△ MENU/TOP △

Holtz Communications + Technology

Shel Holtz
Communicating at the Intersection of Business and Technology
SearchClose Icon

Bringing the backchannel up front

I’m in Las Vegas at Ragan Communications’ Social Media Conference, which kicked off with a daylong unconference. I know that the concept of an unconference has a grassroots foundation and that there is something bass-ackwards about a company sponsoring one, but this is Ragan’s second and they seem to have gotten it right. (Disclaimer: I do paid work for Ragan.) The feedback from the 60 or so participants was extremely positive.

One of the things Ragan was able to do was bring a British company Crystal Interactive, to lend its technology to the unconference. A couple small terminals were situated at each table. At the beginning of the session, Crystal Managing Director Chris Elmitt asked each table to enter topics they wanted discussed. While the same action is feasible using a backchannel, Crystal’s technology allowed everyone to see what everyone else was entering—anonymously—on the screen at the front of the room. The same technology was used to narrow topics, add input to discussions, and generate a take-away with hundreds of ideas for each participant. It’s the second time I’ve seen Crystal’s technology in action. It reminds me of something my friend Arnold Kishi showed me when he worked for the East West Center in Honolulu—a very similar system used for conflict resolution among representatives of nations at odds with each other.

It seems that companies can employ the unconference model to great effect and lend their financial wherewithal to adding capabilities the grass-roots efforts simply can’t afford. Below is a one-minute video I shot (using my Flip digital video camera) at the session showing participants using the system. The use of the technology was a small part of the unconference, which mostly featured participants asking and answering each other’s questions about the business uses of social media. But Crystal’s technology sped along much of the process and really enhanced the overall experience.

03/05/08 | 8 Comments | Bringing the backchannel up front

Comments
  • 1.Sheldon,

    I was just wondering...since there were so many topics flying around there up on screen, like a food fight, who was doing triage on which topics were suitable for discussion, and which weren't?

    What was the democratic model for that one? As in, who decides what gets top exposure, and what the participants are going to talk about?

    Curious,
    Your twitting friend from Prague,
    ADM

    Adam Daniel Mezei | March 2008 | Prague, Czech Republic

  • 2.Anonymous brainstorming is a feature of the 20th century, expensive collaboration systems that typically required a professional facilitator to move the process along. Often they occupied special rooms. The process typically had phases where first a wide range of solutions to a problem were encouraged (divergence). Then the ideas were discussed, grouped, and voted upon (convergence), for example. Anonymity reduces status differences so that good ideas come freely from anywhere.
    Moving such "collaboration engineering" to the web is a great idea now that inexpensive, powerful computers and almost free data transmission are the norms.

    Dan Smith | March 2008 | Hawaii

  • 3.What fascinated me when I first used this system at a Simply Communicate conference in London last year is how it really extends your ability to contribute to the debate and to see how much knowledge there is on the floor and not just on the stage.

    There is definately a future for such a tool at conferences, but as with all social media tools its almost impossible to predict what it will be as it affects our behaviour in many dynamic ways. Word of caution (as Shel will know) - Presenter Beware (or at least prepare!)

    On the Triage point from Adam, there's definately a tricky balance to pull off useful summarising, while not stomping all over ideas and egos. This was a skill that Mark Wright of Simply Communicate demonstrated well, and I'm sure the Ragan team did too.

    Ronna Porter | March 2008 | Germany

  • 4.Adam, Crystal Interactive had a person aggregating responses into categories. The facilitator reviewed these with the audience to make sure the categories represented what they wanted to talk about.

    Shel Holtz | March 2008 | Las Vegas, NV

  • 5.This is very interesting. Once again, all I could do is marvel at the wonders of technology.

    JJ | March 2008

  • 6.This is the first time I've heard about this tool and I like what I'm seeing. I'm wondering if a good use would be during "town halls" with executives, especially CEOs, etc., where most people are afraid to ask questions???

    Susan | March 2008 | Texas

  • 7.By coincidence, two weeks ago I happened to be participating in my company's global strategic summit and we used a tool very similar -- it could have even been the same software, not sure. We had about 100 senior leaders from across the global and sitting in groups of 3 we brainstormed, input our ideas and then shared with the whole group in similar fashion. We started with some guided questions relating to different business issues - -but it was a very dynamic, engaging and fast process to collaborate with a large group. One of the interesting factors was to see how many different people came up with similar ideas in response to business issues ... but also to see the wide variety. In the span of 20 or 30 minutes, the group generated several hundred ideas.

    Michelle G | March 2008

  • 8.Hi Shel,

    Thanks for the mention in your blog, and for being the ?expert witness? at yesterday?s UnConference!

    For those who are interested, the report from the session is on ragan.com. Here?s the link: http://www.ragan.com//Media/MediaManager/unConference_outcomes.pdf

    Just so you know what you are looking at, the first section ?I want to?? is the initial brainstorm of ideas (about 10 minutes of input). The subsections are the way the audience made sense of/ summarised the ideas in the brainstorm and then all the inputs in section two are the take-aways they generated after having an open discussion on each of the topics (about five minutes per topic).

    If anyone else has any questions about the process or the technology, please feel free to email me: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

    Chris Elmitt | March 2008 | Las Vegas

Comment Form

« Back