Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Next revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
marine_colab:workshop_20151125 [2015-11-27 10:08] – nik | marine_colab:workshop_20151125 [2015-12-03 11:27] – [Mission / MIX] maja | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Facilitators: | Facilitators: | ||
+ | |||
+ | This is the last workshop of the first year of [[start|Marine CoLAB]]. Louisa Hooper compared it to standing at the seashore at low tide, with rocks and mud emerging under water, so we can begin to see the peaks, as well as what underlies them. One of the biggest challenges for this workshop and the coming year is how to do less with game-changing effectiveness. It is important to look at the big picture as well well as the practicalities of the months and year(s) to come. | ||
Line 14: | Line 16: | ||
==== Framing ==== | ==== Framing ==== | ||
- | |||
- | This is the last workshop of the first year of Marine CoLAB. Louisa Hooper compared it to standing at the seashore at low tide, with rocks and mud emerging under water, so we can begin to see the peaks, as well as what underlies them. One of the biggest challenges for this workshop and the coming year is how to do less with game-changing effectiveness. It is important to look at the big picture as well well as the practicalities of the months and year(s) to come. | ||
Maja Kuzmanovic looked back over the notes of the past year and distilled a few points from previous discussions on the future of Marine CoLAB, that can be used as a starting point or a point of discussion, when looking forward to 2016 and beyond. Marine CoLAB participants are keen to seize opportunities to reframe challenges and refresh whole systems. They do this by being a part of trusted collaborations and networks. After a year of working together, the facilitators added that the participants are very keen to and good at designing and working on projects. | Maja Kuzmanovic looked back over the notes of the past year and distilled a few points from previous discussions on the future of Marine CoLAB, that can be used as a starting point or a point of discussion, when looking forward to 2016 and beyond. Marine CoLAB participants are keen to seize opportunities to reframe challenges and refresh whole systems. They do this by being a part of trusted collaborations and networks. After a year of working together, the facilitators added that the participants are very keen to and good at designing and working on projects. | ||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
Over the course of several workshops, a range of challenges for Marine CoLAB were identified, including systemic change, public engagement, valuing (cultural dimensions) of oceans, perception of marine conservation, | Over the course of several workshops, a range of challenges for Marine CoLAB were identified, including systemic change, public engagement, valuing (cultural dimensions) of oceans, perception of marine conservation, | ||
- | Finally, before delving into the futures, mission, values and a range of experiments, | + | Finally, before delving into the futures, mission, values and a range of experiments, |
+ | |||
+ | ==== Agenda ==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | In the morning the participants focused om **Marine CoLAB as a whole**. Beginning with reflecting on //Marine CoLAB so far//: what worked and what needs more work. Grounded in this experience they moved into a visioning process lead by Giles to clarify the overall Marine CoLAB //vision and mission//. At the end of the morning Sue took the group through a beautiful presentation and discussion of the //values based approach//, as a lens that can be used to shape and evaluate projects, experiments and the initiative itself. In the afternoon, the focus was on **Marine CoLAB project incubator**, | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{> | ||
====Marine CoLAB so far==== | ====Marine CoLAB so far==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | === What worked? === | ||
+ | |||
+ | == People == | ||
+ | * Supportive and energising group of people; Imaginative, | ||
+ | * Open - want to be doing this; Openness of everyone in embracing something new - nice people | ||
+ | * Enthusiasm, engagement and energy of members during LAB meetings | ||
+ | * Broad range of skills, expertise and organisation; | ||
+ | * Good balance of personalities | ||
+ | * Willingness to communicate | ||
+ | * Good size of group | ||
+ | * Good vibes! | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Time & space to explore === | ||
+ | * Flexibility, | ||
+ | * Time spent together without explicit xxx/ | ||
+ | * Thinking about issues from different perspectives | ||
+ | * Lack of territoriality and competition | ||
+ | * Building connections within the group | ||
+ | * Time, workshops to explore - facilitation has helped | ||
+ | * New dimensions brought in from CGF (e.g. other labs and communities) | ||
+ | * Workshops in stimulating environments - allowing us to think outside our daily / OP’s (?) | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | == Community building == | ||
+ | * Listening and finding out about different ways we create change | ||
+ | * A clearer sense of each other and the interests from our organisations | ||
+ | * We are trying to understand each others’ strengths and see how working together could add value | ||
+ | * Building a sense of vision and ambition | ||
+ | * The team is becoming more confidently creative and innovative - sharing and talking more - developing a TRUSTED network; Trust each other to share ideas, thoughts strengths and weaknesses - no territoriality | ||
+ | * Self-organising - members of the team are taking the lead on aspects of work - shared leadership | ||
+ | * Individual initiative starts the ball rolling (e.g. Heather - Plastics, Giles - Vision/ | ||
+ | * Finding a common project (e.g. Plastic pollution) to get our teeth into a specific challenge, that uses existing skills and interests - sum bigger than parts. | ||
+ | * Mix of work and social | ||
+ | * Developing new networks and relationships; | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | == Support == | ||
+ | |||
+ | * CGF: Hands-on engagement, support and guidance of Louisa and CGF, their agility and responsiveness (e.g. supporting conference attendance(? | ||
+ | * Facilitators: | ||
+ | * Connections of the group to ' | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | === What needs more work? === | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Time! == | ||
+ | * Time to deliver our potential of all ideas and projects | ||
+ | * Finding enough time to engage outside of project ideas are not core business | ||
+ | * More time thinking and developing a framework for evaluation | ||
+ | * Retain energy over longer term; retain energy once in project delivery mode | ||
+ | * Communication between meetings; time to do things and connect between meetings (though it is happening); Embedding CoLAB work between workshops - last minute flurry of preparation for each one. | ||
+ | * Information overload - not always possible to digest what is shared | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | == CoLAB == | ||
+ | * Define a sense of direction | ||
+ | * Clarity of vision and objectives | ||
+ | * Application of value frame to other work | ||
+ | * Come back to CGF’s aim valuing the oceans and thinking about strategies to tackle this directly - not getting caught in the " | ||
+ | * Developing ideas/ | ||
+ | * Identify the best skills and input a Marcolab project can give to specific needs | ||
+ | * Bringing in more of an "arts + culture" | ||
+ | * Articulation of where Marine CoLAB fits with other initiatives | ||
+ | * Structure to support without becoming burdensome machine | ||
+ | * Need to figure out how to enable effective communication (between individuals, | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | == Communication and stakeholder engagement == | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Clearly communicating what the Marine CoLAB is and does | ||
+ | * Connecting beyond the LAB, both with LAB organisations and other orgs. | ||
+ | * Promotion of ideas and approaches to wider community | ||
+ | * Connecting to other things happening at CGF: other projects and areas of work CGF supports + learning from other work CGF supported | ||
+ | * System to enable dissemination of thoughts and approaches and coalesce (?) | ||
+ | * (fishermen, mpa’s, pollution) | ||
+ | * Ability to integrate others in some aspects, without losing cohesion of the group | ||
+ | * Creative communications - communicating complex concepts, training… | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Connect to organisations == | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Dedicated staff | ||
+ | * In-house skills and capacity for four group projects | ||
+ | * Us as individuals in CoLAB vs us as organisation; | ||
+ | * Understanding how to manage and maximise positive feedback into participating organisations | ||
+ | |||
+ | === What can we improve? === | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{> | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Get better at knowing "who we are, where we go and how we do it" | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Organisational buy-in == | ||
+ | * Engage not just individuals, | ||
+ | * Clarifying the strategic lines of work of Marine CoLAB (3 lines?) | ||
+ | * Offering value add (e.g. building effective collaborations) | ||
+ | * Try to find a common agenda that all organisations would be interested in | ||
+ | * If Marine CoLAB activities can fit into day-to-day agendas of existing work in the participating organisations, | ||
+ | * Think about the structure of the collaboration and how it could overlap with organisational missions, activities and strategies. | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Sustainability == | ||
+ | * innovation | ||
+ | * collaboration | ||
+ | * projects | ||
+ | * Core funding is likely to be needed for Marine CoLAB as a whole, as some of the organisations are only funded on a project basis, so do not have the capacity to offer people’s time. While it is important to get Marine CoLAB projects funded, the benefit of the collaboration needs the CoLAB as a whole funded as well. | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Communication == | ||
+ | |||
+ | (within organisations, | ||
+ | * Focus outwards | ||
+ | * Create a thought piece explaining something like "this is the benefit of 12 months of Marine CoLAB", | ||
====Future of Marine CoLAB==== | ====Future of Marine CoLAB==== | ||
+ | {{> | ||
+ | |||
+ | The visions of Marine CoLAB in 2021 | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Value is at heart of Marine CoLAB, connecting the public with oceans and increasing the environmental benefit. Value is also a challenge for Marine CoLAB, defining the rules of the game. The CoLAB is a framework that feeds the organisations involved with game-changing ideas and projects. It isn’t quite clear what the size of its pond is, but it is likely that its purpose is to think, or perhaps think and implement, more likely to connect and spawn initiatives rather than do everything itself. | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Marine CoLAB perpetuates change in three areas: governmental/ | ||
+ | * Clarity about the added value of Marine CoLAB, for the organisations and the world. There is a clear articulation of strategy in three strands: | ||
+ | * Actual experiments that show change; including learning from the process, replicating and adapting experiments to other areas, developing metrics, etc. | ||
+ | * Good internal and external communication reaching broad audiences | ||
+ | * Values shift | ||
====Mission / MIX==== | ====Mission / MIX==== | ||
- | {{>http://www.flickr.com/photos/ | + | < |
+ | |||
+ | * Value shift: what is Marine CoLAB’s theory of change? All participating organisations have one, but the glue could be the ' | ||
+ | * Recognising existing values, rather than changing or creating ' | ||
+ | * What is the timeframe? | ||
+ | |||
+ | Glue: values based → USP → what is the BIGGER SHIFT the lab wants to focus on (e.g. climate change, fossil fuels and oceans - a big goal to strive towards)? What are the relevant values for this goal? As a lab, how do we experiment with strategies? | ||
+ | |||
+ | When talking about a values based approach, there could be two possibilities: | ||
+ | * Recognising and amplifying values: the CoLAB needs clearer ideas for methods to ' | ||
+ | * Changing values: a more pro-active process, although perhaps an impossibility - possibly better to focus on changing behaviours instead. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | To do in 2016 → look at values based campaigning [[http://www.campaignstrategy.org/|Chris Rose]] and also NEF’s approaches. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Next steps== | ||
+ | * Giles to compile a proposal for a mission statement based on these reflections and the materials from Lisbon. | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ( cross reference w. Giles' notes ) | ||
+ | |||
====Values based approach==== | ====Values based approach==== | ||
{{> | {{> | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Presentation by Sue Ranger == | ||
+ | |||
+ | There is a need to find a language all Marine CoLAB participants understand, paying attention to jargon. There is a difference between the term " | ||
+ | |||
+ | In order to uncover deeper values, we need to start with basic connectedness (of people and places, different disciplines, | ||
+ | |||
+ | * developing a shared language based around values we can use to communicate within the group | ||
+ | * ' | ||
+ | * uncovering existing values, aligning values | ||
+ | * issue based theory of change -> value based | ||
+ | * bringing various voices, with various values into discussion | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Discussion == | ||
+ | |||
+ | The values based approach is the hallmark of Marine CoLAB, a prism or lens through which the LAB and its activities are designed and assessed. Filling the gap between the values of humans and the value of oceans. The value of oceans tends to be misunderstood and needs to be communicated differently. An **iconic campaign** might help, as well as focusing on issues by describing the value of oceans, such as the plastics project and other **values based experiments**, | ||
+ | |||
+ | There are different methods to approach values, depending on the theory of change applied. Should Marine CoLAB have one or more theory of change? Is there a generic TOC or a range of context specific theories that can mobilise new voices and gather evidence? Is the uniqueness of Marine CoLAB’s TOC important? Would it not be more relevant to focus on adding value? | ||
+ | |||
+ | What are the values of Marine CoLAB? Could **shared values** be Marine CoLAB’s focus at all times and across all projects? | ||
+ | |||
+ | How to begin using a values based approach in Marine CoLAB: **learn by doing**: | ||
+ | * invite speakers | ||
+ | * share readings | ||
+ | * personal exercises (akin to Sue’s values presentation) | ||
+ | * incorporating it in projects | ||
+ | * values a part of all Marine CoLAB communication | ||
====Project Incubator==== | ====Project Incubator==== | ||
{{> | {{> | ||
+ | |||
+ | Mapping existing and emerging projects by organisations as a way to identify strategic lines of work for Marine CoLAB | ||
+ | |||
+ | The participants identified three main groupings for projects | ||
+ | * opportunities around MPA & spatial planning, policy related | ||
+ | * schools, training & educational projects | ||
+ | * exporting knowledge & support / capacity building | ||
+ | |||
+ | List of relevant projects | ||
+ | |||
+ | == MPAs and marine planning == | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * Common ground: [[http:// | ||
+ | * MPA campaign/ | ||
+ | * Sustainable seafood in Portugal, Spain and EU (NEF, MCS & Client Earth - reducing unlawful fishing; scoping, looking at minimal standards for the seafood industry; including different stakeholders (policy, communities, | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ==Education and communication== | ||
+ | * Thames river academy (educational projects) across different sectors, including rivers and seas across the curriculum | ||
+ | * Ocean schools: ocean awareness as part of general knowledge, general education | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * [[https:// | ||
+ | * [[https:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Capacity building== | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | * Capacity building at FFI: new educational programmes, scholarships, | ||
+ | * (FFI co-management approach) | ||
+ | * Related: strengthening NGO capacity in Portugal (Aniol) | ||
+ | * Diverting EU marine funding to 'good things' | ||
+ | * http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Next steps == | ||
+ | * Aniol to compile & reformat existing info by end of the week, make a [[Project Incubator Form]] | ||
+ | * Edits, additions and value prompt to be submitted by Dec. 4th | ||
+ | * (cross reference these notes with Aniol' | ||
+ | * Next workshop: | ||
+ | * Find specific ways for Marine CoLAB to inform or engage with existing and new projects (e.g. advisers) | ||
+ | * Write up value space for each project -> further mapping | ||
+ | * Rethink projects in terms of value lens, changes of impact with contributions from other partners, possibly create a time-line and potential interactions between projects (dependencies....) | ||
Line 48: | Line 267: | ||
{{> | {{> | ||
+ | Ocean Engagement: gaming approaches | ||
+ | |||
+ | " | ||
+ | |||
+ | Challenge: "how can we change perception of the value of oceans through digital media?" | ||
+ | GameOn is an experiment to test the hypothesis that it is possible to do this by developing games or influencing game developers. | ||
+ | |||
+ | Several ides have surfaced, all with challenges and opportunities. The common challenge for all is deciding how and when to engage the pubic in the process, and who the target audience is (children, gamers, game developers…). It remains interesting to look at ways to make conservation games more mainstream, while at the same time focusing on awareness and education. There are many possible partners, but the CoLAB needs specific contacts and entry points to the games industry. | ||
+ | |||
+ | The first [[game on experiment]] focused on public engagement with rules related to oceans, which might be less game focused, perhaps more suitable as a training tool. Instead, it might be better to focus on more general 'ocean awareness' | ||
+ | * __Develop a game__ (see below) | ||
+ | * __Influence game developers__: | ||
+ | |||
+ | If Marine CoLAB would develop a game, different approaches are possible: | ||
+ | * **Coached lab session** or " | ||
+ | * Develop **add-ons to existing games** | ||
+ | * Develop games as **tie-ins** to other games/ | ||
+ | * Develop a full-blown mainstream **marine conservation game**, e.g. a ’simcity-like’ versions of initial scenarios (from [[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Out of these directions, the group distilled three most promising options for progress and looked at their advantages and disadvantages: | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Small Lab Games== | ||
+ | * Advantages: existing format, easier to test assumptions with small games, practice-based learning of values; connecting environmental and technological challenges | ||
+ | * Disadvantages: | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Marine Conservation Game== | ||
+ | * Advantages: Making such a game would connect digital and conservation worlds; There is possibly large impact and educational opportunities, | ||
+ | * Disadvantages high expectations, | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Influencing Game Developers== | ||
+ | * Advantages might be scope for a 'think tank' with more general (less issue/ | ||
+ | * Disadvantages: | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Next steps; | ||
+ | * more preliminary research to see which option is most promising | ||
+ | * Sandy, Sue & Heather: Potential research questions, masters topics for students of Exeter University: "next week" to draft a few paragraphs re. research scope etc. Envisaged results: a " | ||
+ | * Heather: connect this experiment to the ZSL project on virtual Chagos (British, controversial, | ||
+ | * Sue/MCS, probe existing contacts (Octonauts) as potential test audience. | ||
+ | |||
+ | | ||
+ | (cross reference with Sandy' | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
====Plastics project==== | ====Plastics project==== | ||
Line 53: | Line 317: | ||
{{> | {{> | ||
+ | * successful funding proposal | ||
+ | * mayoral election in may 2016 | ||
+ | * focus as a marine project rather than just about ' | ||
+ | * " | ||
+ | * closer look at what has failed, expected backlash, sustainability, | ||
+ | * required; project implementation plan, timeline, external deadlines. kickoff meeting (before xmas) | ||
+ | * collaborative structure; | ||
+ | * 2 ppl full time - project mgmt at ZSL (via Project Oceans), narrative & communication TEP | ||
+ | * FF interns & some staff for research & background, active mapping process | ||
+ | * governance? overview committee, advisory group | ||
+ | * connections with existing NGOs working in ' | ||
+ | * Emma Cunningham re. stakeholder interviews, industry, NGOs, etc | ||
+ | * how to ensure 'best advice' | ||
+ | * strategy for mayoral candidates | ||
+ | * establish list of allies, existing contacts and relevant conversations, | ||
+ | * any upcoming 'big things' | ||
+ | * start compling hideous facts about single use bottles | ||
+ | * potential case studies (selfridges, | ||
+ | * how do we explicitly test values based research? | ||
====Planning 2016==== | ====Planning 2016==== | ||
+ | * 10 days of time is covered per organisation | ||
+ | * how best to structure the time? | ||
+ | * smaller, structured meetings around particular topics/ | ||
+ | * aggregating projects (mapping), specific project (plastics) | ||
+ | * discuss learning which emerges from projects | ||
+ | * what can we teach each other | ||
+ | * sometime for thinking about wider issues, larger context, incubation of vague ideas. | ||
+ | * time to proactively communicate, | ||
+ | * better integration of partners into project proposals -> more explicit collaborations | ||
+ | * clarify evidence base for the lab, both process and projects | ||
+ | * collaboration as an improvement over competition for limited resources | ||
+ | * how can new/other partners get involved in the future? | ||
+ | * more focus on strategy, strategy work team, external communication | ||
+ | * 4~6 days of meetings of entire group | ||
+ | * (cf. global strategy for sharks) | ||
+ | * added value of open thinking space, facilitated structure | ||
+ | * further work required on values, strategy, project updates, planning, evaluation. | ||
+ | * circulate set of objectives, further ideas | ||
+ | * what does a lab community look like? | ||
+ | * strategy for engagement? | ||
+ | * clear criteria for 'a lab project'? | ||
====Next Steps==== | ====Next Steps==== | ||
Line 62: | Line 366: | ||
* Aniol to compile & reformat existing info by end of the week | * Aniol to compile & reformat existing info by end of the week | ||
* edits, additions and value prompt to be submitted by Dec. 4th | * edits, additions and value prompt to be submitted by Dec. 4th | ||
- | * game on | + | * Game On! |
* potential research questions, masters topics. | * potential research questions, masters topics. | ||
- | * sandy, sue & heather | + | * Sandy, Sue & Heather |
- | * plastics | + | * Plastics |
* schedule next meetings, brainstorming, | * schedule next meetings, brainstorming, | ||
* project implementation plan, timeline, external deadlines. kickoff meeting (before xmas) | * project implementation plan, timeline, external deadlines. kickoff meeting (before xmas) | ||
* establish list of existing contacts and relevant conversations, | * establish list of existing contacts and relevant conversations, | ||
* 2016 and further | * 2016 and further | ||
- | * write a few paragraphs about how Marine | + | * write a few paragraphs about how Marine |
* circulate set of objectives, further ideas | * circulate set of objectives, further ideas | ||
- | * year in review | + | * each participant to write a one page year in review by xmas -> send to louisa |