Many aspects of experiences are not explicitly recognized — good design often crafts for this result. The Enterprise 2.0 Rave provides a perfect example to call out critical elements of experience design. I offer my personal gratitude to FAST and the other sponsors for having the foresight to apply 2.0 thinking to this event.

One aspect of 2.0 most frequently called out or recognized is collaboration. The Rave extends the collaborative nature of the event by adding new channels. Channels are a significant dimension of 2.0 thinking — they’re a means by which to accommodate a variety of scenarios.

Deconstruction of the Rave Experience

Many times optimal design potential is missed due to some dimension of fear and uncertainty (doubt). Deeper understanding of design helps to mitigate this, by recognizing and embracing potential value. Deeper understanding of economic principles helps to uncover and assign value to potential.

Events require resources: time to plan/conduct, money to secure locations, materials, etc. Until a minimum number of attendees can be ensured, an event might result in a loss (assumed risk). This dissuades many from ‘extending’ the boundaries of an experience. Indeed, even providing post-event materials (presentations, audio, video) has associated costs that must be offset with potential value. Clearly to include ‘live’ remote participation takes greater planning and understanding of potential value. In the case of a ‘first time effort’ there is a lot of risk assumed, as there is no history to draw from (to inform a better decision).

In this case, remote participation increases collaboration — not limiting the conversation by the voices of only those who could attend. By first ensuring that sufficient attendees will cover the cost of the event, the inclusion of a new channel for remote participation increases the breadth of reach and will change the dynamics of the event. The inherent design of this event increases its own testiment to 2.0 thinking.

Too often, an initial consideration (covering costs), rules out other options. 2.0 thinking is more dynamic — it requires deconstructing the ‘barriers’ and identifying the conditions by which the barriers can be removed. The planning for the Rave event embraced this concept.

I look forward to experiencing the results…