The messaging process is so simple that variations of it have already been explored in a number of contexts in the past. The following cases are a good illustration of the variety of possibilities and the evolution of experience.
Case 1 (Professional/academic): At the first international conference of the Society for General Systems Research (London, August 1979) a "meta-conference" was launched by an eminent ex-president of the Society, Professor Stafford Beer (UK cybernetician and one-time computer systems advisor to Chilean President Allende). In an opening speech he invited the 200 participants to formulate fundamental statements relating to the theme and sub-topics of the conference. These were left in a box, then reviewed by an editorial group consisting of himself and two other eminent colleagues. The result was distributed to participants as a numbered list of 70 statements in English. Participants were invited to indicate on the document whether they (a) agreed (b) disagreed, or (c) were indifferent to each statement. The document was then returned via the box with the name of the participant. Further comments were also invited. Wall maps were produced overnight showing the networks of participants and issues. A new document was distributed incorporating a numbered list of the more central issues perceived by participants together with those new comments accepted. The cycle was repeated giving a total of three computer runs.
Comment: The process interested participants greatly, if only in terms of the concentration on questionnaires during coffee breaks. The main delays were due to lack of typing/data input personnel. There was criticism of the statistical methodology, which was accepted and partly modified. The comments reflected the concerns of an academic society in search of relevance. But more skill and experience was required to help the process to converge fruitfully. Despite the preponderance of agreed remarks, this did not lead to any concrete proposals, even when consensus emerged through the process. An excellent experiment in that if "failed" in a way which showed the remedies required. SGSR, and its outgoing, President Richard Ericson, should be congratulated on being the first international conference to undertake it.
Case 2 (Intergovernmental): At the second network management meeting of the UN Environment Programme's information referral system, INFOTERRA (Moscow, October 1979), it was agreed on the evening before the opening session to implement a straight forward messaging system, but working in English, French, Spanish and Russian. The chairman of the meeting Dr Ashok Khosla (Indian director of INFOTERRA) drew the attention of the delegates (120 from 100 countries) to the messaging facility on every appropriate occasion. A total of 6 Bulletins were produced (in each language) carrying 98 messages in all. The English version was posted one wall after typing and before translation.
Comment: Participants were slow in responding to this unexpected facility. Messages were solicited personally from colleagues on the first day. The one-sheet explanation was only distributed on the second day. A typed first issue was quickly produced and displayed, but despite every assistance in translation, delays of 18 to 24 hours occurred before distribution (because photocopying was done on the other side of Moscow).
The mix of messages was much better than in Case 1 since the Bulletins were also used as a vehicle for early proposals. Later formal proposals had to bypass the Bulletins because of typing, translation and photocopying delays. In commenting on the facility one delegate stated he "would have gone daft without it". Another said he first thought it was a "Mickey-Mouse relating process" which turned him off, although he had subsequently changed his mind. The chairman declared that it had "saved the meeting". It is interesting that on the final days messages were being received in all 4 languages, despite the early predominance of English. Without the delays the process could have been even more significant to the meeting.
Case 3 (Alternative community): At the 4th Onearth Gathering of the Findhorn Foundation 300-member international community (Scotland, October 1979), it was agreed a day before the opening session that a straight forward messaging system should be implemented in English. A one-sheet explanation was folded into the printed programme distributed at registration time. Message boxes were located both at the conference hall and at the main residence for the 120 guest participants. The first Bulletin issue was available at the end of the morning of the opening day, although it included a number of editorially generated messages to provoke interaction and indicate its possibilities. By the evening of the second day 85 messages had been carried in 4 issues of the Bulletin. By the end of the 6-day meeting, 8 issues had been produced with 185 messages. Messages were posted on a wall after typing. The Bulletins were also displayed there.
Comment: The Findhorn community is avowedly anti-intellectual; except for inspirational writings, it disapproves of use of linear text whenever it can be avoided by using other media, or none at all. Thus although guest speeches were available for purchase on cassettes the following day, aside from the programme leaflet, the Bulletin was the only conference document distributed. The number of messages was therefore very encouraging and the Bulletin clearly met a need of many (non-member) participants. A few made extensive use of it. What proportion perceived it as valuable or approved of it is not known, although a feedback session proposed that a post-conference Bulletin issue be produced for "afterthoughts". One of the convenors wrote that the process "seems to have substantially "taken off" into what become the equivalent of a participant-produced newspaper. Which, in view of the virtually zero time available to people, was nothing short of amazing". As claimed, it operated in parallel with the formal conference, but it did not seem to generate direct inputs into it. One participant suggested that for such an essentially expressive environment, the Chinese "dazibao" wallposter approach would have been better. Both could well be used.
Irrespective of what the non-member participants felt, more important is how the community felt about the effect of this form of expression within their highly pre-planned conference format. The test will be whether they use the facility for their 1980 gathering and whether a means can be found to facilitate the progressive "maturation" of messaging style and to ensure that messages build on each other rather than react to each other.
This gathering raises the important question of the preferred communication mode of conference participants. Conventional conferences are primarily aural events, although there is occasionally "audio-visual" assistance for the communication process. There is always the temptation to "read" papers to the audience. Not to go to the trouble of preparing one is perhaps a guarantee of spontaneity. It certainly ensures that participants must "listen" to their totality if they are to "hear" the message, whereas documents may be quickly scanned to determine what is worth hearing. What happens to the productivity of a non-aural person in an aural conference process, or to that of an aural person confronted by documents ? Do individuals switch between modes and when ? When is which mode appropriate and what constraints does each impose or conceal ? Is the real potential for non-linearity achieved in audio-visual settings, or is this argument used to disguise weaknesses ? What are the inter- cultural implicati ons ? It is probable that a clearer perspective on these questions would show the valuable intermediary role of a participant messaging process.
Case 4 (Academic workshop): At the first workshop on networks of the UN University's project on Goals, Processes and Indicators of Development (Brussels, May 1979), summaries of the discussions of the 13 participants were typed (and edited) via terminals into the EIES computer conferencing network based in North America. External messages received were incorporated with the summaries into a Bulletin distributed to the participants in Brussels.
Comment: This was just an experiment but it demonstrated the ease with which such a process could be organized and carried out. The summaries were only prepared infrequently but is was clearly possible to have them prepared (with any messages) by continuous input into terminals and much more frequent reproduction for the group. The final report was also drafted via the terminal for discussion.
Case 5 (International NGO Conference): Roots of the Future -- The World We Choose, NGO preparatory conference for the Earth Summit (Paris, 17-20 December 1991).
Comment: As an experiment the system was very successful in encouraging people to input messages. A number of specific difficulties were addressed in order to improve the design of the process. These included: 1) message collection points must be visible. Further thought could be given to message collection during sessions by attendants. 2) The process must be constantly referred to by chairpersons -- "Many people who want to speak might consider formulating their point in writing -- others outside this session will also then be exposed to it". 3) "Message turn-around time" is a key measure of success. If it slows down, the whole system loses credibility. The key factor is typing efficiency. 4) Message translation is psychologically extremely important. It is also a key to cross-cultural communication. However the importance of the translation process should not be used as an excuse to slow down the message turn-around time. It is better to give priority to getting the mes sages out, and keep up as best one can with the translations. 5) Adequate access to photocopy facilities is essential for bulletin reproduction. Despite the high-tech environment, processing of reproduction demands was subject to severe bottlenecks -- especially on the last afternoon. Unless the bulletin has its own machine, it will not be able to maintain reproduction when others can requisition machine time. 6) The bulletin distribution system needs to be visibly more effective. Why not have a number of display racks at critical points: outside session rooms, in hallways, at registration desks, at press offices, in coffee areas, and accessible to outsiders (observers, government delegates, etc)? What prevents this from being done? 7) Editorial intervention can do much to shift the process beyond simple "unilateral" messaging. The goal should be fruitful interaction, building on earlier messages and converging on joint conclusions/actions, etc. If the editor is obliged to worry unduly about production/dis tribution problems, this shift does not take place.
Case 6 (Professional/NGO): ECOCITY 2, The Second International Ecological City Conference (Adelaide, 16-19 April 1992). A low-budget conference of around 300 participants, 50% local residents and 50% interstate and overseas visitors from around 20 countries. Five bulletins (123 messages) were produced in 3 1/2 days.
Comment: It took one day to warm up the process and no new messages were taken on the last half day. Initial neutral attitude of the organizers to the significance of the process shifted enormously during the first two days. Photocopier malfunction and eventual breakdown caused delays, the longest of which was four hours on the afternoon of the second day -- a major setback. Coloured paper was used very effectively, a different colour for each issue. The paper was donated by a manufacturer, who received credit in a box on the back of each Bulletin. After processing, the original messages were pinned on four free-standing panels (each around 2 square metres) located on an elevated gallery at the venue. These proved popular for browsers. The Australian Arts Council had funded several Australian artists to be present. The effect was very enlivening, several of the poets contributing to the bulletin.
Case 7 (Inter-sectoral Dialogue): An event during Global Forum '92 (Rio de Janeiro, 1-2 June 1992). Approximately 70 invited representatives of sectors of civil society and some government organizations participated for the two days. More than 20 observers and members of the media were also present. The meeting took place in a large circular tent in Flamingo Park, on the central waterfront of Rio de Janeiro. The table and chairs were arranged in a modified hexagram and a large model of an icosadodecahedron hung from the centre of the tent. There were also other symbolic reminders were to focus the conceptual architecture of the dialogue on the problems of the Earth. Piles of message forms were on the tables in easy reach of participants and when completed were passed directly to the typists, who were located conspicuously at one side of the tent. The bulletin was printed on a small "bubble-jet" printer on the spot when sufficient messages had been received. Photocopying involved a return trip of around 20 minutes. Nine double-sided A4 sheets were produced.
Comment: One issue of Da Zi Bao was prepared in advance of the meeting, using select contributions from previous Da Zi Bao's, provocative statements, questions, brief comments of universal wisdom and other stimulating material. It was successful in promoting almost immediate messaging. The intimate setting, the integration of the messaging process within the meeting format, and strong encouragement from the organizers, were other factors which assisted success. The organizers observed that the messaging system enabled participants to communicate outside the formal framework without disrupting the flow of the dialogue. It is also true, however, that the dialogue remained largely undeveloped, both in the written messages or on the floor. The message bulletins initially constituted the only hardcopy output from the session. The bulletins were also later distributed more widely as issues of the Global Forum's Da Zi Bao (see Case 8).
Case 8: Global Forum/Earth Summit in Rio, June 1992 (to be written)
Notes: The alternative community gathering (Case 3) raises the important question of the preferred communication mode of conference participants. Conventional conferences are primarily aural events, although there is occasionally "audio-visual" assistance for the communication process. There is always the temptation to "read" papers to the audience. Not to go to the trouble of preparing one is perhaps a guarantee of spontaneity. It certainly ensures that participants must "listen" to their totality if they are to "hear" the message, whereas documents may be quickly scanned to determine what is worth hearing.
What happens to the productivity of a non-aural person in an aural conference process, or to that of an aural person confronted by documents? Do individuals switch between modes and when? When is which mode appropriate and what constraints does each impose or conceal? Is the real potential for non-linearity achieved in audio-visual settings, or is this argument used to disguise weaknesses? What are the inter-cultural implications? It is probable that a clearer perspective on these questions would show the valuable intermediary role of a participant messaging process.