The RSA Networks site is rubbish!

There. That's the elephant in the room dealt with.

But you wouldn't know how flaky this first version of the site is from reading the brilliant discussions and project ideas that over 150 patient, benevolent fellows have been posting to the site, and then discussing with passion. Warts and all, the site does seem to be buzzing!

After the event on the 22nd, Andy and I were amazed by the levels of participation and activity that exploded on the site - so at least the prototype we built didn't obstruct that! To be honest, we didn't expect that kind of success immediately, and so it's taken us a bit of time to collate that feedback and respond.

So I am very pleased to echo Anshuman's announcement, and let you know that we are going to be starting the next few rounds of development tomorrow - fixing some of the niggly problems and usability issues that have frustrated many users. There are also a few obvious bugs that we hope to squash, and some basic gardening work like creating an FAQ and some help files - all of which we hope to do before Christmas.

I have written a few posts on the RSA Networks site laying out the three stages of this plan:

1. A pre-christmas bug-squashing fest, where we aim to get the most obvious design and usability issues fixed.
2. An early January development cycle, during which we aim to implement some feature requests and try out some experimental collaboration processes.
3. A hand-over to a production team, who will take the prototype into production.

We are also going to be organising an event in late January, where we are hoping to reconvene some of the groups who met on the 22nd to take stock of the development so far, to look at which features should go into production, and to make decisions on other key issues that have been flagged up during the consultation process. As soon as we have a date for that, we'll send out an announcement with more details.

Of course, as with the first development cycle - which was great fun, we are again asking for your help in shaping the process itself as well as the technology.

We are still looking for the magic combination of factors, and the right way to ask the questions that will start to really activate projects, to move from 'discussion' to 'action', and to 'mesh the cogs' of the RSA - as Don calls for in his post.

Your ideas on those fronts, and comments on the three development phases, as well as your continued use and feedback on the site are much appreciated!

Time for some open collaboration?

Last week's RSA Networks event was clearly a hit with NESTA, who are investing £100,000 in the overall process. Roland Harwood writes on the NESTA Connect blog:

.... it's been a while since I attended an event with such a buzz and determination, so I strongly believe that the right conditions are there for successful collaborations to flourish.

Since then the new RSA Networks collaboration site has seen some activity behind the login, but the RSA Networks blog has been quiet. I hope this doesn't mean RSA expects everything to happen in private in future ... I think the network effect Roland writes about in his item won't happen that way.
Civic innovation requires a lot of connections beyond RSA membership.
Is it time for a collaboration between RSA staff, NESTA, OpenRSA enthusiasts - and others - to create an online open space equivalent of our event last week, as well as plan further events?

Who will decide on "open" - and how?

Tessy - love the drawing as well as your insights on collaboration! More please!
There's further discussion about openness with Mick Fealty and Eleanor Ford over on the RSA Networks blog, where Eleanor posts:

A comment on the nature of openness has value. David is right in saying that it is central to the NESTA Connect lines of inquiry, where openness integrates with trust and collaboration to seed innovation.

However, as I see it, the RSA aims to provide a sort of 'fertile ground' to be cultivated by the Fellows and the Society alike. In this space great ideas and innovations can be grown. But this vision takes time to create. And most importantly at the heart of the transformation is participation, which reveals its elective basis, coming honestly and transparently out of the passion/interest/commitment of all those involved.

Perhaps we should accept that in a sense people have to elect to be open, and then the conditions set up by the RSA are ripe to accept and encourage that, rather than making it a prerequisite. There will always be some people who are more or less comfortable with this position. That said, if the RSA Networks project succeeds in its long-term aims, this should cease to become an issue - as openness will be something that naturally unfolds.

And I respond:

However, decisions about the architecture and operation of the online system (and other activities) will make a big difference from the outset. It seems to me that civic innovation projects must involve a wide range of collaborations outside the RSA staff and Fellows ... so the collaboration system must cater for "outside" involvement, not just be a closed talking place for Fellows. Who will make that decision, and how?
Openness is also important for the engagement process. At present we don't know who is designing it, and what it is beyond the meeting next week for 250 Fellows.

My reason for reposting this is that Saul and Andy will be demonstrating the prototype system over the next week, and we don't know how decisions are to be made about the way that it will operate. The architecture for project collaboration could be set without anyone being clear about who is the "client" for Saul and Andy (although, I expect they won't let that one slide by in practice:-) and where the governance of the system lies. In my experience, lack of clarity on these issues leads to trouble further down the line.
Which also leads to the question, where are the RSA trustees in all this? Shouldn't they be part of the conversation as custodians of the balance between benefit for Fellows, and benefit for wider interests in society?