IngeniousPeoplesKnowledge

So let’s assume we have successfully co-defined with the organisers what the intent and purpose of an event is. We would then ask them to give us “carte blanche” to do an initial design of the event. They give us some key elements to use as building blocks (ie. they tell us to include a slot for this and that keynote speaker, to consider a session on xyz) and we then try to design a process that meets the purpose as we understand it.

Now at this stage our partners are often a bit surprised with what we come up. They were “courageous” in asking for something different and thus leaving their comfort zone, but when they see an agenda, which has so little resemblance with what seems to be an orderly, respectable (speak: conventional) meeting agenda, they often get cold feet. They then often ask us: “Don’t you think this is a bit risky? You know we must make sure we meet our goals and get to concrete feasible outcomes at the end of the workshop”.

Well, what risk are we talking about? Yes, we’re convinced it is very risky: there is the risk to have finally sufficient time to exchange and discuss real issues; the risk that participants genuinely engage; the risk that we meet the interest of the audience; after all: there is a huge risk that we achieve the objectives of the workshop and come to concrete results over which participants have ownership! There is the risk that we avoid death by PowerPoint, that we miss out on talk shops. In short: the risk that we do well! Honestly: how many conventional workshops have you seen that did not fulfil your expectations, that missed the real points, that did not have enough time to discuss and share, that failed to come up with concrete outcomes; in short: that missed the goal?

So then what is the real risk? That we are doing better? Maybe the bigger risk is not to be courageous, not to change but to stay with the conventional. If you want to risk to do well, then it might be worth going the other way!

I-P-K has been designing and facilitating the Interagency Conference on Local Economic Development, which took place in October 2008 in Turin, Italy. The conference was hosted by the International Training Centre of the ILO. More than 120 participants gathered over 3 days, shared experiences and knowledge and looked for new ways of how to address the challenges in this field.

The conference built on many of the methods and approaches that we promote. To get a brief overview over some of the methods used, watch this brief video:

We often get inquiries from organisers of events of all sorts – they have heard from someone somewhere that we have facilitated events, meetings, conferences, workshops, that apparently were successful, exciting, different. They then send us their tentative programmes that they have already put together.

A dear colleague of mine, Allison Hewlitt, who used to work with Bellanet and IDRC, once said: “I never facilitate other people’s events”. What she wanted to say, is, that it is very difficult and thankless to take over the facilitation task of an event at a late stage – when many of the decisions on format, structure and so forth have already been taken. Why? 80% of the success of an event lies in the preparation (because once the event starts, the ball is rolling, just like in a marble run). With regard to outcome and impact of an event, the most crucial part of the preparation work is designing and structuring the overall event. So the main task of the facilitator lies more in the work accomplished before the facilitation task during the actual starts – or to put it differently, the most important part of the job of a facilitator is to facilitate the lead phase to the event.

The main challenge of this design work is to define the expected outcome/ impact of the event – we’re talking not just about output! People who come to us often are very clear about what they want to see at the end of the event: people have heard about this and that topic, they have shared their ideas and knowledge, they have drafted a plan or strategy, … But that’s not our main concern! We then ask them: what do you want to see happening in the six months after the workshop, that will lead you to the conclusion that the workshop was worth all the time and effort? What criteria will you use at that stage to judge the workshop and our contribution to it? Because once we as facilitators know the answer to that question, it is then our task to design an event and outputs that best lead to that impact. However, usually when we ask this question, people on the phone get very silent – telling us that this is a good question – and ask us to give them a few days to figure it out…