I have been in these sessions, and completely agree. The need to conform to "positive messages" and time limits; and the transfer of ideas through the facilitator's ears an onto a flip chart leads to a monstrous exercise. I often keep more ideas to myself in a session like this, because complex conversations are immediately "distilled" into bullet points suitable for PowerPoint. ("Can you re-state that in one sentence?" Why no, no I can't.)

I suppose I can be a carmudgeon myself at times, but I actively avoid these events.

Some people do not understand most of the words used in any KM related article or blog. They have absolutely no clue why this should relate to them (if they would find the time and the energy to read to any of the material)
They do know they used (and still do so) talk to people they know and trust.
Some of them do not realize the people they know and trust do not sit in an office a footstep away, as was common some years ago.
For these people, these animations are wonderfull, since it shows what they should do is what they have always done, but extending it and including people a little bit further away.
It is simple, looks familiar and lets people do what they need to do.

It is not a medicin for all cures, but if I see one patient recover, it is an invitation for me to look at his pills when he has the same illness as one of my patients - I am a doctor too -;).

I started off watching the cartoon and thinking maybe you were being curmudgeonly. But as it continued, I noticed that I was becoming curmudgeonly too!

Seems like a perfectly simple idea was turning into a another bit of "best practice". Very ordered, very hyienic, very antiseptic. A good case of an effort to be effective turning out to be merely bureaucratic.

I agree Dave--it's a framework that works "in context" of the organization. We use peer assists effectively at all levels and lengths. We find real value when ideas and approaches are challnged--that's the real value from the peer sharing and insight "uncovery"

As someone who found that particular animation quite helpful to our clients to help them stabilise in ther own minds a process that they are not familiar with, I welcome your curmudgeonly dissent...

So let's do an animation for ritual dissent!

Training + action learning + brainstorming = peer assist.

This is nothing new here other than the name.

I have to admit to feeling irritated whilst watching this prescriptive little animation which appeared to suggest that facilitation is something that can be acquired from a five minute 'show'. This devalues the years of experience learning consultants like myself have undertaken to not only practice and improve our skills in the field of learning, development and knowledge-sharing but also to learn a range of techniques to use in appropriate situations and contexts.

We learn when to intervene and when not too. We understand that it is the groups' interpretation that is of most value, not ours. We are clear about how to support and deal with conflict and dissent within a group rather than cover it up or trivialise it. We know how to design interventions that mean something rather that just 'quick fixes'.

If you want a CMS, LMS or KM system designed then you go to the experienced practitioner.

If you want effective knowledge-sharing that can address simple or complex issues then you do the same.

O that music! If you're old enough, it will remind you of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7DqUpSHIb8 . And the topic fits nicely: "My colleagues just care for me". Whoopee!
Side note: to me (non-native speaker), it's sometimes difficult to identify parody. Halfway through the presentation, I really thought that this was similar to http://www.greenchameleon.com/gc/blog_detail/dr_david_vaine_on_knowledge_outsourcing/ . But no! Looks like they really mean it. What a world.

Well, that little video was certainly entertaining. And it came out of a University? OK, put me on the curmudgeon list. The fact that it is serious kind of makes me want to tell anyone that works someplace where they need this sort of video to seriously consider updating their resume. Coming from the software development side of the world I can't imagine needing to be told to ask folks, peers and non-peers, for help on challenging problems.

I would encourage people to get hold of John Heron's "Facilitator's Handbook" in which he outlines the 6 main categories of intervention for facilitators, which can be used here, or with action learning, 360 degree feedback, reflective practice, ...

A disease of all cures (sic) is "to overdo it". I think the anti-pattern that Dave illuminates (using Peer Assist), is pretty universal. You find something that works in the complex domain, you try to capture it into a recipe, and failure is a fact the moment you succeed. The more you structure and rehearse the technique, the less potent it becomes (in the complex domain, that is). I think it is important to see that this paradoxical outcome is equally close at hand with storytelling or anecdote circles or any other useful technique you want to name. But we don't shun paradox, do we?

I am curious to know what happened to Nancy Dixon in all of this. It was my understanding that she developed the Peer Assist process, which was applied with some success at General Electric. Although, the university seems to have turned it into nothing more than a team meeting!

What Dixon proposes is that you have the team that is dealing with the problem identify 5 people they trust. The manager chooses a supporting team from this list in order to introduce a variety of perspectives to the original group. The original team considers these perspectives since these are trusted individuals. New relationships are established through this process. Furthermore new perspectives are shared. There is also the potential to increase trust of others in the field. The supporting team gets to share their knowledge and skills and feels rewarded for being asked to participate.

Peer Assist is like an Open Space with some process design constraints applied for purpose, and then wrapped in fancy university-like jargon. Too cute by half, imo.

Well, I liked it at first because I thought it was ironic - the twee music and faux-friendly (I thought) little folk asking their faux-straitghtforward (I thought) little questions in speech bubbles...all reminded me of the non-corporate in-flight quirky videos Virgin Atlantic introduced to get passengers to pay attention to the safety video: using cartoons, a faux-instructive voice, and teletubby music.

BUT, then I came across this description of ironic communication on www.participationliteracy.com:

"Ironic communication is about giving yourself and other participants space to express themselves, without locking into too narrow understandings of your own or their language..."

and I realised the other commentators here have got it right and my assumption that the video clip was intentionally faux naive was, in fact, really naive...

Well, it's amazing how much comment a friendly little flash animation can generate!

I think we've seen a blurring in the discussion here - are we critiquing an animation, the Peer Assist methodology, or the way in which simple methods become recipes and rule-books. Or all three at once? I guess that's one of the downsides of discussions in blogs vs the clarity and neutrality of wikis.

I had difficulty submitting an earlier comment here, so I commented in some detail on my blog, and Dave has responded there too.

Just for the record though... Both Geoff and I liked the animation, particularly the way it illustrated KM4Dev's good work on "Rotating" Peer Assists.

We didn't view the animation as an instruction manual for how Peer Assists should be conducted; more as a light-hearted illustration as to how Peer Assists could be facilitated. Just like any form of communication, what is received has as much to do with the state (context) of the receiver as the intent of the transmitter.

Now, if you want an example of a Peer Assist guide which does have definite cookery book tendencies, try this one for size.

Still think that friendly little animation is overly prescriptive? :O)

Chris, yuo're right that the pdf is (even) more extreme.
My critique was on all three: the video is too optimistic and "cheerleader-like", but that's just my personal opinion and preference. The peer-assist methodology as such is too heavyweight (my personal experience: people don't invest that much time for that - at least not those people taht yuo really need to assist). But the real issue is the transistion of simple things that work turn into recipies that people are told to believe in and then apply them, and then all will be fine.
There might be places and times where this works - I just don't know them.
Other comments on your blog.

Chris, I noticed on your blog that you corrected me ...Nancy Dixon used this approach with BP not GE. Thank you for refreshing my memory on that. I wanted to make sure the correction was made here, in case I mislead anyone. (See Nancy's book Common Knowledge for more information) You commented about the lack of experience many of us likely have with respect to Peer Assists...I was quite serious when I said the university has simplified the process so that it appears to to be nothing more than a facilitated team meeting. At least, this is what our team meetings were like (former employer). I lived these processes on a monthly basis and they were not pretty (the process did the opposite of what the animation says it will do). People were not engaged, but went along for the ride because if they didn't it meant a longer meeting ;). I believe the context in which you propose such processes needs to be considered - it can't work every time in every situation...but I believe others have commented on that.

I posted a comment on Chris' site, since I read his post first, but I'd like to ask here about how we are taking in to account the context of this animation. Is it clear it was intended for international development, which is a particular set of contexts. (See Chris' post/comment thread at http://chriscollison.wordpress.com/2007/02/24/dissent-from-snowden/#comment-19)?

The development world is often a rigid, top down world where something like this video is seen as quite open and horizontal. So inch by inch, we move into the sorts of settings where knowledge sharing, getting feedback from mates etc, is much easier, natural and part of the fabric of the organization/group/network. Where we have the flexibility, values and practices of seeing patterns, learning together.

But many development orgs are not there yet. This is a step in the direction.

Are these processes being used usefully or are they being foisted on people? It's a very real and relevant question. We can make as many negative observations as positives, depending on our actual experiences. For example, I've never seen anyone coerced to conform to "positive messages" as an excuse not to be thinking critically, nor do I see appreciative approaches excluding critical thinking or critique, but I know I won't win that one with Dave! We can save that for a conversation over a drink! I have seen the immense value of a question from a peer that opens up a whole new perspective, making the peer assist a home run in a single moment. I would shoot a facilitator leading me to create artifacts just for PPT but that doesn't' mean I haven't seen really useful recording on flip charts. One of the best I experienced was where we mind mapped the inputs and surfaced some new perspectives on an issue.

I don't believe though, that we can make sweeping assertions that either peer assists, or this video, are not useful. Cindy, spot on about context! Context rules. Our processes are only as good as we make them. We can critique it, find the faults, while at the same time others are using it, finding it useful, and are propagating it. It has been very well received by some folks in the international development world. There are offers for translation, etc. And I’ve learned new things reading the critiques here. We are living it.

Another bit of fact correction: the content was developed by Bellanet, a Canadian NGO, not the university.

Nothing wrong with peer assist Nancy - I like the technique. However this is over formalised.

I am having various conversations on the use of narrative and other techniques on international development and I would share your concern on top down and rigid strucuture. So for that market I can see that a strucuture is useful - in fact most methods provide a strucuture. The problem is when that beocmes formulaic - 3 minutes for this etc etc.

As you say we can have the appreciate inquiry debate over a beer sometime. I am happy to agree it does not exclude critical thinking, however it does limit it. It also means that the facilitator has too much influence on the outcome. People should be allowed to tell the stories they want to tell ......

Hmmm, nodding in agreement about the facilitation thing. I realize the longer I do "facilitation" work, the more conscious I am of the power dynamics I am propagating. It is actually a very hard learning.

In my "over idealistic optimists" world, I have the goal of supporting values of both self facilitation by members of a group/network (different processes, same value?) and of building greater self awareness of power and intention in facilitation processes.

That is not to say that I think every circumstance demands neutrality or that we don't have opportunities where we intentionally use our power. I exercise that every day by blogging.

It is knowing consciously what we are doing. Intention. I feel I am only at the start of that road (or door to a smoky room with a bunch of smokers! LOL)

This is so typical ... the voices (guns) of the experts ready to fire at any attempt to bring concepts to the larger community.

It is clear that as of the moment we see the clip, we will not have any need for experts to facilitate our conversations, as Jozefa states: "I have to admit to feeling irritated whilst watching this prescriptive little animation which appeared to suggest that facilitation is something that can be acquired from a five minute 'show'."

This may NOT give us the expertise on facilitation, and I do not believe this was the intent. But it does open the door to the opportunities of having another kind of conversation with your peers and learn from their experience.

I found little or no substance in the negative comments and critiques. Many of you are upset because an International NGO (Bellanet) collaborates with a university and make an expensive product available for free to the public. Fear not Jozefa! Your potential clients are not running away to try replace you by putting into practice what they see in the “peer assist” clip. It takes more than that….

For those who think that the clip is too prescriptive. I just want to say people have critical minds of their own. C'mon, give people in the South and the development community some credit!!

It seems to me that for a community that makes a living on "teaching others how to build trust, better practices" this may not be the best place to seek “substantive and creative assistance”.

I like dissent like the next gal because I know it pushes us to test the limits of our comforts, but there is useful dissent and then there is what I have seen here in reaction to the little clip to promote peer assist: the self-serving ruminations of curmudgeons...

I am not part of your daily interactions, but I was intrigued by the email circulating with some of your reactions to the clip and I wanted to express my view. I am sorry I cannot stay to chat longer, but I have to run and meet my peers for coffee! We are discussing who would be the next consultant we hire for our knowledge sharing work!

Cheers to all,

Thanks for joining in Silvia and I can understand that as author of the offending clip that you might feel the need to snipe back. Two things in response.

1. your attack on "experts" is cheap. What you have here is people who care greatly about the subject and object to it being trivilised
2. you could have avoided this very easily by qualifying the clip with some of the statements above

Excuse me for jumping in a little late, but as a consultant, and as a worker in the international development field (working from Bolivia), i have to say that the complaints about this "little clip" are quite harsh. This video is obviously geared towards facilitating acceptance for the wider public, not an academic production designed for expert facilitators to use. If you consider that, the video makes more sense.

About positive appraisals, from what i can read in the posts, everyone has received enough training on criticizing, bringing down, and generally nullifying other peoples' thoughts and ideas. I don't think much more training in that area is needed. More so in the northern hemisphere, where relationships don't even matter compared to "work efficiency" and "being right " (not that it's all rosy in this part of the world either). So actually, training people on how to share their views in a constructive manner DOES require training.

On being "formulaic", every single consultant KNOWS that any author's recipes he read will not be taken "as is". We use what we read as general guidelines, and experimenting with organizations and people gives us the feedback to adapt and change what we need to in order to get the results we're after.

Vahid, I must admit I rather resent the steriotyping of the Northern hemisphere. However I thnk everyone that would agree that training people how to provide feedback is a good idea. Its why I was so frustrated with the clip - it could have been so much better. I am pleased that you take these things as general guidelines. My experience has been the opposite, one a formula is written it is followed. However the real point is that the formulaic stuff was uncessary, it just needed qualification.

O.K., so this clip is the equivalent to Wittgensteins ladder:

tractatus 6.54
My propositions are elucidatory in this way: he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.)
He must surmount these propositions; then he sees the world rightly.

I don't cite the famous 7. , since this is a blog with an active dispute.

Please excuse the cross-posting

Wow!

I am quite overwhelmed by the overall response (both positive and “critical”) this little flash animation has engendered! In reading some of the comments it became difficult to decipher what people were taking issue with - the peer assist process, the animation, universities who attempt such interventions…all of the above?

Just to echo some of the comments that Lucie made - this animation was not meant to be an instruction manual for how peer assists should be done - but simply as an illustration as to how they might be facilitated. That’s all.

While some comments suggested that the clip was (unconsciously) naive - I think this word might more aptly be ascribed to those who believe ANY kind of tool or intervention into the social will unproblematically be taken up for the benefit of all. Be that as it may - the collaboration between the Centre for e-Learning at the U of O and Bellanet in the development of this particular module was also seen as a pilot to test the waters for the possible development of a series of similar flash animation modules that might be beneficial for some of those involved in international development. Given the great way in which our teams have worked together, the use the module to date - and feedback it has generated - we are very excited to continue with this collaboration.

Next steps we are presently considering (we are still talking these issues over) is to identify 3 or 4 additional resources to develop, identify funds to do so - and make the script writing of these modules a collaborative endeavor open to anyone who wishes to participate - through moderated wikis perhaps.

This approach - we feel - echoes the collaborative spirit that informed our coming together to try this out. It might be useful to note here - this module (and others to follow) is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
http://creativecommons.org/license/?jurisdiction=ca

This will allow anyone to modify, use as is, or build upon it. We have also created English and French versions and made these texts available to facilitate other translations to unfold.

I would hope that people who have posted comments here - as well as on other online forums - would consider contributing to:
a)identifying what resources we need consider creating, b)helping in the development of, and feedback on, the scripts prior to final phase of production.

All this to say that - this has been a great and enriching learning experience.

Merci

Hi

I made aposting here about 4 days ago...I noticed that other posting occur each consecutive day...wondering if there was a problem with my message as I have not seen it dosplayed as yet.

I would appreciate if you could let me know what is going on.

Many thanks

richard

DS: I normally clear them as I see them (never refused one yet)
It may have got caught in the Spam filters put it up again and copy me by email so I know to look for it

DS (2) I did a search through SPAM, it was posted two days ago. I have retrieved it and posted it

Richard -thanks for your post and openess
To clear up some points (from my perspective)
1 - I think the animation concept is good and would help explain a lot of processes
2 - However the content of this one is not qualified, and simplistic and it is to that which I reacted
3 - I would encourage you to do more (we have a few processes that would benefit from this and happy to work with you_
4 - and sorry about this, the music made it worse