Prof. Armsworth's comment that the University of East Anglia environmental exercise was "a very physical experience" caught my eye. Sometimes clients or workshop participants will ask, an exercise to map the future that's done on a wall with giant Post-Its seems a little retro. Why don't we do this with computers?
In a way, it is. After all, what's more antiquated than paper? But there's more to such an exercise than just making a big list and voting on it. We find this old media valuable for a few reasons.
First of all, you can't underestimate the value of working on an entire wall, rather than just a screen. When you're dealing with upwards of a hundred ideas-- and a brainstorming session with a couple dozen people can easily generate a few hundred-- you can't fit them all on a laptop screen. You need a big wall when you're dealing with lots of ideas.
Not only does the big wall help individuals make sense of the "one great blooming, buzzing confusion" (to use William James' felicitous phrase) of brainstorming; it's also essential for groups. The irony of computer technology right now-- at least the kind that isn't fresh out of the lab and requires two grad students and a union foreman to get working properly-- is that while it makes communication with people in other time zones much easier, it just as easily stifles communication with people in the same room. A roomful of people all looking at screens don't interact with each other; they're a bunch of individuals working by themselves, not a group working together. (And yes, IM side conversations may erupt, but when you're working with a group, they're generally more of a problem than a solution.) The big wall, in contrast, provides a focal point, a common reference point, for groups.
It's also much, much easier for groups to work together on a big wall, than a bunch of little screens. You can watch other people cluster cards into groups, add yours, and move things around. Discussions about where cards should go emerge spontaneously. You can see what other people are doing, and they can see what you're doing. The wall becomes both a medium for work and a conversational space.
The simple fact that people are working as a group is a serious benefit for some clients. Often, we work with groups of executives, government officials, NGO managers, or others who don't spend much time together, but collectively have a significant amount of brain power and operational knowledge: to use the tired phrase, they're the future of the organization. Our events are set up to work with them to figure out what futures they face, and what they have to do to bring the preferable ones into being. At the end of a couple days, in other words, they're 1) a group rather than a collection of individuals, and 2) have a common vision of the future.
So moving around, seeing how other participants have voted or clustered cards, and interacting with other people aren't distractions. They're central to the process.
It is indeed a more obviously physical experience than most knowledge work, but it should be noted that all knowledge work, to some degree, has a physical component to it. Our normal habit is to assume that thinking is purely cerebral, and collaboration is essentially nothing more than an exchange of formal information. Neither is true.
Technorati Tags: collaboration, communication, IFTF, work
Recent Comments