|
Hello everyone. My team and I need some help!
?
In large organisations, when decisions are made about purchasing virtual platforms, they are often driven by the ¡°back end¡± (the technical specification) more than the ¡°front end¡± (what facilitators and leaders of events want/need to get
the outcomes they seek).
?
My team does a lot of virtual facilitation and hosting within a large system. Through the pandemic our session have got bigger, more complex and daring in their approach and with increasing level of interaction. We have started to make
the case in our organisation for access to a wider set of platforms to work with. I have been trying to find a ¡°taxonomy¡± which sets out different kinds of virtual events. This is to enable us to match the kinds of virtual events that my team is being asked
to provide with the tech platforms that we have available. This is where I need your help.
?
I haven¡¯t been able to find such a taxonomy. I can find plenty that are written from the ¡°back end¡± that contrast the tech specifications of different platforms but nothing that is written from the ¡°front end¡± perspective of facilitators
and leaders of meetings.
?
The nearest I have been able to find is the ¡°four bases¡± that Phil Hadridge of Idenk wrote from his research on learning from virtual meetings. So I used Phil¡¯s framework as my starting point and created a draft taxonomy. Here is Phil¡¯s
paper:
?
Here is my draft taxonomy:
?
?
So can you:
- Let me know if such a taxonomy already exists and give me the link?
- Help me to improve this. I know that many of you are very experienced virtual facilitators and I would appreciate it if you were as challenging
as you want to be.
?
Here is a link to the taxonomy as a Googledoc:
Please feel free to change it. It doesn¡¯t need to look beautiful, I can do that afterwards.
?
I will share the finished version with the group.
?
Thanks so much in advance.
Helen
?
PS: if you want to see the kinds of things that my team and I do, find us on Twitter at @HelenBevan and @HorizonsNHS
?
*
This message may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient please inform the
sender that you have received the message in error before deleting it.
Please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in relation to its contents. To do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your co-operation.
NHSmail is the secure email and directory service available for all NHS staff in England and Scotland. NHSmail is approved for exchanging patient data and other sensitive information with NHSmail and other accredited email services.
For more information and to find out how you can switch, https://portal.nhs.net/help/joiningnhsmail
|
Hi Helen, thanks for initiating this work. It reminds me of our efforts to do this in the communities of practice context with "Digital Habitats: Stewarding technology for communities. " Our frame work?broke things down to ACTIVITIES (things we do to achieve?our purpose), Platforms (aggregations of tools), Tools, and FEATURES which make those tools useful. It proved a useful way to frame things and allowed a "lego-like" view at the activity level. What we learned from our analysis was that the FEATURES of a tool tended to make more of a difference than the tools themselves. (I.e. Zoom is a virtual meeting tool, and one of its key features is breakout rooms).? The PDF of the book is free and all the worksheets are at - sadly, we had a wiki of tools and features but it became unworkable to continue on our own and we abandoned it. :(It takes a bigger village to raise a wiki!)?
As I scan Phil's framework (and survey based approach) what I'm reminded of is that there is an important pre-COVID context (who held/participated in VERY BAD meetings, who was really moving their meeting practice FORWARD) and during-COVID context (who had exposure to a variety of approaches, particularly ones that worked well or NOT). So our perceptions cloud the actual practice information to some extent. Have you seen this preprint just shared w/ me today??
Nancy On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 7:07 AM BEVAN, Helen (NHS ENGLAND & NHS IMPROVEMENT - X24) via <helen.bevan2= [email protected]> wrote:
Hello everyone. My team and I need some help!
?
In large organisations, when decisions are made about purchasing virtual platforms, they are often driven by the ¡°back end¡± (the technical specification) more than the ¡°front end¡± (what facilitators and leaders of events want/need to get
the outcomes they seek).
?
My team does a lot of virtual facilitation and hosting within a large system. Through the pandemic our session have got bigger, more complex and daring in their approach and with increasing level of interaction. We have started to make
the case in our organisation for access to a wider set of platforms to work with. I have been trying to find a ¡°taxonomy¡± which sets out different kinds of virtual events. This is to enable us to match the kinds of virtual events that my team is being asked
to provide with the tech platforms that we have available. This is where I need your help.
?
I haven¡¯t been able to find such a taxonomy. I can find plenty that are written from the ¡°back end¡± that contrast the tech specifications of different platforms but nothing that is written from the ¡°front end¡± perspective of facilitators
and leaders of meetings.
?
The nearest I have been able to find is the ¡°four bases¡± that Phil Hadridge of Idenk wrote from his research on learning from virtual meetings. So I used Phil¡¯s framework as my starting point and created a draft taxonomy. Here is Phil¡¯s
paper:
?
Here is my draft taxonomy:
?
?
So can you:
- Let me know if such a taxonomy already exists and give me the link?
- Help me to improve this. I know that many of you are very experienced virtual facilitators and I would appreciate it if you were as challenging
as you want to be.
?
Here is a link to the taxonomy as a Googledoc:
Please feel free to change it. It doesn¡¯t need to look beautiful, I can do that afterwards.
?
I will share the finished version with the group.
?
Thanks so much in advance.
Helen
?
PS: if you want to see the kinds of things that my team and I do, find us on Twitter at @HelenBevan and @HorizonsNHS
?
*
This message may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient please inform the
sender that you have received the message in error before deleting it.
Please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in relation to its contents. To do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your co-operation.
NHSmail is the secure email and directory service available for all NHS staff in England and Scotland. NHSmail is approved for exchanging patient data and other sensitive information with NHSmail and other accredited email services.
For more information and to find out how you can switch,
|
Have you looked at Elise Keith's meeting taxonomy and cadence? Might be another interesting way in?
?(and happy to have a convo about?this) N
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 12:29 PM Nancy White via <nancy.white= [email protected]> wrote: Hi Helen, thanks for initiating this work. It reminds me of our efforts to do this in the communities of practice context with "Digital Habitats: Stewarding technology for communities. " Our frame work?broke things down to ACTIVITIES (things we do to achieve?our purpose), Platforms (aggregations of tools), Tools, and FEATURES which make those tools useful. It proved a useful way to frame things and allowed a "lego-like" view at the activity level. What we learned from our analysis was that the FEATURES of a tool tended to make more of a difference than the tools themselves. (I.e. Zoom is a virtual meeting tool, and one of its key features is breakout rooms).? The PDF of the book is free and all the worksheets are at - sadly, we had a wiki of tools and features but it became unworkable to continue on our own and we abandoned it. :(It takes a bigger village to raise a wiki!)?
As I scan Phil's framework (and survey based approach) what I'm reminded of is that there is an important pre-COVID context (who held/participated in VERY BAD meetings, who was really moving their meeting practice FORWARD) and during-COVID context (who had exposure to a variety of approaches, particularly ones that worked well or NOT). So our perceptions cloud the actual practice information to some extent. Have you seen this preprint just shared w/ me today??
Nancy
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 7:07 AM BEVAN, Helen (NHS ENGLAND & NHS IMPROVEMENT - X24) via <helen.bevan2= [email protected]> wrote:
Hello everyone. My team and I need some help!
?
In large organisations, when decisions are made about purchasing virtual platforms, they are often driven by the ¡°back end¡± (the technical specification) more than the ¡°front end¡± (what facilitators and leaders of events want/need to get
the outcomes they seek).
?
My team does a lot of virtual facilitation and hosting within a large system. Through the pandemic our session have got bigger, more complex and daring in their approach and with increasing level of interaction. We have started to make
the case in our organisation for access to a wider set of platforms to work with. I have been trying to find a ¡°taxonomy¡± which sets out different kinds of virtual events. This is to enable us to match the kinds of virtual events that my team is being asked
to provide with the tech platforms that we have available. This is where I need your help.
?
I haven¡¯t been able to find such a taxonomy. I can find plenty that are written from the ¡°back end¡± that contrast the tech specifications of different platforms but nothing that is written from the ¡°front end¡± perspective of facilitators
and leaders of meetings.
?
The nearest I have been able to find is the ¡°four bases¡± that Phil Hadridge of Idenk wrote from his research on learning from virtual meetings. So I used Phil¡¯s framework as my starting point and created a draft taxonomy. Here is Phil¡¯s
paper:
?
Here is my draft taxonomy:
?
?
So can you:
- Let me know if such a taxonomy already exists and give me the link?
- Help me to improve this. I know that many of you are very experienced virtual facilitators and I would appreciate it if you were as challenging
as you want to be.
?
Here is a link to the taxonomy as a Googledoc:
Please feel free to change it. It doesn¡¯t need to look beautiful, I can do that afterwards.
?
I will share the finished version with the group.
?
Thanks so much in advance.
Helen
?
PS: if you want to see the kinds of things that my team and I do, find us on Twitter at @HelenBevan and @HorizonsNHS
?
*
This message may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient please inform the
sender that you have received the message in error before deleting it.
Please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in relation to its contents. To do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your co-operation.
NHSmail is the secure email and directory service available for all NHS staff in England and Scotland. NHSmail is approved for exchanging patient data and other sensitive information with NHSmail and other accredited email services.
For more information and to find out how you can switch,
|
Thanks for the mention, Nancy. One other resource we put together that could be useful to you is this catalog of existing meeting technologies.
It's organized by functional category (meaning what you do with each tech) rather than specific feature sets. We have work to do to break it down some more, but at the very least clicking through some of these should spark some ideas.
|
Helen: thanks for sharing this I found it thought provoking. I added a fourth slide you are welcome to rework.
I think these are orthogonal dimensions / aspects to meetings.
- # of participants in meeting
- Length of meeting (or a single synchronous segment
- Parallel channels - e-mail, public voice, public chat, private chat, shared edit in a document, ?
- Parallel meetings - e.g. breakout and reconvene / multi-threaded?
- Sequence of meetings - all day conference / multi-day
- Goal of meeting: problem framing, option generation, deciding upon a course of action, ?
- Records kept: written summary, recording, transcript (linked), hypermedia, ?
- before/setup vs. during vs. after/de-brief/followup
There may be some basic building blocks of different kinds of interactions that once they are exceeded require some kind of scatter-gather or broadcast and feedback to reach to limits of a group or organization and collect feedback.
- Knowledge Cafe model does this with small groups meeting in parallel and frequent rotation.
- Liberating structures does 1-2-4-all
- Open Space uses rule of two feet
Anyway happy to schedule a call and walk around this or take part in a larger discussion if it's of interest. I am in California but do calls to Europe on a regular basis.
My key take-aways from your notes from Hadridge 1. Being a good participant (in regular or creative sessions)
2. leading a small short meeting
3. hosting a larger longer interactive session (webinar+)
4. Running an experiential, immersive capacity building
i. The ability to keep in touch with a wider (larger, dispersed) group¨Cthe opportunity to connect the world
ii.
Use of ¡®chat¡¯ for quickfire discussion, saved for post event records
and analysis. This can be much faster than ¡®going-round the group¡¯ in a
f2f session. ¡®Non-verbal¡¯ features help too.
iii.Integrated polling
and whiteboard, and the ability to bring in other tools like Howspace,
Miro, Menti, Mural, Google Jamboard etc.
?iv.The speed in and out of breakout groups¨Cwith very little lost time.
?
v. The ability to ¡®see¡¯and visually connect with the whole group all
at?? once and in one gaze, with none of that tiresome neck moving!
?vi.
Bringing more diverse session leaders to the fore, as younger and?
junior colleagues are seen to have well-developed online session??
leadership skills
vii. Meeting each other in their home spaces may? deepen the sense of trust
Warm Regards Sean Murphy 408-252-9676 / skype skmurphy On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 7:07 AM BEVAN, Helen (NHS ENGLAND & NHS IMPROVEMENT - X24) via <helen.bevan2= [email protected]> wrote:
Hello everyone. My team and I need some help!
?
In large organisations, when decisions are made about purchasing virtual platforms, they are often driven by the ¡°back end¡± (the technical specification) more than the ¡°front end¡± (what facilitators and leaders of events want/need to get
the outcomes they seek).
?
My team does a lot of virtual facilitation and hosting within a large system. Through the pandemic our session have got bigger, more complex and daring in their approach and with increasing level of interaction. We have started to make
the case in our organisation for access to a wider set of platforms to work with. I have been trying to find a ¡°taxonomy¡± which sets out different kinds of virtual events. This is to enable us to match the kinds of virtual events that my team is being asked
to provide with the tech platforms that we have available. This is where I need your help.
?
I haven¡¯t been able to find such a taxonomy. I can find plenty that are written from the ¡°back end¡± that contrast the tech specifications of different platforms but nothing that is written from the ¡°front end¡± perspective of facilitators
and leaders of meetings.
?
The nearest I have been able to find is the ¡°four bases¡± that Phil Hadridge of Idenk wrote from his research on learning from virtual meetings. So I used Phil¡¯s framework as my starting point and created a draft taxonomy. Here is Phil¡¯s
paper:
?
Here is my draft taxonomy:
?
?
So can you:
- Let me know if such a taxonomy already exists and give me the link?
- Help me to improve this. I know that many of you are very experienced virtual facilitators and I would appreciate it if you were as challenging
as you want to be.
?
Here is a link to the taxonomy as a Googledoc:
Please feel free to change it. It doesn¡¯t need to look beautiful, I can do that afterwards.
?
I will share the finished version with the group.
?
Thanks so much in advance.
Helen
?
PS: if you want to see the kinds of things that my team and I do, find us on Twitter at @HelenBevan and @HorizonsNHS
?
*
This message may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient please inform the
sender that you have received the message in error before deleting it.
Please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in relation to its contents. To do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your co-operation.
NHSmail is the secure email and directory service available for all NHS staff in England and Scotland. NHSmail is approved for exchanging patient data and other sensitive information with NHSmail and other accredited email services.
For more information and to find out how you can switch,
|
Hi Helen
for me the key thing would be the depth of participant engagement. But I wrote to you separately anyway.
Best wishes?
Andrea
|
Andrea: one way to deepen engagement is to allow for multiple parallel forms of interaction: if you only require participants to listen that may lead to shallow participation in a meeting that's longer than 10-15 minutes. Adding one or more of these approaches may help to deepen engagement:
- rotating presenters / screen sharing
- simultaneous shared note taking in a common doc
- queuing questions in a common chat channel
- shared sketching in a tool like
- short breakout sessions either pairwise or 4-6 people with report back
- a quiet brainwriting session to allow introverts to collect their thoughts before soliciting feedback on potential courses of action
- broad involvement up front in planning agenda / topics
- securing a working consensus on the purpose of the meeting and likely next steps: circle back to this in a closing section so that you get alignment on next steps and engagement in follow-on actions after the meeting ends.
I found Priya Parker's "Art of Gathering" offered some useful suggestions on engagment. Here is a short blog post you may find relevant:
Two questions:
- How do you measure engagement now?
- What have you experimented with to make online meetings more engaging?
Sean Murphy 408-252-9676
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 10:24 PM Andrea Gewessler < andrea@...> wrote: Hi Helen
for me the key thing would be the depth of participant engagement. But I wrote to you separately anyway.
Best wishes?
Andrea
|
Hi All,
Thank you very much for these great comments. Helen and I have been working further on this and your insights have stretched our thinking significantly.
Nancy: your mapping of features to activities is a very useful summary of our 'problem' when we have been trying to compare tools. Increasingly we are finding the need to work backwards from activities to features and then to tools when designing sessions. This is all the more important as the tech is landscape expanding so rapidly and as we move into a new context of vastly enhanced awareness of what is possible due to the massive uptake of virtual working during COVID. Following your comment we have been information gathering in our recent events to develop our understanding of what features our participants like and why they like them vis-a-vis the activity at hand.
Elise: building on the above, your catalogue of meeting technologies by functional category is the most comprehensive one that I have personally come across and I will certainly be sharing it! I do predict that this kind of categorisation will become increasingly difficult though as platforms seem to be increasingly merging lots of features.
Sean: these dimensions certainly challenge the taxonomy levels - I can see how a virtual session from level 1 and another from level 5 could be more similar in terms of their goals than two different events at level 5, for example. Linking this up with Nancy's work it seems that these are useful for providing a framework for making decisions about event design when mapped against the features of certain tools.? Another dimension we have also been thinking about a lot recently that may be a complement these is 'synchronous - asynchronous'. We think that there is an opportunity to challenge what needs to actually be done during a meeting (synchronous) and what could be extended between meetings or done even without meetings at all (asynchronous) in order to deliver greater freedom and flexibility.
Andrea: I think that engagement can rightly act as another dimension added to Sean's list . By this I am thinking about the directions of interactions e.g. does the information flow go from one to many, many to one, top down, bottom up etc.
Thank you all again for your insightful feedback, and we look forward to sharing more of our thoughts and findings with you as we continue this work.
Tom & Helen
|
Hello Helen,?
Just as location of the chairs in a room changes the conversation in the room, and you have to match the layout of a room to the purpose of the conversations you want to have in that room, the choices of the video platform frame the conversations and they create or dismantle?the conversation you are trying to have.?
Part of your taxonomy is going to need to deal with what the point of the event is, and what the collection (many) of conversations you intend to have as a result of that event. Including the event being part of a series of events that create a larger conversation.?
Zoom webinar is horrible for having the audience learn about each other.? Zoom breakout rooms are horrible for the law of two feet (mingling) Teams login /authentication structures get in the way of multi-organizational conversations.? Remo events make it hard to get groups to have a structured 1:1 speed dating so that everyone gets to "shake hands" with everyone else.?
Perhaps you could see this taxonomic conversation with the taxonomy of the conversations that you want to craft?
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 7:07 AM BEVAN, Helen (NHS ENGLAND & NHS IMPROVEMENT - X24) via <helen.bevan2= [email protected]> wrote:
Hello everyone. My team and I need some help!
?
In large organisations, when decisions are made about purchasing virtual platforms, they are often driven by the ¡°back end¡± (the technical specification) more than the ¡°front end¡± (what facilitators and leaders of events want/need to get
the outcomes they seek).
?
My team does a lot of virtual facilitation and hosting within a large system. Through the pandemic our session have got bigger, more complex and daring in their approach and with increasing level of interaction. We have started to make
the case in our organisation for access to a wider set of platforms to work with. I have been trying to find a ¡°taxonomy¡± which sets out different kinds of virtual events. This is to enable us to match the kinds of virtual events that my team is being asked
to provide with the tech platforms that we have available. This is where I need your help.
?
I haven¡¯t been able to find such a taxonomy. I can find plenty that are written from the ¡°back end¡± that contrast the tech specifications of different platforms but nothing that is written from the ¡°front end¡± perspective of facilitators
and leaders of meetings.
?
The nearest I have been able to find is the ¡°four bases¡± that Phil Hadridge of Idenk wrote from his research on learning from virtual meetings. So I used Phil¡¯s framework as my starting point and created a draft taxonomy. Here is Phil¡¯s
paper:
?
Here is my draft taxonomy:
?
?
So can you:
- Let me know if such a taxonomy already exists and give me the link?
- Help me to improve this. I know that many of you are very experienced virtual facilitators and I would appreciate it if you were as challenging
as you want to be.
?
Here is a link to the taxonomy as a Googledoc:
Please feel free to change it. It doesn¡¯t need to look beautiful, I can do that afterwards.
?
I will share the finished version with the group.
?
Thanks so much in advance.
Helen
?
PS: if you want to see the kinds of things that my team and I do, find us on Twitter at @HelenBevan and @HorizonsNHS
?
*
This message may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient please inform the
sender that you have received the message in error before deleting it.
Please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in relation to its contents. To do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your co-operation.
NHSmail is the secure email and directory service available for all NHS staff in England and Scotland. NHSmail is approved for exchanging patient data and other sensitive information with NHSmail and other accredited email services.
For more information and to find out how you can switch,
--
JOHN SECHREST
Founder,?Seattle Angel Conference
? @sechrest
|
Greetings everyone,?
What an amazing thread I was missing here! I do not believe?in coincidences and just as I am preparing my next Health Regions Summit, your contributions?were?inspiring and useful, thank you all for bringing so much wisdom.?
Amazing to see that there is now a sufficiently robust set of principles, structures, guidelines, taxonomies that can be all forming part of an emergent field (tentatively) the science of meetings??
@John love your 'taxonomic' comments they totally?resonate with my experience also.?
@Tom and Helen "I do predict that this kind of categorisation will become increasingly difficult though as platforms seem to be increasingly merging lots of features" so true and that's why I selected in my last book (co-authored by Elise and 4 other scientists) I deliberately?select the 4 digital platforms I consider can worth knowing in more detail if you are serious about the way you meet (virtually or face to face). In fact, we came up and explore concepts?such as 'collaboration architect' and 'digital facilitator' (talking about meeting taxonomy we might start thinking about a 'people taxonomy' related to meetings). --> more here:?
Finally, to spice?up your thoughts (as I know you are all 'meeting scientists') it may be worth trying a couple of questions if you allow me, connected with?Meeting Taxonomies.
1) If we consider that a spectrum or a continuum may exist between two points, one being a 'casual conversation' and the other a 'structured meeting', what is that decisive point that transforms one into the other? Does such a degree of decisiveness can exist in this case??
This next one might help the former
2) If we consider that an asynchronous?meeting can occur via the exchange of email messages, when can we consider?that we are "in a meeting' and not just chatting or having a conversation by email???
Best wishes and stay?safe!
Paul Nunesdea | Paulo Nunes de Abreu?
+34 667 643 688 Twitter: @nunesdea
On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 at 18:08, John Sechrest < sechrest@...> wrote: Hello Helen,?
Just as location of the chairs in a room changes the conversation in the room, and you have to match the layout of a room to the purpose of the conversations you want to have in that room, the choices of the video platform frame the conversations and they create or dismantle?the conversation you are trying to have.?
Part of your taxonomy is going to need to deal with what the point of the event is, and what the collection (many) of conversations you intend to have as a result of that event. Including the event being part of a series of events that create a larger conversation.?
Zoom webinar is horrible for having the audience learn about each other.? Zoom breakout rooms are horrible for the law of two feet (mingling) Teams login /authentication structures get in the way of multi-organizational conversations.? Remo events make it hard to get groups to have a structured 1:1 speed dating so that everyone gets to "shake hands" with everyone else.?
Perhaps you could see this taxonomic conversation with the taxonomy of the conversations that you want to craft?
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 7:07 AM BEVAN, Helen (NHS ENGLAND & NHS IMPROVEMENT - X24) via <helen.bevan2= [email protected]> wrote:
Hello everyone. My team and I need some help!
?
In large organisations, when decisions are made about purchasing virtual platforms, they are often driven by the ¡°back end¡± (the technical specification) more than the ¡°front end¡± (what facilitators and leaders of events want/need to get
the outcomes they seek).
?
My team does a lot of virtual facilitation and hosting within a large system. Through the pandemic our session have got bigger, more complex and daring in their approach and with increasing level of interaction. We have started to make
the case in our organisation for access to a wider set of platforms to work with. I have been trying to find a ¡°taxonomy¡± which sets out different kinds of virtual events. This is to enable us to match the kinds of virtual events that my team is being asked
to provide with the tech platforms that we have available. This is where I need your help.
?
I haven¡¯t been able to find such a taxonomy. I can find plenty that are written from the ¡°back end¡± that contrast the tech specifications of different platforms but nothing that is written from the ¡°front end¡± perspective of facilitators
and leaders of meetings.
?
The nearest I have been able to find is the ¡°four bases¡± that Phil Hadridge of Idenk wrote from his research on learning from virtual meetings. So I used Phil¡¯s framework as my starting point and created a draft taxonomy. Here is Phil¡¯s
paper:
?
Here is my draft taxonomy:
?
?
So can you:
- Let me know if such a taxonomy already exists and give me the link?
- Help me to improve this. I know that many of you are very experienced virtual facilitators and I would appreciate it if you were as challenging
as you want to be.
?
Here is a link to the taxonomy as a Googledoc:
Please feel free to change it. It doesn¡¯t need to look beautiful, I can do that afterwards.
?
I will share the finished version with the group.
?
Thanks so much in advance.
Helen
?
PS: if you want to see the kinds of things that my team and I do, find us on Twitter at @HelenBevan and @HorizonsNHS
?
*
This message may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient please inform the
sender that you have received the message in error before deleting it.
Please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in relation to its contents. To do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your co-operation.
NHSmail is the secure email and directory service available for all NHS staff in England and Scotland. NHSmail is approved for exchanging patient data and other sensitive information with NHSmail and other accredited email services.
For more information and to find out how you can switch,
--
JOHN SECHREST
Founder,?Seattle Angel Conference
? @sechrest
|
Apologies if I missed this in an earlier email, as I'm new to the group (thanks for inviting me, Helen!). As part of the taxonomy, I'm wondering about people's favorite platforms for online meetings, conferences, collaboration and such? On a practical level, what are the best alternatives in each category?
Kate
Greetings everyone,?
What an amazing thread I was missing here! I do not believe?in coincidences and just as I am preparing my next Health Regions Summit, your contributions?were?inspiring and useful, thank you all for bringing so much wisdom.?
Amazing to see that there is now a sufficiently robust set of principles, structures, guidelines, taxonomies that can be all forming part of an emergent field (tentatively) the science of meetings??
@John love your 'taxonomic' comments they totally?resonate with my experience also.?
@Tom and Helen "I do predict that this kind of categorisation will become increasingly difficult though as platforms seem to be increasingly merging lots of features" so true and that's why I selected in my last book (co-authored by Elise and 4 other scientists) I deliberately?select the 4 digital platforms I consider can worth knowing in more detail if you are serious about the way you meet (virtually or face to face). In fact, we came up and explore concepts?such as 'collaboration architect' and 'digital facilitator' (talking about meeting taxonomy we might start thinking about a 'people taxonomy' related to meetings). --> more here:?
Finally, to spice?up your thoughts (as I know you are all 'meeting scientists') it may be worth trying a couple of questions if you allow me, connected with?Meeting Taxonomies.
1) If we consider that a spectrum or a continuum may exist between two points, one being a 'casual conversation' and the other a 'structured meeting', what is that decisive point that transforms one into the other? Does such a degree of decisiveness can exist in this case??
This next one might help the former
2) If we consider that an asynchronous?meeting can occur via the exchange of email messages, when can we consider?that we are "in a meeting' and not just chatting or having a conversation by email???
Best wishes and stay?safe!
Paul Nunesdea | Paulo Nunes de Abreu?
+34 667 643 688 Twitter: @nunesdea
On Fri, 25 Sep 2020 at 18:08, John Sechrest < sechrest@...> wrote: Hello Helen,?
Just as location of the chairs in a room changes the conversation in the room, and you have to match the layout of a room to the purpose of the conversations you want to have in that room, the choices of the video platform frame the conversations and they create or dismantle?the conversation you are trying to have.?
Part of your taxonomy is going to need to deal with what the point of the event is, and what the collection (many) of conversations you intend to have as a result of that event. Including the event being part of a series of events that create a larger conversation.?
Zoom webinar is horrible for having the audience learn about each other.? Zoom breakout rooms are horrible for the law of two feet (mingling) Teams login /authentication structures get in the way of multi-organizational conversations.? Remo events make it hard to get groups to have a structured 1:1 speed dating so that everyone gets to "shake hands" with everyone else.?
Perhaps you could see this taxonomic conversation with the taxonomy of the conversations that you want to craft?
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 7:07 AM BEVAN, Helen (NHS ENGLAND & NHS IMPROVEMENT - X24) via <helen.bevan2= [email protected]> wrote:
Hello everyone. My team and I need some help!
?
In large organisations, when decisions are made about purchasing virtual platforms, they are often driven by the ¡°back end¡± (the technical specification) more than the ¡°front end¡± (what facilitators and leaders of events want/need to get
the outcomes they seek).
?
My team does a lot of virtual facilitation and hosting within a large system. Through the pandemic our session have got bigger, more complex and daring in their approach and with increasing level of interaction. We have started to make
the case in our organisation for access to a wider set of platforms to work with. I have been trying to find a ¡°taxonomy¡± which sets out different kinds of virtual events. This is to enable us to match the kinds of virtual events that my team is being asked
to provide with the tech platforms that we have available. This is where I need your help.
?
I haven¡¯t been able to find such a taxonomy. I can find plenty that are written from the ¡°back end¡± that contrast the tech specifications of different platforms but nothing that is written from the ¡°front end¡± perspective of facilitators
and leaders of meetings.
?
The nearest I have been able to find is the ¡°four bases¡± that Phil Hadridge of Idenk wrote from his research on learning from virtual meetings. So I used Phil¡¯s framework as my starting point and created a draft taxonomy. Here is Phil¡¯s
paper:
?
Here is my draft taxonomy:
?
?
So can you:
- Let me know if such a taxonomy already exists and give me the link?
- Help me to improve this. I know that many of you are very experienced virtual facilitators and I would appreciate it if you were as challenging
as you want to be.
?
Here is a link to the taxonomy as a Googledoc:
Please feel free to change it. It doesn¡¯t need to look beautiful, I can do that afterwards.
?
I will share the finished version with the group.
?
Thanks so much in advance.
Helen
?
PS: if you want to see the kinds of things that my team and I do, find us on Twitter at @HelenBevan and @HorizonsNHS
?
*
This message may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient please inform the
sender that you have received the message in error before deleting it.
Please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in relation to its contents. To do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your co-operation.
NHSmail is the secure email and directory service available for all NHS staff in England and Scotland. NHSmail is approved for exchanging patient data and other sensitive information with NHSmail and other accredited email services.
For more information and to find out how you can switch,
--
JOHN SECHREST
Founder,?Seattle Angel Conference
? @sechrest
-- Kate B. Hilton, JD, MTS Faculty, Institute for Healthcare Improvement Leadership Faculty, Atlantic Fellows for Health Equity, George Washington University 617.620.6293 (mobile)
|
BEVAN, Helen
Nancy White
Elise Keith
John Sechrest
Paul Nunesdea