Welcome to the RSA Networks!

The RSA was founded in 1754, during the Enlightenment, by a small group of engaged citizens, with a progressive agenda, intent on building a new society.

Today, under similar conditions of social flux and technological change, it has nearly 27,000 fellows throughout Britain and the world.

Despite more than ten years of sustained economic growth, and historically high levels of personal wealth, the UK is currently experiencing huge social strains. As Matthew Taylor says:

"There is a gap between the kind of place most of us say we want to live in, and the world that will actually be created by our current modes of thought and behaviour."

The RSA Fellowship contains vast potential for engaging in the kind of positive social action required to bridge this gap, and the type of action the RSA was founded to promote back in the eighteenth century.

The RSA Networks blog is part of that engagement. It will be a hub for telling stories of what goes on across the Fellowship.

Initially we'll be acting as a clearing house for a gathering of Fellows who are passionate about social engagement and creating the 21st Century Fellowship.

RSA Fellows come from all walks of life: media, education, central government, voluntary organisations and business. Their passions range from climate change, building communities and social exclusion, to building trust in public institutions, corporate social responsibility and organisational change.

The aim is to utilise the RSA's convening power and substantial resources to enable fellows to engage with others of like minds, using traditional face-to-face events and online social networking tools to enable fellows to come together in order to achieve social change.

Between now and the 22nd of November we hope the blog will begin to fill out some the themes with:

• News and opinion around civic innovation; new enlightenment thinking; research; public policy; and innovation.
• The latest online tools and resources to enable quick, effective connections and enable groups to make smart decisions quickly and flexibly.
• Interviews with key figures in the RSA and involved in RSA Networks

We hope this blog will become a hub for reliable information and a channel to other RSA online/offline projects. But mainly we aim to help like-minded fellows to connect, hold conversations and move on to rapid and effective action. As David Wilcox has noted:

"...power-holding organisations have to be prepared to listen and deliver their side, they have to start early in the process of engagement. They need to open up, form new relationships, and work things out with key interests from the start. Engagement doesn't work unless it is collaborative."

The conversation starts here and now. 

Join in: tell us what you're passionate about; things you're doing, things you've done; and ideas for future action. And send us links to news, stories, research, applications, or just new thinking, directly by email, or by posting a comment below.

Comments

[Dominic Pinto]

I've only just caught that all this was going on .... it reminds me of some of the early discussion in this forum, though I can't find any of this in the archive I, and some others, were challenging what appeared to be an entrenched, private network, who were quite defensive (it seemed at least) and exclusive..... but that was then!

Engaging and using the intellectual and practical capital of Fellows, as central to the RSA and it's purpose, was at the heart of that. Opening up the RSA, in the ways being talked about, is very refreshing and attractive.

I'd like to participate if I can. I'm not sure what Nov 22nd is about, though.

Dominic

[Don Pinchbeck]

Before I start, may I say that I have intentionally moved away from intellectual and conceptual presentation, and moved to more hard-edged "making things happen" comment. This is in response to comments that seem to be saying "where is all this taking us".

Mark's blog raises some important issues at a time of change for the RSA.

MT is to be praised for starting to sort out the issues of non-involvement of Fellows, the apparent low vision of some who wielded power in the RSA, and to recognise the vast, untapped sheer brain power, experience and expertise of its Fellows.

The question is, whether this initiative will release the real potential of the Fellowship in a focused way, or simply open up a "can of worms" which will cause Fellows to slither whichever way and result in little happening except convivial anarchy. I do note some bewilderment in many blogs - perhaps even frustration, because the door to the promised land has opened a little, everyone is bristling with anticipation, but no-one has yet told us what that land looks like. Of course, in the spirit of seeking consensus, we shouldn't be told! We have left situation "A" - old RSA, but have not yet reached Situation "B" - new RSA. Between these two situations often lie fear, uncertainty, or doubt, dependent upon our situation. Perhaps we need to recognise that these feelings are absolutely normal during times of significant change. At some stage, when the talking is over, consensus acceptable to MT will emerge from, or be crystallised for, the Fellowship. Question is, what mechanism, if any, will support this process so that clarity is achieved?
As a retired company turnaround exec, when distilling vision and strategy down to practicalities, it always seemed to me that within any organisation there were just a few factors that were critical to success. In a hospice where I am chair, and which is undergoing organisational change, there are but three. Identifying them united the Trustees, and gave power and structure to implementation. To ensure these critical success factors are fulfilled requires sets of activities, where each can be seen to play its part in fulfilling what is critical to success. Mapped out, everyone can see a route map of activities, their role in it, and automatically do what is right and be supportive when things change. Monitoring to ensure the organisation is on track becomes obvious. Yes, I know we're not that kind of organisation - much too hard edged for the RSA?

Trouble is, I believe we don't yet know what "Success" looks like. What output/s would be appropriate to the good of the country, even the world, cause others outside of the RSA to take note, and approve the contributions made. I guess, back in the 1700's, I think, when the RSA caused 50 million trees to be planted, that the profile of the RSA must have been very high. It was a significant act; hard edged?
Hold those thoughts for a moment.
Prime Ministers (or other ministers), CEO's - even organisations, become remembered, when they have moved on, for the one or two big things they achieved, or for their big failures. We all know who "Won WW2", who started the NHS, who took apart militant trades union power, who won the Falklands war? I have purposely not quoted the failures. All were important, and not done for effect. Who can remember the many smaller achievements of these individuals?
If the RSA is to impact positively on the public's consciousness, then perhaps "success" may require us to define what harder, more focused achievements can be put in place. The RSA is a "soft" organisation, with aims that are general, virtuous, conceptual, if meaningful - and perhaps this is what is causing some frustration.
Achievements have sometimes emerged. The drugs paper issued some short time ago was powerful enough to make the government's reaction sound lame, and I was proud it came from the RSA. But that appears to have happened through a few at the Centre seizing the initiative, not through the involvement of the Fellows at large. It wasn't, to the best of my knowledge, inclusive in any way.

So:
What will "Success" look like for the RSA?
What factors will be critical to this/these success/es?
What activities will we be undertaking in order to make them happen. How will they be organised? Every organisation needs its "skunkworks", so there will always be room for mavericks and special interest groups, but every organisation with "skunkworks" also requires mainstream strategy, organisation and drive.

Will the current round of consultation lead us to understand the answers, and be capable of resolving the outputs into a clearer, harder vision?

Mark Noname mentions the role of technology, All this techie stuff is just about facilitating what we need to achieve. RSA Second Life anyone? Next door to Barclays would be good - heavy footfall! It means picking the right medium for whatever needs to be achieved - blogs, instant moderated chat, video conferencing between groups or individuals, meeting in Starbucks, sending txt msgs. The list seems endless. Each tool is fit for its purpose, and choosing the wrong tool is like trying to saw wood with a hammer.

We will need to raise our eyes to the far horizons. Technically, what was impossible yesterday will be possible tomorrow, and be inexpensive the day after that. It is confidently forecast (I am told), that the Playstations of 5 years hence will have the power of the human brain. Cisco already market a teleconference system where people sitting in New York and London appear to share the same table, where eye contact and accurately pointed fingers are possible across the Atlantic, where audio visual aids are shared, and where latency (lag) is non-existent. Frightfully expensive today - just watch the price fall! In the North East, a video conference was held recently with people in four locations. We used free software and systems - only the hardware (laptops and desktops and bigger screens) was our own. All conference delegates were in the North East, but could just have easily been in four countries. Subject of the conference was - "The use of technology to bring Fellows together"!
Systems follow strategy, so what we do with all these technologies will depend upon what we want to achieve.
And that takes us back to "What will constitute Success" for the RSA.
In other words, do we need, emerging from the consultation process, a harder, more focused edge? Don't know wy they did it, but in the 1700's Fellows caused those 50 million trees to be planted, and success doesn't come much harder focused than that.
What's the plan to determine what will constitute success? How will we know when we have achieved it?
Don P

[David Wilcox]

Mark - I agree with you on engagement: pointless unless it is, in effect, a co-design process with clear means of delivery.
Tech tools can help in a well-conceived process, and you might be interested in the volunteer efforts of group of Fellows promoting OpenRSA. There's a wiki which is a "wall" http://openrsa.wikispaces.com and also a Google discussion group where I have taken the slight liberty of reposting your comments.
http://groups.google.com/group/openrsa/
Do join us

[Mark]

I have no answer to the technology question (I'm an economist....sorry!) of how to create the kind of instant/involving interaction that avoids the linearity of the blog, in other words my 'wall' idea - but I'm heartened to see many here agreeing that this is an issue.

This is part of what I think is a much broader problem with the whole Matthew Taylor project - and to which I've drawn attention at http://www.rsa.org.uk/forum/messages.aspx?mid=6389&fid=1150 and in emails to Matthew - namely the extent to which the RSA has thought through precisely what KINDS of engagement and interaction it wants to facilitate and encourage and how that will express itself.

My worry is that not much thinking seems to have happened. It is, these days, a sadly predictable that many new projects assume:

1. consultation will always save the day and be productive (it won't be unless it is planned and fed by concrete ideas and proposals for shaping; open wide-ranging but uninformed discussion of my agenda before you, the audience, particularly where I shape that discussion, is not consultative, it tends to leave to you, the audience, assuming that my openness guarantees the sense of my unarticulated proposal. In short, I can get you, the audience, to agree with my proposal as long as it keep to bland verities and warm words. This is the sadness of all forms of consultation in the UK today: it is talk without purpose save for the confirmation of the license to impose a solution).

2. engagement = action (the equation is rarely that simple: the proportion of Fellows interacting with the RSA executive on this issue itself is tiny, a sign that enabling engagement doesn't lead to action, only to a few of us expressing an opinion)

3. ICT will always save the day; communications empower 'the conversation' (only when 'the conversation' already exists: I can think of no single example from national political, social or cultural life in which the provision of social networking capabilities, blogsites, forums, boards or anything else LED debate than translated to action, i.e. where the existence of the technology itself created the change).

Here's what I propose, after all of that. The RSA should convene a meeting (perhaps an email conversation would be better) with its more technology-savvy Fellows to ask 'what technologies will unlook purposeful, non-linear, discussions and cement new networks'.

[David Wilcox]

Anshuman - thanks for inviting ideas. I suggest keeping it simple until you get new systems in place.
* Do an About page explaining the purpose of the blog, who is authoring, how people can join in, and (for those new to blogs) what the stuff in the sidebars means
* If necessary create some other static pages for easy-to-find resources, background articles
* Create a comments feed, and option for email notifications, so people can track what is happening
* Introduce blog posts from Susan, Sophia, others who are actually working on the programme to give us news of research so far and how the day will run
* Email everyone who is coming to ask who has blogs (for the blog roll) and also ...
* Invite fellows to become co-authors on the blog

I think that all of this - and more - is possible just using the Typepad system. Let me know if I can help - and I'm sure we can find others too

The main development sounds exciting. Perpetual beta is right ... as much piloting and prototyping as possible. Asking people what they want may not work well, unless they have extensive experience of social software - and they'll make anything work. Trialing with new users is what's important, I think.

[Anshuman Rane]

David, Mark,

What solution would you suggest in the run up to the 22nd and would you be able to help set something up...

We're in the process of getting two excellent 'social technologists' to develop some open source interactive features on the current site, hopefully to be ready for the 22nd.

The process will start off with some initial research amongst the Fellows to see what they would like it to be and how they would like it to work.

Then the building process will begin and it will hopefully be a 'perpetual beta' allowing us to iteratively develop the tool in conjunction with its users - the Fellows.

Given the amount of time we have available - almost none at all really - we're hoping to have an initial test area up for 22 November and then really start the building process.

The initial idea is to have a Craig's List sort of service, with a little more. This will change of course once the research and consultation process begins.

When? I'm not sure exactly. But pretty soon and it could be as early as next Monday.

So if any Fellows are interested in contributing to this, being consulted for the research, and involved later in helping us develop this tool please let us know...

The more people we have testing and feeding back the faster we'll be able to react and change.

[David Wilcox]

Mick - you put in a strong defense of the blog's linearity, and say:
"What makes it a completely different creature from the 'Great Room' debate is that: one, no one is going to cut you off before you've made your substantive point; and two, in my experience, it's the 'least worst' format for getting conversations going."
Yes, in part. But, two things.
One, as I understand it, you are sort-of ghost blogging on behalf of the RSA - on short-term contract, and not as far as I know working on the main programme. Nothing personal, and a real treat to talk to you, but shouldn't some of the conversations be with the RSA? Direct, unfiltered, authentic are the characteristics we cherish in blogs.
Two, you are the only one able to start a top-level conversation - by posting an item. Just like the Great Room platform.
I want to raise a serious topic before the 22nd event, which is to question how far there are existing RSA Fellow networks, and whether Fellow networks are likely to result in civic innovation projects. I hope the networks exist, but I personally don't know of any capable of developing projects. I'm not even sure networks are the best structure for projects - you need teams.
I think it is really important to start that conversation before the 22nd, rather than half-way through the day, so we have time to rise to the challenge, if there is one, with some innovative solutions.
But how can I raise this issue? Currently I have to slip it in as an off-topic comment under an existing post, or ask you to raise it. Alternatively I can post it on my own blog, but that's not an option for most Fellows, and may not end up linked to this blog.
So, for the purposes of muscular conversation, I think that the current blog structure is disempowering for Fellows, and inauthentic for the RSA.
Great place to talk to you about the nature of online discourse and blogging tools, but as Mark said, that's a minority interest.
So - how can I, or anyone else, start a conversation about RSA Networks in our own terms?

[Mick Fealty]

Thanks for those comments Mark and David. The Innovation Exchange site has an interesting format and I do like the idea of an interactive wall for people to pin things to 'en passant', so to speak.

The critical period for this blog is between now and the event 22nd, when I hope at least some of the themes and controversies will find a place for further development. I should also say we are not over committed to this format, or even present personnel. If it needs to change, that would be the time to collate thoughts on how it might better effect online engagement.

Let me, if I may, put in a strong defence of the blog's linearity. What makes it a completely different creature from the 'Great Room' debate is that: one, no one is going to cut you off before you've made your substantive point; and two, in my experience, it's the 'least worst' format for getting conversations going. Providing no one beats me to it, this should be the 15th comment on a total of just 6 posts. That's what makes it worthwhile, for me at least.

I do agree that the blog has so far suffered a bit of a one track mind. Not to mention a hiatus in posting today (I've been speaking in Belfast on whether deliberation can take place online, or not). I will endeavour to do better.

I'll also investigate the possibility of co-opting other bloggers before the 22nd, although that may also be the best time to judge the blog's effectiveness (or otherwise) in-the-round.

[David Wilcox]

I agree strongly with Mark. The blog in this form isn't going to achieve the stated aspiration:
"We hope this blog will become a hub for reliable information and a channel to other RSA online/offline projects. But mainly we aim to help like-minded fellows to connect, hold conversations and move on to rapid and effective action."
You kindly quoted me in the welcome message as saying:
"...power-holding organisations have to be prepared to listen and deliver their side, they have to start early in the process of engagement. They need to open up, form new relationships, and work things out with key interests from the start. Engagement doesn't work unless it is collaborative."
But the RSA is not listening, delivering, engaging, collaborating - at least as this blog stands.
This blog follows the format of Great Room debates: experts on the stage, the rest of us putting our hands up to comment.
Quite the reverse of Matthew Taylor's promise to put Fellows at the centre.
There's a good example of what's possible in this other NESTA-funded project http://innovation-exchange.org/
It is using an open source Wordpress blog. Maybe they would offer RSA the template?
Sorry to sound so grumpy, but doing engagement badly is far worse than not doing it at all.

[Mark]

"It will be a hub for telling stories of what goes on across the Fellowship"? So far it's been a hub (popular but rather meaningless word that these days) for information about social networking.

If you want to share stories across an existing network of busy, active, engaged individuals, you are not likely to do it by providing a blogsite dedicated to one of many things (in this case apparently networking/Web 2.0 technologies) in which some of them may be interested, but in which the great majority are probably not.

What you need to develop is some kind of electronic 'story wall', to which Fellows can clip documents, sound snatches, video clips as well post comments. Such a 'story wall' would be less linear than a blog (after all, with a blog rather like a diary, I am asked to comment on something you have just written after being asked to comment on something you wrote some days ago...in that sense the linearity determines the structure of the responses).

[Clive Longbottom]

It's apparent that change cannot come from a stale centre. If we can make the RSA a set of nucleates for change within the various types of communities we have around us, I'm sure that we can start the slow progress towards making the world something that fits in with the majority's true feelings on maintaining local features, driving towards a overall community/regional/country-wide/geographical/world view based on acceptance, of goodwill and of a far more equal means of dealing with other communities' problems

We may need to choose our battles wisely to start with, but through cascade apporaches of getting others on board, the RSA as a force for positive change has to be a good way forward.

[David Wilcox]

Thanks Mick - other thoughts:
* could we know who is the main author ... is that you:-)
* is this going to be a multi-author blog for Fellows ... or do we just comment and link?
* maybe a "how to use this blog" for those not too Web 2.0?
* is there a del.icio.us tag that is producing the items on the left ... do you want more?
... and any ways that Fellow bloggers can best help with this initiative?

[Alan in Belfast]

At some point, you're going have to specify which RSA you're talking about. While I'm aware that 1754 marks the start of the Royal Society of Arts, cryptography did come to mind - particular with the word networks tagged on the end! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RSA_%28disambiguation%29)

[Mick Fealty]

David, a fellows roll is an excellent idea. I'll post on that later today asking for people to send them in.

Peter that's really interesting. I'll make a point of pulling together a post that touches on some of these issues. If you have a few suggested sources, please don't hesitate to punt them into me at:

mick@mickfealty.com

[David Wilcox]

Thanks so much for this initiative - and for the mention in your first post. How about creating a blogroll - list of RSA Fellows with blogs - to help with the networking? Any chance of a comments feed so we can keep track of who is adding to this blog?

[Peter Mansfield]

I am continually reminded how much talent and experience has been put out to grass by society. I personally "retired" from the NHS when the tick-box culture began in 1996, already aware that this would destroy the best in general practice medicine and take us even further from any kind of culture for health.
In the ten years since, I have satisfied myself that by recasting what we mean by health, the way we think about it and how we interpret events in the light of it, we could vastly reduce dependency and sickness in Britain today, and at very modest cost. I estimate that reliance on medical services could be halved in 5-10 years, though I do not under-estimate the mental upheaval required among medical and health personnel to achieve this.
This climate change in the RSA comes at just the right time, as I see it. Successful Commissions on Drug Abuse and Risk lead me to suggest another, as bold or even bolder, on Health. I cannot be the only Fellow with such as aspiration.
I hope that one outcome of networking will be a whole series of informal expert working groups, supported by the RSA infrastructure, examining such key questions systematically, dispassionately and radically, and making practical proposals for real change that can build on the success of these Commissions.
It is unlikely the political establishment can ever address such matters from a partisan standpoint. If not them, who else but us?
I hope soon to meet or hear from like-minded Fellows who are keen to carry forward an RSA "Commission" on Health.