Archive for the ‘Event design’ Category

Steve Jobs and the size of conferences

Thursday, October 13th, 2011 by Adrian Segar

The other thing about Steve was that he did not respect large organizations. He felt that they were bureaucratic and ineffective. He would basically call them “bozos.” That was his term for organizations that he didn’t respect.

The Mac team they were all in one building and they eventually got to one hundred people. Steve had a rule that there could never be more than one hundred people on the Mac team.

John Sculley (former CEO of Apple) talking about Steve Jobs

There’s that number one hundred again, the same number I use as an upper limit to the size of the conferences described in Conferences That Work: Creating Events That People Love. Yes, it’s possible to extend the methodology described in the book to larger events. But they won’t be the same.

Hybrid event architecture ideas sparked by Event Camp Twin Cities 2011

Monday, August 29th, 2011 by Adrian Segar

I expect much will be written about the problems encountered with communications with the remote pods at Event Camp Twin Cities 2011 last week. Rather than concentrate on what went wrong, I thought I’d share some ideas on hybrid event architecture that grew from my on-site experience and a long conversation with Brandt Krueger, who produced the event, the following morning. Without Brandt’s explanations I wouldn’t have been able to write this post, but any errors or omissions are mine and mine alone. I am not a production professional, so I write this post in the spirit of provoking discussion and input from those who have far more experience in this area.

Let’s start with a brief description of the set-up at Event Camp Twin Cities. As with many hybrid events, there were three audiences:

  • The local on-site attendees in Minneapolis
  • Seven “pods” (small groups of people that gathered in Amsterdam, Philadelphia, Toronto, Vancouver, Silicon Valley and two corporate headquarters)
  • Individual remote audience members

Both the pods and the individual remote audience members viewed the activities in Minneapolis via Sonic Foundry’s Mediasite platform. This product provides, via a browser-embedded player, A/V from the event (e.g. a presenter speaking) alongside additional media feeds (e.g. presenter slides). The flexibility of this technology, however, comes with a cost that may have contributed to the problems encountered at Event Camp Twin Cities: namely that the “real-time” feed delivered to remote attendees was delayed approximately twenty seconds.

During Event Camp Twin Cities 2011, individual remote audience members viewed the Mediasite feed and interacted with the proceedings via Twitter as a backchannel, ably assisted by remote audience host (aka virtual emceeEmilie Barta. From the accounts I’ve heard, this channel worked well.

The pods also viewed the Mediasite feed and could interact via Twitter. To provide additional interactivity for the pods, Event Camp Twin Cities set up live Skype calls to the pods, with several pods clustered on one Skype call. When the local participants wanted to have a real-time conversation, the plan was to switch to Skype, turning off the Mediasite feed, very much in the same way that a caller to a radio show is asked to turn off their time-delayed broadcast radio once they’re on the phone.

For reasons that are not clear to me, this switchover process did not work well at Event Camp Twin Cities. Again, rather than concentrate on what happened and why, I’d like to suggest another architectural approach for the pods’ experience that may prevent similar problems in the future.

Instead of switching between delayed and real-time channels for the pods, I think that pod <—> local communications should be set up only via real-time channels. One reason that the (delayed) Mediasite feed was used for the pods at Event Camp Twin Cities is that it provided a convenient aggregation of the two broadcast sources needed for any event these days—A/V of what is going on at the venue plus a channel for slides or other supporting materials. That works for the individual remote audience, which only interacts with the event via Twitter. But when you want to have significant real-time, two-way communication between pods and the main event, you have to handle the complexity involved in switching between delayed and real-time channels on the fly.

Here’s how my approach would work. All the pods would receive a single real-time broadcast channel for supporting materials (slides, movies etc.) created at the event. This can easily be done using one of the “screen-sharing” solutions in wide use today; the A/V from a “master” computer would be broadcast to each pod. And then each pod would be linked to the event via its own two-way channel. This could be a Skype or other videoconference call, or perhaps a product like Google+ Hangouts could be used.

With this architecture, the pods would not receive a delayed feed (i.e. no Mediasite feed), so no switching between delayed and live would be necessary. (Individual remote audience members would continue to receive the delayed feed, as before.) The main event site would need to produce the audio feed, so that sound from the pods would not be distracting, but the complexities of switching between two channels on the fly would be eliminated using this approach.

I think that this approach might be an improvement over the design used at Event Camp Twin Cities 2011, as it would allow easier spontaneous real-time interaction with the pods while eliminating one potential source of problems during the event. I await with interest any comments by those who understand the issues better than I.

Hybrid event production professionals, hybrid event attendees, in fact all event professionals: what do you think?

Thanks Ruud Janssen for the photo of the production studio at Event Camp Twin Cities 2011!

You can’t please everyone. Get used to it.

Wednesday, August 24th, 2011 by Adrian Segar

During my workshops on participant-driven and participant-rich events I’m often asked “But what do you do with people who won’t participate.”

When we explore what’s behind this question, we find an assumption that if we don’t get everyone at our event participating we’ve failed in some way. Coupled with this assumption is a fear of how some attendees may respond if exposed to an event environment that’s different from what they habitually experience.

Yes, there will nearly always be attendees who, for a variety of reasons, don’t want to participate. And their reasons may be totally legitimate—I remember one attendee who completely clammed up midway through a workshop and we eventually discovered that he had just heard that his best friend had been lost at sea. Then there are people who are scared of being judged by their peers on what might come out of their mouths; people who arrive at events exhausted, unable to expend any more energy than necessary; people who are sure that they learn best listening to lectures rather than conferring with their peers…

Some people, when gently encouraged and supported to try participating, discover that it’s actually not such a terrible experience…in fact they quite like it! Often they become the biggest cheerleaders for increasing the amount of participation in events.

On the other hand, some people will probably never be convinced. In my experience they are a small but always-present minority (around 1 – 2% at my conferences).

But we cannot censor the use of participation-driven and participation-rich event designs because a few attendees are uncomfortable or resistant to them. To do so is to penalize the majority of attendees who benefit greatly from the opportunities they receive to create the event they want and to learn about what they want to learn from their peers during the event.

So the next time someone tells you that “some people won’t like” the participatory event design you’re championing, point out that the tail may be wagging the proverbial dog.

Because the danger of being fixated on creating an event that works for everyone, is that you are likely to end up with an event that works for no one.

Photo attribution: Flickr user meredithfarmer

The implicit ground rules of traditional conferences

Monday, August 1st, 2011 by Adrian Segar

Many people are surprised when I talk about the need for explicit ground rules at conferences. “Why do you need them?” is a common response.

So perhaps it’s worthwhile pointing out that every traditional conference has ground rules.

We just never talk about them. They’re implicit.

Here are some common implicit ground rules:

  • Don’t interrupt presentations.
  • Don’t ask questions until you’re told you can.
  • The time to meet and connect with other attendees is during the breaks not during the sessions.
  • Applaud the presenter when she’s done.
  • Don’t share anything intimate; you don’t know who might hear about it.
  • The people talking at the front of the room know more than the audience.
  • Don’t talk about how you’re feeling in public.
  • If you have an opposing minority point of view, keep quiet.

And a few more for conference organizers (a little tongue-in-cheek here):

  • Don’t reveal your revenue model.
  • Never explain how a sponsor got onto the program.
  • Don’t publish attendee evaluations unless they’re highly favorable.

You can probably think of more.

Of course, each of us has slightly different interpretations or internal beliefs about implicit ground rules like these, and that’s what causes problems.

When explicit ground rules aren’t agreed to at the start of an event, no one knows exactly what’s acceptable behavior. (Think about what it’s like when you have to go to a conference and don’t know the dress code.) The result is stress when we’d like to do something that might not be OK, like ask a question, let a presenter know we can’t hear properly, or share a personal story. We’re social animals, and most of us don’t want to rock the boat too much. The end result: we play it safe; we’ll probably remain silent. And an opportunity to make our experience better and more meaningful is lost.

A common misconception about explicit ground rules is that they restrict us from doing things. (“Turn off your cell phones”. “No flash photography”.) Actually, good ground rules do the opposite; they increase our freedom of action. That’s because, by making it explicit that certain behaviors, like asking questions, are permitted they remove stressful uncertainty and widen our options.

I use six explicit ground rules for all Conferences That Work. Four of them, The Four Freedoms, are available for download. To learn about the others and understand how they all work, read my book!

What do you think about having explicit ground rules during conferences? Have you attended conferences where they were used? If so, what was your experience of having them available?

 

 

Two principles for designing conference ground rules

Monday, June 6th, 2011 by Adrian Segar

I’ve written before about how to improve your conference with explicit ground rules. Though it’s interesting and enlightening to compare the ground rules embedded in conference designs—for example, Open Space Technology has five ground rules, while Conferences That Work and World Café have six—I won’t do that today.

Instead, I want to share two principles for designing ground rules.

Ground rules should increase participants’ freedom, not restrict it

  • “Don’t speak unless the teacher asks you a question.”
  • “Pay attention!”
  • “Don’t chew gum in class.”

We’re used to rules like these that restrict our actions and reduce our freedom. But, surprisingly, it’s quite possible to create ground rules that increase our freedom at an event. Here are some examples:

  • Whenever it starts is the right time.—Open Space Technology
  • You have the freedom to ask about anything puzzling.—Conferences That Work
  • Make collective knowledge visible.—World Café

Each of these is a rule that gives permission for participants to act in a way that does not generally occur at traditional meetings. By explicitly giving permission for activities that normally are not associated with Conference 1.0 events, we increase participants’ freedom.

Make ground rules measurable

  • “Listen to others.”
  • “Be respectful.”
  • “Treat people politely.”

Rules like these are superficially appealing, but they aren’t effective because they rely on unmeasurable assumptions. How can we determine whether a participant is listening, respectful, or polite? We can’t, and this can lead to unproductive, time-consuming, and ultimately unresolvable disagreements during an event.

In contrast, here are examples of ground rules that are measurable and thus far less likely to lead to disagreement and subsequent conflict.

  • “Don’t interrupt.”
  • “Stay on time.”
  • “Keep what happens in each session confidential, unless everyone agrees otherwise.”

How were these meta-rules derived?
It would be nice to be able to claim that I first conceived these meta-rules for ground rule design, and then used them to build my conference ground rules. No such luck! It took me ten years to realize that explicit ground rules for Conferences That Work would be useful, and another five to figure out the six I now use. Only recently did I notice that all six follow the two principles I’ve described above.

What ground rules do you use for your events? Can you share any other principles useful for designing ground rules?

Conversations => Relationships => Value (Part 2)

Thursday, June 2nd, 2011 by Adrian Segar

In Part 1 of this post I introduced a core component of Conference 2.0.

Conversations => Relationships => Value

Here’s why this sequence is an important consideration for modern meeting design, and how it’s enhanced by Conference 2.0 designs.

Why should customers buy from you?
Sometimes, business value grows out of the barrel of a gun. When you have a monopoly on a product or service, you can charge as much as the market will bear. But when competition exists, you must use different strategies. For example, you can play race-to-the-bottom: squeezing your suppliers for rock bottom costs that, hopefully, are lower than your competitors. Or, you can differentiate what you offer in many other ways: better service, more options, faster delivery, longer warranties, superior customer support, etc. Thousands of books have been written about how to profitably and consistently market and sell. And, except perhaps for the most cutthroat commodity markets, the ability to build and maintain good relationships with your customers is a key component of most techniques.

This ability is even more crucial in today’s markets, because of four factors:

  • The increased complexity of products and services.
  • The increased variety of products and services.
  • The increased speed of product and service development.
  • The increased transparency in many marketplaces caused by online customer reviews and feedback.

The first three factors make it harder for potential customers to evaluate whether a specific product or service is a desirable fit for their needs. The last amplifies any deficiencies (perceived or otherwise) that may exist, any of which could prove fatal to sales.

In this new business environment, creating and maintaining good, trustworthy relationships with your customers becomes crucial.

Relationships are the new impressions
In the good old days, the more people heard about your product through broadcast marketing (impressions), the greater your sales. Today, business value, especially for non-commodity products and services, is becoming increasingly linked to the strength and quality of buyer-seller relationships. Relationships can’t be manufactured by traditional marketing; they are built through conversations between you and potential customers. Some of your conversations will turn into relationships, and some of those relationships will lead to value for your business.

Not all meetings are alike
Meetings provide wonderful opportunities for conversations. But, for two reasons, some meeting environments provide better opportunities than others.

First, for all but very small meetings, the number of conversations doesn’t scale with event size. For example, at a one-day, two hundred attendee event you can’t have more ten-minute conversations than you can with a hundred in attendance. In fact, at a large conference it’s often harder to find the people you really want to talk to than at a smaller, more focused event.

Second, Conference 1.0 sessions are not designed to foster conversations. Conversations are relegated to breaks and socials. Compare this with Conference 2.0 designs, which excel at providing opportunities for relevant conversations

How Conference 2.0 designs support conversations
I’ve quoted Howard Givner before and I’ll quote him again. (Why? Because this is a highly positive remark he made about one of my conferences :-) .)

I easily established triple the number of new contacts, and formed stronger relationships with them, than at any other conference I’ve been to.

Why is Howard’s experience a common one at Conference 2.0? Let’s take Conferences That Work as an example. This conference design starts with initial roundtables that not only provide a structured forum for attendees to meet and learn about each other’s affiliations, interests, experience, and expertise but also effectively uncover the topics that people want to discuss and share. Within a couple of hours, every attendee has the initial introductions and information necessary to go out and start the right conversations about the right topics with the right people. Other Conference 2.0 designs encourage fruitful conversations by giving attendees the ability to meet around topics that they choose during the event.

The bottom line: Conference 2.0 formats routinely lead to more meaningful conversations, which in turn lead to more relationships, which in turn lead to more business value.

Does Conversations => Relationships => Value make sense to you?

Conference 2.0

Sunday, May 22nd, 2011 by Adrian Segar


It took less than ten years from the birth of the World Wide Web for its static, read-only, broadcast-style websites (Web 1.0) to be superseded by read-write, social websites (Web 2.0), where participation and collaboration are key.

Unfortunately, we’ve been running Conference 1.0 for over three hundred years, with no significant updates. (Is PowerPoint that superior to a blackboard?)

Conference 1.0 is characterized by:

  • Conference programs predetermined by a small organizing group.
  • Distinctions between presenters (teachers) and attendees (learners).
  • Sessions dominated by, at most, a few speakers.
  • Some combination of general and breakout sessions.
  • Long, uninterrupted broadcast content.
  • Networking opportunities relegated to meals & social events outside the program sessions.

Amazingly, after no change for three centuries, the last twenty years has seen the rise of a different kind of conference, Conference 2.0, characterized by:

  • Programs, schedules, and activities determined by attendees at the event.
  • The blurring of teacher and learner as fixed roles; a teacher at one moment may be a learner the next.
  • “The people formerly known as the audience” actively participating and contributing to sessions.
  • A wide range of session formats: small group discussions, Ignite & Pecha Kucha, simulations, workshops, etc., coupled with few or no general sessions.
  • Long sessions broken up by frequent participatory learning opportunities for attendees.
  • Conference designs that directly facilitate, support, and encourage connections and networking between attendees.

The move to Conference 2.0 will be much slower than the transition from Web 1.0 to 2.0, because Conference 1.0 has been our dominant modality for adult face-to-face learning for so long, and it’s hard to change entrenched culture. And yet, year by year, assisted by the impact of the rise of online, Conference 2.0 designs have become better known, and their advantages experienced by more and more people.

Not one of the 500 most popular websites today is a Web 1.0 design. I believe that, over time, a similar transition from Conference 1.0 to 2.0 will occur. Whether it takes five years or a hundred years is up to you.

What are you doing to prepare for the rise of Conference 2.0? Do you organize conferences, but haven’t experienced Conference 2.0 yet? What are you waiting for?

Tip for sharing new ideas at conferences

Sunday, April 24th, 2011 by Adrian Segar

New solutions form 2

Here’s a simple way to turn insights from individual conference attendees into a shared resource that can be used by everyone.  Create a form like the one illustrated above, and make multiple copies easily available at all sessions (place them on tables, have a stack by the room entrances etc.) At the start of the event, encourage attendees to use the forms to write down best practices, tips, and ideas sparked during sessions, explaining that all contributions will be compiled and shared with everyone after the conference. Provide boxes for attendees to post completed forms. Once the conference is over, promptly summarize the ideas shared and post the resulting document on the conference website or other conference community.

Thanks to the organizers of the MGMA PEER conference, where I first saw this idea in action.

An innovative experiential leadership session: The Music Paradigm

Saturday, April 16th, 2011 by Adrian Segar

Maestro - Music ParadigmAt the recent Medical Group Management Association PEER Conference, I had the good fortune to attend a fascinating opening session created by Roger Nierenberg of The Music Paradigm. Roger, Music Director of the Stamford Symphony Orchestra and a guest conductor around the world, uses a semi-impromptu exploration of the work of an orchestral conductor to illustrate a host of lessons about leadership.

When we entered the large performance room, we found, not the traditional orchestral layout, but clumps of professional orchestra players scattered amongst our seats. During the session we sat “inside” the orchestra, experiencing Roger and the other musicians as the orchestra did, rather than as audience members.

Roger started by telling us that many of the professional musicians present had not worked with him before that morning and that the session was not scripted, and he asked players and audience to be honest with their comments and responses.

Roger then conducted a ten-minute piece of orchestral music that was to be our musical touchstone for the session. During the remainder of the session, various excerpts from this piece were repeated, preceded with Roger’s instructions and followed by solicited observations from audience & orchestra members and Roger’s commentary.

Random audience members and musicians were asked for their honest responses and observations after each musical experiment; the session was in no way canned, and, being experiential, a written account obviously cannot do it justice. However, I’m sharing my notes in order to give a sense of the powerful learning a session like this can provide. I’ve italicized Roger’s words:

Roger compared his role as an orchestra conductor to the paradigm of leadership, to the work of leading change.

He began by instructing his orchestra I want this to be big & wonderful, and then proceeded to conduct “flat”, illustrating the problems that arise when leaders say one thing and do another.

Then Roger announced he would be very engaged, and over-directed a soloist. Afterward, the soloist described herself as “stifled”. Soloists, Roger told us, like to take control during solos and not have the conductor in their face—they will shut out conductors who over-direct. The parallel to micromanaging staff was obvious.

It’s such an easy thing for an orchestra to hate a conductor.

Roger asked Why a conductor at all? He demonstrated by not conducting a selection that included abrupt, unrehearsed change. The orchestra did a magnificent job, but sounded ragged. Egos won’t help. The lesson: good leadership requires specific direction at the right time, so everyone can execute together. A leader becomes more critically important the more change there is. The soloist who had to start illustrated another lesson—she thanked the rest of the orchestra for supporting her.

The baton: The tools of leadership are pretty simple.

Roger shared …the conductor’s nightmare: I’ll commit and nobody plays.

He demonstrated the following concepts:

Don’t get out too far in front of the group.
The perils of an unclear signal.
I’ll show you the way, but you’ll go there.

Conductors listen for stuff going wrong and fix it. And they also listen for the things that people are doing right. Take what the orchestra gives you and work with it. Listen for what could be.

Roger illustrated having the first violinist as right-hand man when you’re not around.

It’s hard to separate out ego needs. Make it clear to players how they work together.

Shared leadership: Sometimes an instrument leads.

If they trusted me today, that was because of what I did. You can’t ask for trust, you can earn it.

There are a lot of conductors who specialize in passion. This nauseates the orchestra.

An orchestra notices that conductor knows the score by heart.

On hearing something wrong during playing: Get together and check that note. Notice, I didn’t say who was right.

They feel more about your enthusiasm for their playing than my giving them a compliment.

conductingMusicians are trained to work together; physicians are trained as soloists.

If you can see the big picture, the more you can help orchestra members see it.

Roger’s last comment particularly resonated with me, for the times when I’m facilitating group process at a conference: My connection with orchestra members is a conduit for them to connect with each other.

I thoroughly enjoyed The Music Paradigm, finding it an effective way to explore many aspects of functional & dysfunctional leadership via an audience’s experience of the ways a conductor might lead an orchestra. If you’re looking for a unique and effective way to demonstrate multiple facets of leadership and guiding principles to your organization, check it out! And, if you have the opportunity to attend a Music Paradigm session, don’t miss it!

Photo attributions: The Music Paradigm

Conversations => Relationships => Value (Part 1)

Monday, April 11th, 2011 by Adrian Segar

I admit it
I do not have a good reaction when someone talks about the return on investment (ROI) from attending an event.

My initial internal response is a rant:

Do we ask for the ROI when we buy tickets to a concert?

How can you evaluate the ROI for learning something new or seeing something in a new way?

And my favorite: So, what is the ROI on a wedding? (Please don’t respond with an analysis of the average value of wedding gifts versus the cost of the wedding. I’d probably argue diminished responsibility at the subsequent trial.)

priceless 2254991225_8fc4e2967e_oIn some ways, my reaction is alarmingly similar to the message of the brilliant formula for the MasterCard advertisement:

[List of mundane items with $ assigned]
[Intangible item - Priceless!]

The delicious subtext: Forget the money, whip out the credit card, and go to the event anyway!

The morning after
OK, it’s strong black coffee time. Whether the benefits are intangible or concrete, we all know that there is some kind of calculation that goes on when a potential attendee decides whether to attend an event. I’ve written about how existing event ROI methodologies are a noble attempt to quantify this calculation and give it as much respectability and logic as we can. So, enough on ROI; here’s a core component of Conference 2.0.

Conversations => Relationships => Value

In Part 2 of this post, I explain why this sequence is now an important driver of modern meeting design, and how it’s enhanced by Conference 2.0 designs.

Photo attribution: Flickr user alanchan

Conferences That Work book cover

Thirty minutes of conference consulting included!

Planning a conference? Thirty minutes of consulting advice is included with your purchase!

I have been reading your book, and if I were Oprah, it would be my featured book of the month! —Elizabeth Luna, Manager of Live Events, Meeting Professionals International (MPI)

Where To Buy

Conferences That Work is available in eBook ($11), paperback ($26) or both ($32) via PayPal on this site. Signing and U.S. shipping included. Also available from your local bookseller, online everywhere, and at Booklocker.com.

Testimonial

There’s a relatively new, growing trend towards unconferences, sometimes organized using open space technologies. An excellent “how to” book on organizing this type of conference is Conferences that Work by Adrian Segar. — Gregg Marshall, American Institute of Inspectors, January 2011 newsletter


Popular Posts

Social Profiles

YouTube
Twitter
LinkedIn
social profilr

Recent posts

Google