First #RSAde Meeting - what did we talk about

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Jemima Gibbons on May 5, 2010 at 21:18

Thanks everyone for a great meeting today.

There were many good points raised in the meeting and afterwards in the Gerard Bar chatting to David (Wilcox) and Chris (Yapp), especially around the RSA idea (or 'mission') of 21st Century Enlightenment, and institutional change, which seems to chime perfectly with our social/ digital media 'cause'.

The idea of social currency is really exciting and I hope something which we can develop in the longer term (certainly bearing in mind that a reward system is essential for high levels of 'engagement'). Jan Wyllie has written about this on his diigo blog, but the piece isn't possible to access without a login.

Re our scope, we could argue about 'digital' vs 'social' or 'engagement' vs 'empowerment' til the cows come home, but I think we are broadly headed in the same(ish) direction for now.

@Vivs thanks for your summary - those were the focus areas I highlighted too (although without the short term/ long term split - but all that looks good to me.

@William thanks for the list of Ning alternatives. I'm wondering if we shouldn't try Huddle specifically for Projects, at least. They provide service free to charities, at least?

@David Briggs I agree - we shouldn't worry too much about 'corporate' stuff and maybe just focus on 'fellow' stuff. We shouldn't worry too much about doing what the RSA management team thinks is 'okay' - we should just do whatever it is we decide we need to do. But the RSA management team seem to be looking to us to do exactly that, anyway.

Permalink Reply by James Wilding on May 5, 2010 at 21:47

Thanks all for the rapid update from today's meeting that I, like many, could not attend. As mentioned previously, I am a education ning-runner, and perhaps about 12 months ahead of the curve this group is on at present. I suspect Ning's decision to only run pay-for nings is a small cost to bear at present (a few dollars a month) whilst the RSAfellowship works out what's best to support its C21 grass roots development. There are a whole host of engagement reports with digital technologies out just now (Scottish FE yesterday covering 10 years) and striving for coherence (the work of managers) remains at variance with the spontaneity of grassroots members, as new tools arrive that transform practice - who'd have thought twitter would be the easiest way to speak to your internet provider a couple of years back. Given the influence of our RSA fellowship, I'd recommend you lean on someone like Jane Hart, of C4LPT, who so understands this stuff, she'd shine the right light pretty quickly for now. My take would be for the Fellowship to incorporate the WordPress suite within its own website, software capable of running the whole community network thing, ensuring that content ownership of the RSAfellowship ideas stays within RSA bounds. You want to be very careful about releasing onto third party servers ideas that by the very nature of RSA members are likely to in due course be of real commercial value – ownership is nine tenths of the law.

Permalink Reply by David Wilcox on May 5, 2010 at 21:58

I think Dave Briggs really pins it down: the issue - before we can decide what next - is, who controls what now, who can control what next. And divide corporate and Fellowship - because, perhaps unfortunately, that's how RSA works. So, FOR THIS GROUP I suggest:
- leave aside the offer to Fellows, helping them navigate online space, engage with staff-led projects, etc. That's the job of the staff. If it needs improvement, we could be critical friends.
- leave aside the database and directory. ... except, if RSA wants that to work, they should co-design with Fellows. But the initiative is with staff.
- leave aside the 21st century enlightenment mission ... unless Matthew Taylor wishes to involve Fellowship, or we wish invidually to get involved.. It is currently conceived as outward facing. I don't think it should be, but that is how it works and I doubt we'll change MT's focus.
- wait for a clear invitation from staff, to Fellow volunteers, on how to provide support to other Fellows, and people in local communities. That's a corporate aim, not something proposed by Fellows.

The big danger is that the group of volunteer Fellows gets co-opted to try and sort out strategic engagement issue that require staff time and resources. The RSA has been fudging this for at least two years. Don't let's be the fall guys. We can't make the decisions, and we don't have the time or money. That's why we pay our subs.

FOR THIS GROUP I suggest: look at what Fellows want, and try to help satisfy that. I think that involves:
- explaining openly what's going on, and who is responsible **
- trying to help Fellows connect with each other. If we can't have a database, should we try and get Fellows in to one place? And if so, should we manage that space? Do we have the time and energy? Or should it be Fellow-directed, staff-supported?
- trying to help Fellows who want to develop projects.

But before going any further, we need terms of reference for the group, clarity about the future of Ning networks, decisions about access to the database/directory, availability of staff support, as I raised earlier. And, who on the staff side is in charge of all this.

Over to Vivs, or Belinda, or Matthew:-)

** I volunteered, and was accepted, as social reporter for the group, and take that as permission to ask tough questions to inform the work of the group, and others. But you can tell me to stop, and I'll go somewhere else :-)

Permalink Reply by Peter Churchill on May 5, 2010 at 21:58

Dave thanks for hitting the nail on the head

1. JAS shop window: already well catered for for some years in various guises
2. Fellows' playground: see here

Dave Briggs said: I think there are two main issues here, which have a little overlap, but not that much.

Permalink Reply by David Wilcox on May 5, 2010 at 22:11

Thanks James

What's clearly emerging, re-inforced by observations from Dave Briggs and Peter Churchill, is that there are two areas of operation: 1) the corporate shop window, and 2) the Fellows' networking space. I would like to see them merged, but if not I think it is up to staff to work on 1) and Fellows to figure out what to do about 2). At present 2) is freeware, a bit of staff support, and volunteers. I don't see how you can scale to engage any significant proportion of 27,000 Fellows on that basis.
Any thoughts on what might be feasible from your experience in terms of tech, tech management, facilitation etc? Great if Jane could help - is she a Fellow who would volunteer a bit of time?
Really appreciate your insights.

James Wilding said:

Thanks all for the rapid update from today's meeting that I, like many, could not attend. As mentioned previously, I am a education ning-runner, and perhaps about 12 months ahead of the curve this group is on at present. I suspect Ning's decision to only run pay-for nings is a small cost to bear at present (a few dollars a month) whilst the RSAfellowship works out what's best to support its C21 grass roots development. There are a whole host of engagement reports with digital technologies out just now (Scottish FE yesterday covering 10 years) and striving for coherence (the work of managers) remains at variance with the spontaneity of grassroots members, as new tools arrive that transform practice - who'd have thought twitter would be the easiest way to speak to your internet provider a couple of years back. Given the influence of our RSA fellowship, I'd recommend you lean on someone like Jane Hart, of C4LPT, who so understands this stuff, she'd shine the right light pretty quickly for now. My take would be for the Fellowship to incorporate the WordPress suite within its own website, software capable of running the whole community network thing, ensuring that content ownership of the RSAfellowship ideas stays within RSA bounds. You want to be very careful about releasing onto third party servers ideas that by the very nature of RSA members are likely to in due course be of real commercial value – ownership is nine tenths of the law.

Permalink Reply by David Wilcox on May 6, 2010 at 7:27

Thanks Vivs for tweeting that Matthew Taylor has set up a wiki to help draft his pamphlet and June171 speech on 21st century enlightenment - the new RSA mission. There's an empty page there about the RSA as a potentially post bureacratic organisation. Our discussion yesterday about purpose, decision-making, role of Fellows etc seems relevant. The wiki is a very welcome approach to digital engagement. We were looking yesterday for some quick wins as well as longer term tasks. How about helping draft that page?

I've add this comment for starters:
An earlier blog post (see link on page) cited these admired characteristics of a 21st century institution:
• Authenticity and uniqueness
• Accessibility and populism
• Brand strength and stretch
• Corporate savvy
... and the opening wiki page gave three enlightenment characteristics: autonomy, the human end purpose of our acts and universality. Could this be blended to give a framework for thinking about the post bureaucratic RSA? As a Fellow, I would take:

* Understanding what it is to be a Fellow - both consciously and unconsciously. Clear Fellowship offer and commitment/Charter, combined with a sense of belonging. Special value beyond what's available free to others from the RSA.
* Autonomy, accessibility, purpose. Good communication systems, explicit corporate strategy, open to co-design where appropriate, clear roles and responsibilities ... coupled with encouragement to Fellows to innovate.

Also something about appropriate rewards to ensure sustainability. Can Fellows only be unpaid volunteers to help achieve RSA and their own (autonomous) purposes ... or can they be social entrepreneurs as well?

Not sure if this is what you are looking for, but thanks for opening up beyond blog comments. Definitely #21ce

Permalink Reply by Viv Long-Ferguson on May 6, 2010 at 8:16

James - thanks for your comments, could you bring Jane Hart into the conversation.

Vivs

James Wilding said:

Thanks all for the rapid update from today's meeting that I, like many, could not attend. As mentioned previously, I am a education ning-runner, and perhaps about 12 months ahead of the curve this group is on at present. I suspect Ning's decision to only run pay-for nings is a small cost to bear at present (a few dollars a month) whilst the RSAfellowship works out what's best to support its C21 grass roots development. There are a whole host of engagement reports with digital technologies out just now (Scottish FE yesterday covering 10 years) and striving for coherence (the work of managers) remains at variance with the spontaneity of grassroots members, as new tools arrive that transform practice - who'd have thought twitter would be the easiest way to speak to your internet provider a couple of years back. Given the influence of our RSA fellowship, I'd recommend you lean on someone like Jane Hart, of C4LPT, who so understands this stuff, she'd shine the right light pretty quickly for now. My take would be for the Fellowship to incorporate the WordPress suite within its own website, software capable of running the whole community network thing, ensuring that content ownership of the RSAfellowship ideas stays within RSA bounds. You want to be very careful about releasing onto third party servers ideas that by the very nature of RSA members are likely to in due course be of real commercial value – ownership is nine tenths of the law.

Permalink Reply by Dave Briggs on May 6, 2010 at 9:43

The really interesting bit for me is the discussion about responsibilities and separation of activity. Until that is sorted then it's pointless talking tools because nobody really knows what it is they are trying to achieve.

I think fellow-led activity should be as autonomous as possible and that a fellows' digital engagement strategy is required, as opposed to the RSA's corporate digital engagement strategy. The fellows' strategy should set out what can be achieved using online tools, some objectives, setting out roles and responsibilities - it seems to be all of those identified here are required - including who does them and how they are rewarded.

Only when we know what we want to achieve and have an idea who is going to be doing what can we sensibly think about the actual means of delivery. We need some sense of direction!

Permalink Reply by Tessy Britton on May 7, 2010 at 11:04

Feedback from the meeting earlier this week has been really interesting. I thought it might useful to add some further thoughts and perspectives of the Fellowship Council. As you might know we are working in a very experimental mode at the moment. We have created Working Groups to work on some issues and ideas that concern Fellows, and are trying to do this *genuinely* collaboratively.

As weeks progress there are definite signs that this is possible... with changes in conversation tone and general progress being made in terms of problem solving etc. Although initially seen as quite an idealistic way to proceed (emergent/collaborative/active/embedded in Fellowship), I certainly get a sense that we have a very good chance of achieving the type of mutuality Fellows and RSA staff have wanted for a long time.

In many ways I can see the logic of separating our roles, controls etc. But experience shows that this way hasn't been that fruitful in the past. What's exciting in particular is what this group is trying to achieve, which is to draw together expertise and enthusiasm from RSA staff and Fellows and devise integrated strategies and methods which fuse ideas, link RSA corporate with Fellow's digital needs.... and generally co-design rather than fragment.

One of the conversations I have been having with Fellows is that they do fee attached and part of the RSA. I am increasingly thinking that if we make up the RSA (current Fellows and RSA staff), then in its widest sense we have an opportunity to create it as we go.

What I personally would like to see is that we collectively move away from, quite deliberately, is talking about a post post bureaucratic RSA, whilst at the same time *accidentally* reenforcing hierarchical thinking by asking for RSA staff to re-draw strict lines of engagement, especially at a time where the potential to blend the lines and achieve more mutuality (and effectiveness) have never been greater....

Permalink Reply by David Wilcox on May 7, 2010 at 11:59

Thanks Tessy for joining in and giving us a wider perspective. I have huge respect for what you and members of Council are achieving, and as part of that what Jemima and Vivs have done in bringing this group together and getting us so far.
At the same time, I think that while some issues can be resolved by gradual partnership building and evolution, others are more pressing.
The current digital systems situation - as far as I can see - is as follows:
- the corporate side of RSA communication is being developed pretty effectively, with a good web site, lots of video and audio, animation, comment etc. But it is mostly broadcast and response.
- major policy ideas are developed by Matthew Taylor on his outward-facing blog
- the corporate attempt at Fellows networking, using £100,000 of NESTA funding, failed and has been abandoned
- there is work on a directory under way, but we don't know when it will be completed, and what it's functionality will be. It has not been co-designed with Fellows.
- Fellowship networking has developed on a completely ad hoc basis using more than 20 Ning systems, with no support. Most of the Nings are pretty dead ... although this one is doing well because of the effort you and other volunteers are putting in. There is no strategy, and no member of staff or Council is taking responsibility for developing that.
- External events - new Ning pricing structures - probably mean that most of the Nings will close by August at the latest.
- Discussion on the London network - the largest - has shown no enthusiasm for keeping it going
- the word on Ning closures will soon spread, and people will give up contributing to any of the other Nings, because their content will disappear unless there is planned migration
- If there is to be effective Fellowship networking it has to take place on this system, or another one, assisted by other tools. That is unlikely to work well without a dedicated support team as Dave Briggs has pointed out. Online communities can develop fairly spontaneously where there is a shared passion and a confident and capable set of users. We don't have that.

So ... we are drifting towards a situation where Fellows will find their regional networks and content disappearing, and no team in place to welcome them here and support them with Ning functions and apps, and other tools. All at a time when Matthew wants to promote RSA as a post bureaucratic organisation!
Among the Fellowship a group of people who are probably the most experienced in the country in combining social media with organisational development. I think they (and I) would put effort into helping dig the RSA out of this mess. BUT - it is hugely frustrating to try and contribute in this situation. It is a waste of time and energy, because there are no terms of reference, defined responsibilities, or ways of making decisions.

The stated objectives of the Fellowship Council - on which members were elected and appointed - include:
• to identify and encourage best practice Fellow network development and activities

My suggestion is that the Council lives up to its responsibility and takes a clear lead in developing a Fellowship networking strategy.
I'm with you on wishing for a "whole RSA" approach, and proposed that in discussion about the Charter. But that is not the Charter that we have at present. Let's keep pushing for that, and evolving towards it, but let's not sacrifice effective networking for Fellows in the process.

The question I hear from Fellows is "why can't we have a way of finding other Fellows, and networking with them". I think it is a priority for the Council to provide an answer, and a solution. Or to press RSA staff for a solution. Or to invite other people to take action before enthusiasm evaporates.
Just to recap - I think the evolutionary approach you are leading is highly appropriate in some circumstances. Just not in this one. I may be wrong of course ... what do others think?

Permalink Reply by James Wilding on May 7, 2010 at 12:09

I suspect the announcement of 'nings' death is greatly exagerated, there are huge active pay-for Nings blazing away in education and commerce, private and public - for a few dollars a year ning sub. I'll be steering my professional network the same as I have done for the past 2 years. David's point about getting some agreed hands on the tiller is key; ning, elgg, facebook or wordpress are alternative solutions, and all will be there at low or no cost for plenty of time yet.

David Wilcox said:

Thanks Tessy for joining in and giving us a wider perspective. I have huge respect for what you and members of Council are achieving, and as part of that what Jemima and Vivs have done in bringing this group together and getting us so far.
At the same time, I think that while some issues can be resolved by gradual partnership building and evolution, others are more pressing.
The current digital systems situation - as far as I can see - is as follows:
- the corporate side of RSA communication is being developed pretty effectively, with a good web site, lots of video and audio, animation, comment etc. But it is most broadcast and response.
- major policy ideas are developed by Matthew Taylor on his outward-facing blog
- the corporate attempt at Fellows networking, using £100,000 of NESTA funding, failed and has been abandoned
- there is work on a directory under way, but we don't know when it will be completed, and what it's functionality will be. It has not been co-designed with Fellows.
- Fellowship networking has developed on a completely ad hoc basis using more than 20 Ning systems, with no professional support. Most of the Nings are pretty dead ... although this one is doing well because of the effort you and other volunteers are putting in. There is no strategy, and no member of staff or Council is taking responsibility for developing that.
- External events - new Ning pricing structures - probably mean that most of the Nings will close by August at the latest.
- Discussion on the London network - the largest - has shown no enthusiasm for keeping it going
- the word on Ning closures will soon spread, and people will give up contributing to any of the other Nings, because their content will disappear unless there is planned migration
- If there is to be effective Fellowship networking it has to take place on this system, or another one, assisted by other tools. That is unlikely to work well without a dedicated support team as Dave Briggs has pointed out. Online communities can develop fairly spontaneously where there is a shared passion and a confident and capable set of users. We don't have that.

So ... we are drifting towards a situation where Fellows will find their regional networks and content disappearing, and no team in place to welcome them here and support them with Ning functions and apps, and other tools. All at a time when Matthew wants to promote RSA as a post bureaucratic organisation!
Among the Fellowship a group of people who are probably the most experienced in the country in combining social media with organisational development. I think they (and I) would put effort into helping dig the RSA out of this mess. BUT - it is hugely frustrating to try and contribute in this situation. It is a waste of time and energy, because there are no terms of reference, defined responsibilities, or ways of making decisions.

The stated objectives of the Fellowship Council - on which members were elected and appointed - include:
• to identify and encourage best practice Fellow network development and activities

My suggestion is that the Council lives up to its responsibility and takes a clear lead in developing a Fellowship networking strategy.
I'm with you on wishing for a "whole RSA" approach, and proposed that in discussion about the Charter. But that is not the Charter, or the staff approach that we have at present. Let's keep pushing for that, and evolving towards it, but let's not sacrifice effective networking for Fellows in the process.

The question I hear from Fellows I talk to is "why can't we have a way of finding other Fellows, and networking with them". I think it is a priority for the Council to provide an answer, and a solution. Or to press RSA staff for a solution. Or to invite other people to take action before enthusiasm evaporates.
Just to recap - I think the evolutionary approach you are leading is highly appropriate in some circumstances. Just not in this one. I may be wrong of course ... what do others think?

Permalink Reply by David Wilcox on May 7, 2010 at 12:13

Thanks James. I agree about the potential of paid-for Nings - I run one too - and other options. My point is that someone has to make decisions, drive things forward, provide skilled support. Currently no-one - staff or Council - is doing that so it will drift, and users and volunteers will drift away.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page