I’d posed this question in a few circles to mixed feedback. While some agree it is more than time for STC to step up and employ more interactive/informative technologies, others seem averted to the idea, in some cases seeing it as an attack on those who aren’t riding the tech/social media trend.
The idea is simple: Use technology wisely to provide information about Summit sessions, speakers, events, etc. and include the ability to share and comment on all entries. Why? To enrich the conference experience, to cater to the growing social technology adoption among membership, and to add overall value for STC, speakers and members.
What do you think? A good idea? Or is it too much too soon for STC?
Related articles by Zemanta
- STC 2010 Day One Super Summary (mkanderson.com)
- Trending Towards Mobile (tc.eserver.org)
- STC 2010 Day Three Super Summary (mkanderson.com)
- STC Day Two Super Summary (mkanderson.com)
- STC Augmented Reality Event at Gitex 2010 Riyadh (jazarah.net)
- STC 2010 Day Four Super Summary (mkanderson.com)
- SXSW Conference Versus STC Summit: Anne Gentle and Janet Swisher at the STC Summit (tc.eserver.org)
- Old Guard Versus New Guard: Whitney Hess at the STC Summit in Dallas (tc.eserver.org)
{ 32 comments… read them below or add one }
Hi Bill, I’d say there is no one “right” way to communicate in general, but there can often be a right way to communicate with a given individual. For example, I have a dear friend who never checks email. I know this, so I call his mobile phone instead. But me, I seldom have a chance to check voicemail (I’m always on concalls) so people who need to reach me quickly learn to do so via email or social web tools. I can’t see any reason for STC to avoid adding new methods of communication, if it helps reach the online-only all-the-time folks. But it would be equally unwise to eliminate methods that are reaching another population of members. What do you think?
@Tristan: Agreed. Keep the paper/PDF if that’s what some want. Just generate it off the other content. Single sourcing, you know?
When many hear “let’s implement something new” they seem to also hear “and stop doing the old” when it’s not necessarily the case. It’s likely why there is opposition. Sadly, once they have that in their heads, it’s hard to convince them to see any other way.
I don’t want to need more stinking devices to just attend a conference. For promoting it, fine. If attendees want to chat on whatever flavor of IM they’re using that week, fine. Just make the info available to all- not just the comm toy junkies.
//end curmudgeon mode//
I am reminded of STC members who felt cranky about things being done with email and websites, and trust me, there were lots of them. Even in Seattle, where you would ~THINK~ that people in the STC might be earlier adopters of technology…. STC members as a group tend to be real sticks-in-the-mud.
Social media is here, it’s real, it’s effective, it’s not going away. As Tristan said, I think we should go ahead and use social media venues as well as the other communications methods we’ve been using.
@Jay: Thank you very much for proving my point.
Just so I’m understanding you correctly, you’re not going to like the social media implementation even if you still get what you’re accustomed to?
@John: Well said.
I found the use of social media, especially Twitter, at Summit to provide a brand new conference experience far more intensive and rewarding than I had experienced at previous Summit conferences. I found that it provided a way to hookup socially that had been absent and helped me overcome my reticence to strike up conversations with “strangers.” (I must also note that I was attending as the incoming chapter president of STC Rochester, which increased my level of participation as a community leader and made me more aware of issues to which I probably would have paid no attention in previous years.)
One element I would be hesitant to introduce would be the projection of live twittering in a presentation. Check out
I blogged about the use of Twitter at Summit at
I’m sure there are still members angry they aren’t getting the proceedings in 3-ring binders.
“Too much too soon for STC….?” I’m afraid it is closer to “Too little too late.”
STC has been hemorrhaging members for a while now. We’re *never* going to engage new members by continuing to do the same old thing. I’m not suggesting that we do away with any of the exiting/old/paper methods, but it is *way past* the time for us to embrace new technologies. The transition of the Intercom and Journal to an online-based format the perfect example… why in the world did it take so long?
As techncial communication professionals, it is (IMHO) incumbent upon us to be technological leaders. This means embracing Twitter, podcasts, e-readers, etc.
When I hear folks talk about social media and new technology as a “fad” and that they just don’t “get it” I can’t help that people said the exact same thing when Henry Ford introduced the Model T — “Why do I need a car? My horse and buggy works just fine!”
@Ben: I think projecting live tweets IN the classroom would be distracting (you have 75 minutes to absorb a topic you paid to attend a session on), but I liked how there was a monitor in the hall displaying (quite elegantly) all of the #stc10 tweets. I think having a hashtag for each session would be worthwhile though for follow-up and promotion of the topic/speaker. If people feel compelled to tweet during the session, I say let them. But yeah, unless your session is designed around this dynamic, don’t show the live stream on the wall in the session itself.
@Keith: I’m sure you’re right. Yet I bet they’d balk at paying a production premium for them, too. If people need this level of print, I personally think it should be up to them to grab the PDFs and print them out themselves, else buy a print package that they can pick up at check-in. But a printed schedule at a glance to have at the conference for those who may have lost their copy would still be wise.
@Rick: We’re pretty much aligned on this issue. We don’t need to stop doing what works for some members, but we do need to keep pushing forward. It is, after all, part of our mission. “Mission: STC advances the theory and practice of technical communication across all user abilities and media so that both businesses and customers benefit from safe, appropriate, and effective use of products, information, and services.” cite: http://www.stc.org/about/
Of course STC should adopt all the tools in use, both to use them and to explore them.
My main issue is: who? @pxquim made a nice iCal version of the Atlanta program, which I used. He did make it available to all. Can we count on a volunteer or do we solicit one? I want these things, but a) I don’t know how to do them or b) I don’t have time. That makes me feel crabby – saying “I want”, but not doing.
The issue of the RFP for the RSS was not a success story, but should we do that for other tasks? Make a call for volunteers to make such-and-such? I like the idea of making simple projects that can encourage participation and build enthusiasm. If only we had a forum where we could post ideas and people could build on them or ignore them as they see fit…. I like the idea of reaching out to new people rather than the usual suspects. For example, Rick here is knowledgeable, but he cannot be everywhere and do everything. How do we find the other Ricks – and Janes?
@Karen: Well, there’s the STC Ideas forum that I set up last spring. I think volunteerism is the way to go, and I know this is an unpopular approach but I’m seeing that until STC truly changes, the best approach is to DO first and seek approval/permission later. That is, don’t go completely rogue, but build a proof of concept or solidify a plan before STC has a chance to inject a ton of committee/task force/approval/discussion overhead into the effort. Having been on several task forces, I know they do good work and there are good people involved. But, they are a slow construct, and not the ideal vehicle for change within STC at this point in time. Heh, I sound like a broken record because I’ve been saying this for 3 years now, but STC needs to radically and drastically change to remain viable. The war cry at the Summit was that techcommers are viable. Well, of course we are. As Keith mentioned in one of his blog posts (linked above via Zemanta) the attendees didn’t need to be told they were viable because they know they were! They paid to be there, to learn and grow. Those who don’t think they’re not viable don’t invest in themselves. The real issue is STC’s viability – the organization. I think if a handful of members truly push the envelope and push the limits hard enough, we’ll start seeing constructive change. Else it’ll be the same tired approach that has gotten us already so far behind, and which has lost us so many progressive-thinking members. I know STC is investing in itself to make positive change, but without changing HOW things get done, it’ll be too much too late.
One more option to get notices and alerts? No problem. People complaining because there’s another option? Big problem.
Maybe it *is* time to “go rogue,” put STC out to pasture, and start over with something geared to a more flexible (and technical) kind of technical writer. For example, when you have free (or cheap) video conferencing tools, why blow thousands on time, jet fuel, and hotels to get a small subset of your membership into one building once a year? Why not have monthly (or even ad hoc) video conferences, recording them for later playback by those who can’t join in live?
As long as we try to accommodate people who won’t get out of 1990, we’ll never get anywhere as a profession (let alone a society).
I think STC is trying to make sure that older members are still comfortable. I’m not sure that’s a good thing. We are a moving forward profession and I don’t think it helps us to try to keep stuff the way it was for the last 30+ years. Why not use social media? Why not do things electronically to reduce costs and make it easier for people?
Re the RSS thing: I’m still stunned at how dumb that is. My non-tech guy husband figured out RSS. We’re supposed to be able to puzzle things out as a profession. sigh.
I can’t see that there’s any drawback to providing more tools to enable communication. Feedback and interaction should be encouraged, regardless of the medium. Not comfortable with the new tools? Fine, use the old methods, but don’t fault others for wanting to make the most of their experience and use all of the resources available to them.
If STC is interested in remaining viable, it needs to stay up to date, as the rest of us must do to remain employable. Failure to adopt new technologies and communication methods as they come along will limit STC to being a topic of interest at the local senior activity center. If we want STC to continue, we must draw in the under-40 contingent; and to do that, we must be able to communicate with them, their way. Communication is, after all, what we are about. This is about knowing our audience. Hello, STC – it’s time to do what we in the tech sector call “eating your own dog food”: We need to live by the ideas we’re selling.
@Larry: Agreed, but I think trying to do this within the scope of STC is a good idea. I know there’s the argument of “if they can’t do it, let’s just do it on our own” but I see value in a central place to go for all things techcomm, and I think STC, since it’s already long-established, can still be that place. It just needs an overhaul, and we can’t rely on conventional process to employ radical change.
@Sharon: Agreed as well, and regarding RSS, my daughter figured it out at age 11 when researching for a school paper.
@Alisa: thank you!
@Karen: I don’t think it’s necessarily STC, but some of its members that are kind of forcing STC’s hand. The opposition I’ve encountered is not from STC, but from vocal members who for whatever reason are adverse to change. STC is making strides forward (online Intercom and TC, pending community portal – which I know is definitely coming, just delayed slightly due to needed tech upgrades, etc.) but the current processes employed to make some of these changes are slow by nature. the radical change isn’t in what to do, it’s the mindset of how to go about it.
Dammit Jim. We need to use aggregators and filters to work with another social media device! Set phasers on stun.
@Keith: 3-ring binders–LOL!
As to the hemorrhaging of members, I was among them, but have come back. I think it is vital that we ADD social media connectivity for those to whom it is so useful, but not at the expense (or at minimal expense) of those who do not use it. If they SEE its utility, perhaps they will join in. All the mechanisms at Summit regarding changes of room and additions of sessions are just so much easier when social media are used, but for those who are not into S/M, we’d still have to post notices as we always have.
I was just pointed to SCHED by Jamie Gillenwater (@sushiblu) on Twitter. This looks like a very excellent tool so far. Still taking the tour, but I’m liking what I’m seeing! http://sched.org/
@techcommdood Sched* looks like a great tool, indeed. You can utilize the online accounts you already have. The costs are very reasonable, too. There is not a charge per attendee and the information can be used in the printed schedule and on STC’s website as well.
@Jamie: Yup! I sent them an inquiry about hosted vs deployed environment but since static info can be exported to web that should suffice for STC site marketing. I also asked about session and speaker ratings, since evals are a huge concern and all they list in their product tour/feature list are comments. But, even if evals need to be done some other way, this looks like an amazingly robust solution that satisfies the “comm toy junkies” as well as those who prefer print or PDF. Score!!!
@Guy: Glad to have you back!
Wow! Now THIS is what a blog comment page ought to look like! Keep ‘em coming, Bill. Bravo.
@Tristan: I love that it’s been a very productive comment thread!
@karen mullholland: “Failure to adopt new technologies and communication methods as they come along will limit STC to being a topic of interest at the local senior activity center.” LOL! I should also add the obligatory observation that the problem isn’t one of age; many of us who are over 40 are very active in social media. It’s more an issue of change-embracing vs. change-averse.
I think it’s ironic that the same month STC finally made “Intercom” available in HTML format, I got my new iPod Touch, so now I want “Intercom” in ebook format.
Bill, is the problem one of money? Does incorporating new technologies mean taking money away from something else? Or can most of this be accomplished using open source technology and volunteer time?
@Andrea: you have an iPod Touch? Intercom has a mobile interface. I had them install it.
But the problem isn’t money, as many of the changes really are either affordable or are cost-saving. The issue as I’ve come to experience it is one of a vocal group of change-averse members combined with a cumbersome means of getting things done (the Board-Committee-TaskForce-A-Go-Go). Case in point: the RSS Tutorial. While my “rogue” post has been published for over 3 weeks now, they have now received 2 RFP responses and need to choose which to go with and then eventually receive and publish the finished work. Does stuff get done using this process? Yes. But it’s certainly not the best use of time, and those who are capable and nimble certainly don’t want to be held back by a process that restricts their ability to succeed.
If the board and enough members support change, it will happen.
A couple of cautions:
One of my first techcomms experiences was handling the change management communications (and some training) for a company-wide (90K users) technology transition. We had executive level support, but even then it took concerted efforts by key individuals to foster the change. This was a top-down change and even then it was difficult. (I don’t believe there was any age-related correlation to change resistance. Accepting and expecting change is a mindset which even some of us past 50 (gasp!) embrace.) We saw some change effected from the grassroots level, but only when the number of adopters reached the “tipping point.”
How quickly the change will take is another question.
I was told by a longtime STC member (and past board member) about the difficulties in implementing the first STC email server. It took several years, due in part to the resistance of ONE person. His comment (paraphrased) was to never underestimate the ability of an opponent to resist and slow down change. I certainly hope we don’t experience similar issues, because quite frankly, I don’t believe the organization will survive.
Yes, we need to use social media tools at the next Summit. I just hope they provide WIFI this time.
Or perhaps there is another way.
You can search for the perfect tool of today. You may even find it. But, whatever the tool, the needs if people will evolve. They might even evolve right before May 2011, i.e., just before the conference. Then you must live with the (new) shortcomings of the tool, change the tool, or start over. I wonder if that’s why the elders are whining? They’ve seen it before.
Or you can go the wiki way. The tool itself is dead simple. In fact, it is so simple as to look useless, lacking all the bells and whistles of the day. But the tool is only half of the equation; the other half are the people using the tool. People provide, through evolving convention, what the tool seems to miss. And the tool just supports the evolving conventions, its flexibility both an asset and a liability.
I championed the introduction of a wiki (as part of a larger solution) in Altitude Software in 2004. A side-project on surplus and obsolete hardware served a distributed team of 100 before being embraced by IT. The same software solution now serves the whole company.
This wiki way also has its costs: the tool looks primitive, and there are lots of conventions to learn and develop. And the “latest tool on the block” always looks nicer, even if it isn’t.
Then, we have the social tools crowd.
I must say that I am very much part of that crowd. Twitter has allowed me to stay in touch with lots of interesting people that I met mostly at conferences, starting with the 2009 STC Summit in Atlanta. I joined @Ninety7’s meeting as an impromptu dinner party, then checked the “twitter thing” when I came back… One year later, twitter has enabled a large number of interesting STC conversations that would not have happened otherwise! Including, by the way, this particular conversation.
On the other hand, the social tools crowd should remember that the very first social tool may very well have been the camp fire. It’s all about people connecting and exchanging information… and different ways to communicate have different advantages, including the camp fire.
For next year’s STC Summit, I am trying to propose small group gatherings organized using the so called “open space technology”. This methodology capitalizes on face-to-face conversation, achieving an intensity of conversation that cannot be achieved through any other way that I know of. I’m convinced that these conversations can become as important as twitter is right now.
There you have it! It’s not old/new, either/or, but “doing all the right things” (with a prize for defining right).
Still, I would love to hear from whoever thinks that twitter or camp fires are just a fad… You know, we might just learn something!
@Ben: Good cautions. I’m no stranger to change. In fact, it’s been the only constant in the last 15 years of my life. With regard to acceptance, it’s never something you can petition for, rather it’s something you earn, mainly through hard work and dedication. In any organization you can usually find a 20/60/20 split (not a hard rule, but generally speaking) where roughly 60% of the people are indifferent for the most part. Sure, they’ll have opinions, but those opinions won’t influence action. You will then have roughly 20% on polar opposites who are certainly vocal and whose opinions and beliefs WILL drive their actions. The task is not to manage their viewpoints, but to steer the reactions toward a common good. It’s all alignment, and that alignment really needs to be around the mission of the organization. Change needs to align with the mission, or else it will fail because it will be rightfully seen as counterproductive. With that in mind, I’m hoping the course I’m on is true.
@Joaquim: You’re absolutely right. Tools change. It’s in part why I initiated this conversation (which has exceeded my expectations!). I love your idea of an open space technology approach, and would love to hear more about it. To me, it makes sense to not get comfortable, because once we’re comfortable, we rest. Momentum stops. Innovation halts. By changing things up and trying something new, we’re not only challenging ourselves to reap an immediate benefit through implementation and execution, but we’re learning. We’re identifying what worked and what didn’t, and we’re able to apply that knowledge forward to try something better (or spectacularly worse). Honestly, even if something new we try goes horribly wrong, it’s still a win, because we can apply everything we’ve learned to the next idea. The only failure is the failure to try.
I favor an approach of “understanding the forces in presence”, then propose something with an understanding of its implications. Just trying something has an “opportunity cost”: the things that you did not do while you where pursuing the first idea.
My previous message had two ideas. The first was to adopt a simple tool that can easily accommodate various needs instead of searching or building the perfect one. This approach has served the company were I work very well.
The second idea seeks to enable better conversations among members using the (perhaps badly named) “open space technology”, which should be read as “(open space) methodology”. It’s a way to start conversations in a group meeting face-to-face. The “technology” needed can be just papers, markers, and walls.
I’ve seen it applied at WikiSym 2008, where it generated a “parallel conference” with attendants choosing freely between regular sessions and self-organized ones. 20 attendants actually created a one afternoon mini-conference on TWiki.
This year I applied the same methodology to organize meetings for the parents of my local school. Attendance was far below expectations, but still I got 20 and 10 persons to talk to each other for 4 hours straight. These persons did not know each other, and there was distrust and even resentment among some of them. The methodology enabled them to discover common points of interest and to talk constructively about them.
What would be my ideal (utopic?) STC Summit using both social media and open space technology?
Before the Summit, members would use social networks to “drum up” interest and interesting topics, perhaps even plan some ad-hoc meetings.
At the Summit, open space technology enables people to self-organize into focused interest groups. Especially interesting sessions might have birds-of-a-feather pre-meetings and follow-up discussions. These might happen even if the session is amazingly interesting for only 10 persons. Reports of these sessions enable other attendants to comment and get in touch. In fact, even members not on the Summit can comment and contribute (each topic can become an “instant community”), like the comments on this very thread.
Open space technology will also allow members to raise their topics and issues. Face-to-face discussions may defuse less important topics, while really important topics will raise to be acknowledged by all concerned parties. Conversations exploring issues or building consensus will start during the Summit.
After the Summit, each open space topic created an embryonic mini-community of people sharing a common focused interest. Most will die naturally, but some will continue their conversation, typically being welcomed into the umbrella of a SIG or chapter or generating its own buzz in social networks.
Although I have a vision, I need help on the “small details” of refining the vision and figuring out how to get there (assuming you like the vision, of course).
Well, a family vacation is certainly a good time to dream of (transparent) Utopia.