John:
Agree with you. There is a tendency to focus first on the technology. Just plunk the technology for the community down, make it available, and let people come. In general this doesn't work.
For networks of communities I do think its worth considering how support, procedures, and even activities can be shared across them. We'll be better off if we don't just talk about integration of platforms but integration of activities.
Paul
Paul Stacey
Posts made by Paul Stacey
Sandy/Jo Ann/Deirdre:
I agree with you all, a diversity is desired but don't forget that each additional technology that is used has a cost both in real dollars, support/maintenance, and a user overhead cost dealing with complexity. Most online community platforms these days represent an attempt to integrate together multiple tools into a common environment.
I think its fruitless to be talking about a perfect platform. Think of it like a car. There are lots of different kinds of cars from high end to old beater, but in the end the purpose is to get you from point A to point B. If you're like me you don't even have a car, instead you take the bus, the SkyTrain, the taxi, ride your bicycle, ... Which interestingly fulfills your diversity request (diverse modes of transportation in this case) and costs less than owning a car.
Paul
I agree with you all, a diversity is desired but don't forget that each additional technology that is used has a cost both in real dollars, support/maintenance, and a user overhead cost dealing with complexity. Most online community platforms these days represent an attempt to integrate together multiple tools into a common environment.
I think its fruitless to be talking about a perfect platform. Think of it like a car. There are lots of different kinds of cars from high end to old beater, but in the end the purpose is to get you from point A to point B. If you're like me you don't even have a car, instead you take the bus, the SkyTrain, the taxi, ride your bicycle, ... Which interestingly fulfills your diversity request (diverse modes of transportation in this case) and costs less than owning a car.
Paul
Barbara:
I want a passport too!
Your suggestion of creating a visual diagram representing a network of communities is a great one. It seems to me this is something those who are interested in personal learning environments are doing too - representing the concept with a visual architecture.
Typically architecture diagrams I have seen focus on one community, rarely do they try and illustrate multiple communities and the nested or interrelationships between communities.
If you haven't looked at them yet the slides from Diego's presentation on Tuesday are interesting - see the Emergent issues: Case 2: Colombian Ministry of Education thread. Slides 21-23 show visual diagrams representing community as a system supporting collections and publication with some sort of management system coordinating and integrating it all.
A group of us recently worked on a proposal for CANARIE's Network Enabled Platforms program http://www.canarie.ca/funding/nep2/call_for_proposals.html. We ended up not applying but as part of our work I did generate a architecture diagram representing one possible way of showing networks of communities. See attachment to this post.
Paul
I want a passport too!
Your suggestion of creating a visual diagram representing a network of communities is a great one. It seems to me this is something those who are interested in personal learning environments are doing too - representing the concept with a visual architecture.
Typically architecture diagrams I have seen focus on one community, rarely do they try and illustrate multiple communities and the nested or interrelationships between communities.
If you haven't looked at them yet the slides from Diego's presentation on Tuesday are interesting - see the Emergent issues: Case 2: Colombian Ministry of Education thread. Slides 21-23 show visual diagrams representing community as a system supporting collections and publication with some sort of management system coordinating and integrating it all.
A group of us recently worked on a proposal for CANARIE's Network Enabled Platforms program http://www.canarie.ca/funding/nep2/call_for_proposals.html. We ended up not applying but as part of our work I did generate a architecture diagram representing one possible way of showing networks of communities. See attachment to this post.
Paul
Mary, great to hear RRU is developing a "place" for faculty. I recommend to any and all who are thinking of creating such a place to ignore the technology solution component for as long as possible. Focus instead on "What will people do at this place?" And don't just speculate about what they'll do, ask them.
Typically two broad types of activities emerge.
1. Activities that are spontaneously self generated by the end users. These activities include posting content (web sites, files, media, ...), starting discussions with each other, asking for advice or help from each other, sharing news, creating shared calendars of events, ... Participants at the "place" should have as much liberty as possible to generate these activities in whatever form they wish. The impromptu nature of the activities often means they are open ended with no specific start and end. They continue for as long as there is interest. This is the social chit chat in the halls, the networking, the informal development of relations.
2. Activities that are produced as events or intentional pre-planned things that happen in the "place" and can be anticipated. These activities typically involve advance planning, hosting, moderating, facilitating. They are scheduled, announced, promoted and planned. These activities are often bound by time with a defined start and end date. These activities are ofen a bit more formal. These are webcasts, featured speakers, live seminars, workshops, conferences, ...
Sometimes I imagine the "place" is a radio or TV station. What programming will an end user find taking place should they happen to tune in to your "place"? If you have no activity 2 types of things going on then participants may get a sense that there really isn't much happening. Type 2 activities create a motivation to go to the place, a reason to be there.
Once you have a handle on some of the activities then the next question to ask is What is the right blend of these two types of activities? 50% of type one and 50% of type 2? or 80/20 or ...?
Paul
Typically two broad types of activities emerge.
1. Activities that are spontaneously self generated by the end users. These activities include posting content (web sites, files, media, ...), starting discussions with each other, asking for advice or help from each other, sharing news, creating shared calendars of events, ... Participants at the "place" should have as much liberty as possible to generate these activities in whatever form they wish. The impromptu nature of the activities often means they are open ended with no specific start and end. They continue for as long as there is interest. This is the social chit chat in the halls, the networking, the informal development of relations.
2. Activities that are produced as events or intentional pre-planned things that happen in the "place" and can be anticipated. These activities typically involve advance planning, hosting, moderating, facilitating. They are scheduled, announced, promoted and planned. These activities are often bound by time with a defined start and end date. These activities are ofen a bit more formal. These are webcasts, featured speakers, live seminars, workshops, conferences, ...
Sometimes I imagine the "place" is a radio or TV station. What programming will an end user find taking place should they happen to tune in to your "place"? If you have no activity 2 types of things going on then participants may get a sense that there really isn't much happening. Type 2 activities create a motivation to go to the place, a reason to be there.
Once you have a handle on some of the activities then the next question to ask is What is the right blend of these two types of activities? 50% of type one and 50% of type 2? or 80/20 or ...?
Paul
OK, so I thought I'd pick up a piece from our intro webcast around the challenges associated with networks of online communities. Here are a few of what I see as the challenges.
Who is the online community for? Does the number of potential participants warrant a separate community space or can an affiliate space for the group be created within a larger existing online community?
Are the activities and objectives of the group related to an existing online community or completely separate and autonomous? If related then its worth considering creating a nested space within a larger whole as there often is an extended benefit in a sub-group seeing what activities the larger group is engaged in.
Does a group want a private or public online community? Or perhaps a blend of the two? SCOPE is an interesting blend in that anyone can see the online community activities but to post something you must join and login. I often think of online communities as having similarities to real world communities. When I look out my office window at downtown Vancouver I see public open spaces and closed private spaces within the same community. Sometimes the desire for private spaces drives the need for a separate online community. However, its worth thinking about whether a blend will suffice.
Who will be responsible for stimulating activity in an online community? Communities do not become vibrant without stimulus. An online community mayor (like Sylvia for SCOPE) is in my view an essential ingredient. To what extent can an online community mayor be mayor of multiple communities? What other roles might complement that of mayor? How can these roles be distributed across participants (which ones are paid vs. voluntary) and across a network of communities? How can the mayor work such that they are behind the scenes supporting participants and not dominating the activity?
What are the activities that bring online community to life? This is one of the major topics that needs to be addressed. I've noticed that activity within an online community can often be stimulated through a "live" event. Webcasts featuring presenters, marrying up the community to a conference, etc. We've also begun profiling community participant Flickr feeds and blog posts. Job postings are often of high interest. Calendars of events. Provocative discussion forum topics all generate activity. From a network of communities perspective the question becomes "How can we federate high interest activities across multiple online communities?" I often think of it being similar to the way TV networks distribute their popular shows through affiliate stations.
How can we manage user ID's, profiles, and login's across a network of online communities which often all use different technologies? I have so many passwords these days its crazy.
When building a network of online communities should we use the same technology platform for each (which often affords benefits from an administration point of view) or allow a diversity of technologies which allows each group to have a custom solution specific to their needs and interests (but often creates integration challenges)?
And finally what metrics of success should we report out to funders and other stakeholders to indicate whether an online community or network of online communites is succeeding?
Whew, creating networks of online communities has a lot of challenges. Take your pick, feel free to reply in response to one, or more than one, or add your own.
Paul
Who is the online community for? Does the number of potential participants warrant a separate community space or can an affiliate space for the group be created within a larger existing online community?
Are the activities and objectives of the group related to an existing online community or completely separate and autonomous? If related then its worth considering creating a nested space within a larger whole as there often is an extended benefit in a sub-group seeing what activities the larger group is engaged in.
Does a group want a private or public online community? Or perhaps a blend of the two? SCOPE is an interesting blend in that anyone can see the online community activities but to post something you must join and login. I often think of online communities as having similarities to real world communities. When I look out my office window at downtown Vancouver I see public open spaces and closed private spaces within the same community. Sometimes the desire for private spaces drives the need for a separate online community. However, its worth thinking about whether a blend will suffice.
Who will be responsible for stimulating activity in an online community? Communities do not become vibrant without stimulus. An online community mayor (like Sylvia for SCOPE) is in my view an essential ingredient. To what extent can an online community mayor be mayor of multiple communities? What other roles might complement that of mayor? How can these roles be distributed across participants (which ones are paid vs. voluntary) and across a network of communities? How can the mayor work such that they are behind the scenes supporting participants and not dominating the activity?
What are the activities that bring online community to life? This is one of the major topics that needs to be addressed. I've noticed that activity within an online community can often be stimulated through a "live" event. Webcasts featuring presenters, marrying up the community to a conference, etc. We've also begun profiling community participant Flickr feeds and blog posts. Job postings are often of high interest. Calendars of events. Provocative discussion forum topics all generate activity. From a network of communities perspective the question becomes "How can we federate high interest activities across multiple online communities?" I often think of it being similar to the way TV networks distribute their popular shows through affiliate stations.
How can we manage user ID's, profiles, and login's across a network of online communities which often all use different technologies? I have so many passwords these days its crazy.
When building a network of online communities should we use the same technology platform for each (which often affords benefits from an administration point of view) or allow a diversity of technologies which allows each group to have a custom solution specific to their needs and interests (but often creates integration challenges)?
And finally what metrics of success should we report out to funders and other stakeholders to indicate whether an online community or network of online communites is succeeding?
Whew, creating networks of online communities has a lot of challenges. Take your pick, feel free to reply in response to one, or more than one, or add your own.
Paul