Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revisionLast revisionBoth sides next revision | ||
marine_colab:workshop_20151125 [2015-12-01 11:23] – [Marine CoLAB so far] maja | marine_colab:workshop_20151125 [2016-01-20 13:24] – maja | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==== Marine CoLABoration Workshop - November 2015 ==== | ==== Marine CoLABoration Workshop - November 2015 ==== | ||
- | A [[start|Marine CoLAB]] workshop held at the London Zoo | + | The last [[start|Marine CoLAB]] workshop |
+ | |||
+ | In the morning the participants focused om **Marine CoLAB as a whole**. Beginning with a reflection on //Marine CoLAB so far//, looking at what has worked and what needs more work. Grounded in this experience they moved into a visioning process lead by Giles to clarify the Marine CoLAB //vision and mission//. At the end of the morning Sue took the group through a beautiful presentation and discussion of a //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 shifted to the **Marine CoLAB project incubator**, | ||
==== Participants ===== | ==== Participants ===== | ||
+ | |||
Louisa Hooper, Heather Koldewey, Sandy Luk, Nicola Frost, Amy Pryor, Aniol Esteban, Giles Bristow, Sue Ranger, Mirella von Lindenfels, Sarah Ridley. | Louisa Hooper, Heather Koldewey, Sandy Luk, Nicola Frost, Amy Pryor, Aniol Esteban, Giles Bristow, Sue Ranger, Mirella von Lindenfels, Sarah Ridley. | ||
Facilitators: | Facilitators: | ||
- | |||
{{> | {{> | ||
+ | ====Marine CoLAB so far==== | ||
- | ==== Framing ==== | + | The morning began by distilling a few points from previous discussions on the future of Marine CoLAB which can be used as a starting point or a point of discussion about Marine CoLAB in 2016 and beyond. Marine CoLAB participants are keen to seize opportunities, |
- | + | At the very first workshop the participants designed a range of possible future scenarios for Marine CoLAB and the worlds in which it could exist. The different futures had two things in common: Marine CoLAB would be integrating values and innovation, as well as establishing and strengthening connections (between the ocean and society, between business and governments, | |
- | 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. | + | |
- | + | ||
- | At the very first workshop the participants designed a range of possible future scenarios for Marine CoLAB and the worlds in which it would exist. The different futures had two things in common: Marine CoLAB would be integrating values and innovation, as well as establishing and strengthening connections (between the ocean and society, between business and governments, | + | |
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, |
- | + | ||
- | + | ||
- | ====Marine CoLAB so far==== | + | |
+ | {{> | ||
=== What worked? === | === What worked? === | ||
== People == | == People == | ||
- | * Supportive and energising group of people; Imaginative, | + | * Supportive and energising group of people; Imaginative, |
- | * Open - want to be doing this; Openness of everyone in embracing something new - nice people | + | * Open - want to be doing this; Openness of everyone in embracing something new |
* Enthusiasm, engagement and energy of members during LAB meetings | * Enthusiasm, engagement and energy of members during LAB meetings | ||
* Broad range of skills, expertise and organisation; | * Broad range of skills, expertise and organisation; | ||
Line 43: | Line 39: | ||
== Time & space to explore === | == Time & space to explore === | ||
* Flexibility, | * Flexibility, | ||
- | * Time spent together without explicit | + | * Time spent together without explicit |
* Thinking about issues from different perspectives | * Thinking about issues from different perspectives | ||
* Lack of territoriality and competition | * Lack of territoriality and competition | ||
Line 50: | Line 46: | ||
* New dimensions brought in from CGF (e.g. other labs and communities) | * 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 (?) | * Workshops in stimulating environments - allowing us to think outside our daily / OP’s (?) | ||
- | |||
== Community building == | == Community building == | ||
Line 67: | Line 62: | ||
== Support == | == Support == | ||
- | * CGF: Hands-on engagement, support and guidance of Louisa and CGF, their agility and responsiveness (e.g. supporting conference attendance(?) | + | * CGF: Hands-on engagement, support and guidance of Louisa and CGF, their agility and responsiveness (e.g. supporting conference attendance, networking) |
- | * Facilitators: | + | * Facilitators: |
* Connections of the group to ' | * Connections of the group to ' | ||
- | |||
=== What needs more work? === | === What needs more work? === | ||
Line 76: | Line 70: | ||
== Time! == | == Time! == | ||
* Time to deliver our potential of all ideas and projects | * Time to deliver our potential of all ideas and projects | ||
- | * Finding enough time to engage outside of project ideas are not core business | + | * Finding enough time to engage outside of project ideas that are not core business |
* More time thinking and developing a framework for evaluation | * More time thinking and developing a framework for evaluation | ||
* Retain energy over longer term; retain energy once in project delivery mode | * 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. | + | * Communication between meetings; time to do things and connect between meetings (though it is happening); Embedding CoLAB work between workshops - often a last minute flurry of preparation for each one. |
* Information overload - not always possible to digest what is shared | * Information overload - not always possible to digest what is shared | ||
Line 115: | Line 109: | ||
=== What can we improve? === | === What can we improve? === | ||
+ | |||
+ | {{> | ||
Line 135: | Line 131: | ||
== Communication == | == Communication == | ||
- | (within | + | (within |
* Focus outwards | * Focus outwards | ||
- | * Create a thought piece explaining something like "this is the benefit of 12 months of Marine CoLAB", | + | * Create a thought piece explaining something like "this is the benefit of 12 months of Marine CoLAB", |
- | Communicate how it affected ways of working, what effects it had on specific projects, potential long term value for oceans, etc. | + | |
Line 144: | Line 139: | ||
{{> | {{> | ||
+ | |||
+ | 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==== | ||
- | ( cross reference w. Giles' notes ) | + | < |
- | * network focused on values based solutions to protect & restore the ocean | + | * Value shift: what is Marine CoLAB’s theory of change? All participating organisations have one, but the glue could be the 'values based approach’ |
- | * a collective is a powerful means to address the urgent need for humans to value the oceans & drive change | + | * Recognising existing values, rather than changing or creating ' |
- | * we aim to achieve a shift in how the ocean is valued by individuals and society to improve ocean health | + | * What is the timeframe? |
- | * recognising existing | + | Glue: values |
- | | + | When talking about a values based approach, there could be two possibilities: |
+ | | ||
+ | * 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:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==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 ) | ||
- | * s/ | ||
- | * 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==== | ||
Line 173: | Line 179: | ||
{{> | {{> | ||
- | There is a need to find a language all Marine CoLAB participants understand, paying attention to jargon. There is a difference between the term " | + | == Presentation by Sue Ranger == |
- | In order to uncover deeper values, we need to start with basic connectedness (of people and places, different disciplines, different people. This can form a glue, a common basis and shared understanding. | + | 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...). This can form a glue, a common basis and shared understanding. | ||
* developing a shared language based around values we can use to communicate within the group | * developing a shared language based around values we can use to communicate within the group | ||
Line 182: | Line 190: | ||
* issue based theory of change -> value based | * issue based theory of change -> value based | ||
* bringing various voices, with various values into discussion | * 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**! | ||
+ | |||
+ | ==Next steps == | ||
+ | * 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==== | ||
Line 187: | Line 212: | ||
{{> | {{> | ||
- | (cross reference with Aniol' | + | Mapping existing and emerging projects by organisations as a way to identify strategic lines of work for Marine CoLAB |
- | + | ||
- | * ways to identify strategic lines of work | + | |
- | * list of relevant projects | + | |
- | * marine safe | + | |
- | * coastal partnership network | + | |
- | * Thames river academy (educational projects) | + | |
- | * beach watch | + | |
- | * capturing the value of our coast (citizen science, data collection) | + | |
- | * capacity building at FFI (new educational programmes, masters, adult ed. etc) | + | |
- | * strengthening NGO capacity in Portugal (aniol) | + | |
- | * common ground (community voice project followup, biz case for marine resource mgmt) | + | |
- | * MPA programme (increase in capacity for creating marine protected areas) | + | |
- | * (FFI co-management approach) | + | |
- | * sustainable seafood in Portugal (MCS & Client Earth - reducing unlawful fishing) | + | |
- | * ocean schools (ocean awareness as part of general knowledge, general education) | + | |
- | * # | + | |
- | * Blue New Deal | + | |
- | * diverting EU marine funding to 'good things' | + | |
- | * three main groupings | + | The participants identified |
* opportunities around MPA & spatial planning, policy related | * opportunities around MPA & spatial planning, policy related | ||
* schools, training & educational projects | * schools, training & educational projects | ||
* exporting knowledge & support / capacity building | * exporting knowledge & support / capacity building | ||
- | * (global wave conference) | ||
- | * capturing the value of our coast -> possible focus for various experiments, | ||
- | * rethinking projects in terms of value lens, changes of impact with contributions from other partners | ||
- | * time-line and potential interactions between projects (dependencies....) | ||
- | | + | List of relevant projects |
- | * find specific ways for marine | + | |
- | * write up value space for each project | + | == MPAs and marine planning == |
- | * Aniol to compile & reformat existing info by end of the week | + | |
- | * edits, additions and value prompt to be submitted by Dec. 4th | + | * 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:// | ||
+ | * [[http:// | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | ==Education and communication== | ||
+ | * Thames river academy (educational | ||
+ | * 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....) | ||
====Game On!==== | ====Game On!==== | ||
{{> | {{> | ||
+ | Ocean Engagement: gaming approaches | ||
- | * (cross reference with Sandy's notes) | + | "We're close to a tipping point on ocean experience games" |
- | * ideas that have surfaced | + | |
- | * challenge; how/when to engage the pubic to change rules / process | + | Challenge: "how can we change perception of the value of oceans through digital media?" |
- | * concluded that the first experiment | + | GameOn is an experiment to test the hypothesis |
- | * perhaps | + | |
- | * two main options | + | Several ides have surfaced, all with challenges and opportunities. The common |
- | * " | + | |
- | * influence exiting | + | 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 |
- | * coached | + | * __Influence |
- | * develop | + | |
- | * develop | + | If Marine CoLAB would develop a game, different approaches are possible: |
- | * BBC docos, google ocean, natgeo, etc | + | * **Coached |
- | * mainstream marine conservation game (cf. beyond (..?) rising tide - maxis?) | + | * Develop **add-ons to existing games** |
- | * games can also be used as fund-raising vehicles | + | * Develop |
- | * simple experiments | + | * Develop a full-blown |
- | * possible direction | + | |
- | -> sim city like versions | + | |
- | | + | Out of these directions, the group distilled |
- | * small lab games (c.f fish hackathon) | + | |
- | * advantage; | + | == Small Lab Games== |
- | * disadvantage; | + | |
- | * full on game | + | * Disadvantages: |
- | * advantage; AR tech becoming cheaper | + | |
- | * disadvantage; | + | ==Marine Conservation Game== |
- | * questions; target audience? SIM-MPA? | + | * Advantages: Making such a game would connect digital and conservation worlds; There is possibly large impact and educational opportunities, |
- | * marine game/film leadership | + | * Disadvantages |
- | * advantage; | + | |
- | good time for BBC Oceans, influence through others. how to maintain contact with influencers | + | ==Influencing Game Developers== |
- | * disadvantage; 'Nemo effect' | + | * Advantages |
- | * ZSL project, virtual Chagos, funding during 2016. British, controversial, | + | * Disadvantages: |
- | * interest | + | |
- | * giles, testing assumptions, | + | |
- | * heather, perhaps as a masters project for students {Exeter uni, Chagos project) | + | ==Next steps== |
- | * mirella, perhaps | + | * more preliminary research to see which option is most promising |
- | * MSC, existing contacts (octonauts) potential test audience. | + | * Sandy, Sue & Heather: Potential |
- | * next steps; | + | * Heather: connect this experiment to the ZSL project on virtual Chagos (British, controversial, |
- | * potential | + | * Sue/MCS, probe existing contacts (Octonauts) as potential test audience. |
- | * sandy, sue & heather | + | |
| | ||
+ | (cross reference with Sandy' | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
====Plastics project==== | ====Plastics project==== | ||
Line 271: | Line 308: | ||
{{> | {{> | ||
- | | + | |
- | * mayoral election in may 2016 | + | Working session of the now fully funded (CGF & OAK Foundation) Marine CoLAB project: campaign to make London free of Single Use Plastic Bottles. |
- | * focus as a marine project rather than just about ' | + | |
- | * " | + | Three topics to touch on: |
- | | + | |
- | * required; project implementation plan, timeline, external deadlines. kickoff meeting (before xmas) | + | * Reality check (commitments, |
- | * collaborative | + | |
- | * 2 ppl full time - project mgmt at ZSL (via Project Oceans), narrative & communication TEP | + | |
- | * FF interns | + | ==Values== |
- | * governance? overview committee, advisory group | + | |
- | * connections with existing NGOs working in ' | + | What will make individuals change behaviour (intrinsic, economic…)? |
- | * Emma Cunningham re. stakeholder interviews, industry, NGOs, etc | + | |
- | * how to ensure 'best advice' | + | * How to avoid industry backlash? |
- | * strategy for mayoral candidates | + | * How to make it sustainable? |
- | * establish | + | * Focus as a marine project rather than just about ' |
- | * any upcoming 'big things' | + | * Have to have a closer look at what has failed |
- | * start compling hideous facts about single use bottles | + | * how to ensure 'best advice' |
- | * potential case studies (selfridges, | + | * start compling hideous facts about single use bottles |
- | * how do we explicitly test values based research? | + | * Design campaign to include values as an essential part of it: continue discussion at the brainstorming meeting in December. |
+ | * How to explicitly test values based research? | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | == Reality Check == | ||
+ | |||
+ | The funding proposal was successful: now a few urgent things to do: | ||
+ | * By 11 December 2015, All: Re:read the proposal, agree on commitments and/or adapt if needed. | ||
+ | * ASAP: Heather, Steve, Louisa: paperwork | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
+ | Collaborative | ||
+ | * Project management | ||
+ | * Governance: overview committee, advisory group - needs to be finalised | ||
+ | * Recruiting: By 16 December: Heather | ||
+ | * January: interview applicants | ||
+ | * Compile a project team ASAP | ||
+ | * Giles/FF: has staff for research & background, active mapping process. Connect FF’s interns to work on researching case studies (Bristol (tap friendly, public fountains…) Selfridges, ZSL, etc), C40, cities as chanpions, COP, tourism, Blue Bell… | ||
+ | * (Longer term): Form advisory group with different stakeholders (Sue has ideas) | ||
+ | |||
+ | Implementation plan | ||
+ | * 16 December: Initial startup meeting: Heather, Mirella, Amy, Giles, Louisa | ||
+ | * 12 January (from 2pm) Full planning meeting with other experts from organisations | ||
+ | * After January plan at least one meeting per month | ||
+ | * Short term focus: Mayoral election in May 2016: need strategy for mayoral candidates - Campaigns are written NOW (Louisa has a few people who should be engaged in this): | ||
+ | * How to get a meeting? Exploratory conversations to identify what is the opportunity for the candidates. | ||
+ | * Offer solutions/ | ||
+ | * Longer term: Systems Mapping exercise and stakeholder conversations (linked to advisory group) | ||
+ | * Identify target groups (from systems mapping) | ||
+ | * Outsource research: to e.g. frameworks research - additional funding will be available for this research from CGF. Which questions need asking? | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Link to related initiatives, | ||
+ | * Research | ||
+ | |||
====Planning 2016==== | ====Planning 2016==== | ||
- | * 10 days of time is covered | + | 10 days of time per organisation |
- | * how best to structure the time? | + | |
- | * smaller, structured meetings around particular topics/ | + | ==Marine CoLAB as a collaborative network== |
- | * aggregating projects (mapping), specific project (plastics) | + | * What does a lab community look like? |
- | * discuss learning which emerges from projects | + | * Collaboration |
- | * what can we teach each other | + | * Added value of open thinking space, facilitated structure |
- | * sometime for thinking about wider issues, larger context, incubation of vague ideas. | + | * Further work required |
- | * 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 | + | |
- | * how can new/other partners get involved in the future? | + | |
- | * more focus on strategy, strategy | + | |
* 4~6 days of meetings of entire group | * 4~6 days of meetings of entire group | ||
- | * (cf. global strategy for sharks) | + | * some time for thinking about wider issues, larger context, incubation of vague ideas (cf. global strategy for sharks) |
- | * added value of open thinking space, facilitated structure | + | * What can we teach each other? Discuss learning which emerges from projects |
- | * further work required | + | * More focus on strategy, strategy |
- | * circulate set of objectives, further ideas | + | * To do: circulate set of objectives, further ideas towards a governance structure, business and operational models (next workshop early 2016) |
- | * what does a lab community look like? | + | |
- | * strategy for engagement? | + | == Marine CoLAB Activities / Projects == |
- | * clear criteria for 'a lab project'? | + | * Smaller, structured meetings around particular topics/ |
+ | * Aggregating projects (from existing/ | ||
+ | * Clarify | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Communication and stakeholder engagement == | ||
+ | * Time to proactively communicate! | ||
+ | * Clarify evidence base for the lab, both process and projects | ||
+ | * How can new/other partners get involved in the future? Strategy for engagement? | ||
+ | * Better integration of partners into project proposals -> more explicit collaborations | ||
+ | |||
====Next Steps==== | ====Next Steps==== | ||
- | | + | |
- | * write up value space for each project | + | |
- | * Aniol to compile & reformat existing info by end of the week | + | 07/12 Fill in the Project Incubator Form. |
- | * edits, additions and value prompt to be submitted by Dec. 4th | + | |
- | * Game On! | + | * -> Send to Aniol |
- | * potential | + | |
- | * Sandy, Sue & Heather | + | 11/12 Re-read the proposal, agree on commitments. |
- | * Plastics | + | |
- | * schedule next meetings, brainstorming, | + | |
- | * project | + | 16/12 Plastics project working meeting (Marine CoLAB only). |
- | * establish | + | * -> Let Heather know if you’re coming. |
- | * 2016 and further | + | |
- | * write a few paragraphs about how Marine CoLab has changed/improved current work | + | 24/12 Write a few paragraphs describing |
- | * circulate set of objectives, further ideas | + | * e.g. How did it affect ways of working, key outcomes for you, effects it had on specific projects, long term value etc. |
- | * each participant | + | * -> Send to Louisa. |
+ | |||
+ | Dec. GameOn: Potential | ||
+ | * -> Sandy, Heather, Sue | ||
+ | * -> Heather: connect GameOn to ' | ||
+ | * -> Sue: probe contacts (Octonauts) as potential test audience | ||
+ | |||
+ | Dec. Plastics: | ||
+ | * Project | ||
+ | * Establish | ||
+ | |||
+ | 12/01 | ||
+ | |||
+ | == Before the next workshop == | ||
+ | |||
+ | * Circulate set of objectives for Marine CoLAB in 2016 and beyond | ||
+ | * Collect ideas towards | ||
+ | * Mission: Giles to send the mission statement for review to all | ||
+ | * Values: | ||
+ | * Share reading on this topic online: http:// | ||
+ | * Invite speakers (e.g. Chris Rose, Frameworks...) | ||
+ | |||
+ | == During the next workshop == | ||
+ | |||
+ | Values based approach | ||
+ | * All: present your approach | ||
+ | * Values based approach as the hallmark of the Marine CoLAB Strategy | ||
+ | * Values | ||
+ | * Rethink projects | ||
+ | |||
+ | Vision, Mission, Strategy for Marine CoLAB network | ||
+ | * Finalise work from previous workshops | ||
+ | * Discuss business, governance and operational models (incl. best practices from CGF) | ||
+ | |||
+ | Project Incubator | ||
+ | * Discuss how to inform or engage with existing and new projects | ||
+ | * Further mapping; Contributions from other partners, possibly a time-line and potential interactions between projects (dependencies…) | ||