INCM JATO 2019 Moderators' Final Report: Process

INCM JATO 2019

PROCESS TRPEJCA MACEDONIA

Organisers: EASA Macedonia Moderators: Louis Pohl, Ariana Zilliacus, Kyra Zwick Graphic design: borrowed from EASA Macedonia Illustrations: Louis Pohl Photographs: Александра Костадиновска Layout: Louis Pohl, Ariana Zilliacus, Kyra Zwick

4

Our Values

8

About Consensus

12

How do we know?

How do we know?

EASA 2021

Reaching consensus

What challenges did we face?

26

INCM 2020

Reaching consensus

What challenges did we face?

36

Topics discussed during INCM How did we choose?

What did we agree on?

How did we decide?

What challenges did we face?

Young Architects Declare

Our Values What INCM JATO people see as most valuable in their experience with EASA is... ...Impact of EASA, considered on different scales ...Responsibility to and of the community, as an ethical duty, regarding our intellectual and physical conduct ...Active engagement expressed by the members and mutual empowerment ...Quality of openness (as indviduals and community) to listen, learn and share ...Education of ourselves and of others

How do we know?

The plenum was split up into groups of four, each of which was made up of people more and less experienced with INCM and its specificities. They were asked to discuss how they perceive EASA’s values, in this specific time and place. To help the discussions flow from the very start, they were prompted with a question: “What are 2 values EASA has and what are 2 values EASA should have?”

This formulation allowed groups to: a) tackle things we already commonly share, and b) express unfulfilled potential in EASA. We then gathered once again as a plenum for each group’s spokesperson to read out their agreed-upon values. These could be joined and condensed into the five genreal values we could use to support everyone’s arguments during the bidding discussions and to acknowledge our common ground.

4

5

IMPACT OF EASA

RESPONSIBILITY OF/TO THE COMMUNITY

Connection with locals

Global impact

Engaging with local hosts

(consciousness)

Local action back home

Outcomes of EASA and

Scaling

local impact

Sustainability

Continuing lasting effect

Bringing EASA home

Interaction with locals

Outreach at a local level

Impact

Network outside of EASA

...

Shared responsibility

Awareness behind actions

Horizontal structure

Involvement in community

Enhancing awareness

decisions

of community and

...

communicating it to new participants Community Mutual respect

ACTIVE ENGAGEMENT

Engagement with

Reflectiveness

community

Economy of means

Ambitious environment

Effort integration

Continuity

Empowering students

Connecting generations of

Productivity

EASA

...

Willingness to act Realizing potential

QUALITY OF OPENNESS

EDUCATION

Empathy

Social engagement

Self confidence

Exchange

NaĂŻve idealism

Listening and learning

Diversity

Courage

Integration

Crossing boundaries

Familiarity that is present

Prioritizing human aspect

Lightness (freedom)

Broadening perspectives

and network

Togetherness

Freedom

...

Bonding through problem

Lack of concrete values

solving

Connection with people

Freedom of expression

Experiences

Holistic approach to

...

architecture Interdisciplinarity A larger tool set Education Process Deeper understanding of site

7

About Consensus People think that consensus brings...(and how many groups reached that conclusion) 1. Community, unity and acceptance within community (6) 2. Everyone being listened to. Mutual understanding (6) 3. Backing the proposal - confidence (5) 4. Equality and inclusion (4) 5. Personal investment in goals (4) 6. Structural perspective - horizontality (3) 7. Thinking, evolution (2) 8. Strategically beneficial for group (1) 9. Generating content (1) 10. Structural concerns (1) 11. Metaphysical experience (1)

How do we know when we’ve reached an agreement?

1. 100% is not necessary (5 goups) 2. When everything has been understood - satisfaction and acceptance (4 groups) 3. When all ground is covered - no new arguments (4 groups) 4. Coherency - getting into the ‘big brain’ (3 groups) 5. When nobody is opposing (3 groups) 6. Openness - when no-one is defensive (3 groups) 7. Total support (3 groups) 8. Through smaller agreements (2 groups) 9. When there is no social pressure (2 groups) 10. When the community is put above the individual (2 groups) 11. When we feel it (1 group)

How do we know?

Bidding discussions largely (if not completely) consist of what, why and for what reasons a decision will be made, making it necessary for us to first define the decision-making method used at INCM JATO. We benefitted from a presentation given by Sara Milenkovska, who has a background in political science and is experienced in horizontal decision making processes through working with NGOs in Skopje.

This enabled us to engage with questioning, within the same groups of four that were formed to discuss common values, our interpretation of and rules for the following: What does consensus bring to EASA? How do we know when we’ve reached an agreement?

Similar to the previous discussion feedback structure, a new spokesperson presented each group’s findings and opinions.

This lead to a short open discussion in plenum before leaving the site, which, although opinions diverged, was an informative and transparent starting point for the following bidding discussions.

10

11

EASA 2021... ...will be EASA Reality, in Kragujevac (Serbia).

The bidding proposals were EASA Lost and Find (France), EASA Borderless (Italy), EASA Naive (Russia) and EASA Reality (Serbia).

Reaching Consensus Day 1: Bidding teams presented their proposals in the morning.

Unsurprisingly, everyone received a considerable amount of both qualitative and quatitative information, so the following two hours were allocated to individual reflection.

After lunch, we regrouped in the tent, with the exception of the bidding teams. The points raised the day before concerning shared values and consensus were repeated by the moderators, followed by a speed-dating session. People were prompted to distinguish between which proposals they felt subjectively or objectively attracted to by using the following statement: I feel passionately attracted to _________ I feel Platonically attracted to __________

12

People were then randomly split into groups of four to discuss how they felt each proposal addressed the common values. The term ‘Tiny Moderator’ was introduced; one person in each group was from now on responsible for making sure that everyone speaks and feels listened to. The ‘Tiny Consensuses’ were read out in plenum and we moved to an open forum on how to integrate the bidding teams into our discussions.

13

14

15

Day 2: The moderators met with the bidding teams to discuss how they would feel most comfortable with being integrated into the discussions and being asked questions by the plenum.

Following this, we regrouped in the tent (without the bidding teams), this time in a more inclusive circle formation. The moderators read out a summary of each of the four proposals based on the feedback from the previous day’s ‘Tiny Consensuses’.

16

15 minutes were allocated to write down anything people felt was missing from the summaries, incorrect or should be clarified.

The microphone was passed around the circle, allowing everyone to share their thoughts.

An open-forum discussion followed on the specific questions to be posed to the bidding teams. After spiralling into divergent opinions, we managed to settle on inviting each team to answer three general questions and one specific question.

After dinner, the teams were invited in one by one and had an unlimited amount of time after every question to consult each other and agree on an answer. The discussion was then picked up focusing on this input: had anyone changed their mind based on the teams’ answers? If so, why? first prioritising the new NCs and people who were attending the INCM for the first time.

The first mapping round came about after this discussion. The moderators read out the name of each proposal, asking people to wave in support or in agreement, allowing us to visually map what proposal the room was leaning towards - there was a clear majority for EASA Reality. However, the plenum was asked again if someone felt their argument hadn’t been properly heard, understood and/or considered. The scond mapping round following these clarifications also showed a clear majority support for EASA Reality.

The moderators ask if everyone can support EASA Reality 2021, even if it is not their favourite proposal. Consensus is reached on this at 02:30am.

17

What challenges did we face?

18

Mixing tactical and strategic tasks.

Asking for specific, tactical questions to a large audience

And how did we overcome them?

Understanding the exponential nature of communication channels to avoid ‘crossed wires’ in group discussions and the ‘never ending questions’ syndrome. Not asking a large group to come up with tactical solutions.

19

Navigating hidden geometries of power in unstructured, supermassive group conversations 20

Eliminating potential for gaming the consensus by reducing the number of free-flowing open forum conversations

21

22

Moderators receiving different feedback and information, resulting in disagreements about our success and how to most effectively proceed.

Placing a moderator’s feedback box at the info point, so all moderators can recieve the same feedback first-hand (we didn’t do this, but we should have)

23

24

25

INCM 2020... ...will be Just INCM, in Valga (Latvia).

The bidding proposals were INCM Symposium (Czech Republic) and Just INCM (Latvia).

Reaching Consensus Both teams presented their proposals in the morning, and like the EASA bidding discussion process, a couple of hours are allocated to personal reflection.

This time, the following speed dating session was focussed more on EASA’s future: Where do we want to go as EASA (a movement, network, community, on a philosophical level)?

The plenum was then randomly divided into groups of four to discuss each proposal separately, without specifying a preference. The groups where asked to write down, on two separate feedback cards: Where does this bid want to take EASA (as a movement, network, community, on a philosophical level)?

26

27

28

29

30

Both teams were invited in separately to hear each group of four’s interpretations of their bid, directly read out by the Tiny Moderators.

The team in question then had the opportunity to clarify or emphasise something they felt hadn’t been understood. This process went well; as each Tiny Moderator read out their own interpretations, we saved a lot of time usually spent on summarizing and amending the group’s overall opinions in plenum. This process also minimised misinterpretations and ideas lost in translation.

Following this, everyone was divided into new groups of four and asked to reach a Tiny Consensus on which bid they felt was taking us in the direction they feel is right at this moment in time. All groups reached Tiny Consensus on Just INCM, but before announcing the consensus, everyone was asked to regroup and write concrete feedback for each bidding team. This again saved us a lot of time and energy that would otherwise have been spent on editing and paraphrasing minutes in order to provide bidding teams with feedback. Teams were therefore able to recieve feedback the day after bidding discussions, instead of having to wait weeks or months.

Both bidding teams were called into the room. We learned from the announcement of EASA Reality that creating a ‘party’ out of the consensus is not an appropriate atmosphere for evoking a feeling of togetherness. When announcing Just EASA 2020, everyone stayed seated in a circle, holding hands, with eyes closed.

After announcing the chosen proposal, moderators described the discussion process to help both teams understand how we reached our decision, also allowing everyone to remain in the circle for a while to let the information sink in before spreading out to celebrate. This ended in a very successful party.

31

32

33

What challenges did we face?

Not delegating tasks such as feedback to whole community early on. Lateral content needs lateral moderation.

34

And how did we overcome them?

Avoiding structural inefficiences and single points of failure by sharding workload into focus groups, e.g. collecting feedback cards for all bidding teams

35

What topics did we discuss?

1. Fees and finances 2. Environmental Sustainability 3. Bidding process and structure of INCM 4. NC role 5. Visibility of EASA 6. EASA Forum 7. EASA Parallel Life / Expansion

36

How did we choose?

We started the day with the final report of INCM Impact Intact 2018, presented by Joonas representing the Finnish team!

During the previous discussions, moderators kept a list of topics that were repeatedly brought up. This list was combined with topics listed

by NCs in their application forms for INCM JATO. To establish priorities and amend the list, the plenum once again met in groups of four. The Tiny Moderators shared what they had discussed; mainly which topics should be addressed during this INCM and with what method of approach. A list of priorities was generated by identifying the most repeated topics and their described urgency.

After a long open forum discussion, moderators decided to focus on one topic for the evening, which was on top of the list: Fees and finances. It was agreed that this topic needed to be discussed during the event, with all NCs present. Groups of four were formed to research the topic, identify problems and generate proposals for how to solve them. Tiny Moderators shared the proposals.

We continued this as an open forum discussion until 03:30am, when we agreed to create a workgroup to continue the research throughout the following year. We agreed that it is necessary to include experts in the domain of this working group. Their methods should be based on research and expert input, based on which they should elaborate on different proposals to solve the discussed concerns about EASA’s economic sustainability.1 37

What did we agree on?

1. EASA Guide should be updated on sustainability (environmental, social and economic as three separate parts) 2. Fees should be revised 3. We must improve the EASA structure on a local level (NC role and local EASA community) 3. We support EASA Spring/Autumn/Winter Editions to expand the EASA framework and capacity 4. EASA website to be launched on 31.10.2019 5. We want to look into creating an EASA Publishing House 6. The bidding process and structure of INCM need to be revised 7. The creation of EASA Work Groups to continue researching chosen topics and propose solutions to the community 8. The work groups approach EASA as a voluntary organisation. If a position were to arise that may require a form of ‘payment’, this will be reviewed by the community in order to ensure it is fair, equitable and transparent

38

How did we decide?

Throughout the day, self-organised working groups were encouraged to discuss at least one of the agreed-upon topics and summarise their discussions in written form. At this point, the culture of discussion, moderation and debate allowed for this freedom to be very fruitful and productive. Gathering in the bar in the evening, we started by watching a film about INCM Continuity. Tiny Moderators then shared summaries of their discussions. The moderators dissolved their own function and joined in the discussion.

A list of workgroups were created to continue researching agreedupon topics, and develop proposals throughout the year by including experts and anyone in EASA showing interest, for how they can be tackled by the community: > Fees and Finances Workgroup > Sustainability Workgroup > European Architecture Students Office > EASA Publishing Group > EASA Website Workgroup Most, if not all, of these work groups exist as Facebook groups that anyone can find and join if interested in contributing. We have also created an overall ‘EASA Work Groups’ Facebook page that everyone is welcome to join.

39

What challenges did we face?

Feedback Forever 40

And how did we overcome them?

Tiny Moderators 41

42

43

44

45

Young Architects Declare There is no framework to drive significant change within the architectural profession in an interconnected way. This becomes evident when architects fail at mobilising around a cause as vast as climate change. The Young Architects Declare aimed to provide some kind of strategic base and network for the members of the EASA community to organise in order to stop climate catastrophe.

Setting up the agenda with Steve Tompkins, founder of ‘Architects Declare’, we agreed to create a ‘Young Architects Declare’; being a more radical and pan-European response to Architects Declare. At the time of publishing, this is being worked on (and needs your help as EASAians to be completed).

46

During the INCM: 1. We used speed dating to discuss definitions of sustainability.

Although for some countries this proved painfully boring and slow (many left), for others it was immensely useful and insightful as it allowed a genuine cultural exchange and provided an indicator of the total perspective on this subject.

2. After this we started a sense-making exercise2. We split into groups of four and began using a scenario planning technique called the ‘three arrows of time’3 in which we mapped three scenarios.

These were: - the forces that led us here.

- our milestones and things we are unlikely to deviate from.

- the weak signals of change in the future.

Once shared with everybody, we began to have a perceptual ‘upframing’4 enabling a process of ‘strategic reframing’. We begin to change our perception in relation to the vision of others, looking for intersections that might be insightful.

3. Finally, we grouped teams according to geographical area. People were asked to make a ‘declaration’. These are heavy statements of intent for the geographical area they were born, raised and/or study and live in. The process was intended to enable each geographical region to talk openly and honestly about carbon and climate change, and try to figure out how they might change themselves and their wider local community. Each declaration had an explicit command or motivation, but the delivery ranged from full poems to short direct comments like ‘Ban concrete forever’.

47

The reason for dividing this portion of the process by geography is simply because strategical approaches to combat the climate crisis must be contextually specific. Each country and region have their own existing plans of action, infrastructure, climate, building regulations and so forth. Responding to a specific context will increase the probability of successful change.

The process was made to catalyse a condition that could lead to more active change-making within the EASA community. Each group was asked to meet to carry out, enact, and change the fabric of their local area, beginning from what is local and immediate, and then linking into a network.

The pathway is littered with struggles and obstacles, however by linking efforts together change is possible. We are already seeing initial actions being taken towards decarbonising the profession of architecture from the EASA community, and this is influencing our local, student, and young architecture communities.

48

49

Thank you from the moderators.

This is not an end. All of this should continue.

Incredible INCM. Best of times worst of times. <3 Final words of INCM JATO Minutes, 13.10.2019

JATO

Endnotes 1 Detailed in the INCM JATO Final Report Conclusions booklet 2 Sensemaking or sense-making is the process by which people

give meaning to their collective experiences. It has been defined

as â&#x20AC;&#x153;the ongoing retrospective development of plausible images

that rationalize what people are doingâ&#x20AC;?. (Wikipedia). The concept

was introduced by Karl E. Weick in the 70s.

3 Strategic Reframing: The Oxford Scenario Planning Approach.

Rafael Ramirez, Angela Wilkinson. 2016.

4 Upframing as defined by The Oxford Scenario Planning Approach: A conscious process to reframe understanding at a

higher level of abstraction - a new order of logic - that sweeps

the wider context of the business landscape into mindfulness.