The Membership Project

Tessy - thanks. You are getting to the heart of the matter, as I see it. What are the terms of engagement that RSA/Fellows will offer to non-Fellows when they develop civic innovation projects outside the confines of the RSA. Projects must all reach that external stage if they are for social, not just RSA benefit, and are inclusive/engaging not just "done to people".

I agree of course that RSA staff and Fellows may want to develop ideas, and recruit others to an extent in private in the early stages ... though with the caveat that:

• not invent here is the biggest stumbling block to subsequent engagement
• it is easy to be presumptuous of people's needs if the beneficiaries (i.e. non-RSA people in this case) are not involved early in project design

Supposing a project idea has been developed within RSA to the point that Fellows wish to engage others. What's the proposition? What skills, resources, support will be available from Fellows and staff that are not available elsewhere? And what are the conditions?

I agree people may wish to join RSA if they see it as a vibrant and supportive place ... but should it be a condition of project support? I think that would be very divisive. It is marketing and recruitment, not civic innovation, and I think people would sniff that very quickly.

What's needed, in my view, is some serious "paper prototyping" of project processes, followed by real testing. I argued unsuccessfully for that within RSA, but didn't get anywhere ... which was one reason for leaving! I just couldn't see how RSA Networks would actually work in practice.

Behind all this are, I believe, profound issues of what's the best way to undertake social innovation. After working in community engagement, civic partnerships, social media etc as a consultant for many years I've come to the view that open, collaborative processes are best. I don't think you can trust well-resourced, well-meaning groups of people (aided by consultants) to avoid being presumptous about what "they" need, and then ending up doing things to them, for them, rather than with them.

I know this absolutely is not what RSA staff and Fellows have in mind. But unless the issues are worked through, as well as talked about, it is an easy position to slip into. The first issue for any power holder to address, I think, is "who is this for - and how much involvement will we offer". By definition civic innovation is for people mainly outside RSA, and those wider interests should play a big part in project design and development. If that principle is agreed, then it is important to design back from the external terms of engagement, not just forward from institutional interest.

Thanks again Tessy for promoting this discussion in the open. Although we are discussing RSA as an example - because it is in the lead - the issues apply to any organisation aiming to do good stuff with new stuff.

Tessy - I agree that the RSA Networks vision is really interesting: being a member (Fellow) who gets internal benefits, and who also volunteers to work outside the organisation for wider social benefit. The challenge for RSA Networks - as I see it - is  how to provide an infrastructure that supports internal benefits, and also the external work. The problem is that a lot of the off the shelf/traditional systems for support focus on the internal benefits - including web systems within a login. It means that they can only support the Fellow/volunteers ... not those they are working with.

If you shift the focus, and ask what support would be necessary for successful projects where those involved are a mix of Fellows and others in the wider community,  it become more tricky on the communications front. The options seem to me:

1. Only support Fellows - but end up with two classes of people on projects: supported Fellows and those unsupported (by RSA)
2. Open the RSA support systems to those involved in projects who are not Fellows - but risk other Fellows complaining about "dilution" of Fellowship, and increasing demands for system features
3. Create a support system specifically for RSA Networks projects - but then find difficulties in linkage to other Fellowship-support systems
4. Help Fellows to create their own communications and other tools necessary for projects

These complications are boundary issues: as soon as someone is a member, others are not members.  I'm not involve in RSA Networks these days, but as I understand it they are going for 1 plus maybe some 2. I think that for projects to work well it may be necessary to add sopme 4.

This is interesting stuff, and we need a framework for thinking about the nature of different relationships. Fascinating cross-overs. Some brands command strong affinity - e.g. Apple "customers" feel more like a club and community. Some organisations just treat members as consumer/subscribers.

I'm particularly interested in what attitude organisations have in making their "offer". Is it marketing or engagement? 

Tessy - your reflection on the role of organisational leaders, and members, chimes with some of the issues raised at today's NCVO membership conference. One strand was about the need to make clear offers of services in marketing to members ... but another was on mutuality of relationship. Marriage was used as a metaphor by one speaker. We also talked about membership as a "badge of honour" and the increasing potential for members to network with each other, with little or limited support from the centre. That suggests members will need to reflect upon their responsibilities and commitment to each other.

Laura - I think you have hit on a really important point ... that social media isn't some magic ingredient that will attract young people, women or any other group that may display higher than general usual.

I suspect that those members who are social media users they may expect their organisation to offer that as part of the mix .... but offering social media won't attract "sm users". They'll probably find what's offered by any organisation less attractive than social media "in the wild" because of inevitable constraints.

What introducing social media will do, I believe, is push the organisation and its members to consider with greater sophistication just what the organisation is for, and consequently what the offer is to members. Is it mainly for member benefit, campaigning, project development? Each purpose, and associated activities, requires a different sort of media mix. I think that RSA Networks has already raised these issues, and no doubt more will emerge as the programme is integrated with the new site.

I hope RSA can continue to take a lead in discussing these challenges openly and encouraging others to join in. It's a foreign country, and we need all the guidance we can find!

I also wholly agree about a mix of methods.  Ed Mitchell has a good item and podcast on the need for blending online-offline and much more.

Thanks for the point on cooperatives ... and yes some would be relevant for this project if they are providing external benefit.

Sorry about the CAPTCHA requirement on commenting (requirement to type in a word or do a sum). We had a lot of trouble with spam, and CAPTCHA stopped that. If you register for an account, CAPTCHA will not be required.

Yes, let's discuss next week. Agreed we need a clearer ask and offer on the site ... and that should reflect/inform the way the project develops. One option is we could help develop a network/community of practice for people within and outside organisations interested in the issues and practice we are discussing here. This network would operate partly online, and partly through meetups, innovation camps, barcamps etc. The rationale is that change will come through committed people, and what they need is the support, learning, tools etc.

Then our task is how to recruit and support that network - our "membership". They assist with research, develop and use products and services etc. Just floating ideas. There are other routes, of course.

Julie (Dave) - maybe your exchange highlights how difficult it still is to get shared understanding online! Several general points emerged for me from this and some of the .net contributions (hope I'm not overinterpreting):

1. the need to distinguish personal social networking (which may be face-to-face, phone and/or online) from social networking sites online ... and these from communities or (social) networks as systems that may operate across many boundaries
2. personal preferences - which may relate to personality type, preferred communciation style - influence how and how far people network
3. even when people have high personal networking skills, and technical skills, they may choose not to use various online sites or facilities

I think it re-inforces the point made a few time here, that understanding people as well as tools, systems etc is crucial. It reminds me I should go back and take a look at the A-Zs of social media and networking I did with others a while back over on the social media wiki. Any thoughts, other resources, help would be welcome.

Hi Megan - on tick boxes - I thought Sophia/you might be suggesting a poll or similar for starters: probably misinterpreted ... sorry. Nothing wrong with that anyway ... I was just wondering how to get conversation going from the questions. I think you have answered on the event.

Maybe we need to help people make the distinction between social networking "sites" and social networking using whatever tools, wherever appropriate.