Hi Bootcampers!
It was good to see many of you last week. Thanks for letting me join in the fun!
I have a quick question: @brooking and I are working with a network with some pretty deep trust issues. We know that transparency in decision-making and sharing information are going to be essential in building this trust back up. In the mean-time, we were thinking of introducing the concept of “radical transparency” to help this group take a leap of faith and share more honestly and openly than they might otherwise.
So here’s the question: Do you all have any resources on “radical transparency” that you like? I know it’s a framework that’s been percolating, but it’s not one I’ve had a need to access up until now. In this case, I think an established framework, almost a pedagogy, will help them take a leap.
Thanks!!
Eugene Eric Kim 5:25 pm on March 17, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
What do you mean by “framework”?
I have a blog post I started outlining several weeks ago on this topic. It’s more a series of anecdotes than a framework, but if it might be useful, I’d be happy to accelerate its publication or share the early thinking from it. I was going to get quotes from three past projects on the impact of the radical transparency: Delta Dialogues, CIA, and the international reproductive health work I did in 2008.
How else are you addressing the trust issues in your design?
Rebecca 7:05 pm on March 17, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
That would be super useful Eugene! Look forward to seeing it.
By “framework” I mean a tried approach, a structure to help move people through certain work. I don’t really need a “framework” (we have lots of those), but more of a succinct description of the theory, what a radical transparency approach looks like, and why it’s important.
One of the simple things we’re working on is a decision-making dashboard where we track all the decisions that need to be made, and how they’re being made.
We’re also investing a lot of time up-front in uncovering motivations so people aren’t making assumptions around what’s in it for others. But this is part of where having some accessible, brief writing on the importance of radical transparency would be useful: time spent on this work is time not spent on other things. It’s different than what they’ve done in other coalitions. They’re bought in mostly, but pointing to the value of slowing down and working transparently in order to go fast later would be helpful.
Thanks Eugene!
Eugene Eric Kim 8:59 pm on March 17, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Okay, I’ll flesh out my thinking and share it with you tomorrow. If I get responses back from folks early enough, it’ll be a Thursday blog post.
I’ll also share some stuff with you on DRIs (Directly Responsible Individuals), a model used at Apple, Square, and Asana (which I may have shared with you before at some point), and a very rudimentary dashboard that I’ve been using with PostCode (as part of my Code for America experiment).
The network mindset stuff I’m doing with Garfield may also help you guys with these trust challenges. We put in a tremendous amount of up-front time pre-screening for the right mindsets with our Design Team, and we’ve still run into challenges. Happy to share more if you’d like.
Rebecca 9:02 pm on March 17, 2014 Permalink | Log in to Reply
Thanks Eugene! And I’d love to hear more about screening for the right mindsets on the design-team! I think screening and criteria are valuable; and we’re trying to figure out how to do those without perpetuating old decision-making / power patterns. I think clarity and transparency around what you’re screening for is a key piece, but it would be great to hear more about your approach to this.