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.

World Wide Telescope

Google Earth is all well and good, but why limit yourself to just one small planet? Check this out.

Microsoft created this site which is a virtual representation of data taken from the most powerful telescopes in the world. It allows users to navigate remote corners of the universe and get a visual experience of systems, stars, and planets.

The other day I posted something or other about social implications of technology. Will this one change the world, and if so, how?

Appreciating Social Implications

Reading about "the bleeding edge of the leading edge" in artificial intelligence here, I was a little bit surprised to read that Daphne Koller's work with game theory, probability, and other to help better understand the migration of breast tumors to bone, had gleaned no more attention than the promise of improved web searches as a result of her theoretical work. How can one compare the vitality of web searches to advances in our understanding of the scourge of breast cancer?

But hey... maybe that's a little near sighted of me.

"Fingertip knowledge" has changed the world. It's enabling information dissemination and rapid research that has surely improved medicine and countless other things that also impact medicine. I don't need to go into it, I'm sure. Point is, social advances and things that may appear to be business driven and without roots in moral intentions are enabling superior collaborations and putting information into the hands of the world. And the world can do something with it.

This is a point well taken for most, but do we always consider the social possibilities and implications when considering opportunities?

Rabbits Gettin' Busy

I'm probably overstepping boundaries and violating etiquette here, but I've posted below an excerpt from an email that an old buddy with no permission or warning at all. This was one of my closest friends for many years, and he knows me well. I was very interested to read how he feels about meetings and why.

"I checked out the blog. I read through many entries and I have to be honest, I never would have know then that someone would have drawn so much interest and insight from the subject of meetings. I guess I am too over exposed to meetings that have no purpose, and accomplish nothing, because the key players continually contradict themselves over and over and never want to make a decision, unless it is the worst one possible. Like I said I think I'm jaded. But still it was very interesting to be able to read your thoughts. It seems you have come along way since giving presentations on the mating rituals of rabbits, or is it true that the human legacy goal is still an instinctual desire for preservation of self. Either way it sounds like you've improved the technology of the puppets."

I don't think he's alone in hating meetings. I also don't think he's the only one who hates them for these reasons. Only wanting to make decisions when "it is the worst one possible". That's gold. Why else do people hate meetings?

To bring some clarity to the message above, some background is in order...

We had to do book reports for some highschool English class. Everyone spoke about their book. I read a few books, so for my presentation decided to present on a common theme throughout them. I recall that 2 of the books were Watership Down, and Less Than Zero. The common theme was of course: sex. So in front of this innocent class of adolescents, I put up slides of the reproductive organs of humans and rabbits, and compared them. The "technology of the puppets" comment refers to portion of the presentation in which I took 2 rabbit puppets and showed the class how they engage in intercourse. I then compared to human practice and variations with a Ken and Barbie. Got 100% on that presentation.

Novelty, unique format, and shock value made it worth remembering for this guy 10+ years after. What else makes a presentation memorable? I'm part of a team that's building a workshop on presentations, and would value any feedback here. Expect many posts on presentations.

Un-Collaborative Tendencies... And a New Toy!!!

Just threw a new camera on the ol' laptop, and couldn't resist creating my first video weblog. It raises the important question of using technology when technology is not really necessary. You'll see that the medium isn't leveraged to add any specific value. The same is true for all collaborative technologies. Some are pretty sexy, so a decision is made to include them before desired outcomes are defined. We nerds sometimes can't help ourselves.

Anyhow, the video was recorded immediately after a team meeting with respected colleagues who have become trusted friends. Like any closely knit team, some of our collaborative practices were slipping or non existent. We met to readdress the way we interact.

Tendencies. A big thing I got out of this was tendencies. We all have them, positive and negative. How do we provide feedback that isn't attacking people or shaming them for tendencies? How do we receive feedback so that we progress towards all positive tendencies?

Theory U

The Shambhala Institute is running their first Ontario Regional Intensive (they are based in Halifax) at Trent University right now. Executive Director Susan Szpakowski invited myself and a colleague to participate in a plenary led by C. Otto Scharmer, as well as a reception for faculty and friends. My head is swimming here. I want to post about Shambhala, the subject matter of Otto's plenary, the approach and format of Otto's plenary (unique, a lot of good lessons to draw on), and the entire incredible experience. I'll get to all of them, but let's look at the plenary content first.

Scharmer is of course the guru out of MIT famed for his work with Peter Senge around "Presencing", and for conceiving of Theory U. There's a good, if somewhat abstract summary of the theory here. The 1.5 hours of plenary (which he extended a while with the audience's permission) was about half background, theory, and storytelling. The final half was dedicated to the group practicing the application of the theory.

It's hard to concisely cover the theory portion - but here goes. Scharmer covered 4 modes or phases of listening. My interpretation and some of Scharmer's words as follows:

1. Within oneself, centred on our perspective and position. This finds people knowing all the answers, uninterested in hearing other perspectives. "Listening to confirm what we already know."


2. Within oneself, considering the perspectives of others. This opens the door to debate. "Listening outside of our own projections. Attending to what's happening outside".


3. In the shoes of others. Truly empathizing, experiencing situations from the perspective of others. "Operating outside of where we exist".


4. In the realm of future possibilities. Connecting with others and attending to the emerging future.

Otto and his vast, vast following submit that we should aim to operate in the fourth phase. To collaborate with others by existing in the field of emerging futures with them. It's difficult to challenge someone so clearly brilliant who I'm so humbled to have met and experienced, but here goes anyway...

Last night was my first real experience, but I think participating in presencing exercises with others can be extremely valuable. Trying to occupy the field of possibilities is something we should consider. However, diversity is a critical component of effective collaboration and of accessing and harnessing collective intelligence. Cultural diversity, diversity of expertise, generational, etc, etc. If there isn't even diversity in the way that we are thinking, then aren't we limiting perspectives? I don't see a lot of value in the stagnant first phase, but the person listening in the second mode that is open to new ideas but also challenges and debates items seems like a pretty critical component of an effective dynamic for innovation or collaboration of any kind.

Meeting Otto afterwards and seeing his genuine interest in the work we are doing was a something I won't forget. What an experience. Thank you Susan!

Legacy

Before I get too poetic up here on my pedestal; a note in the interests of full disclosure: my inspiration for this posting was none other than the new comic book flick Iron Man. With that out of the way and me totally exposed as the most immature meeting design professional in existence, let's have a look at this looming complexity and how it influences us all, and our meetings.

Me? I want a legacy. I want to live a life of significance and conscience. I want the world to know all about this great life I'm leading, and I want future generations to realize that the world they live in is a better place because of this one great individual. That's an ambitious (you could say over-ambitious, zealous, vain, maybe even delirious) and extreme perspective on the matter. But I don't think I'm the only one.

My interaction with legacy as a meeting designer or facilitator is typically a leader wishing to leave their mark on an organization before retiring. For many, the instinct is to dictate a direction that clearly bears their fingerprint. This is of course at the expense of collaboration, because the urge to have clear ownership is so strong.

I would try to frame a collaborative approach to an individual such as this as a part of the legacy. The true visionary worth remembering has vision enough to see the benefits of inclusiveness and collective intelligence. This is exceedingly difficult if you aren't aware of these motivations in advance of the meeting. Another reason why a thoughtful approach to meeting design that surfaces underlying motivations and interests is so important. Easier said than done though, obviously.

If you're interested: Iron Man did have a legacy with his "Tony Stark" identity. An epiphany of sorts gave him cause to shift what his war mongering legacy would be. The only epiphany I've had is that if I want to make my mark, I'd better get my ass in gear! Decades of waiting for my legacy to form itself hasn't been cutting it. I need a direction though. Maybe I'll start with a suit made of gold-titanium alloy and begin fighting crime. See where that takes me. I have it on good authority that I could pass as Iron Man, and have indeed been called him.

Any reactions to the broad theme of legacy? How does the innate urge that some people have to be remembered play out in your collaborative efforts? Better still, why does the urge exist?

First Impressions Panel

Yesterday I was a part of a faculty advisory panel for the faculty of George Brown College's Centre for Hospitality and Culinary Arts. I wouldn't call myself a hospitality professional, and by no stretch a culinary artist, but I came with the perspective of the future of meetings.

George Brown is generally regarded as Canada's best for these programs, but this was a very critical and candid evaluation of their performance and integration with industry. There was a chef on the panel, the Executive Chef Nigel Didcock from The Granite Club. I was very impressed with his staunch position and consistent response to all questions. He challenged the faculty over and over to get with the times, but mostly he insisted that they behave as mentors and coaches to the students. He was adamant that they needed better direction.

While I might replace "direction" with "nurturing guidance" or other less domineering jargon, he made a very compelling case. He shared a lot of personal accounts of mentoring practices he's engaged in, and was open about having a multitude of mentors in his life that he leaned on.

Regardless of where we are in our own careers or lives, the good chef made me realize that we should all be considering mentorship and developing those around us to the best of our abilities.