toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Hi Stan and Arthur
I wanted to say a big thank you for recording what was a great session - I learnt a lot both in terms of style for Community engagement and content. I wanted to offer some reflections from my own experience (context is Dstl- U.K. Government and Science/Technology) against the 4 Principles.
1. Boundary spanning - I can see the value of greater diversity and multiple perspectives in the value that a Community generates but in practical terms I wonder if it can make it harder for the Leaders to facilitate as the lexicon / world view of the participants will be that more different
2. Redundancy in Community topics - I think you are right about the importance of avoiding duplicate groups but in my experience many organisations are highly tribal eg in a review I carried out of what communities were active in my own organisation I identified 3 separate communities for systems thinking/ engineering but my hints that they coagulate were not well received!
3. The universality of the 90-9-1 ratios for contribution. Stan - you asked for contrary data. In Dstl we use Jive as our community platform but interestingly the ratio (according to the stats the tool generates) is typically more like 75-18-7 - we don’t have a neurotypical workforce for want of a better phrase and it is used for what might not be considered classic work issues if that’s a cause?.
4. Communities need to be actively nurtured - Stan’s encouragement to post to all is exactly what i needed to hear but even though I am quite experienced, being new to the Group I feel a barrier to doing it.
Leadership seems key and I can see that this community works so well because of it and sone of the more established members taking the strain. It seems to me however that there is skill needed in running a session successfully and I guess if a meeting was run ‘poorly’ by a member that might be hard for them as well as the other participants.
Thanks again for the excellent session, regards John Carney
On 24 Feb 2021, at 21:48, Arthur Shelley <arthur@...> wrote: