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 10:36] – [Game On!] nik | marine_colab:workshop_20151125 [2015-12-01 13:00] – [Project Incubator] 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**, | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{> | ||
Line 29: | Line 35: | ||
- | ====Future of Marine CoLAB==== | + | === 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==== | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{> | ||
====Mission / MIX==== | ====Mission / MIX==== | ||
- | {{> | + | ( cross reference w. Giles' notes ) |
+ | |||
+ | * network focused on values based solutions to protect & restore the ocean | ||
+ | * a collective is a powerful means to address the urgent need for humans to value the oceans & drive change | ||
+ | * we aim to achieve a shift in how the ocean is valued by individuals and society to improve ocean health | ||
+ | |||
+ | * recognising existing values, rather than changing or creating ' | ||
+ | |||
+ | * we tackle the issues by collaborating, | ||
+ | |||
+ | * s/collection/network | ||
+ | * values based -> USP | ||
+ | * requires time-frame? | ||
+ | |||
+ | * we aim to achieve | ||
+ | * organisations all have a theory of change, glue is the values based piece... | ||
+ | * as a lab, how do we experiment with strategies? | ||
+ | * economic shift? perceptual shifts? | ||
+ | |||
+ | * clearer ideas for methods to ' | ||
+ | * behaviour shift as a result of uncovering existing values, finding where values & behaviour are at odds. | ||
+ | * something for 2016 -> values based campaigning (chris rose ? also NEF) | ||
====Values based approach==== | ====Values based approach==== | ||
{{> | {{> | ||
+ | |||
+ | 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 | ||
====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 70: | Line 261: | ||
* small lab games (c.f fish hackathon) | * small lab games (c.f fish hackathon) | ||
* advantage; existing format, easier to test assumptions with small games, process based learning | * advantage; existing format, easier to test assumptions with small games, process based learning | ||
- | * disadvantage; | + | * disadvantage; |
- | hackathon outcomes can be lacklustre. potentially limited impact. | + | |
* full on game | * full on game | ||
- | * advantage; AR tech becoming cheaper & easier to create, existing research from BBC on AR in education, | + | * advantage; AR tech becoming cheaper & easier to create, existing research from BBC on AR in education, potentially wide audience, amplification. |
- | potentially wide audience, amplification. | + | |
* disadvantage; | * disadvantage; | ||
* questions; target audience? SIM-MPA? | * questions; target audience? SIM-MPA? | ||
Line 80: | Line 269: | ||
* advantage; might be scope for a 'think tank' with more general (less issue/ | * advantage; might be scope for a 'think tank' with more general (less issue/ | ||
good time for BBC Oceans, influence through others. how to maintain contact with influencers | good time for BBC Oceans, influence through others. how to maintain contact with influencers | ||
- | * disadvantage; | + | * disadvantage; |
- | possible dilution. | + | |
* ZSL project, virtual Chagos, funding during 2016. British, controversial, | * ZSL project, virtual Chagos, funding during 2016. British, controversial, | ||
* interest | * interest |