At the UIA General Assembly 2010 you chose very interactive format for the session about CSR. Please describe it briefly.
The room was arranged in the classical cabaret with ten round tables. We had three guest speakers, i.e. Marc Bontemps (Director of Ecolife), who were committed to the idea that the process be shaped by the participants. We provided voting technology for instant surveys. At the back of the room we had a board for capturing the themes that emerged into visual minutes. We had a twitter feed and a “Pirate pad” interactive document co-creation process with lap tops provided by the Abbit Meeting Support Institute on each table. All the ideas were captured. A summary was available, in several forms: the cocreated document, wordcloud and visual minutes.
How was the atmosphere in the room?
The room was noisy and lively; provocative questions came from all directions and ideas were voted. One crucial vote concerning the future of air travel, divided the room into two exactly equal camps.
Why did you opt for such a meeting?
It was a celebration of our 100th anniversary. The UIA was formed by Paul Otlet and Henri La Fontaine to encourage the interaction of associations, not to preach or lecture to them. We believe that the exchange of ideas creates new concepts and builds relationships. Another reason is in the zeitgeist. The perfect storm of impending economic, political, resource, and climate crises has stimulated a collaborative response. International meetings will become more about the exploration of consensus, creativity and collaboration rather than information and education. The meeting was an experiment.
Did it work?
There were some who wanted the session to be more scientific. They missed powerpoint presentations with academic wisdom. Given the numbers the meeting worked remarkably well. At times it verged on chaos, and it was clear that many were not able to be heard. It could have benefited from a slightly tighter hand on the tiller at times to keep our direction. Perhaps we might have been able to forge a kind of consensus. In reality there wasn’t a consensus and revealing this may have been the main achievement. If we had had traditional panel discussion we may never had recognised this. Paradoxically perhaps, the recognition of this difference did not divide the group but encouraged understanding. Honesty and clarity are building relationships.
Are there any lessons learnt?
The cost of gathering large groups together urges us to maximise the value of events. Too often the performance comes from the stage to a compliant audience. It is time to reverse the directionality. Most speakers are well known and their presentations accessible. We should experiment more with meetings where all who are in the room are encouraged to express their ideas, ask questions and give their evaluation. Experimenting with new interactive technologies can distract some people but I think it’s worth continuing to experiment with instant documentation methods and “chat” technologies which can vastly increase the number of active participants.
