Web Lab’s Small Group Dialogues on the Internet Commons

web lab’s small group dialogues

retail, cultural, and other uses would be. These agencies recognized the historic nature of the

task, and declared that they would seek public input in their decision making. They engaged

AmericaSpeaks1 to convene “live” meetings with thousands of New York–area residents, and

AmericaSpeaks turned to Web Lab to convene Web-based discussions for people who could not

attend the live meetings.

The project, called Listening to the City (LTC), drew international press coverage when

more than 5,000 people gathered for a daylong consultation on July 20, 2002. The online dialogues began ten days later, picking up where the “live” meetings left off.

A two-week “asynchronous” discussion, LTC Online used Web Lab’s Small Group Dialogue

(SGD) technique to allow 808 participants working in 26 parallel discussion groups (with about

40 members each) to log on at their convenience to read and post messages. Responding to discussion materials and questions provided by the planning agencies, participants posted more

than 10,000 messages and responded to 32 polling questions. While participants in face-to-face

dialogue sessions usually meet only for a short time, LTC Online participants had time to engage

each other thoughtfully over an extended period.

Although the process was not designed to produce consensus, strong majority sentiment

emerged on several key issues and had a direct effect on the next stage of planning and development. In fact, the guidelines for new designs, the invitation to world-class architects to participate

in a design competition, and the final design of the site all reflect many of the citizen recommendations generated during the online dialogues.2



How SGD Works

Web Lab’s Small Group Dialogues (SGD) are a departure from the norms of online chat and bulletin boards. SGD fosters intimate, high-quality exchanges and a sense of community among participants (figure 1). It employs highly customized proprietary software available for license from

Web Lab. By limiting group size and lifespan, SGD emphasizes each member’s value, increases

accountability, and encourages a sense of belonging and an investment in frequent visits. The result

is a structured experience needing little intervention and outcomes unmatched in conventional

online dialogue models. These SGD methodologies help to limit the practice of “flaming”—messages that attack other participants—common in many other online conversations and forums.

The SGD tools and technique were developed and refined over several years, through a

series of extraordinary discussions about a broad range of social, political, and personal issues.

National media organizations, community leaders, activists, government agencies, corporations,

consultants, and academics have successfully used SGD and benefited from archived conversations. The technique creates a structure that encourages thoughtful exchanges between people by

creating groups of limited size that start together and continue for a set time (usually two weeks).

It also encourages participants to start by introducing themselves before launching into discussion about the issues. SGD improves online exchange by making candor more comfortable and

disagreement safer.



295



296



adaptable methods



Illustration by Christine Valenza



Figure 1. Dialogue Creation, Dialogue, Community Building, and Change



SGD Principles

Size—Structure over Clamor

Each participant is assigned to a small group, rather than joining a crowded, anonymous

mass.

Time—Investing, Not Driving By

Limited lifespan of each group promotes commitment and provides closure.

Accountability—Listening Rather than Flaming

Emphasis on member bios and member-promoted content drives visibility, a sense of

belonging, and self-regulation.

Efficiency—Automation Reduces Moderation

Tracking, administration, and notification system for users and hosts allows cost-efficient

community monitoring.



web lab’s small group dialogues

In the summer of 2005, Web Lab was engaged by electronics giant Motorola to develop The

Seamless Exchange, a Small Group Dialogue designed to engage thousands of Motorola’s

employees worldwide in discussions about their company’s vision, values, and strategy. During

one week of each month between October and December 2005, Motorola employees worked in

small groups, discussing the direction, performance, and future success of their company. Their

postings were synthesized and best ideas from the groups were presented to Motorola’s senior

leaders at their annual meeting in January 2006.



Table of Uses

Brief Description



Project Length/Key Events



Number of Participants



Post-9/11 Dialogues on MSNBC

.com

(Launched November 2001)

http://msnbc.weblab.org

MSNBC.com readers shared stories and discussed the political,

economic, and personal issues

facing the nation and the world

after September 11.



Participants joined for onemonth dialogues, extendable by

vote of group. Project ran for

four months.

Robust asynchronous online dialogue with politically diverse participants. No flame wars.



1,400 participants in 20 discussion groups



First Person Plural (FPP)

(Launched June 2004)

http://first-person-plural.org

A voyage of self-discovery. Hundreds of women of all ages and

backgrounds shared stories and

explored what they have learned

from their breast cancer experiences.



Begun as a 2-week discussion,

extended by participant votes for

six weeks, then made ongoing.

The dialogue is being edited into

a book, to be published by William Morrow and Company.



800 women in 21 discussion

groups



About the Authors

Marc N. Weiss (mweiss@weblab.org) is the founder and president of Web Lab (WebLab.org), an

online laboratory that develops, supports, and champions innovative uses of the Web. A leader in

the independent film community since the 1970s, Weiss created the celebrated public TV series

P.O.V. in 1986 and was its executive producer until 1995, when he began P.O.V. Interactive. During his tenure at P.O.V., the series won six Peabody Awards, five duPont-Columbia Awards, and

six Emmy Awards.



297



298



adaptable methods

Steven N. Pyser, J.D. (steve@thedialogue.net) provides dialogue, conflict management, and synergy services to corporations, nonprofit organizations, and educational institutions. He has

designed many deliberative forums and served Web Lab as an SGD Fellow, facilitator, dialogue

monitor, and report manager/dialogue synthesizer for Motorola’s Seamless Exchange. He is Managing Editor of the Journal of Public Deliberation and Associate Editor for Group Facilitation: A

Research and Applications Journal. Mr. Pyser is a faculty member at the University of Phoenix,

Philadelphia Campus.



Where to Go for More Information

References

Evaluations of the Small Group Dialogue—www.weblab.org/sgd/evaluation.html.

The following references are just a few of the many articles about various dialogues and the

technique (New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Release 1.0, EContent magazine, Washington

Post, NPR, Wired News, etc.) available at www.weblab.org/press/sgd.html.

Pyser, S. N., and Figallo, C. “The Listening to the City Online Dialogues Experience: The Impact

of a Full Value Contract.” Conflict Resolution Quarterly 21, no. 3 (2004).

This case study co-authored by Steven N. Pyser explores how an intentional social agreement,

called a “Full Value Contract,” can help relax skepticism while supporting trust in sustaining

full and conscientious participation and community in a purposeful online dialogue.

Smith, Steve. “Keeping a Civil Tongue: Web Lab’s Plan to Extinguish Flame Wars.” EContent (July

2002), www.weblab.org/press/econtent.

Vox Populi. “Online and Downtown.” New York Times, September 26, 2002, www.weblab.org/

press/092602nytimes.

Organization

Web Lab—www.weblab.org

1. See chapter 41, “The 21st-Century Town Meeting.”

2. The final report, incorporating the results of the face-to-face and online discussions, is available online at

www.listeningtothecity.org.



planning methods



Planning methods help people in communities and organizations shape their future together.

These methods set strategic direction and core identity through activities such as self-analysis,

exploration, visioning, value clarification, goal setting, and action development.



Charrettes



32

bill lennertz



Dynamic Planning and the

Power of Charrettes

The foundation of democracy is faith in . . . human intelligence and in the

power of pooled and cooperative experience . . . to generate progressively the

knowledge and wisdom needed to guide collective action. . . . [E]ach individual has something to contribute, whose value can be assessed only as [it]

enters into the final pooled intelligence constituted by the contributions of all.

—John Dewey



Case Study: Transforming a Parking Lot into a

Transit-Oriented Village

Prior to the building of I-680, the Walnut Creek area in Contra Costa County, California, was

predominantly bungalow and ranch homes nestled among orchards. Residents were either associated with the walnut industry or had relocated from the urban San Francisco Bay area. The

arrival of the highway interchange, adjacent to the local Pleasant Hill BART (Bay Area Rapid

Transit) station, began to transform what was once a quiet agricultural valley into a regional

transportation hub.

In the early 1980s, a specific plan for the 140-acre BART station area was adopted by Contra

Costa County, calling for a higher density, mixed-use, transit-oriented community. Since 1986,

more than 2,400 housing units, two hotels, offices with more than 4,000 employees, and more than

$40 million in major public infrastructure improvements had been built within walking distance

of the Pleasant Hill BART station. The accumulation of this development activity increased strain

on the once convenient lifestyle of the single-family ranch home neighborhoods surrounding the

station area, with the greatest impacts felt due to the increase in traffic congestion.



dynamic planning and the power of charrettes



The Charrette

To plan the Pleasant Hill BART project and conduct the charrette process, a consultant

team was selected by a steering committee. The steering committee represented the Contra Costa

County Redevelopment Agency, BART, the designated developer, and the neighborhood.

The consultant team held an initial public meeting that sought to take one more step

toward reestablishing the trust between the community members and the project sponsors—

Contra Costa County, BART, and the developer. During the meeting, community members

worked with facilitators in small groups to discuss how the project related to the area and what a

vision for the developed site might look like. The consultants then took this input and combined

it with the other critical information such as market demand, financing requirements, and site

constraints to develop alternative concepts for the site.

A month later, the consultant team of architects, planners, engineers, and economists held

a six-day charrette that resulted in a comprehensive plan for the site. Public meetings were held

for anyone who wished to attend, and stakeholder meetings were scheduled with neighbors, a

technical advisory committee, bicycle and pedestrian advocacy groups, and BART representatives, to name a few. The consultant team worked with all of the input from these meetings and

developed alternative concepts. These concepts were brought back to the stakeholders and general public numerous times throughout the week at public meetings and open houses and were

revised according to additional input. The consultant team took the refined plans and synthesized them into one comprehensive plan representing the best of all feasible ideas.



Charrettes



During the 1980s, a handful of developer-driven programs were proposed for the Pleasant

Hill BART station area. These failed attempts were primarily commercial developments with

heavy office or entertainment retail uses. The regional market orientation of these projects raised

the objections of neighbors, who were concerned by the traffic impacts, and the cities, which were

concerned about competition with their own commercial developments. Community members

were given limited opportunities to participate in the development proposals, and when they

were engaged, there were too few options on the table. It looked to the neighborhood participants

as though the heavy commercial and entertainment uses were a foregone conclusion and that

their input had no potential impact on the proposal outcomes.

By the late 1980s, many residents of the surrounding neighborhoods believed that any

additional development, other than service and residential uses, would push the traffic problem over the edge. This produced a very difficult political environment for the development of

the 18 acres of parking immediately adjacent to the station. When the Contra Costa County

Redevelopment Agency undertook planning for this redevelopment, they met public resistance

on all fronts. It wasn’t until they initiated a charrette process that invited local employees, residents, and business owners to help plan the area surrounding the station that any progress was

made.



301



302



planning methods



Charrettes



The Results

Over the course of the six-day charrette, the following were all created and refined: formbased zoning and architectural codes; market and financial feasibility analyses; street and transit

circulation plans; a plan for pedestrian paths and parks; a transit plan for buses, taxis, and kiss

and ride (a designated passenger drop off area); a regulating plan; and illustrative renderings

depicting the future state. In the end, the charrette resulted in a comprehensive and detailed plan

that met the basic requirements of all parties, ending the deadlock.

In 2002, the board of Contra Costa County supervisors unanimously approved the plan

with no attendee speaking in opposition, a rarity for Bay Area development projects. It is notable

that in the five years since the charrette, the results have survived the continued scrutiny of community members, ongoing partnership negotiations between the public and private entities

involved, and the passing on of the project to a new design firm. Projects are often compromised

during the volatile implementation phase, but the plan created during the BART charrette broke

ground in 2005 with its original vision in place.



The Basics

The French word “charrette” means “cart” and is often used to describe the final, intense work

effort expended by art and architecture students to meet a project deadline. This use of the term

is said to originate from the École des Beaux Arts in Paris during the nineteenth century, where

proctors circulated a cart, or “charrette,” to collect final drawings while students frantically put

finishing touches on their work. To quote Andres Duany:

The charrette is about dynamic balances. It is about principles balanced by process;

about the interests of the few balanced by that of the many; about experts being balanced by those who know nothing except how things really should be; about public

benefit and private gain. A proper charrette brings into being a collective intelligence

and it does this with stunning efficiency.

At the National Charrette Institute (NCI), the core principles of a charrette were used to

create the Dynamic Planning process. Dynamic Planning combines the creative, intense work session with stakeholder workshops. It is a collaborative planning process that harnesses the talents



An NCI Dynamic Planning charrette is not:

• A one-day workshop

• A multi-day marathon meeting involving everyone all the time

• A plan authored by a select few that will affect many

• A “brainstorming session” that produces a plan but stops short of feasibility testing



dynamic planning and the power of charrettes



How Does Dynamic Planning Work?

Dynamic Planning is a three-phase, holistic, collaborative planning process during which a

charrette is held as the central transformative event. Dynamic Planning is designed to assure

project success through careful charrette preparation and follow-up.

The Three Phases of Dynamic Planning

Phase One: Research, Education, Charrette Preparation

Phase one of Dynamic Planning establishes the information and people infrastructure for the

project (see figure 1). Establishing the information infrastructure includes the identification, creation, and collection of base data necessary to perform the project planning and design during

the charrette. Creating the people infrastructure includes identifying and engaging all those who

must be involved to produce a feasible outcome that will be supported by the community. This

requires early and ongoing collaboration among the project sponsor, the project management

team (typically comprised of the managers for the affected functions/departments), those who

will be immediately impacted by the project, all relevant decision makers, and potential support-



Figure 1. Dynamic Planning Phases



Charrettes



and energies of all interested parties to create and support a feasible plan capable of transformative organizational or community change.

While most commonly used for land planning and development projects, Dynamic Planning can be used in various business sectors and is used often to facilitate a comprehensive system

change, such as a company reorganization. These projects rank among the most difficult due to

their disparate and sometimes contentious group of stakeholders, working within the context of

a complex design problem. The most common outcomes of a successful Dynamic Planning process are: new policies, plans, and action programs that are created and implemented by a multidisciplinary team.



303



Charrettes



304



planning methods

ers and blockers. Furthermore, in order to gain their long-term support, these stakeholders must

be treated with respect and assured that their input will have an impact on the outcome. This

phase is about becoming “charrette ready,” the point at which all of the information and the

people are in place. Depending on the project, this preparation process can take anywhere from

six weeks to nine months.

Phase Two: The Charrette

The charrette is the transformative event of the Dynamic Planning process. It is a collaborative

event that, for complex projects such as land development, typically lasts from four to seven days.

Simpler projects take less time. The goal of the charrette is to produce a feasible plan that benefits

from the support of all stakeholders through its implementation. A multidisciplinary charrette

team consisting of a mix of consultants or experts and sponsor staff produces this plan. It takes

place in a charrette studio or meeting place situated in a location central to the project and the

stakeholders. During the charrette, the team first conducts a public meeting to solicit the values,

vision, and needs of the stakeholders. The team then breaks off to create alternative plans, testing

and refining them with the goal of producing a preferred plan. The charrette is organized as a

series of feedback loops through which stakeholders are engaged at critical decision-making

points. These decision-making points occur throughout the charrette in primary stakeholder

meetings and several more public meetings, and possibly an open house. These feedback loops

provide the charrette team with the information necessary to create a feasible plan. Just as important, they allow the stakeholders to become coauthors of the plan so that they are more likely to

support and implement it. Charrette schedules vary in length according to project complexity.

The charrette needs to last at least four days for the simplest of projects, and six to nine days for a

complex project, in order to accommodate at least three feedback loops marked by collaborative

public meetings.

Phase Three: Implementation

Two major processes follow the charrette. The first is product refinement, during which the charrette team tests and refines the final charrette plan to assure its feasibility. The second is based on

a relationship strategy in which the project sponsor continues to work with the stakeholders to

maintain their support of the plan. This is done most effectively by involving the stakeholders in

the testing and refinement process. The Dynamic Planning process concludes with a postcharrette public meeting during which the revised plans are presented for final public review and

input.



dynamic planning and the power of charrettes



305



Setting



Brief Description



Length



Key Events



Community Land

Use Plan



Issue: How to accommodate community growth

and land development

Outcome: Widely

supported community development

plans and implementation mechanisms



6–12 months



Ongoing team meetings, including initial

project meeting with

leadership, early meetings with primary stakeholders

3 key events:

• Project visioning

meeting at approximately month 2 in

the process (1 day)



Number of

Participants

All stakeholders

involved at some

point in all 3 key

events. 45–100s of

people.

Stakeholders include: public officials, landowners,

community members



• Charrette midway

through project timeline (3–7 days)

• Public charrette follow-up meeting at

the end of the process (one to two

days)

Land Planning

Policies/Codes



Issue: How to regulate development

so that it reflects a

desired community

vision

Outcome: Community-supported

policies and codes



9–18 months



Ongoing team meetings, including initial

project meeting with

leadership, early meetings with primary stakeholders

3 key events:

• Community values

meeting at approximately month 2 in

the process (1 day)

• Charrette midway

through project timeline (3–7 days)

• Public charrette follow-up meeting at

the end of the process (1–2 days)



All stakeholders

involved at some

point in all 3 key

events. 60–100s of

people.

Stakeholders include: public officials, landowners,

community members



Charrettes



Table of Uses