The Conference Arc — the key components of every successful participation-rich conference

Traditional conferences focus on a hodgepodge of pre-determined sessions punctuated with socials, surrounded by short welcomes and closings. Such conference designs treat openings and closings as perfunctory traditions, perhaps pumped up with a keynote or two rather than key components of the conference design. Unlike traditional conferences, participant-driven and participation-rich peer conferences have a conference arc with three essential components: Beginning, Middle, and End. This arc creates a seamless conference flow where each phase builds on what has come before.

Participant-driven and participation-rich peer conference designs improve upon traditional events. They don’t treat openings and closings as necessary evils but as critical components of the meeting design.

Let’s examine each phase of the peer conference arc in more detail.

An illustration of The Conference Arc — the key components of every successful participation-rich conference. Beginning: —Uncover needs, wants, and resources in the room —Build program that matches desired needs and wants with the available resources Middle —Run the program End —Consolidate individual learning and determine desired changes & next steps —Publicly evaluate the conference and uncover new initiatives

Beginning

Conferences are full of sessions where attendees know as little about each other as when they arrived at the event. In contrast, peer conferences allocate time to introduce participants to each other through a discovery process. Then, they build a conference program that truly meets their wants and needs.

Allocating discovery time at the start pays rich dividends over the entire remainder of the event. Investing in such beginnings enriches even a one-day event. Longer event designs allocate more time — up to half a day — to produce detailed programs that are optimized to provide the best possible conference experience for each individual participant.

Though there are numerous ways to implement beginnings, all peer conference designs include the following.

Discovery — uncover the needs, wants, and resources in the room

This is the piece most meetings ignore entirely. And it’s the most important component of creating meetings that really work. In this post, I explain the importance and implementation of discovery.

Topic suggestions and offers

Discovery exposes participants to a smorgasbord of possible conference topics, issues, and ideas. They’ve also discovered others present who are potential resources. This phase employs various methods for participants to request or offer sessions to hold in the Middle of the peer conference.

Topic cleanup

Over the years, I’ve found it helpful to do some topic cleanup on the suggestions and offers that participants make. This involves using a small group of conference subject-matter experts and any interested participants to cluster suggestions appropriately, combine duplicates, and carefully discard any suggestions that are clearly impracticable (e.g., too broad) or unclear.

Topic rating

Participants now rate the cleaned-up topics using one of several methods. When the rating is complete we have all the information needed to build an optimum Middle for the event.

Session determination

The small group of subject-matter experts now uses the gathered information to decide on the sessions to run and one or more facilitators/presenters/panelists/moderators to lead them.

Session scheduling (leadership, time, and place)

Now, scheduling the resulting sessions into a conference program can be done, taking into account any programmatic and logistical constraints.

Middle

The middle of a peer conference corresponds to the program segments of traditional events, with two important improvements. First, thanks to the beginning process, the scheduled sessions genuinely reflect the wants and needs of the meeting participants. So they are almost always very well attended and appreciated. Second, the earlier scheduling process allows the scheduling group to consider the flow of sessions. This allows, for example, the scheduling of general sessions before specialized drill-downs on aspects of a popular topic.

Because it’s unlikely (though not impossible) that session leaders will give a carefully prepared standard presentation, sessions created via the beginning process are likely to be facilitated discussions focused around the expertise and experience of one or more leaders and incorporating additional expertise and experience of all those present. Thousands of evaluations over the years have shown that participant satisfaction with such informal facilitated formats is significantly higher than that reported for conventional lecture-style presentations.

End

Rather than closing a conference with a banquet, keynote, or other social event, peer conferences provide two vital and important opportunities that traditional conferences omit.

Guided introspection on learning from the conference and planned professional/personal change

When you attended a conference and nothing significant changed in your life, was it worth going? You might have had fun, a rest, or time hanging out somewhere nice, but was that really the point?

Most attendees learn something valuable at meetings and make new connections, but often, this value doesn’t translate into future useful outcomes because it isn’t reinforced in a timely fashion. The notes you made of new things to try at work get forgotten in a drawer, along with the business cards of the interesting people you met.

Yes, change is hard. To increase the likelihood that conference experience translates into appropriate positive change, peer conferences provide a structured opportunity for participants to determine what they want to change in their professional or personal lives as a result of their experiences at the event. This process is called a personal introspective.

Public evaluation of the event and exploration of improvements and new initiatives

During the personal introspective, attendees review their conference experience and learning and create a plan for future individual change. The last session at a peer conference, a group spective, provides the same opportunities for the entire conference community collectively.

The group spective starts with a simple public group evaluation of the entire conference experience. No “smile sheet” evaluations that only conference organizers see. Instead, participants share — via a structured, facilitated process — what was great about the event and how to make it even better. The information gleaned is, of course, immensely useful to the conference organizers, but it also does something even more important: it gives every participant a collective overview of the group’s conference experience, building a conference community around the shared experiences.

The group spective also offers the possibility to create something enduring, something more than an intense, one-time experience. During the session, participants begin to explore their future together.

The Conference Arc

The conference arc contains everything necessary for participants to discover, learn, connect, and engage with the topics or issues that brought them together. By its close, it has planted the seeds of future meetings built around the commonalities, learning, and connections that participants have uncovered and appreciated in each other.

In this way, the conference arc perpetuates itself.

The best way to fundamentally improve a dull conference

The best way to fundamentally improve your dull conference: Photograph of Adrian Segar [back to the camera, purple shirt] facilitating at a Conference That Work. Participants are sitting in a single large circle in a large wood-paneled hall.

What’s the best way to fundamentally improve a dull conference?

I’ve been attending conferences for over forty years. Most of them are dull and largely irrelevant. This seems to be the norm because when you talk to attendees you find they set a low bar for satisfaction— e.g. “It’s OK if I learn one new thing a day, oh, and if I make a useful connection or two that would be great!

For twenty years I assumed this was how conferences were supposed to be. When I began creating conferences myself, I used the same standard format: invite experts to speak to audiences.

Then in 1992, circumstances forced me to do one thing differently. Ever since, thanks to that happy accident, I have been designing and facilitating peer conferences that people have loved for over a quarter-century.

“…gets an award for most/best/most thoughtfully organized conference I think I’ve ever been to.”

“I’m an introvert. I’ve never shared as much at a conference before. Your process is brilliant. Thank you.”

“…the truest sense of community I’ve ever felt and it was beautiful to experience. I hope you have the opportunity to experience something like this in your lifetime. It changes everything.”
—Three recent participants on their experience at three different peer conferences

What’s the one key thing I do that almost no one else does?

I facilitate the discovery of interesting people, ideas, and resources at the start of the event.

What does that mean and how do I do it? Read on!

The dreary reality of most conferences

How many conferences have you attended where you mostly meet someone interesting by chance? When you’re with colleagues, you hang out together because everyone else is a stranger. When you don’t really know anyone, you talk to the people you’re sitting next to at meals and hope they’ll be interesting.

Have you ever wondered whether someone who would be really great to meet is sitting three chairs away from you during a session or lunch? Well, you’ll never find out at a typical conference, and you won’t get to meet them.

In addition, think about all that time spent talking to people with whom you have little in common. You’re searching for useful connections, and solutions to professional challenges — but the conference provides no support for discovering and connecting with the most important resources in the room: the other interesting participants with the background and answers you want and need.

It doesn’t have to be this way. Here’s what I do to greatly improve a dull conference for everyone.

Facilitating the discovery of interesting people, ideas, and resources

Immediately after welcome and housekeeping announcements I run one or more opening sessions that use The Three Questions, allowing participants to learn about each other, share what they would like to learn and discuss, and proffer their relevant expertise and experience.

This single opening exercise, which takes between thirty minutes and two hours depending on the conference size and duration, is the most important component of creating a meeting that really matters. A meeting that makes possible the learning, connection, engagement, and outcomes that stakeholders and participants want.

Providing this safe discovery process allows each person to get immediate answers to the core questions that they want and need to know about the other participants. If there are people in your roundtable you’d like to meet, you’ll find out who they are. You’ll hear a wealth of topics and issues that are on participants’ minds, including great new ideas. You’ll discover the people in the room who can be valuable resources for you: people with experience and expertise to help you with your current challenges, and people who are interested in exploring or collaborating on common interests you find you share. And finally, you may well discover (to your surprise) that you are a valuable resource for other participants!

When the roundtables are over, you will have something that typical conferences never supply: key information about the people present that provides a fantastic introduction to the participants, current challenges, opportunities, and resources in the room.

You then have the rest of the conference to take advantage of everything you’ve learned.

Why early discovery works so well

There’s nothing I’ve described that can’t also be done through painstaking conversation with the strangers around you at an event. What three-question roundtables do so well is supply and support a simple process that makes this discovery efficient, and comprehensive. Your participants will share and receive the information they need to make the conference that follows maximally effective for them. And they will appreciate that!

Want to transform your next conference by facilitating early discovery?

The full nitty-gritty details of how to prepare for and run three-question roundtables can be found in my book The Power of Participation: Creating Conferences That Deliver Learning, Connection, Engagement, and Action. Or experience the power of a roundtable yourself (and many more ways to significantly improve your conferences) by attending one of my Participate! workshops.

Dear Adrian — How does group size impact process design?

group size impact process design: A photograph of a busy highway full of traffic. The message "GOT A QUESTION? ASK ADRIAN!" flashes on an overhead sign.

How does group size impact process design?

Another issue of an occasional series—Dear Adrian—in which I answer questions about event design, elementary particle physics, solar hot water systems, facilitation, and anything else I might conceivably know something about. If you have a question you’d like me to answer, please contact me (don’t worry, I won’t publish anything without your permission).

Here’s a great question from Australian facilitator, trainer, and coach Steve Rohan-Jones about … The Three Questions! (Check out the link if you aren’t already familiar with The Three Questions. Otherwise, what you are about to read won’t make much sense.)

Good morning from Canberra, Adrian,

I have just read through The Power of Participation over one year after I received a signed copy from you!

In short, I have a question about The Three Questions. I understand the process both in singular and multiple form (combined with round tables). From my reading, The Three Questions appears to take some time (based on the amount of participants) with only one person speaking. This appears at odds with the aim to get people engaged in conversation.

I would also think – not a question just an observation – that group of 6 would be better. This would speed up the set piece of one person speaking and others listening, reduce the need for breaks and keep the energy going early in the day.

Can you clarify my understanding of The Three Questions?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Cheers
Steve Rohan-Jones
O2C Pty Ltd

Steve, I like your question. It highlights a key tension inherent in group process design: the tension between intimacy (going deep with a few) and discovery (uncovering the possibilities of the many). How does group size impact process design? Let’s explore this in more detail.

Valuable meeting outcomes

When people are meeting for a shared purpose, some of the potentially valuable outcomes include:

  1. Learning about each other.
  2. Being and feeling heard.
  3. Sharing with each other.
  4. Learning from each other.

The Three Questions focuses on #1, #2, and #3. I use it at the start of an event because we can’t learn effectively from our peers (#4) until we:

  • have learned what they might have to offer (#1);
  • feel safe sharing with them (#2); and
  • have each had an opportunity to share our expertise and experience (#3).

Because each person gets the same amount of time to share their answers to The Three Questions with a group, the time needed to run the process is proportional to the group’s size. [I’m neglecting here the few minutes needed to a) explain the process and b) provide one or two short breaks for large groups.] In practice, I’ve found this restricts the maximum effective size of a single Three Questions group to 60 people. What if more than 60 people are present? Then you divide them into smaller groups and run multiple simultaneous The Three Questions sessions.

Even if we have 60 people or fewer, we may still decide to divide our group into several smaller groups and run multiple simultaneous sessions. Typically we’ll do this when time is a constraint.

For example, next month I’m leading a two-hour, ~200 person, participation techniques workshop. To cover multiple core techniques in two hours with this many participants, I will give them just a taste of The Three Questions by running 30+ concurrent 6-person groups. Everyone will know five former strangers much better after the ~20-minute session is over, but they won’t have learned more about the others in the room.

Trade-offs

So when designing a session or conference that includes The Three Questions, there is a trade-off between the time we have or want to allocate and group size. Why? Because we need to give each person sufficient time for meaningful sharing with their group (typically 1 – 2 minutes per person).

There’s no single answer for this design decision that’s optimum for all circumstances. At a multi-day conference, for example, it makes sense to run multiple simultaneous  50-60 person Three Questions groups for a couple of hours at the start of the event. Everyone in each group will learn important information about the interests and resources of their 50-60 peers. For a monthly board meeting, once a year I might run a single session with the ten board members to remind the group of each member’s “why?”. And at a one-day peer conference with ninety participants, perhaps three simultaneous 30-person sessions would be the way to go.

In some ways this design consideration is a parallel application of Jerry Weinberg’s Law of Raspberry Jam:

The wider you spread it, the thinner it gets.

We are looking for a balance between:

  • intimacy — sharing deeply with a few people, making the format feel more like a conversation; and
  • discovery — learning important things (interests and resources) about everyone in a large group, in a process that feels more like structured sharing.

Both intimacy and discovery have their benefits. So how does group size impact process design? By choosing the size of the groups using The Three Questions, it’s possible to select the balance that works for the design and constraints of each unique situation.