is that patients who rid themselves of the natural anxiety they experience in certain situations are not being true to themselves and their tendencies/motivations.

What do you think? Should a shy person make efforts to become extroverted, or deal with the fact that they are innately introverted?

There is a parallel for meetings and group engagements. Should an organization or team focus more on adapting to overcome their group dynamic/interpersonal shortcomings, or should they acknowledge the shortcomings and work around them? Either way, acknowledging is a critical step. The challenge then becomes; how do you acknowledge sub-standard area without creating a bitch session?

Last question: what's the meetings equivalent of the exhilaration before confessing love (as referenced in article)? I'd submit that challenging people to address shortcomings and tackle them creates an exhilaration, and nurtures a risk-taking culture.

Sourcing the Network

A few colleagues and I have been looking at creating a social map to see the pre and post conference connections of Designing and Implementing Multidisciplinary Collaborations. The objective is to see if people were able to form new connections at the meeting, and eventually to gauge whether or not those connections resulted in collaborations.


We have gathered some very simple data, just asking people who the met that they didn't know before. But what are we to do with this data? I've downloaded a few evaluation versions of complex mapping solutions like NetMiner, but they do way more than I need them to. They are very foreign to me. So, I decided to ask the Value Networks discussion group if they were aware of any solutions an ignoramus could employ to create a visual map of the dynamic connectivity resulting from this conference.


The results were interesting. A few of the options and the kind folks who generously suggested them are below, and I suggest you check them out to see the range of functionality and usability. I haven't got enough experience to offer valid insight of any kind on these, but I hope to soon.

• OpenBeacon and SocioPatterns courtesy of Victoria Axelrod
• Pajek courtesy of Don Steiny
• ONA Survey Tool courtesy of Cory Banks
• Atlas by IBM courtesy of David Coleman
• introNetworks courtesy of Kim Patrick Kobza
• Optimice Accelerated Networking courtesy of Laurance Lock Lee

For me, the cool options are only part of what makes these responses exciting. The other part is the value of being able to access a network like this, with such a wealth of knowledge in this area. These people and several others that responded are leaders in this field, and each took the time to offer some neutral commentary on their suggestions as well as asking some important questions that perhaps I hadn't asked myself. Simple networking tools like discussion groups are such great enablers for connecting, accessing insight, and sharing.

There is a lot of value in network mapping of meetings that most of us aren't thinking enough about yet. But I think we're not even making proper use of the basics. A discussion group as a supplement to a meeting could be great, given the appropriate critical mass of contributors.

The Twitter Effect

The recent earthquake in California was made news first not by CNN or any other antiquated network of journalists. It was informal contributors on Twitter that informed big media. This is not really news. Twitter is just one of many social networks that have been hastening the mass distribution of uncensored news over the last few years.

What makes Twitter unique is that it is a "microblogging" service. It removes many of the bells and whistles that form the ecosystem of a facebook-style utility, and provide simple text messaging, either for person to person or broadcast. There is a limit of 140 characters per message, so microbloggers are handcuffed from waxing lyrical or carrying on.

As proved by MaRS and others, Twitter can be a useful addition to a conference. Having participants comment on presentations, share parallel conversations and start new ones over the Twitter network opens up many new possibilities for meaningful stimulus and exchanges.

"The Twitter Effect" that I refer to though, is the question of the social implications of a Twitter, or text messaging in general. What will become of our language if we are constantly pushing ourselves to match the 140 character restraint? Will we evolve to a more concise and superior mode of exchange? Or, will metaphor and rich thought as written word disappear? If this happens, is there a chance that our ability to communicate elaborately will erode?

Bullshit!

Thinking of meeting tools and defibrillators, my mind is occupied by what most would call a distraction, rather than a tool. Of course, I refer to that glorious composition; Bullshit Bingo.

I openly advocate for explatives in meetings, but BBingo runs deeper than the novelty and gratuitous cheap laughs. Monitoring how authentic our language is can be a valuable discipline.

I recently had my wrist slapped for saying "desired state". A staunch co-facilitator stopped me mid-sentence to remind me to call things what people recognize them as. "Desired state? Why don't you just call it what we should be doing?".

For practical application, I suggest customizing the BBingo field to include the jargon that you and your fellow delegates are most guilty of abusing in-meeting. Enjoy.

Intangibles - Means to an End, or an End? Part 2

Further to the last post, let's explore why achieving a financial target may not be an adequate end objective for an organization.

We'll start with the trend. The sexy triple bottom line; the three P's.

• People
• Planet
• Profit

Without at least feigning concern for all three of these in today's recruiting climate, there's a great risk of missing out on a good deal of the emerging talent out there. And we all know, feigning won't get anyone too far. The 3 P's (or whatever corporate branded interpretation) will have to be a part of the culture just for an organization to move towards a culture of success at all. Beyond that, even investors might begin seeing beyond one P shortly enough. It won't hurt that planet sustaining technologies are starting to support the profit P, either.

Beyond the fad of the 3 P's, there's something more fundamental. Let's distill the context down at this point from organizational to within a meeting. For an organization to reach a goal, there are three critical phases. Convergence, divergence, and re-convergence. Before a group can debate on an issue, create solutions, brainstorm, or anything; they need to agree on something. That something is usually a "unified" vision. If the "unified" vision is a financial target, then it can't be balanced and distributed. Not all parties would usually see the same reward from a given financial target. Some would see no piece of the action at all. But, if meeting participants or contributors within an organization or network see that they are a part of something that they can genuinely believe in... then you have the basis for convergence.

Establishing that common ground, or convergence, is another challenge altogether. I'll leave it here as: that common ground should be higher than money.

Intangibles - Means to an End, or an End? Part 1

Marcelo Horones posted a slideshow on slideshare called How to be billionaire in the hyperconnected world. It's customized to the web 2.0 business entrepreneur that wants to make billions, but is still worth scrolling through (don't be intimidated by the 75 slides. More than half are less than half a second). It's a great study in, among other things, creating conditions that enable collaboration and economy in a virtual environment.

Of interest is his take on intangibles, and their place within the value network of one of these billionaire producing applications. He positions the intangible "Share Something" and "Community" offering - or value delivered without expectation of currency in exchange, but rather awareness in exchange - as a means to an end. The end seems to invariably be audience, or hits. It all makes sense. Leverage intangibles in return for intangibles, and ultimately currency will result.

My only question is: can't we hope for more in our end result than the currency? Even if it is a business. Are our goals and end results still so limited. If a business has no greater ambition than money, what kind of people do they expect to attract? The types that can effectively produce the "altruistic" component? It is specified that "money will not make happiness" and does encourage sharing, but that end goal is so important.

I'll follow this up soon with the why that end goal is so important, and why I think we need to think bigger than money.

One thing that can't wait that I do take issue with: "The more sophisticated the technology, the better the offerings". I'd argue that simplicity is golden.

Where People Meet Process

Ahhhh, the people/process intersection. Dysfunctional meetings are often the result of dysfunctional teams, or miserable interpersonal dynamics. Then again, even great teams that have a meeting full of great conversation can fall way short of accomplishing their objectives if they don't have an idea of how to approach their challenge.


Looking at meetings I've been a part of that have, shall we say, sub-optimal outcomes; there is a mix of ideas on how to retroactively rationalize through what would have been the best way to avoid or deal with the founding problems. Usually the founding problem is a people thing. The group didn't trust one another, or there was one participant who didn't want to see the session succeed because it may create more work for them if approved (or any number of self-serving issues).


So the 2 suggestions to remedy the situation can be distilled to a working on people approach, or a working on process approach. Here's an oversimplified breakdown:

1. Take the group through interpersonal exercises, preference/style recognition training, etc.
2. Create a meeting format that transcends the dynamics problems

The pros of #1 is that you are nipping the problem in the bud; treating the disease and not the symptoms. The cons are that it's hard for groups to find time to do this, and they are often not interested in even considering if they have another meeting purpose that they need to address.

The pros of #2 are that you can engage the group in a very practical assignment, and if done properly, they can begin to collaterally repair or strengthen the dynamic by merit of having shared a powerful experience and building something valuable with their colleagues. The task at hand can actually be accomplished this way as well. The cons are that the group is not necessarily being made conscious of any interpersonal skills they are learning in practice, and the core problems may still exist following the meeting.

It seems obvious that a blend of both would be ideal. I operate in #2 almost exclusively, because of where my expertise lies. I'm all for outsourcing the #1 component, but if a group wants to get things done, they perceive that kind of strengthening a peripheral concern. Creating a meeting format that satisfies all parties enough to have people rise above biases and existing dynamics issues is no simple matter. The approach to design varies greatly from group to group, and the risk that a thoughtful format won't cut it always remains a risk. Establishing one area of consensus and convergence is very important. From there, the meeting can diverge before converging back at a mutually beneficial and acceptable outcome.

Any ideas on how to warm people up to investing in their team dynamics?

Any ideas on how to get different personalities and perspectives to come together and have effective dialogue, and ultimately produce?

Good places to start looking for ideas on either can be found in Dialogue: The Art of Thinking Together, by William Isaacs, The Magic of Dialogue, by Daniel Yankelovich, and of course Getting to Yes, by Fisher, Ury, and Patton.

Stifling Innovation

Innovation is one of those words that I can scarcely type in here without shame. It has got to be the most hackneyed, consultant abused term that there is. The fact remains though, that innovation is critical to an organization's success. I could go on about the role and application of innovative thinking and behaviour in effective meeting design, but let's stay a little higher this time.


The role of meetings in innovation.


First, let's define "meetings". And by define, I mean let's acknowledge that a meeting can be anything, and so we won't really define it very narrowly at all. We'll call it any situation where more than one person is contributing to a challenge/opportunity. So an obvious function of meetings in innovation is people meeting to respond to an opportunity to innovate.


Having a discussion today with some leaders of MaRS Discovery District, we were expressing frustration with large and established organization's inability to innovate. Why do they seem to be so much less agile? There are many paradigms and bureaucracies that clearly stand in the way of fresh thinking, but I also believe that declining meeting practices are a massive contributor to stifling innovation.

As processes become standardized and routine, they lose visibility. Even core competencies like innovation get delegated (at some levels), are no longer assumed by groups, and eventually evaporate into procedure. Approaches to innovation also become stagnant as groups fall in love with a particular method, or fear the risk of new approaches.

Complacency in Careers and Learning

Speaking with a corporate learning executive today, he shared with me how his industry tends to be a platform for launching careers, or even a pit-stop between education and/or careers. This creates a gap in drive and performance among the individuals he supports with learning.

How should an organization deal with these varying levels of commitment in classroom learning situations? Do you:

1. focus on the strong ones and bring them to the next level, hoping that they will lead and inspire others?
2. focus on the less interested, and raise the minimum standard if possible?
3. throw them all together and hope for the best?

I'd take #3, but focus curriculum on #2. Reason being, it's typically more productive to work on strengths (as per Daniel Pink's Johnny Bunko). If they are leaders, they will motivate those around them during the course of the program.

In a meeting, there are generally some more interested and some far more complacent than others. How can engagement be distributed more equally, and at a very high level? Accountability is a good answer, but just as difficult to figure out.

More Mind Reading

We're fast approaching a time when conversations facilitated by technology will incorporate emotion and other subliminal characteristics than what we see today. My favourite blogger (me) posted on Nielsen's application of a brainwave reading device back in March. I made the assertion that there were similar technologies on similar and different markets.

One such example is Emotiv. Emotiv also has the nifty headsets and can also read brainwaves (nifty and otherwise). The biggest difference I see at a glance is application. While the NeuroFocus version measured emotional response to products and advertising, Emotiv focuses on electronic gaming. So, if you actually fall in love with the Princess, there's a chance that one day with the help of Emotiv, she'll find out about it!

So once again, the range of applications remains relevant to collaboration. Gauging and displaying emotional response could one day offer a dimension of candor in meetings. Enhancing the reality of gaming experiences could also play into meeting based simulations, or could one day support virtual meetings with avatars that express emotion more intuitively.

Why Starving Participants is a Great Idea

I have to question the science behind this, but LiveScience posted an article recently about hunger resulting in a base chemical motivation to achieve. See here.

The article is based on a test conducted with mice, experimenting ghrelin levels; ghrelin being a hormone that our bodies excretes when we're hungry. Mice that are sensitive to ghrelin are the big heroes in the mazes and various other semi-cruel tests.

This could change everything. Every conference I go to aims to pump attendees full of food as some kind of reward. My goal at every conference I go to is to eat as much free crap as I can as well (don't judge me, I'm not alone and I'm a growing boy). If our aim should be to accomplish things in an efficient manner, is this counterproductive? I think the logic is to keep people content, which may be important to the psychology of an individual and dynamic of a group.

But if we're to approach meetings scientifically, it's time we start experimenting with food deprivation. Other unusual cruelties could follow, just in case.

Digg This

There is an news/article sharing site called Digg, that's been growing for several years. Evidently, their growth has become a challenge. The site relies on feedback from users to assign ratings to articles, so that the proverbial cream rises to the top. As more and more people contribute articles, the number of articles becomes unmanageable for users to sort through and rate.

The new approach Digg will employ to address this challenge is the introduction of a recommendation system. Recommendation systems take what they know about a user, and customize the output to that user based on what it knows. In the case of Digg, it will only recommend articles contributed or approved by other users that have a history of compatibility with you. So if you like many of the same articles as John Smith, the system will provide you a short list of articles that John Smith likes, rather than the 15,000 new articles received that day.

MIT's Technology review scooped this story, and published under the heading "Digging a Smarter Crowd". Now, I'm all for recognizing patterns of similar interests and customizing accordingly. And farbeit from me to challenge an MIT source. Still I take issue with the reference to the Wisdom of Crowds in this context. Having a rating system like eBay, Sermo, kluster, or other social based platforms is definitely harnessing collective intelligence. But we also know that part of creating a Wise Crowd is having a diverse crowd. If this engine groups like opinions, then where's the diversity?

I'd argue that Digg is a cool service that has a good way to produce customized results, but isn't producing results that are truly the product of a "Smarter Crowd". They are the product of a "Similar Crowd".

Aimless Progress?

The of the G8 Summit's feebleness in the area of committing to goals has been well publicized internationally. Most scrutinized of this most recent summit was the lack of targets with regards to emission reductions. While there was a lot of back-patting and rejoicing about the suggestions made, there were no real, er, commitments made, to adhere to any particular measure.

In meetings that bring people together to achieve a purpose, it is often observed that without concrete metrics to pursue and format for reporting on accountabilities; plans die easily. Getting these plans together and mobilized doesn't always have to happen - sometimes the conversation that explores new ideas and kindles new relationships is an adequate start. But if there's a conceded expectation that a deliverable plan will be created (seems like something G8 should consider), then it approaches being mandatory.

It can become a difficult juggling act to create a plan in a meeting that has adequate depth to inspire and guide those who will execute on it, while still taking time to assign ownership of items. One way to do this is to remind the group of timelines and clarify the importance of doing both parts effectively and efficiently, thereby setting the stage. What makes this tricky is that it often means limiting discussion that is engaging and important, but demanding of too much time.

Another recently applied experiment with this is to assign ownership of portions of a plan very randomly, and set a meeting shortly following with the owners reporting back with a rationale on the scope of the assignment, and who should champion it thereafter.

Strategic Profanity

The use of language is a core consideration in learning intitiatives, meetings, and life. We all know that the best language is simple language. Phrase things so everyone can understand what you're phrasing.

I believe in an alternative to this rule. Language can be used to pique interest, and create an appeal for a message. To even further deviate from the accepted approach; very unexpected and perhaps offensive language can also create an interest. The occasional use of an explative, for example, can wake a group up and provide that meeting defribulator. Risky, no doubt.

Thinking of some good fiction wherein the unusual dialect adds to appeal:

• Trainspotting
• A Clockwork Orange
• Anything by James Joyce - although understanding what he's doing with that language is sometimes an infuriating challenge

Without offending, how else can language be effective in altering the meeting atmosphere?

The Collaboration Paradox

Quintessential article from John Abele concerning collaboration now available, called "The Collaboration Paradox..." It examines the necessity for collaboration - no surprises there - and why it is, if we accept that collaboration is often a necessity, we can be so bad at it or resist it so much. A few reasons are that we are conditioned to excel independently, and that we don't afford collaborations enough foresight or strategy. John does a better job of explaining it than I can, so I'll leave the rest to the article.

The Kingbridge reason for being is founded on this need for improved approaches to collaborations. The Kingbridge philosophy is founded on the methods John has influenced and learned from over the years, which he references in this article.

The article is available through XConomy, an interesting study in collaboration unto itself. It's an exceptional blog with exceptional content, from a whole slew of guest authors. It's not totally opensourced or crowdsourced, as the articles are edited/policed, and the editors do contribute. A successful middle ground.

Resurrected

Greetings my understanding and forgiving readers. Pardon the unprecedented break in posts. The Canadian wilderness (and isolated little Wallaceburg) are enjoyable places (Wallaceburg maybe less so, but given the right mix of beer and rowdy friends...), but offer less than ideal connectivity. While I'm sure there are hordes of loyal readers out there who have not slept this past week, you need fret no longer.

Time away from work for me usually isn't that... away. I usually stay connected with work and active on projects. This time was different because of circumstance more than inclination, but I found some value in the clean break. I've often laughed at the "work/life balance" proposition, figuring that only people that don't find real meaning in their work would employ this scape goat. After last week though, I believe differently. The escape will make me better at my work, and will better position me to achieve the things that I want to achieve... which are beginning to extend beyond professional accomplishment.

Meetings are a great microcosm for this bigger picture. "Balance" usually means "booze" in this context, though. What other inclusive options are there for balancing workload in a meeting?

An Expression of Humility

I found myself bowing in appreciation to someone for having me in to their home last night. Shortly thereafter, I found myself the subject of much laughter. It's a hangover from my profession. I am often making gestures with the intent of presenting my position as an unassuming servant of process.

This is a matter of simple gestures, but is also a matter of great psychological importance. I'm not convinced that the bowing low method is the proper way to go about it, but it can be a critical function that one operating in the interests of the meeting purpose make efforts not to infringe on the expertise or be considered as affronting the egos of people in a meeting.

There's no silver bullet. I may require greater lengths than many to balance the portion of my persona that is often interpreted as arrogant. I need also compensate for the appearance of youth, being that I'm often in the presence of those with much more experience and far greater credentials.

Besides little tricks, how can we work towards being authentically humble?

I would endorse a skimming of Egonomics.

Concurrent Sessions and Crowdsourcing Process

I've been facilitating sessions that comprise 1/3 of an agenda. So the entire population would be in my session at one point, as well as all of the others, but I only ever see 1/3 of the group at a time. We're working towards the same objective in every session, so inevitably we're identifying opportunities to improve on the sessions as we go, based on observation and specific feedback.

Two things here, really.

1. Design of meeting format
2. Adjustment of meeting process

1. Dividing a group into 3 sub groups that interchange is a great idea. This way there's higher participation in each session. There are of course additional space requirements, but it's well worth the investment. Instead of one didactic plenary, you get 3 interactive workshops.

2. I'm a big believer in providing the group with options. Having a plan on how to move forward in a meeting is great, but asking the participants how they think they should move forward given the current progress can sometimes yield superior ideas. Crowdsourcing the very process is a great way to bring mindshare to process, and engage people in considering meeting design as a competency. The process today is being refined through each session as well, so that the final one is a product of meeting design conducted pre-meeting, and real-time adjustments with the benefit of the Wisdom of Crowds.

...

I guess the question is, how can the Wisdom of Crowds be better leveraged in the pre-meeting phase?

Movement Tracking Follow Up

Here's the CIMIT blog with the ZCAM video that shows a motion capture camera at work. Very cool.

Thanks Mike!

Movement Tracking

Cool toy from Samsung et al that tracks motion to operate the systems (games systems, for example) within a TV screen. It's like the next generation of Wii remote, which is no remote at all - you just move around and control the software with your gestures.

Gaming is the obvious application. For some reason, it's an advertising agency that's developing and releasing the system in tandem with Samsung. I don't get it. Interactive advertising through gaming, I suppose.

What I see as being the opportunity with this technology is the possibility of groups manipulating images, documents and models on a screen using motion. The combination of visual and kinesthetic aspects of a such an approach to collaborating around a program or virtual space is promising. Much like previous surface computing and visualization technologies I've posted on, but without the nuisance of having to touch stuff, which may or may not have cooties.

Technology and Trust

This isn't going to engender any trust for technology; a new survey indicates that a full third of IT pros are snooping inappropriately through confidential information.

Is there a paradox at work here? If I'm an IT professional responding to a survey, why would I incriminate myself by answering honestly that I am violating policy and/or law. Would I not assume that the people on the other end are equally as untrustworthy as I am?

Either way, it's unfortunate. Many people don't trust technology enough to engage with it meaningfully. This evidence is a step backwards, but virtual identity theft and fraud are still small peanuts relative to the old fashioned methods of people taking your credit card off of a restaurant bill, and the other classic ploys.

As many meetings will continue to migrate to a virtual forum, it will be critical that people trust the support medium. If we're not confident making ourselves vulnerable in a meeting, then we're only ever scratching the surface. Used well, technology should help to peel back more layers. Hopefully security and other measures are always being looked into so that rogue IT folks won't spoil the possibility of trust and openness facilitated by technology.

Breaking Down Silos with Simple Questions

It seems every organization faces challenges with working in silos. I'd be suspicious of the ones that don't, in fact. Some very enlightened and forward thinking groups have difficulty thinking beyond their operating unit, division, department, expertise, or other ivory tower they have been placed in or tunnel they have dug out for themselves.

There are a number of approaches to have a group adopt a global perspective within a meeting. Presencing and Six Hats are a couple. One very basic tool to employ is the Socrates favourite, the question. Not just typical probing about the situation at hand - be it governance, communication patterns, or strategic planning - but broad, end-user questions.

So this approach requires that a moderator resist asking "where are opportunities to improve the way we communicate across teams?", and instead ask "who are our stakeholders?", and "how do we want to be viewed by our stakeholders?". From there, the way divisions interact should align with that purpose. Rejigging the current is probably necessary, but starting with it is

1. A narrow perspective, silo'd within operating instead of global to purpose (wouldn't be fitting to have a silo'd question in a meeting attempting to scatter silos, now would it?)
2. Not future focused
3. More typical and so less engaging

Flat World Knowledge

There has been a coup in the assault against one of the longest standing scams going. Flat World Knowledge is a social network driven sight that is offering customizable university/college textbooks on line for free. Typically an outrageous expense for the already burdened, Flat World Knowledge is trying to make an open source movement.

It may work, too. They've got an original and complete concept. Students don't only get the books as published, they can alter and edit as well. Medium is also customizable. There are some audio, online and print options.

How will academia react? With demand from oversea students and a retiring faculty body, great changes are coming for the establishment. MIT, Yale, and other prevalent schools have already been offering classes free online for some time now. What are the next big shifts?

3-D vidconferencing?

The video conference debate is a boring one for me. Without getting into the differences between fidelity and physiological response to human presence, it's important to look at when it's appropriate to use. Let's leave it at: it's the best option sometime.

That best option may get a whole lot better pretty soon. At least the novelty will be improved with a new 3-D television screen that's come out of Philips. If/when this starts being used for vidconferencing, will it just make the experience cooler, or will it have an impact on the effectiveness?

Many people feel that physical expression is the greatest benefit of video over phone or email. Could this technology enhance our ability to perceive expression?

DIMC #2

Speaking to the nature of impediments to collaboration - things that have prevented successful outcomes. My vast incompetence and spirit of experimentation documented here on the CIMIT blog by some cheeky journalist. About another minute.

DIMC Vidblog#1

Admittedly, this is a pretty shabby video. It's a first try though, and an introduction to the day. Much more housekeeping than purpose or content, but that will follow. About 1 minute.



After a day of trying, apparently it's too big to upload here. Find it here on youtube instead.

Designing and Implementing Multidisciplinary Collaboration

I'm in Boston for the CIMIT hosted Designing and Implementing Multidisciplinary Collaboration meeting. Check out the website here. You'll see links to the agenda and participant bios to get an idea of who is there and what we're doing.

Tonight was the faculty dinner, and one can only hope that the conversation tomorrow is half as interesting. There were a lot of questions about collaboration. What question are we trying to answer tomorrow? A lot of great metaphors emerged in response.

A favourite as depicted by Laura Chasin of the Public Conversations Project was the notion of different people all owning pieces of knowledge that are like one of many pieces of a shattered pane of glass that is a complex problem - whose solution is mandatory to the continued existence of our species. Only when these pieces of glass are brought and fused together through the mechanism of effective collaboration can the greater item/problem be completely addressed.

I will try and do some video postings from the meeting tomorrow. Promises to be exciting. I'm loving Boston. Can't wait to come back when I've got some time on my hands.

Aiming High

I've been with a group doing some strategic planning over the last few days. This is something I enjoy doing quite a bit, and that's a good thing considering how often I do it lately. This group was a particularly enjoyable and rewarding one to work with. After some grueling analysis work, we got into the strategies, and these people were were really thinking beyond their typical functions and standard course of operation.

By the end, teams were creating strategies that they were genuinely excited about, and even elicited some applause. While keeping things within the scope of realism and focus, there was a real bias for positive and ambitious change.

I wish I could share exactly what the conditions were that led to this engagement and result. There are many contributing complexities though, of course. Leadership undoubtedly had a lot to do with it. To have a leader that omits their ego from the process not only opens up the floor, it also inspires confidence. Another part I believe was the opportunity for engagement. Everyone in the room encouraged everyone to contribute. For an entire team to collaborate successfully, everybody has to hold everybody accountable.

I think we achieved that fleeting and elusive "collaborative state".

Place Matters

A recent study out of the University of Leipzig indicates that the chief criteria by which people select friends is geographical proximity. The experiment found a mitful of freshmen being seated in rows at an introduction session. In the study, the most intense relationships among subjects one year after mashing the lot together corresponded most directly with where their random seats were assigned. More than similar interests or values, where people landed dictated who they would befriend.

What are the imperatives here for the meeting designer? Rich McLaughlin recently shared with me a basic outline of considerations for designing meetings. You start with establishing the purpose, which will let you know what people need to be invited. Then you build the plan to achieve the purpose, and account for the people. Lastly, you decide on the place. The plan and place are both flexible, and likely change throughout the process. (Pardon me Rich if there are any descrepancies or copyright infringements on the sketch you did for me and my version above!)

How people are acting should influence where a facilitator places them. If people are nodding off, then it's time to consider getting them out of their seats. If they are too chaotic and not paying attention to the purpose, parking them may be the right move. Of course, initial placement of people is always a consideration as well. Usually trusting the group to self organize is the preference. A heavy-handed urge or seating plan is sometimes necessary to get people to surround themselves with those that they might not interact with, though.

The Leipzig study isn't shocking by any stretch, but it's an important reminder of just how critical place and proximity can be in any situation with a social component - which all meetings have. Should a meeting designer be interested in match-making or prescribing relationships/alliances by intentionally seating people near each other?

I think it would be too "command and control" and inappropriate often, but that kind of orchestration might be useful if there was a huge opportunity to catalyze a meaningful synthesis of ideas, organizations, or other, that might not happen without the extra push.

Mapping of the Mind

I'm a big fan of mind mapping software for brainstorming, project management/planning, and other functions. It's one of those technologies that's easy to fall in love with, so one has to take care not to get carried away with overusing it, and letting the medium dominate the message. An example is trying too hard to squeeze it into a meeting. I think mind maps are great for documenting and synopsis of meetings, but running presentations from them is awkward at best.

I've been using Mindjet Mindmapper to graphically capture and plot out thoughts for several years now. I'm becoming nervous now that my trusted standby is going to be outdated quickly with the emergence of open source web-based mappers. I'd tested out bubbl.us and was unimpressed by and large, but the price is just right. It's fine for basic brainstorming.

The real threat comes from mindmeister. This allows you to create and collaborate on maps of this "interweb", but also gives you the ability to import maps from other sources, such as... Mindjet! I strongly suggest checking this out and registering.

My hope is that free and open mindmapping solutions will make the world more proficient with use of the software, and creative and logical with its application.

VIVA Las Vegas

It's always interesting to see what is going on out there in cutting edge (read: heavily funded) conferences. Those serving highly specialized healthcare verticals are consistently impressive, if not by format standards than at least by measure of magnitude and frills. Participants are typically proven PhD+'s, and very expert in the field. This means that everyone present has a lot to contribute, and the best meetings give them the opportunity to do just that.

A vascular intervention not-for-profit called VIVA has an annual educational shindig in Vegas that spans disciplines and sounds as well designed as any conference that has playing cards on the splash page... see here.

Just by looking at the website, one can't help but notice a few very compelling meeting components that would figure to improve on the desired outcomes of "fostering collaboration across specialities", and "advancing the field of vascular medicine through multidisciplinary educational efforts". Here are a few:

1. Laptop Learning - Participants will all have pc's and will be networked together. They will be able to participate in polls, register questions for speakers, provide feedback and follow content through this system. I'm not sure what the platform is, but there are systems such as CoVision that do similar impressive things. Great for interaction and wisdom of the crowds conditions.
2. Live Cases - As made popular in the '70's by Boston Scientific and others, live demonstration courses enable participants to view a surgical procedure. I'm told that the really powerful courses of this kind also find participants providing real-time feedback, questions, and instructions to the operating physicians. That's a daring and interactive way to draw on the collective intelligence of the audience!
3. International Faculty - This will help to gather diverse perspectives from very different practices and cultures.

As with many of the most prominent conferences, this one is in Las Vegas. The tagline "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" seems like a counter concept to a program where the intent is for people to retain information. I've never been to Vegas for a meeting, but I have to assume they've got the science of meetings down somewhat. I can't help but speculate that the many distractions of sin city have some negative effect on outcomes though. I suppose that this is a necessary trade-off to have a location that can accommodate so many and will actually be a part of the draw.

SWIFT Update

Posted last week about SWIFT. Here's an updated link that details what the tool incorporates much better than the previous link I shared, check it out:

http://www.ottergroup.com/swift-brochure/

Beyond YouTube

Specialized video sharing sites are emerging all the time. The most intriguing are the ones that, like YouTube, are populated and somewhat maintained by users. This form of crowdsourcing is a collaborative effort that relies on the collective intelligence of the forum to produce the richest product.

YouTube is an incredible phenomenon not only worthy of praise for how it has distributed content creation and sharing, but also because of how influential it has been in spinning off specialized incarnations. The more narrow focus ones are very useful for communities and networks to publish and share. This pervasive media platform has or will realize improved ways for communities to share information resulting from efforts to meet and leverage the medium.

One such community is the scientific community. For centuries scientific documentation has been invaluable... but kinda boring. Even scientists are being challenged to present beyond the lecture and the printed word via SciVee. There are so many fascinating things to learn here. Not just about the subject matter, but also about ways to present technical information in a sensible, digestible, and engaging way.

The power of presentation seen at work on SciVee is valuable for any knowledge sharing or future building group engagement.

Greatest News Story Heading Ever?

A mathematician I am not. I am however, the proud author of one vital formula that I know to hold true without exception:

Monkey = Funny

It's no secret that ads with dancing monkeys in the commercial make any product appealing. While conspicuously absent from the Oscar ballot annually, it's also common sense that movies with monkeys on snowboards and playing for basketball franchises are destined to be a hilarious and moving cinematic experience.

With that in mind, brace yourself for what may be the perfect news heading from today's NY Times... "Monkeys Control A Robot Arm With Their Thoughts". Pure gold. And not surprisingly, the subject matter and article are actually fascinating. There's even a video complete with monkey feeding itself through will and mechanical appendage! Long time readers of this blog (I think I'm the only one) will know of my fascination with robots also. A greater combination of entities there could not be.

The macaque monkeys have little transmitter grids placed on their motor cortex, and they learn pretty quickly how to feed themselves using the corresponding robot. This is an extraordinary breakthrough for the development of prosthetics.

On this blog though, we talk about collaboration, and most often in a meeting setting. So, if I were to let my mind wander, I could contrive of a few uses in meetings for a robotic arm that's controlled by people's brains:

1. In an Open Space Technology format, people are using flipcharts to record ideas. If this could be done anonymously by transmitting your signal to an unidentified robot arm to record, then what would be written could be more candid.
2. Creating gestures - possibly even elaborate gestures outside of the scope of what is possible for any human's range of motion - could be made by presenters to better visually describe concepts.
3. Building three dimensional tactile models and prototypes can be very useful in forming a discernible shared vision of a concept or mental construct. People could do this remotely or could do it on a much larger scale with enhanced versions of this technology.
4. You could get a monkey to feed itself in front of the participants with a robotic arm... you know, for laughs.

TheStory on OurStory

I'm warming up to the idea of focused and purpose-specific collaborative sites. Especially the open source ones. One such space is OurStory. OurStory exists to allow a person or multitudes of people to shape timelines for organizations, people, families and whatever else people can think of... and they will; ad nauseum.

My beef with these very specific applications is that you have to learn a new interface for such a limited scope of objectives. For more bitching about the same, see here. OurStory is simple enough to more or less eliminate that concern, but the possibility could still ward off potential collaborators. The final or evolving product can be media rich, dynamic, and truly collaborative.

Where you could go to Ning and create a free social network that includes time lines, or one of the infinite free wiki hosts like Wikispaces, there's also a million other things you can do with them. It's easy to get lost. If these are already in use, then fine. But it may be overwhelming if the the outcome you need is as specific as a timeline.

I like the idea of getting a group that will be coming together on another project using something like this to create a shared understanding of the current state of affairs, and what events and behaviours led to this situation. The benefits could be many. Chewing up time for review when groups could be building the future ranges from boring to absolutely treacherous. OurStory or other solutions could eliminate the need, and give a group practice and frame of reference for interaction.

SWIFT

The web 2.0 gurus at The Otter Group have been working on what promises to be an interesting application for integrating media, blogs, and social networking into conferencing experiences called SWIFT. There are countless platforms and methods people are using to take care of these functions now, and there's a lot of reinventing of the wheel. Nothing seems to do everything, and for every conference users and presenters are expected to learn a new wiki platform, social networking platform, etc, etc.

One appealing aspect of SWIFT is that it integrates with and piggy-back's on existing and established platforms. For example, you can simply link your facebook account to the conference page, and you can do your social networking using an existing account and a tool that everyone's already familiar with.

If you check out the site, SWIFT is publicized mostly as a podcasting management system. However, they're building more into it all the time, and it seems that podcasting features are only one part of the greater offering. Otter Group CEO Kathleen Gilroy has kindly been providing me with updates leading up to the release.

Even the best web 2.0 applications I've seen integrated in conferences are consistently underused because of the learning curve involved in mastering a new toy. Hopefully SWIFT has found their way around this challenge by marrying with familiar applications.

What are the other ways are there to deal with the problem of underused shared spaces at conferences? I'm always the sap that spends hours contributing to a wiki that only 5% of attendees ever look at.

Threat to My People Working With PEOPLE blog

There are cool things other than people working with (and on) people. Thanks to Kim for pointing this out to me - a few days ago the first ever heart surgery conducted by a robot took place in Italy. The surgery was initiated and monitored by a human surgeon, of course, but he was in Boston! Learn more here.

People working with and relying on robots won't remove the necessity for people to work effectively together. Rather, as the mediums we use to collaborate and the tools we leverage change at an unfathomable, exponential pace, how humans interact to adapt to these changes will have to improve drastically.

Shift Happens is a cool video that looks at how things are changing, and shows a clear need to change the way we teach, learn, and collaborate.

Conspiracy

It's tough subject matter, and a difficult watch at times, but anyone interested in a better understanding of impediments to collaboration (particularly in a boardroom environment) should watch the movie Conspiracy.

It tells the unspeakable story of the Wannassee conference of 1942, where the SS would establish the "Final Solution to the Jewish Question". The secret meeting has participants that represent a number of boards, organizations, and branches within the Nazi Party. For the most part, these participants are under the impression that they will be forming a plan to deal with the large number of people to deal with (displace or other).

As it turns out, they learn that a definite solution has already been decided upon, and enacted in trials. The "solution" of course is genocide.

The movie explores some of the psychology in the room, and is an excellent study into the dangers of group-think. Despite having intelligent people in the room that must naturally question the unconscionable proposal; a meeting leader skilled at justify and leading decisions and a culture of intimidation find consensus and support for the plan to mass-murder.

It's an extreme case, but group-think is not uncommon in meetings. How can we manage it?

Cultural Diversity/Challenges

Diversity in group collaborations is essential to reaching an optimal outcome. Diversity of expertise, age, opinion, and background. Different cultural tendencies trigger different reactions to information, different insights and different perspectives. Often different cultures also approach the collaboration process much differently.

These different approaches, and even minor intricacies such as etiquette must be considered when designing a multicultural collaboration. Having people outside of their comfort zone is fine, and even beneficial, but of course you wouldn't want for anyone to be offended. A more design focus concern is to be mindful of positive cultural tendencies that could be capitalized on, and possible anti-collaborative tendencies that may emerge.

I will be working with an organization of Asian origins over the next few days, and their top brass are ex-pats of the parenting organization's home nation. The result is a culture that may seem imperial to westerners. I won't make a case for either culture, but will state that a leader that does not regularly open his ideas up to challenge or feedback is anti-collaborative. While it may bring many efficiencies, it also creates a condition where others are hesitant to offer insights on any matter that may be within that leader's scope of interest/responsibilities.

Having established that this culture exists within the organization, there will be a balancing act as moderator to never overstep my bounds and challenge this position, while still creating room for other voices to be heard.

Any stories of tip-toeing around cultural challenges among my dormant commentors?

Censorship to Rear its Ugly Head?

Currently "new media" is exempt from the rules that govern radio and television broadcasts in Canada. Now web audio and video content may come under scrutiny from broadcasting authorities. See in depth article here.

This would be too unfortunate for the living internet. If laws were imposed in Canada to restrict certain content, where would it stop? Scarier still, is that they are revisiting this subject to possibly mandate Canadian content on on-line broadcasting services! Canada has a lot to offer, and the good stuff will be discovered. "Can-Con" is a travesty that breeds mediocrity in Canadian arts, and has even helped to create a general comfort with mediocrity throughout a great country. Par example; Stephen Harper.

The internet is a free market currently, where the cream rises to the top by the selection of the masses, and exposure is totally distributed. Why mess with this system? This can only damage Canadian sites, not improve Canadian culture.

On Labeling Generations

I'm part of an international network that has found some members looking for and exchanging research and information about Generation Y's. Some of the research is fascinating (send me an email at andrew.webster@kingbridgecentre.com if you'd like to see it), so I thought I'd share it with some colleagues. Among them is my friend and CIMIT counterpart Mike Young. I found his reaction to the initial request for research/resources interesting. My responses to him in caps:

"Andrew,
I have thoughts on this person's request.

I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO REGISTER FOR THIS GOOGLE GROUP IF YOU ARE INTERESTED. I WILL INTRODUCE YOU TO THE MODERATOR IF YOU LIKE. THEY WOULD VALUE YOUR THOUGHTS BELOW, AND THERE'S ALWAYS EXCHANGES LIKE THIS WE CAN LEARN FROM.

I believe the first step for this person is to seriously reexamine her use of the term, "Generation Y." It is... Uncreative and has absolutely nothing to do with what is going on now or the impact of this generation. It serves to separate her and anything she wishes to understand about impact will be filtered through this viewpoint if it is how she chooses to approach people. Generation Y simply refers to a generation following X. Generation X having originally been given with a negative connotation - Post Vietnam with no purpose, which people adapted to a feeling of... False honor.

I THINK THERE IS SOME SENSE IN USING WHAT IS THE ACCEPTED TERM HERE, SIMPLY TO MAXIMIZE THE NUMBER OF RESPONSES SHE GETS. MAYBE THERE'S MORE CREATIVITY AND POSITIVE CONNOTATION THAN WE REALIZE THOUGH. WHAT IF THE "Y" IS TO KEEP WITH THE THEME, BUT REALLY MEANS "WHY?" AS THEY ARE THE GOOGLE GENERATION OR AN INQUISITIVE GENERATION. NOT SURE.

I've heard Generation D (Digital) I've heard all sorts of these generational things. Is it not too early for this branding? I just have so many problems with this type of classification in terms of being able to study something. How does she expect to understand the ideas behind social networking with such an outsiders point of view. There is objective observation and there is this, which seems to be buzz words and classifications, which doesn't promote understanding in my eyes. It goes against the generational bridges that have been developing from social networking.

NOBODY WANTS TO BE LABELED, I SUPPOSE. NO MATTER IF YOU JUST SPECIFY AN AGE RANGE OR CALL THEM SOMETHING CLEARLY DEROGATORY, PEOPLE WILL RESENT BEING ANALYZED AS DIFFERENT… BUT IT'S NECESSARY WORK. OUTSIDERS PERSPECTIVES CAN BE VALUABLE AS WELL I THINK. ESPECIALLY THE QUANTATIVE STUFF, LIKE WHICH AGE GROUPS USE WHICH NETWORK PLATFORMS FOR HOW MANY HOURS A DAY.

There are obviously generations, true - But to call this one Generation Y lacks the heart of what is going on here.I would expect more from this person at NASA. But I write this to you because I wish to get your opinion on this? And if you have a link to your blog on this?

I HAVEN'T BLOGGED ON THIS YET, BUT NOW I'M MORE LIKELY TO BLOG ON YOUR REACTION THAN ON THE REPORTS, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND ME QUOTING YOU. THE GOOGLE GROUP IS FULL OF STUFF LIKE THIS, AND SOME GOOD DIALOGUE SOMETIMES FROM INTERNATIONAL THOUGHT LEADERS. THANKS FOR SHARING YOUR THOUGHTS."



I did get his permission before posting! I've also introduced him to John Maloney of Colabria, a recognized thought leader in Knowlege Management and Network Analysis, who moderates the group. Their organizations both span so many industries and disciplines that there could be interesting outcomes down the road...

Looking forward to John and the Value Networks Cluster returning here in September.