Thursday, May 17, 2007

Things we dont want to think about, but need to talk about...

I'm starting this entry, not because I want to, but because we need to be prepared. Rather than clog the to-do list entry with feedback intermingled with ideas, I thought I'd start this entry instead.

We need to consider what could go wrong and have action plans to address that. This is the place where these types of discussions need to happen. I think we are better of to start listing what can go wrong and how we will address it. If we have an action plan for each, then we are set. So, for the pessimists in the crowd, here is your chance to let it all out.....

I'll start .....

1) Can't get an internet connection
2) Can't sign on to telework
3) One of the laptops dies
4) We can't to Web EX
5) We can't get at the Wiki
6) We can get at the blog
7) We don't have the bandwidth
8) Two people edit the document at the same time
9) The people aren't interested in doing this
10) The interactive portion isn't interactive enough or can't accommodate enough people so we start losing the crowd.
11) Marj is sick that day


I'm sure there is more......

12 comments:

Peter Cowan said...

Information assistants who dont what to wear the 'I' teeshirt

Fram Engineer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Fram Engineer said...

Audience reaction. or "tune out". Not so much concerned about the tech issues listed, but rather the reaction from the crowd. Will a lot of time be spent by the Information advisors explaining the 3 types of tools we are demo-ing?

Will the audience be so overwhelmed that they "tune-out" and start checking their BBs.?

amydawnrose said...

if internet connections, etc., don't work we can always have a canned presentation burned onto cd-rom, with screen shots of the blog, wiki, webex. not ideal, but better than dead air.

maseguin said...

1) Can't get an internet connection (it's a presentation about the internet, if it goes down...maybe a cached copy of the wiki on CD? wouldn't be editable though)
2) Can't sign on to telework (means no nrcan wiki, but wikipedia could be an alternative as well)
3) One of the laptops dies (we will have many spares ready to go)
4) We can't to Web EX (use netmeeting as a backup)
5) We can't get at the Wiki (again, wikipedia can be an alternative. The dry run will test this out)
6) We can get at the blog (see #1)7) We don't have the bandwidth (remove some laptops from the pool)
8) Two people edit the document at the same time (this WILL happen. Part of the IA job to work through it. Find the part they were working on, C&P it to the updated section)
9) The people aren't interested in doing this (spend time doing it ourselves in the wiki. scripted of course)
10) The interactive portion isn't interactive enough or can't accommodate enough people so we start losing the crowd. (have some big visual aids, such as the tag cloud)
11) Marj is sick that day (have the script/schedule available to a backup beforehand)

SJR said...

12) Power failure (beyond our control... but that would affect more than just our demo) Tel/Av should be amply prepared for the technical requirements they are given.

1) Can't get an internet connection (Conference will have already started... paying for the Internet connection should be in the contract, so ensuring good communication with on-site contact is essential. Have their point person clearly identified and funnel through a tech point person of ours (so that swarms of people aren't jumping on that poor person)

2) Can't sign on to telework (we should test, test, and test again before the 'live' show. If we can get to the Internet, we can get to Telework.

3) One of the laptops dies (as noted, spares on-hand)

4) We can't to Web EX (NetMeeting.. or, if we have 15 laptops working through telework, can't each just sign on to the blog/wiki?)

5) We can't get at the Wiki (local copy possible)

6) We can get at the blog (ditto)

7) We don't have the bandwidth (tech issue - removing the number of demand)

8) Two people edit the document at the same time
9) The people aren't interested in doing this (people in 'I' t-shirts [love that idea btw] should be emanating enthusiasm... plus, as we saw with last demo, Marj's style gets people engaged)

10) The interactive portion isn't interactive enough or can't accommodate enough people so we start losing the crowd. (lock the doors... or, to keep people engaged, it's important to get at them directly.. not quite 'in your face' but collaboration is interactive and, well, the DM's encouragement should help)

11) Marj is sick that day (no-one can replace Marj... but perhaps identify a couple of alternates already familiar with the demo/presentation/objectives who can follow the 'script')

Identification of key roles is important to pulling off something like this with minimal confusion... for example, person A is who we funnel technical issues to, person B is who we go to for room logistics etc...) That way we avoid multiple people going to Centurion or Tel/Av staff with the same issues or questions and we reduce potential frustration.

Peter Cowan said...

If the internet goes down then we do not have an interactive session. So what could we do?

1) Continue with recording the discussions around each of the questions on laptops. We would then publish later and provide a link to participants to view the results.

2) We could answer the questions as part of our preparatory simulation exercise and build a canned demo (as has been suggested above) based on our own responses to the questions. this canned demo could shows how the wiki would build progressively w/screenshots showing information being added.
We could probably even simulate instant messaging.

Someone would need to narrate what would be happening as we progessively move through the demo.

If we were to build collectively the canned demo as part of our dry run this may indicate also what needs to be done to make it more interesting if that turns out to be an an issue.

Fram Engineer said...

Yvan Hardy submitted some material in advance of the Leadership forum. I skimmed through it pretty quickly, but found it pretty interesting. The author (s) refer to the drivers to working horizontally and addressing barriers that inhibt 'strong positioning'. References are made to creatng an innovative environment, the need to work collaboratively, and the voice of stakeholders who feel they would benefit from 'better information sharing...information accessible to all stakeholders" etc. (page 15).
All this to say, here is another timely opportunity to link the possiblities of these new tools to a receptive audience.

Peter Cowan said...

another point that speaks to frams comment and a general issue is the questions or headings we would need to ask. If we ask the right questions (ie easy enough) then we should be able to engage them. The obvious ones are: what are the challenges? What are the benefits? Another could be to address some of the current issues with briefing up, by the way I am uploading via blackberry)

Fram Engineer said...

Agree. And to start, a challenge will have already been given through Dr. Hardy's paper. We can make the connection to enabling technology easily enough. A reference to Dr, Hardy's paper, "Positioning NRCan's S&T in the innovation system", will reinforce the power of the tools....

Anonymous said...



Review my blog post; homepage ()

Anonymous said...

Hi to every body, it's my first pay a visit of this web site; this web site contains amazing and really
good information designed for readers.

Visit my homepage; home inspect ()