Innovation report ASK 2014 by EYP Ukraine

ask AGORA ON SECURITY KYIV INTERNATIONAL FORUM

EuropeanYouthParliamentUkraine

INNOVATION REPORT

GLOSSARY During ASK14 we approached various traditional formats of the European Youth Parliament (EYP) in a different way. To highlight and create awareness of the innovation, we decided to re-name some of the common terms we usually use. The reasoning will be explained later. For the moment and for better understanding, here are the key terms that we introduced.

character of ASK14, the position of head organisers was renamed project managers.

MODERATORS

FINAL REPORTS

The moderators had the task of facilitating the work of the participants. Their role is comparable to the ‘chairperson’ in standard EYP context.

Because of the lack of the ‘simulative character’ of the event, we asked the working groups to put their results into Final Reports instead of ‘resolutions’.

Media Team Coordinators and Members Instead of a team of journalists we had a Media Team. Thus, its members were led by their coordinators.

PROJECT MANAGERS Due to the complexity of the project and its different approach it was also essential that the team of organisers would approach the whole process in a different manner. To emphasise the professional

WORKING GROUPS Also because we had various participants without previous EYP experience, we had the chance to re-name ‘committees’ as working groups.

You can find the full Final Reports online here.

SYMPOSIUM The whole process culminated in two events that we called ‘Symposium’. Whilst they would be at the same position as the tradition ‘General Assembly’, both events had different formats on both days.

INTRODUCTION AND SESSION HISTORY After having successfully organised two International Sessions of the EYP in Kyiv in 2006 and in Lviv in 2010, EYP Ukraine was ready to take on a new challenge. Inspired by the success and positive experience of UEFA EURO 2012 Championship in Ukraine, the young and ambitious team of EYP Ukraine was determined to organise another International Session of the EYP in Ukraine, this time bringing it back to Kyiv.

According to the established procedure in EYP, bids to organise international sessions are submitted two years prior to the planned event. Therefore, in October 2012 a team of twenty Ukrainian EYPers began working for one month on the bid. A lot of effort, time and ideas were put into the final bid for the 77th International Session in Kyiv. After the bid was reviewed by the Governing Body of the EYP, it was voted as a winner and Kyiv was set to host the autumn International Session in 2014. In fact, the feedback provided on the bid by the GB stated that based on the high quality of the proposal submitted by EYP Ukraine, the criteria for selecting the bids had been reviewed and improved for all future International Session bids.

Throughout the year 2013 the Head Organisers of the upcoming International Session in Kyiv, together with a core team of organisers, worked hard to secure funding for the event. And they were successful. However, unforeseen events beyond their control put the organisation of an International Session of the EYP in Kyiv at risk. The popular uprising and protests in November 2013 - February 2014 in Ukraine followed by the aggression of Russia against Ukraine, occupation of Crimea and part of Donbass region were a major threat to the security of the participants of the event. After long negotiations a decision was made by the GB in April 2014 to cancel the 77th International Session in Kyiv. The

risk of involving young people, particularly minors, in an international event in a country with an ongoing military conflict was too high. However, taking into account that the situation in Kyiv remained calm after February 2014 and especially the enormous efforts of the organising team put into securing funding for the session, a decision was made to conduct an EYP event of a different format in Kyiv in November 2014. Those involved in making this decision agreed that holding an international EYP event for young people promoting democracy, European values and cooperation was especially important in the view of continued aggression against Ukraine and the undermining of its European aspirations. It was decided that a special event focusing on security would take place and involve

participants above the age of 18. Once the International Office of the EYP guaranteed its support for the event, the Project Managers and President of the event were confirmed, team leaders of the organising team selected, and at the beginning of July 2014 the actual organisation process began. Thus, in only four months between July and October 2014 a team of young and motivated individuals from across Europe managed to develop the unique concept of the Agora on Security Kyiv, secure venues and organise all the logistics behind a large-scale international event of the European Youth Parliament. Despite the risks and threats the event organisers were facing, many international participants came to Kyiv to attend the event, which in the end became a benchmark event not only for EYP Ukraine, but for the organisation as a whole.

DEVELOPING THE CONCEPT BEHIND ASK FORMATS AND FINAL PRODUCT The standard format of EYP has, over 25 years, been modified and condensed to a very successful method for combining both learning about formal political structures and political education of the participants, through developing and discussing their own opinions. Yet, due to the massive outreach of the EYP in breadth and depth, the format usually used is very formalised. Starting from the methods of structuring committee work, up to phrasing the resolutions and the format of the general assemblies - this format can easily be exported to different contexts. From 10 day long events up to ‘EYP in a nutshell’ - its strength is that one doesn’t need much ‘to do EYP’. However, the traditional format is clearly designed for a process of consent, originating from its tradition of simulating ‘real’ parliamentary work. Whilst this might in parts be realistic and thus a good learning tool, it also results in good and innovative ideas being dropped because the group couldn’t agree upon implementation, or would simply run out of time to develop it further. This is a pity. Additionally, during the traditional roadmap, participants of different ‘committees’ would only meet during the end of the event at the ‘general assemblies’ (apart from during social gatherings).

We believe, however, that most of the participants are very smart and able to contribute to other topics during the process (also some might have ended up in a ‘committee’ that wasn’t their favourite choice), and also that in today’s world, most topics are interlinked by nature and thus a clear-cut separation of them isn’t easy, or even possible. Therefore we tried to develop formats that would allow much more interaction, exchange of knowledge and opinions during the process of group work. In addition, we decided to create a format for the ‘resolutions’, which we would name ‘final reports’, that reflected the diversity and depth of the whole group work. Both these aspects, the events and format of the final reports, will be explained in the following chapters.

KNOWLEDGE SHARING, FLAT HIERARCHY AND EMPOWERMENT With the different approach to the format of the event we also saw the necessity and chance to develop a different spirit. Our basic presupposition was that participants come with a huge interest in various topics and a need for collaboration. From personal experience with open space formats we were convinced that everybody can and wants to

contribute to a bigger picture - and everybody is equal. When approaching the participants, prior to the event and at the introduction, we explained our concept and emphasised our approach. Alongside this we described a ‚roadmap of idea development‘. All the separate modules of the programme were designed to lead to an interconnection with the other participants. The design of the different

modules, such as Barcamp and World Café, will be described later in this document. As said, EYP usually comes with a strong structure to ensure a flawless implementation in pretty much every setting. But to work on the ‚soft facts‘ alongside the ‚hard facts‘ the interaction with and among the participants had to be put in focus. Here the moderators were in the key role, being the officials closest to the participants, breaking a certain paradigm. We refrained from formal hierarchies within the team of moderators, trying to find a spot for everyone to feel comfortable. This would result in different implementations in terms of topic creation and team management (more detailed descriptions later on). The whole idea was to create an atmosphere of empowerment and ownership of all participants towards the project. Therefore it was essential to create acceptance for the different approach when creating a final topic.

DEVELOPING TOPICS In the light of the developed guidelines for ASK it was clear that the creation of the issues and topics to be discussed during the working groups would need to have a different approach. Firstly, due to the extraordinary nature of the

event, it was not clear who would be responsible for creating the event. Although ASK was somewhat a replacement event for an International Session, the Governing Body of EYP would not provide the topics. Also the International Office, who would usually give a lot of input to such special events, gave the organisers free hand in creating the topics - still providing assistance if required and also representing the interests of sponsors.

Secondly, both the organising team and the president realised that a simple list of topics that would be on the political agenda at the moment would not be sufficient for the initial idea of the event. As the concept of the event was based on the understanding that ‘security’ is a complex and interconnected field, the different topics would have obvious (and sometimes not so obvious) interconnections. Therefore it was decided to rename them ‘dimensions’ to underline that their character was more of a ‘perspective’ than a distinct topic. Besides certain topics and inputs that were given by external partners and sponsors, and would thus shape some of the dimensions, the project managers and the president brainstormed a certain list of dimensions that they would like to see discussed. But instead of going on and developing a set of well-phrased topics, just some notes and ideas were set. For the next step we followed the ‘empowerment’ idea of the event and included the already-selected moderators for the dimensions. Equipped with the list of dimensions and their inspiration, they were asked to get a general overview of the dimension, analysing current threats and issues and develop a question that they would like to work on with their working group. The final steps of developing these topics was done during the Preparation Meeting, held in Berlin from 19th to 21st of September 2014.

Luckily there was a member of the Council for Academy Quality present during this weekend who would assist in phrasing the topics and giving them an interesting spin. However, what became clear is that the answer to what makes a ‘good topic’ in EYP is hard to answer. As the wish of the moderators was to develop formulations that would not be too broad, yet still allow for systemic and complex discussions, we quickly began deconstructing what such a topic would look like. It seems that mostly the creation of topics within the EYP context is done through an implicit procedure, by people “who have a feeling for it”. After phrasing by the moderators the proposals were sent to the office and at that point we realised that their understanding was different to what we developed. Also, in cooperation with external partners there were difficulties in matching their expectations with ours. Yet we were very thankful for their support and input, e.g. the cooperation with UNDP was very deep and fruitful.

INNOVATIVE EVENTS Although we had the traditional setting of a working group, we included three types of events that would stir up the discussions, give participants the chance to exchange their ideas with people outside of their working group, and additionally get new and fresh ideas.

Right after we had teambuilding on the first day, we started hosting morning lectures almost every morning. In the evening of the second day, we invited the participants to a barcamp and the morning of the fourth day was filled with a huge world café.

AGORA ASSEMBLY Usually an EYP event would officially start with an Opening Ceremony. During this event, hosted at a prestigious venue, notable figures and guests are invited and several speeches are given to set the scene. However, due to its rather formal character, these Opening Ceremonies are usually scheduled for a later point of the day, resulting in a cut of methodology for the participants. During ASK we still decided to have an Opening Ceremony and we are grateful that we were able to invite many partners from Ukraine and abroad. Yet, we decided to reduce the Opening to its purely festive character and separate the introductory part. Instead, the first event the participants attended what we called ‘Agora Assembly’. We borrow the term agora, both for this event and the whole conference, from the ancient Greek setting, where all citizens would meet and discuss - which we found to be quite a suitable term. We used the chance to gather the participants randomly, before being actually divided in groups, and introduced them to several key people of the event. Additionally we held a short presentation that would show the path that the concept of the event would follow and that we would be asking the participants

to walk for the next few days. They were introduced to the ideas of ‘rethinking security’ and ‘hacking old paradigms’. The different elements and their interaction were explained. This way, we met the participants where they were at the moment and also made onboarding for participants without an EYP-background quite smooth. We ended the element with a teambuilding activity including everyone and the chance to meet as many different people possible, before departing into the working groups.

MORNING LECTURES Morning lectures were a voluntary activity taking place during breakfast. Alongside the work in groups, it allowed further expansion of knowledge and insights into topics that were not directly related to the ones covered in the working groups. ASK morning lectures lasted one hour and featured ex-

perts on security and related fields. Moderators and other officials were also invited to give a lecture. We invited speakers who had both expertise in the topic and excellent public speaking skills to catch people’s attention and set the energy level high for the whole day. The organising team brainstormed a list of dream speakers and started contacting them two months prior the event. We strived to have a full room of well-informed and responsive listeners. That’s why before ASK we launched a small PR campaign on social networks providing additional information about our speakers and their topics. We wanted to make ASK as open and inclusive as possible, that’s why we created a special registration for non-ASK participants who wanted to attend morning lectures. We spread information about morning lectures among Kyiv universities, mailing lists of Ukrainian NGOs, exchange and educational programs. We kept track of registered external participants via Google forms and sent them a reminder one day prior the event and set a small registration table at the entrance to the morning lectures

venue at the day of the event. As a result we ended up with approx. 15 external participants per each lecture (approx. 30 people in total), providing them with an opportunity to get valuable insights on security topic and get a glimpse of what EYP is about. The morning lectures, given by Roman Zinchenko (“The Paternalism Challenge: How paternalistic policy undermines energy security and how to break the toxic cycle”) and Vasyl Myroshnychenko (“The role of information in the hybrid war, the Kremlin’s myths and what is being done to deal with the massive disinformation spread by Russia - Ukraine Crisis Media Center case study”), turned out to be a huge success. Instead of the expected 40 participants per event we had around 60, with a lot of interest from external participants.

BAR CAMP A Barcamp is an ‘unconference’ that offers a peer-to-peer format, where each participant can host and run a workshop. The content of the event is provided by the participants in accordance with their experience and interests. Main organisational points included finding a comfortable venue, creating online and offline participation forms and choosing speakers from those that applied. ASK experience proved that it is good to have some additional speakers, who will be able to give a presentation if someone refuses. During the preparation we found it very helpful to communicate the topics to the participants before the Bar Camp, to significantly reduce their doubts about the

topic. All the presentations and discussions were divided into two shifts and lasted for 45 minutes, with every topic/speaker having an assigned room. In order to make it more comfortable for participants and speakers, it was very convenient to have one organiser

in each room to remind about the time and help the participants, if needed. But the most interesting thing in Bar Camp is that participants can change the room at any time and listen to the topics interesting for them. In general, Bar Camp at ASK was a great success, participants really enjoyed listening to the speakers and speakers perfectly used the opportunity to tell others about issues that interested them and hear valuable feedback.

WORLD CAFE A world café is a structured conversational process in which groups of people discuss different topics at thematic tables, with individuals switching tables periodically and getting introduced to the previous discussion at their new table by a „table host“. The world café method has been used in EYP before at several occasions, and for ASK it suited the concept well.

We were able to host the world café in a huge hall with seven different tables. For each table we invited an expert on a topic that would be connected to one of the dimensions or the overarching general theme of security. The experts ranged from the UNDP, who gave interesting inputs on HIV prevention in Ukraine, up to journalists, explaining the usage of weaponry systems in standing military conflicts. The structure of the World Café did fit our idea of knowledge sharing and interconnection very well. Although the external experts were roughly connected to some of the dimensions, all participants were distributed according to a complex algorithm to the different tables, so we wouldn’t have a pooling situation where all group members would be at a table together. The idea was to both exchange with

the other people about the topics but to get new input as well. To ensure good discussions, each of the tables was hosted by one of the moderators, who would make sure that the talks are facilitated and that notes are taken. Additionally there was a general moderator who would moderate the World Café with a microphone and keep track of time. After a short introduction from the expert, the participants had the chance to ask questions that they prepared beforehand, particularly emphasising a connection to their topic. The moderators made sure that connections to the dimensions were made. At the end of the 30 mins discussions, the participants at the tables were asked to note down their findings and thoughts on a paper tablecloth, if they hadn’t done so beforehand. As the round came to an end, the participants were asked to find their spot at another table. Each participant had three tables assigned, for which they were able to hand in preferences upon arrival to ASK. When the second round started, the hosts

were asked to recap the previous discussion with the help of the notes on the paper. Although the experts would give a comparable introduction, the following discussions would build upon the previous ones, thus creating content and thoughts further. By taking notes, also this round was able to leave some inspiration for the upcoming third round. In general we were able to organise a very professional module that was highly appreciated by the participants. The most crucial point are the experts, which turned out to be very tricky. But also the flow and methodology of the event has to be designed wisely in order to create sense and ensure a fruitful experience for all participants.

FORMAT INNOVATION FORMAT OF THE FINAL REPORTS The core idea behind ASK was to make the academic part more “discussion oriented, rather than result oriented”. To reach this, goal several innovations were introduced. First of all the final outcome was designed to be more informative, so that it would depict a discussion process. Therefore, it was decided that the Final Report should be longer than a standard resolution booklet and to be up to 5 pages long. The report comprised of four parts: Introduction, Topic Analysis, AVIS and Annex. Secondly, the report attempted to represent the whole complexity of the problem discussed by a group. The Topic Analysis depicted the different aspects of problem and its complexity. It also reflected the thinking process of a group and explained what areas they focused on, for example why the group considered an issue important to discuss or why they couldn’t reach a consensus over it.

tion. Instead the moderators were the main actors who were responsible for documenting the discussion flow. The drafting of the final report started after the first day of discussions in the working groups. The progress of each groups was monitored in a shared document folder. Since the document that the team wanted to produce was text based, rather than bullet point based, like a resolution, the team decided to split the typing session into two parts. The first draft was done before Symposium I, and it was communicated to the participants that this is only a draft, which they would work on additionally after Symposium I. The final document was completed before Symposium II, after participants had the chance to add information and comments they had gathered during Symposium I and World Cafe. The goal of splitting the typing sessions was initially to distribute the huge workload into two parts, but the input participants had after Symposium I and World Cafe was also significant for some Working Groups.

CHANGE OF PROCEDURE FOR SYMPOSIUM ASK provided a unique opportunity to create an environment for knowledge sharing. In order to enrich the discussions and the final report, we split the final gathering into two parts. Symposium #1, held the day before the Symposium #2, allowed us to bring various perspectives from different dimensions into the discussions of a particular topic/dimension. Symposium #1 was planned to be held in a discussion-friendly environment that would allow the sharing of expertise among the participants. The structure of Symposium #1 was as follows. One by one, working groups presented their work through presentations (10 minutes), which were then followed by 2-3 rounds of roundtable discussions.

Thirdly, as the Topic Analysis described the complexity of a problem, it was acknowledged that for some areas, it was not possible to propose any realistic solution. That is why participants were encouraged to come up with AVIS, which would represent an outcome of the working group and would include recommendations, actions and conclusions. Fourthly, the participants were not responsible for creating a very structured text of EYP-type resolu-

After discussing every topic/dimension, the participants were given time to freely approach another dimension, ask further questions, gain more clarity or make further suggestions. Also they were then given an additional time slot to further develop new or old ideas and to make amendments in their final text. Symposium #2, at the final day of the conference, was more a typical version of General Assembly of EYP. However, another innovation we brought in was that the working groups were given time for final amendments into the Report after Symposium 2.

INVOLVEMENT OF NON-EYP PARTICIPANTS EYP Ukraine decided to extend the pool of applicants, to give the opportunity to participate in our event not solely to EYP members. Thus we are happy to share with you that out of 131 youngsters participating in the event, 49% of the participants came from outside the EYP world, including several members of the MOM (moderators (1), organisers (1), media team (1)). However, the biggest number of non-EYP persons was amongst the participants. The call for participants was spread via several channels of the EYP Office in Berlin and EYP-Ukraine. For example, in Ukraine the participants were reached through the newsletters of several organizations (The European Union Delegation to Ukraine, Mykolaiv Window on America club, Studrespublika, Global UGRAD participants, CUPP, FLEX, NGO G20 Summit, etc.) as well as through advertisements in several universities throughout Ukraine. The European non-EYPers were reached through the contacts with several organizations (e.i. AEGEE, Study tours program, etc). We are really proud to have had such a diverse audience taking part in our event. We have also noticed that non-EYPers enjoyed the event and were eager to know what EYP is about and to join their respective NCs. It also forced us to shift our mindsets in order to create a better onboarding atmosphere, thus explaining the idea and concept of ASK and EYP in general. All the participants were approached in different ways throughout Agora. First of all, to ensure a high academic quality of discussions and debates, we selected mature participants (18+), who not only had a strong motivation to participate in Agora, but also had a good knowledge/expertise and experience of security topics. In the light of our empowerment approach we also deviated from the usual approach of participant management. We decided to have no wake-up calls and most of the time did not organise shifts to the venues. As the main venues within walking distance, most participants were able to memorize their way by the first day. The sum of delayed or absent participants was surprisingly comparable to other EYP events, yet a big amount of work and stress was taken away from the organising team.

SOCIAL IMPACT OF THE EVENT As we were striving to share innovative academic approaches of the event with the wider audience, we were open to inviting the local youth to participate in several academic discussions and cultural events. All those willing to participate were welcome to simply register and come listen to a morning lecture or see the talents of the participants at the Euroconcert. Furthermore, one of the working groups was dealing with HIV/AIDS policies thus we cooperated closely with UNDP, who initially suggested the topic and the involvement of a local HIV positive community. This collaboration resulted in HIV positive teenagers giving an insight to their lives at the Barcamp, which was mutually beneficial and extremely useful for both the teenagers and ASK participants. Agora on Security Kyiv 2014 was well covered by the Ukrainian media. Highly influential TV channels, as well as news agencies, visited the official events of the project. Interestingly, one of the channels, First National TV Channel of Ukraine, has even invited us to deliver the results of our forum in their studio. As a result, one episode of the TV show â&#x20AC;&#x153;Teleakademiaâ&#x20AC;? was fully devoted to ASKyiv 2014. Project participants and organisers had a chance to share their impressions and discuss outcomes of the event in order to motivate youth all over the country to get involved in active citizenship, to care about global issues and to inspire youngsters to change their mindsets.

their hierarchical role.

ADAPTED TEAM MANAGEMENT The team structure at ASK did not follow the usual EYP team structure. Martin Hoffmann did assume the function of â&#x20AC;&#x153;presidentâ&#x20AC;? of the event for all external purposes, but the moderators team did not adopt the traditional EYP president/vice presidents/ chairs hierarchy internally. The basic principles of the ASK concept were empowerment, ownership and knowledge sharing, so the team structure and management were organised according to these principles. This was done in the hope that if the moderators team adopted these ideas as the basis of their work, it will be easier to transfer them to the participants. Internally, Martin assumed more the role of a facilitator and trainer, rather than the leader of the moderators team. The moderators team devoted a large part of their training prior to the event to develop and clarify the new events that were introduced and to define the structure and format of the Final Report itself. After that process was finished, there was a team consensus about the desired outcome of these new events. Having established the actual desired outcome of the events, it was easier for the individual members to be flexible, both with their working methods and time schedule within their working groups. Along with a virtually horizontal, equality-promoting team structure, the involvement of the moderators team into defining the elements of the event itself greatly increased the sense of ownership of the event. This produced a strong sense of responsibility and created a working environment with an impressively high work ethic (no significant time delays, no personal conflicts, quick exchange of important information). This productive environment was possible because each team member was accountable to all other team members to give their best to achieve the agreedupon goals, rather than each of them being responsible to just one or two people (president and/or vice-president) higher up in the traditional hierarchy. The absence of a formal hierarchy inside the team had other beneficial effects. It allowed the team members to assume the role inside the team that best fit their skill set and personality, thus eliminating the competitive tensions that arise at traditional sessions when team members do not limit themselves strictly to the prescribed duties associated with

The working structure of the team revolved around short daily meetings, with strict rules agreed upon during the training before the event. Since the team had a number of experienced EYPers, the idea was to make the meetings as time efficient as possible. At the team meeting, team members would only ask for help on actual issues that they believed only the whole group could help to resolve. There was no sharing about daily experiences or repetitive reports on individual progress. It was acceptable not to share anything if the team member was confident that his or hers progress was going fine. Long and/ or circular discussions were avoided and transferred to smaller groups inside the team comprised of

individuals that felt they were interested or could have a valuable input, to be resolved at a time convenient for the members of the smaller groups. Each member of the team was encouraged to draw attention to a violation of any of the previously mentioned rules. This kept the meetings efficient and short. A small part of the meetings was devoted to important organisational instructions, but communication about organisational issues was mostly done in various chat groups since the team had the benefit of having access to wi-fi at almost all times during the event. Longer talks about progress and the general emotional state of team members were done in buddy groups of two people, with the same pairings used throughout the whole event. The schedule and duration of these meetings was decided by the pair, with the rule of having at least one meeting per day.

GAINED ATTENTION GUESTS

ASK IN THE MEDIA

In Kyiv we have seen how the desire for democracy can move mountains. The German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier sent a welcoming message to the participants of the International Forum of the European Youth Parliament on International Security in Kyiv.

ASK participants, moderators and organisers were invited to take part in the ASK-dedicated episode at the TV show “Teleakademia” by the First National TV Channel of Ukraine.

ASK14 was visited by a number of international guests: •

Jan Tombinski – Ambassador, European Union Delegation to Ukraine

•

Jean-Christophe Bass - Director of Democratic Citizenship and Participation, Council of Europe

•

Gabriele Baumann - Head of the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung in Ukraine

•

Ievhen Poltenko - Executive director, Charity foundation “Open Hearts of Ukraine”

•

Malkin Oleg - Chairman of the Board, Charity foundation “Open Hearts of Ukraine”

•

André Schmitz-Schwarzkopf – Chairman, Schwarzkopf Foundation

•

Anne Rolvering - Director, Schwarzkopf Foundation

•

Krista Simberg - Executive Director, European Youth Parliament

•

Rana Deep Islam - Project Manager, Stiftung Mercator

Agora on Security Kyiv 2014 was well covered by the Ukrainian media. Highly influential TV channels, as well as news agencies, visited the official events of the project. Below is an episode from ASK by Ukraine Today - the Ukrainian TV Channel, broadcasting in English.

SUCCESS STORIES AND LESSONS LEARNED MORNING LECTURES

BARCAMP

•

Have a long list of backup options and ask for recommendations of other possible speakers from experts who can’t make it to the lecture themselves.

•

Prepare nice visuals (it can be a speaker’s picture with the topic or catchy quote). Make it go viral via official FB page, organisers’ personal accounts and participants’ closed group.

•

Our initial plan was to have morning lectures in the hotel, next to the breakfast area. Unfortunately it didn’t work,

•

Find a venue where all the participants can be split into 5 separate groups (in separate rooms)

Before the event •

Make participation forms, which include: name, topic, brief outline of presentation, materials needed (flipcharts, markers, projectors etc.).

•

Communicate these forms and concept of the event to participants before the session/forum and choose 10 most interesting speakers. Tip: it is good to have some additional speakers, who will be able to give a presentation if someone refuses. One day prior to the Barcamp all the speakers are to be contacted one more time.

•

In each room 2 presentations were held in shifts: 45 minutes (1st presentation with discussion) – 15 minutes (break) – 45 minutes (2nd presentation with discussion) It is very convenient to allocate one person to each room (this person prepares

Book the venue as close to participants’ accommodation as possible, ideally it should be the same venue. Make sure the room is well-ventilated and has water / tea / coffee supply, this way you’ll decrease the number of sleepy participants.

the room for each speaker and makes sure that everything is going well) Tip: timing is very important, so

The event itself

Create a map/booklet of the event, so that the participants could easily find their topics and group locations. Prepare certificates for speakers

therefore that’s why we had morning lectures in the working groups venue (approx. 10 min walk from the hotel). We booked a room for 40 people with projector and cooler but had around 60 participants in the end.

in is very convenient to have time placards (15min, 10min, 5min) and remind the speaker about time with their help. •

Participants can change their room at any time

WORLD CAFÉ

sely informed of the event’s concept, timing and essence. Let them know that they should not give a long presentation; it should be a short, introductory speech. It is important that participants ask questions and discuss the topic, instead of experts giving speeches.

Preparation •

•

You need a pretty big room/ hall for holding World cafe. Each of 7/9 tables should have enough space for at least 15 chairs (10-13 participants + moderator + expert) + extra space for participants moving around when switching tables.

Experts should be contacted far in advance. Inform experts about the main topic of the forum and ask them to provide topics they would like to bring up. However, it is difficult to have the final list of experts beforehand because of plans not being set up and also because of plans changing. Therefore it can be difficult to allocate participants to tables in advance and prepare the necessary printing.

•

It is a good idea to find out experts’ availability before appointing the date for the event.

•

Experts should be preci-

•

ticipants that it is not 100% guaranteed that they will get all three topics they have chosen. •

Remind experts of the event, its venue and time one or

two days beforehand. Answer their questions if they have any. Ask whether they need to print out anything in advance. •

•

Prepare and send a list of topics that will be delivered by the experts to participants (together with explanation of the world café concept) and let them choose 3 preferred topics. Allocate participants to the 3 tables (one table per each round) according to their choices. Keep in mind that some topics may be more popular and can be chosen by more participants than others. It is a good idea to warn par-

It is good to have a person with a mathematical mindset in your team to analyse all participant’s selection and try to allocate all the participants in the way that for every of three rounds you have approximately the

same amount of people at each of the tables. Keep in mind that you need to mix people for every round at all tables. It would not be good if the same people kept meeting at different tables in different rounds. •

Printing: Here is a list of printing you will likely need for the event: list of participants (5 copies) for registration (participants divided according to surnames into 4 groups); registration tables tags, e.g. (A - F) (G - M) (N - S) (T - Z); directions tags (arrows); World cafe programmes/booklet (with rules, topics, experts, map of

rules.

tables); badges or cards for participants with colourful stickers arranged by colours in the order of rounds (e.g. 1st round - table C, 2nd round - table A, 3rd round table D); table colors or/and names: table A (green), table B (red), table C (blue) etc.; topics for every table; experts’ names tags; thank you certificates for experts.

•

World Cafe Programme consists of such elements as Introduction - 10 mins (includes welcoming word and short instructions/rules); First round - 30 mins (5-7 minutes of expert’s speech, 23-25 minutes for participants’ questions and discussion); Tables switch - 5 mins; Second round - 30 mins; Tables switch - 5 mins; Third round - 30 mins; Conclusion - 5 mins. Stationery and tables preparation: Step 1. Prepare a mic, a projector, a screen, speakers and a laptop for introductory presentation of world café

Experts - Meet experts when they arrive and show them the table appointed for each of them. Tip: It is a good idea to ask experts to arrive 15 mins early. Some of them may still be late. You may consider starting without some of them.

•

Moderators + main moderator - Main moderator is responsible for explaining rules of the event, time management & working process. Table moderators need to be informed in advance of the event’s structure and the tables they will moderate. Provide them with the information about experts beforehand.

•

It is a good idea to give moderators a chance to talk to experts before World Cafe starts. FYI: Each round builds upon the previous round. Therefore, before round 2 & 3, give the participants time read the previous points and comment on them.

•

Organisers - There should be 3-5 organisers around the room who would observe that all the participants change tables after each round.

•

Some participants may try to cheat and stay at the same table. Try to check this, since you don’t want one table to have 20 participants and the other one 10. Avoid chaos. Have one organiser observing that there are water and cups at all the tables.

Step 2. Download a gong sound as a signal of the end of each round in advance. Step 3. Put paper cloth/flipcharts, markers, pens, postits, experts’ name tags, and topic titles on the tables. Step 4. Set up table numbers/ letters (A,B,C...) next to the each table, so that you can see it from a distance. Step 5. Arrange bottles of water and cups on the tables.

World Café Event Itself •

•

Registration - Consider having around 30 minutes for registration. To make it go faster, divide all the participants alphabetical according to surnames (e.g., A-F, G-M etc.). You will need 3-4 organisers sitting at the registration desk. Organisers at the registration desk should give every person registered a card with table allocations and a programme with experts’ information, topics and table map. In addition, organisers should give a quick insight on the information in the programme booklet (how to find a table etc).

FINAL REPORTS •

As, when compared to other EYP events, the moderators bear a greater responsibility for creating the longer reports, it would be more convenient to have a special time slot for the moderators to create the document.

AGORA SYMPOSIUM •

It is important to note that in order to create a discussion-friendly environment among the large number of participants, it is crucial to have a suitable venue. For this reason, based on expe-

picture credits

rience from ASK, we would recommend a more informal working environment (for example no official dress-code required and a less formal venue). •

a parliamentary seating we decided to build ‘dimension islands’ with round tables for each working group. Thus the seating and atmosphere became less formal and more interactive within the working groups.

Also the setting for both events is crucial. Instead of

Amy Campo McEvoy

Maria Shcherbak

3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16 (2)

Lina Tarashevska

Valentina Semenikhina

15, 16 (1)

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

November 3

November 4

November 5

7:00-9:00

9:15-10:00

Breakfast | Hotel RUS Transfer to NSC Agora Opening | NSC

10:00-11:30

Teambuilding | NSC

11:30-11:45

8:00-9:00 9:00-9:15

11:45-13:30 13:30-14:30 14:30-17:00 17:00-17:15 17:15-17:30 18:30-19:00 19:00-22:00

Breakfast | Hotel RUS Transfers to NSC

7:00-9:00

8:15-9:15

Morning lecture | NSC

8:15-9:15

Morning lecture | NSC

9:15-11:30

Work in groups | NSC

9:15-11:30

Work in groups | NSC

11:30-11:45

17:00-17:15

18:00-19:00

Transfer to Restaurant Trypillia

19:00-23:00

Ukrainian Night |

8:00-8:15 9:00-9:15

Diplomatic Academy

20:00-23:00

NSC – National Sport Complex «Olimpiyskyi» KNU – Kyiv National University RUS – Hotel RUS

Hotel RUS

Eurovillage | Hotel RUS

8:00-8:15 9:00-9:15

11:45-13:15 13:15-14:15 14:15-15:30 15:30-15:45 15:45-17:00

Breakfast | Hotel RUS Transfers to NSC

Restaurant Trypillia

Thursday

Friday

Saturday

November 6

November 7

November 8

9:15-9:30

Breakfast | Hotel RUS Transfer to President Hotel

10:00-12:00

World Café | President

12:00-12:30

Coffee break | President

12:30-14:00

Work in groups |

14:00-15:00

Lunch | President Hotel

12:45-14:15

Agora symposium | NSC

13:30-14:30

Lunch | MIM

15:00-16:30

Work in groups |

14:15-15:15

Lunch | NSC

14:30-16:00

Agora Symposium |

16:30-16:45

Coffee break | President

15:15-16:45

Agora symposium | NSC

16:00-16:30

Coffee Break | MIM

16:45-17:45

Work in groups |

16:45-17:00

Coffee break | NSC

16:30-19:15

Agora Symposium |

17:00-19:30

20:00-21:00

Work in groups | NSC Transfer Dinner

19:15-20:00

19:00-20:00

Transfer to Hotel RUS Transfer to KNU Dinner | KNU

20:00-22:00

Euroconcert | KNU

21:00-23:00

Optional Night City Tour

21:30…

7:00-9:15

17:45-18:00 18:30-19:00

Hotel

Breakfast | Hotel RUS Transfers to NSC

7:00-9:00 9:00-9:30

Breakfast | Hotel RUS Transfer

9:00-10:00

Morning lecture | NSC

10:00-11:30

Agora Symposium |

10:00-12:30

Press Conference Agora Symposium | NSC

11:30-12:00

Coffee Break | MIM

12:30-12:45

Coffee break | NSC

12:00-13:30

Agora Symposium |

7:00-9:30 8:45-9:00 9:45-10:00

Hotel President Hotel

President Hotel Hotel President Hotel

19:30-20:00

20:00-20:30 21:00-21:30

MIM

Dinner | MIM Transfer to Hotel RUS Transfer to ArtPrichal Farewell Party | ArtPrichal

OUR PARTNERS