Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- marine_colab:workshop_20151125 [2015-12-03 10:32] – [Future of Marine CoLAB] maja
+++ marine_colab:workshop_20151125 [2015-12-03 13:49] – [Framing] maja
@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 ==== Framing ====
+The morning began by looking 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.
 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, bridging the gapes between local and global governance of oceans).
@@ Line 164: / Line 163: @@
 ====Mission / MIX====
-Marine CoLAB is a network focused on values based solutions to protect and restore the ocean. We exist because a collective is a powerful means to address the urgent need for humans to value the ocean and drive change. We aim to achieve a shift in how the ocean is valued by individuals and society to improve ocean health. We tackle these issues by collaborating, incubating, innovating, catalysing and influencing.
+<blockquote>Marine CoLAB is a network focused on values based solutions to protect and restore the ocean. We exist because a collective is a powerful means to address the urgent need for humans to value the ocean and drive change. We aim to achieve a shift in how the ocean is valued by individuals and society to improve ocean health. We tackle these issues by collaborating, incubating, innovating, catalysing and influencing.</blockquote>
   * Value shift: what is Marine CoLAB’s theory of change? All participating organisations have one, but the glue could be the 'values based approach’
@@ Line 178: / Line 177: @@
 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.
@@ Line 208: / Line 210: @@
 What are the values of Marine CoLAB? Could **shared values** be Marine CoLAB’s focus at all times and across all projects?  Is there a spectrum of existing values that are shared (instrinsic/extrinsic, economic & cultural, individual & collective, etc.)? By working with a range of different values this approach can focus on whichever value catalyses different target groups - starting from their existing values, connecting them to oceans and each other, making the values collective and shared.
-How to begin using a values based approach in Marine CoLAB: **learn by doing**:
+How to begin using a values based approach in Marine CoLAB: **learn by doing**!
+==Next steps ==
   * invite speakers
   * share readings
@@ Line 264: / Line 268: @@
 {{>http://www.flickr.com/photos/foam/23331193605/}}\\
+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 / developed
-    * 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 was not so game focused, perhaps more suitable as a training tool
+GameOn is an experiment to test the hypothesis that it is possible to do this by developing games or influencing game developers.
-    * perhaps better to focus on more general 'ocean awareness'
-    * two main options
+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.
-      * "we're close to a tipping point on ocean experience games, imagery is swamped in action games"
-      * influence exiting game devs or filmmakers / ocean 'consultants' / best practice guide
+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'. So far it looks like there are two main possible directions:
-    * current strands
+  * __Develop a game__ (see below)
-      * coached lab space to develop game(s) and/or app(s)
+  * __Influence game developers__: develop best practice guides, become a "one stop shop" or "think tank" for film makers and game developers… This approach would encourage leadership in design communities related to connecting transmedia stories to the value of oceans.
-      * develop add ons to existing games
-      * develop games as tie ins to other games/films/etc
+If Marine CoLAB would develop a game, different approaches are possible:
-        * BBC docos, google ocean, natgeo, etc
+  * **Coached lab session** or "challenge workshop" to develop (mini) game(s) and/or app(s) and add-ons to games, with different stakeholders. There is a possibility to conduct this experiment at ZSL, similar to 'fish hackathons'. The focus is on the process (journey) and education of diverse participants. Through the journey of a lab development session the participants create simple experiments to test the ideas and if successful, find ways to scale them.
-      * 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 games as **tie-ins** to other games/films/etc (add to transmedia stories including BBC documentaries, Google Ocean, Natural Geographic programmes, etc)
-    * simple experiments to test ides -> scale
+  * Develop a full-blown mainstream **marine conservation game**, e.g. a ’simcity-like’ versions of initial scenarios (from [[http://lib.fo.am/marine_colab/workshop_201501|Workshop 1]], or SIM_MPA (cf. beyond (..?) rising tide - maxis?). The interesting aspects of this approach is to enhance both digital games with marine content and experiences of oceans for the gaming community (e.g. using augmented reality).
-    * possible direction
-       -> sim city like versions of initial scenarios (workshop 1)
-  * three existing options for progress / requiring feedback
+Out of these directions, the group distilled three most promising options for progress and looked at their advantages and disadvantages:
-    * small lab games (c.f fish hackathon)
-      * advantage; existing format, easier to test assumptions with small games, process based learning
+== Small Lab Games==
-      * disadvantage; does a game actually 'work' as a way to develop connections to the oceans?, hackathon outcomes can be lacklustre. potentially limited impact.
+  * Advantages: existing format, easier to test assumptions with small games, practice-based learning of values; connecting environmental and technological challenges
-    * full on game
+  * Disadvantages: does developing a mini game in a lab actually 'work' as a way to develop connections to the oceans? Hackathon process can be too technology focused, the outcomes can be lacklustre, with limited audience impact.
-      * advantage; AR tech becoming cheaper & easier to create, existing research from BBC on AR in education, potentially wide audience, amplification.
-      * disadvantage; high expectations, cost of development, educational games are usually boring, competitive
+==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, potentially reaching wide audiences, and amplification of Marine CoLAB messages. Augmented Reality (AR) tech becoming cheaper, easier to create and access (see existing research from BBC on AR in education). Added advantage: experiencing remote places without having to travel there (e.g. Galapagos with ZSL)
-    * marine game/film leadership
+      * Disadvantages high expectations, competitive market, difficult to create impact, cost of development is high, educational games are perceived as boring
-      * advantage; might be scope for a 'think tank' with more general (less issue/agenda based) consulting,
-         good time for BBC Oceans, influence through others. how to maintain contact with influencers
+==Influencing Game Developers==
-      * disadvantage; 'Nemo effect' (clown fish), Disney often difficult to work with, span of control is extended, possible dilution.
+      * Advantages might be scope for a 'think tank' with more general (less issue/agenda based) consulting where Marine CoLAB can add positive messages, influence through others; connection points to value of oceans through different media; broader impact than developing a single game - potential for driving systemic change, for example by connecting to games bloggers and journalists
-  * ZSL project, virtual Chagos, funding during 2016. British, controversial, inaccessible.
+      * Disadvantages: Hard to reach and connect this target group for mutual benefit (though this is slowly changing); Nemo effect' (clown fish), Disney often difficult to work with, span of control is extended, possible dilution.
-  * interest
-    * giles, testing assumptions, experiments
-    * 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
+  * more preliminary research to see which option is most promising
-    * MSC, existing contacts (octonauts) potential test audience.
+    * 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 "research think piece"
-  * next steps;
+    * Heather: connect this experiment to the ZSL project on virtual Chagos (British, controversial, inaccessible), funding during 2016 for a workshop/lab/hackathon. This can be used as a test case for the "small lab games" approach
-    * potential research questions, masters topics.
+    * Sue/MCS, probe existing contacts (Octonauts) as potential test audience.
-    * sandy, sue & heather draft a few paragraphs re. research scope etc. "next week"
+  (cross reference with Sandy's notes)
 ====Plastics project====
@@ Line 310: / Line 318: @@
 {{>http://www.flickr.com/photos/foam/22963277999/}}\\
-  * successful funding proposal
-    * 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 'rubbish'
-    * "fountains for the future" project link, roll out in summer 2016
+Three topics to touch on:
-    * closer look at what has failed, expected backlash, sustainability, strategy
+  * Values
-    * required; project implementation plan, timeline, external deadlines. kickoff meeting (before xmas)
+  * Reality check (commitments, plans)
-    * 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
+==Values==
-      * governance? overview committee, advisory group
-      * connections with existing NGOs working in 'plastics space'
+What will make individuals change behaviour (intrinsic, economic…)?
-      * Emma Cunningham re. stakeholder interviews, industry, NGOs, etc
+  * Look at Frameworks research and qualitative research
-      * how to ensure 'best advice' is maintained, front of house role?
+  * How to avoid industry backlash?
-    * strategy for mayoral candidates
+  * How to make it sustainable?
-    * establish list of allies, existing contacts and relevant conversations, meetings required.
+  * Focus as a marine project rather than just about 'rubbish'
-    * any upcoming 'big things' to connect to (world cup, etc) esp. positioning for London?
+  * Have to have a closer look at what has failed in other projects to inform strategy
-    * start compling hideous facts about single use bottles
+  * how to ensure 'best advice' is maintained, front of house role?
-    * potential case studies (selfridges, ZSL, etc)
+  * 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 structure
+  * Project management at ZSL (via Project Oceans), narrative & communication TEP
+  * Governance: overview committee, advisory group - needs to be finalised
+  * Recruiting: By 16 December: Heather & Amy: draft job descriptions for 2 FTEs (and form an interview panel), advertise in December
+  * 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/alternatives: economic benefits, carbon emission reduction, making London less dirty….
+  * 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, e.g. "fountains for the future" project link (roll out in summer 2016), connections with existing NGOs working in 'plastics space'; e.g. Emma Cunningham re. stakeholder interviews, industry, NGOs, etc. Establish list of allies, existing contacts and relevant conversations, meetings required.
+  * Research any upcoming 'big things' to connect to (world cup, etc) esp. positioning for London?
 ====Planning 2016====
-  * 10 days of time is covered per organisation
+days of time per organisation is covered by CGF core funding for Marine CoLAB. How best to structure the time?
-  * how best to structure the time?
-  * smaller, structured meetings around particular topics/projects
+==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 as an improvement over competition for limited resources
-  * 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 on values, strategy, project updates, planning, evaluation.
-  * 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)
+  * 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 on values, strategy, project updates, planning, evaluation.
+  * More focus on strategy, strategy work team, external communication
-  * 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/projects
+  * Aggregating projects (from existing/emerging projects mapping), work-streams on specific project (now: Plastics)
+  * Clarify criteria for 'a lab project'
+== 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====