One of the first features we’re working on with Zilino is to give the facilitator the ability to break up large groups of participants into smaller units (let’s call them tables for now) and have the participants at these tables work on a specific topic or task for a certain period of time.
I leave the scientific details for another day, but most practitioners would agree that as a general rule meaningful conversation can only be experienced in small groups of anywhere between two and maybe twelve people (if that many).
Our prototype already supports this requirement, albeit a bit crudely. The table size is fixed (roughly ten participants fit at each table) and participants get randomly assigned. The table conversation takes place in the form of a non-threaded comment stream (asynchronous). Towards the end of the dialogue phase, table participants are asked to write up a brief summary of what they talked about.
While table conversations are by default kept private for now (participants only have access to the one table they have been assigned), their summaries are shared with the larger group.
Here are the parameters that currently make up our table conversations:
- Table size (number of participants)
- Duration (time between start and end date)
- Assembly mode (the algorithm by which participants are assigned to their tables)
- Table privacy (which elements — the list of table participants, the actual table discussion, the summary etc. — can be seen by whom?)
- Discussion format
- Summary format
To keep things simple during the prototype phase, most parameters are set by default and cannot be changed. Over time, however, we plan to give the facilitator more options in order to allow her to create a variety of small-group dialogue formats depending on the project requirements. As mentioned in our previous post, it would be really interesting if small groups could be assembled not just randomly but based on certain demographic information. Or maybe experiment with different table sizes and allow the participants to choose their tables based on interest. And for extended consultations, what about bringing the same small group together several times over the course of the project?
Those are just a few of the ideas we want to explore in the coming months.
What do you think? Does small-group dialogue matter for online consultations to be successful? What are the key ingredients we should include on Zilino?
{ 1 trackback }
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
This sounds like a very solid process and I look forward to seeing it in action! One of the strengths will be the personal connections that are developed in the small group discussions. Perhaps participants should be able to connect with each other privately.
It may also be useful to think about multiple iterations of the dialogue phases, where one builds on the other. In other words… dialogue (divergent thinking), summary (convergent thinking), dialogue, summary, dialogue, summary, dialogue, summary, etc.
Thanks, Lucas!
As the first commenter, you get a free t-shirt! Email me your size.
Tim, we should explore whether Zilino might help an organization like the Bootstrappers Breakfast foster dialog and collaboration between members of different chapters as well as entrepreneurs in locations that don’t have a regular breakfast.
I am excited to see that Zilino will allow for small-group dialogue. This is not common enough, by far. I was a big fan of Web Lab years ago, which did a great job organizing numerous small dialogue groups. I’m don’t think that method is still in use, and it may not have been the most sustainable online method since the facilitator role was quite time consuming. It seems like you’re streamlining it with Zilino.
I like Lucas’ idea of allowing people to connect with each other privately. I also think it would be quite exciting to make sure the design allows people to use online and face-to-face dialogue in tandem, maybe by allowing geography to be a factor in who is put into what groups (for very large groups) or by allowing schedules for face-to-face meetings to be a factor. I can imagine, for instance, using Zilino to encourage online small-group dialogue before a face-to-face event, and then having those groups meet in person at the event. Just a thought…
Thanks, Sandy!
I’ve heard good things about Web Lab. They are (were?) pioneers of online dialogue. In fact, if you Google “small-group dialogue” their website is still the top search result. Not sure how active Web Lab is these days, but their software has been used in online consultations as recently as 2005.
Online facilitation can be very resource intensive which can get in the way of scaling. While Zilino relies on experts (facilitators, public participation specialists) to design and manage the overall process we want to explore opportunities for regular participants to take on some of the basic facilitation tasks (e.g. as table moderators or scribes), at least to the extent that that is possible.