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/