Happy New Year, bootcampers! I’m currently planning the next Changemakers Bootcamp pilot, and I’m pondering some changes. I’d love your ideas and feedback. Briefly:
- Change the name to Collaboration Bootcamp.
- Make it eight weeks instead of six.
- Stricter requirements around participation. Specifically, you can still miss up to two, but you can’t miss the first session.
- Concept papers. Lots of folks have requested more theory / teaching / Eugene-time. I am reluctant to do this during the two hours we have together, as I want to focus that time on practice. To try and accommodate, I’d like to write a series of two-page concept papers for everything we do at Bootcamp. I’m always willing to have followup conversations after the sessions, preferably here but also scheduled individually.
I’m anxious to innovate around the last point above. It’s flattering that there’s a demand for more me-time, and I want to meet that demand, but I don’t want to fall back on traditional modes of “teaching.” Would love to hear people’s ideas.
Finally, @jessausinheiler has asked a number of times about the difference between Changemaker Bootcamp and my new website, Faster Than 20. Faster Than 20 is simply an online home for my writing and my experiments. Changemaker Bootcamp is one of my experiments. It has its own website, this water cooler, etc. There are reasons for this, but there are also challenges: Namely, a lot of the stuff on Faster Than 20 is directly relevant to Bootcamp, and the way it’s currently setup requires people to go to two different places (an example of bad use of online group physics).
It’s always a tradeoff, but I want to experiment with that line. As a small step, I’m thinking about making this water cooler part of Faster Than 20 rather than exclusively for Bootcamp. It would allow me to broaden the participant list as well. What do you all think?
As a bigger step, I’m thinking about dissolving this website entirely, and just integrating the content with the Faster Than 20 website. Thoughts?
Eugene Eric Kim, 
Jessica, 
Brooking, and 1 other are discussing.
Eugene Chan 7:11 pm on January 6, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
I like Changemaker Bootcamp more. “Collaboration” seems more like a method to me.
8 weeks is good
Concept papers can be good–not sure until I get a sense of what exactly you are proposing.
The websites are confusing.
Eugene Chan 7:43 pm on January 6, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Ooops, I hit send a bit too early.
You have 3 places where you post things: eekim.com, changemakerbootcamp, and now Faster than 20. Even though it might be clear in your mind as to the differentiation, it isn’t as clear to me. Especially since it is all “just you” at the moment.
The difference between eekim and the other sites makes more sense. But between Faster than 20 and Changemaker is not so clear.
The name “Changemaker Bootcamp” is also more concrete than Faster than 20.
eugene
Eugene Eric Kim 10:57 pm on January 6, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Thanks for the quick feedback, @eugenechan! This is helping me think this through more carefully.
So I’m taking this as a vote for consolidating fasterthan20.com and changemakerbootcamp.com? For context, here’s my distinction between eekim.com and fasterthan20.com: http://eekim.com/blog/2013/12/faster-than-20-my-new-website-on-high-performance-collaboration/
By concept papers, I mean a brief overview of:
1. Why we’re exercising this muscle in the first place
2. How this is connected to the “bigger picture”
3. Pointers to followup reading and frameworks
For example, with the power workouts, I didn’t offer any feedback on how to think about power. All of that came from all of you exercising the muscles you already had, then debriefing with each other. The same was true of the difficult conversations workout. With a concept paper, I might offer some tips and point you all to other places to learn more.
Clear?
Would love to hear what others think.
Brooking 6:59 am on January 9, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Hi EEK – love the innovations, all of them actually feel like good moves to me. Re: further innovation ideas for the last one, I wonder if you’ll choose to hand out the concept papers before or after – before would satisfy those who like to enter w/ a clearer frame for practice; after would satisfy the desire to have more exploratory practice experiences. I wonder about giving out brief hand-outs before the exercise, and further explanation hand outs after (or on water cooler after) for integration. Another idea is to assign a boot camper the 2 pager and have them take 5 minutes to present the idea to the group, which gives them practice opportunities to work on communication skills and may feel a more valuable way for you to offer frameworks & more of your thinking, but still have it be focused on the bootcampers’ learning & practice experience and not you talking….
Re: website: I like having them as separate sites, and more-over think the bootcamp as a closed group is a good thing and benefit of paying to join the boot camp. Having the watercooler be more open feels more vulnerable and makes this a less safe space I think for some of the more personal conversations, which to me is a loss….
2 cents! -Brooking
Eugene Eric Kim 3:29 pm on January 9, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Thanks, @brooking! I wonder what I’ll choose too. 🙂 My inclination is to simply make the concept papers available in advance and give people the option. It’s consistent with my philosophy that workout time be devoted to practice and feedback. I like the idea of having bootcampers (rather than me) present for the reasons you list. However, I’m concerned about the time it would take away from the main workout.
Appreciate your vote on keeping the websites separate as well as the feedback on open vs closed watercooler. There is no question that a closed group is safer than an open one. The key question is, to what degree? What would be happening here if this group were closed that’s not happening right now? What’s happening right now that wouldn’t be happening if this were closed? Well worth an experiment to articulate, then test some hypotheses.
Jessica 9:52 pm on January 9, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Team,
I love the idea of concept papers — before and after. Before as a way to gather your thoughts AND practice presenting. After as a way to reflect on the progress you’ve made, and get feedback on your high-level plan.
I, like Eugene C., like the idea of integrating the sites. I appreciate @brooking comment on the intimacy of the group but–personally–would welcome any one who happens to be on the FT20 site and wants to join our conversation. (And the site is currently “open” anyway).
Looking forward to seeing everyone on 1/14.
Jess
Eugene Eric Kim 6:33 pm on January 10, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Thanks for the feedback, @jessausinheiler, and glad you can make it on Tuesday!
I am almost certainly going to integrate some kind of discussion functionality into Faster Than 20, as it’s already turning into a touch point for all of my different communities and projects, and I’m wanting to integrate them. Still uncertain as to whether to make this water cooler that, but the feedback is helpful.