When is an unconference better than a conference?

Since last weekend’s Gov 2.0 Camp New England “unconference,” there’s been a bit of meta-discussion about the format. A couple of bloggers have dwelled on the shortcomings. I want to offer a contrasting view.

Brian Keaney weighed in early with a critique, saying he found the sessions rife with questions but thin on answers:

I think most of these panels were proposed by people who just wanted to sit around and discuss these topics. Few were led by anyone who could be called an expert.  As a result, I was left with scarcely any takeaways.   I have less than a half a page of notes from the entire day.  The most valuable things I heard all day were the 5 minute “lighting talks” given by those who were experts.

(Ari Herzog expressed similar sentiments.) Brian concluded that the day was worthwhile overall, but there was room for improvement. Many of us who were there would probably agree on that point. Nevertheless, while there are certainly others who feel “let down” as Brian and Ari do, it was my impression that most participants were thrilled with the day, feeling that distinct pleasure of coming out of the wilderness and finding one’s tribe.

I suppose whether one was satisfied with this first Gov 2.0 Camp or not depends on what you wanted to get out of it: were you looking primarily for answers or for compelling dialogue? Any good meeting should provide both, to be sure, but which will evolve your thinking more? That depends on the state of the field and the people in it, I think.

A traditional conference led by experts sharing what they have learned can be great. Ideally, the expert knows more about the topic at hand than all the others in the room put together. The conference is a vector enabling leaders to pitch their  ideas so an innovation may spread into greater practice. Perhaps this standard kind of conference works best in well-established professions in which advancing the profession is the primary goal.

The tools and practices of Gov 2.0, however, are still quite young. It is not a single profession but gathers people from diverse backgrounds. There are a few interesting success stories we can learn from, but for the most part it is an emerging field. There simply are not a lot of answers, yet.

There are, however, a lot of smart and curious people, including some leaders, and there are some good ideas that need more road-testing.

The unconference approach works well when more can be learned by pooling what the people in the room know than by listening to the single smartest person in the room. Because it creates group experiences through which an emerging community can grow and coalesce, it is a good fit for a nascent discipline. (Wisely, I think, the organizers of this Gov 2.0 Camp created a hybrid meeting with some lightning talks, rather than a strict unconference.) It was the right kind of meeting for where we are now.

I can understand the disappointment of Brian and a few others, but for me, the camp was a fantastic experience. I wanted to get a sense of the state of the field, learn about some interesting innovations, get a grasp on where people in this community are coming from, and get to know a range of people coming to community from very different perspectives. The day succeeded splendidly on all counts for me, and I am looking forward to see the Gov 2.0 New England community gel in the future.