community partner project
TEAM MEMBERS
Adriana Reese Katelyn Kaiser Vanessa Van Den Elzen Report designed by Katelyn Kaiser
INCLUDED IN REPORT:
Project Scope Team Members History and Progress Meetings and Communications Analysis and Partner Statement Artifacts and Deliverables
3
project scope.
INITIAL SCOPE OF THE PROJECT
COMMUNITY PARTNERS
On April 11, 2019, the Wisconsin Institute for public Policy and Service (WIPPS), will host a conference on Inclusivity in Wisconsin’s civic life (Toward One Wisconsin Conference in 2019: Overcoming Barriers to Inclusion). They are interested in the idea of a digital video/art exhibit at conference (held in Milwaukee,WI for one day).
Wisocnsin Institute for Public Policy and Service (WIPPS) contacts: Eric Giordano- main contact Sharon Hunter- head organizer of conference Anne Katz-Who knows
“This conference will bring together citizens and organizations from multiple sectors across Wisconsin to discover innovative efforts to overcome barriers to job entry, create unite communities that welcome all residents, embrace a healthy climate for youth in our schools and neighborhoods, and promote health equity initiatives across Wisconsin.”
WHOVA Marcus Flores- App developer Carmel McAndrews-App developer
A student team is asked to develop the concept for the exhibition, plan the call for proposals, identify a process of selecting work, develop a marketing plan for the exhibition, assist in organizing and implementing the physical exhibition space, and potentially manage the exhibition environment. A digital catalogue or other collateral materials might become part of this work.
Deb Dorshorst-marketing team Laura Hunt- marketing team
JURORS Alex Ingersoll-Communications professor Sylf A. Bstamante-Staff member for FSGSA Jordan Innes-Independent filmmaker
PROJECT CONCEPT The design contest and exhibition will be called IN TOTO, which means “as a whole.” I is an interesting enough word that still realtes inclusivity and will catch students’ attention. Along with this we prompt the question, “What does inclusivity mean to you?” This will give students some direction, but still allowing them to interpret the prompt in any way they decide to.
5
team members.
MEMBERS
Adriana Reese Katelyn Kaiser Vanessa Van Den Elzen Jaana Paske
ROLES Adriana was the team’s communicator and handled all the emails between the community partner and the team, as well as other contacts that needed to be talked to or met with (Jurors). She was responsible for getting them the materials they needed on time, as well as setting up meeting times and making sure everything stayed on track. She assisted in copyrighting and gave her input on the design work, and helped communicate our ideas to the community partner in meetings.
Vanessa was the team’s designer and handled all of the promotional materials that we needed to get out to the community partner. She was responsible for putting together the poster and email promotional items that we sent out to the high school’s across Wisconsin, as well as converting that information into social media graphics. She helped to keep our project within the scope and making sure we were upfront with what were doing with the community partner. Jaana was good at communicting in the meetings, and helped get our ideas across in an efficient manner. She wrote a lot of the copy and helped edit anything we wrote. She was good at expressing her ideas in a creative manner and writing down everything that we could be a possibility within the project.
Katelyn was the designated record keeper and was very diligent in taking notes during the meeting times and keeping track of our time. She handled making the website that will be a part of the conference and will host the videos that are submitted and chosen by the jurors. She was great at assisting in all other areas, like checking emails and going over information to make sure it was correct before we submitted it.
7
JAANA’S STATEMENT The process of working on the community project has been an enjoyable and a frustrating one for me as an individual. I thoroughly enjoyed the opportunity for collaboration and having the input of a team for creating and producing content. Having the team to help work through the decision making process and guide the direction of workflow allowed me as a part of that team to be much more productive than I believe I would have been alone. By that same token, I did feel as though we had too many members within our team to handle a project of this scope. At the initial outlook, it appeared as though four members would be a solid fit to handle such a large process, but as we met with our community partner and as more aspects of the project appeared to be out of our control or tied to us waiting on information from Eric, we quickly learned that our input as a team would not be as influential to the process as we would have liked and would instead be relying heavily on the determination of which constraints would be facing us as stated by Eric. The constraints were numerous and in most cases undefinable until a last moment or even not ever defined to the point where our collective decision making power was heavily hindered. This left a surprising lack of work for us as a team to effectively produce due to the nature of uncertainty surrounding the processes of our project on the end of the community partner. There was not a lot of actual design work to be produced as much as there were many decisions
8
regarding planning to be made, many of which we did not have direct agency over. Having said this, the design work that was produced was fairly straightforward and was able to be accomplished mostly by a single member of our group with the rest of us acting as overseers, editors, and copywriters. While this system was fairly efficient, I personally did not feel that it allowed for us all to have hands-on design experience in the way I would have liked. This is not by any fault of the members who were known to be more skilled in this ways and did take initiative. I feel that the designs produced are superior as a whole because of the initiative taken by our strongest designer. I simply am saying that the amount of people on the team itself was a bit heavy for the relatively light amount of actual design work to be produced. The majority of the stress and work for me as an individual in this project was in the part of communicating with our community partner in meetings in ways that were moving the conversation forward and avoiding unnecessary confusion. When it did come down to having to make so many important decisions and talking to such a variety of people I was very glad to have a large and supportive team that I felt I could depend on to support and help navigate those decisions. All in all the community partner project was a different and necessary kind of experience for me and one that did help me to better understand both my strengths and weaknesses within a team.
ADRIANA’S STATEMENT When I first heard about this project, I was very interested in it and thought that it would be really great project to be a part of. Once we got into it, though, I was starting to worry that it wasn’t as structured as I would have liked and was a little nervous to continue. I was very glad when Vanessa joined our group, she was a great addition and I started to feel a littel better about going forward. I think that our group dynamic worked well because I enjoy working in a team and having other people discussing ideas and plans with me. I think this project helped me become better with managing projects that are unstructured because I know that is one of my weaknesses and being in a group definitely helped me a lot. I feel that I was good at managing and organizing meetings and keeping track of what we had to do, which I enjoy a lot. Overall, I enjoyed the project and am considering working on it further next semester.
VANESSA’S STATEMENT I personally had an interesting experience with the group project. I really had no interest in doing this particular one (it wasn’t any of the ones I signed up for), but in the end I enjoyed it somewhat. The most challenging part of the project was creating and organizing something that I never have before. Even more challenging, that the media we were working with/accepting was video, something else that is
foreign to me. However, once everyone started putting in the work and we got a roll on the project, some things seemed to just click in my head. I think this project really helped me in terms of systems design and how things might work on a different level. Overall, I think as a team we were successful at getting our part done and I believe we worked generally well together.
KATELYN’S STATEMENT When I first heard about this project it had really caught my attention and striked my interest in working on it with the community partner. I was a little hesitant but I was happy to be assigned to it. When getting srated and working on this project and meeting with the community partner I was a little stressed and not sure what was going on as there wasn’t great communication and it was very open ended after the first meeting. Throughout the project, I did feel the communication with the community partner got a little bit better, but it was still bad as I wasn’t always sure what was going on or what our community partner wanted. Working in this group has really showed me what my strengths and weaknesses are, and I’m glad because now I can work on that individually and know what to improve in future group projects. I value this community partner project because it has given me experience to work with a client and a group outside of just doing a group project in a class setting.
9
history + progress.
09/17/2018 Preliminary Meeting with Community Partner 12:30 - 1:15 p.m.
09/28/2018 Group Meeting - with APP person (Library) 9:50 - 10:15 a.m.
(45 minutes)
(25 minutes) • Gather information on how the app will work
09/19/2018 Group Meeting (Class) 11 a.m. - 1:15 p.m. (2 hours 15 minutes; 135 minutes)
09/23/2018 Group Meeting - Brainstroming Concept (Library) 7 - 8:15 p.m.
10/03/2018 Group Meeting (Class) 11 a.m. - 1:15 p.m. (2 hours 15 minutes, 135 minutes)
(1 hour 15 minutes; 75 minutes)
10/05/2018 Group Meeting - with Alex (CAC) 11 - 11:11 a.m.
09/26/2018 Group Meeting - with Matt (Clas) 11:10 - 11: 45 a.m.
(11 minutes) • Decided & asked Alex to be a juror for the contest • Got informtion on how to run the video competition (how to receive and judge)
(35 minutes) • Shared/discussed concepts with Matt
09/27/2018 Group Meeting (New Science Building) 9:40 - 11 p.m.
10/10/2018 Group Meeting (Class) 11 a.m. - 1:15 p.m. (2 hours 15 minutes; 135 minutes)
(1 hour 20 minutes; 80 minutes) • Gather information for conference call • Came up with name of competition
11
10/17/2018 Group Meeting (Class) 11 a.m. - 1:15 p.m.
11/07/2018 Group Meeting (Class) 11 a.m. - 1:15 p.m.
(2 hours 15 minutes; 135 minutes)
(2 hours 15 minutes; 135 minutes)
• Created tagline
10/22/2018 Group Meeting (Class) 11 a.m. - 1:15 p.m. (2 hours 15 minutes; 135 minutes)
10/24/2018 Second Meeting with Community Partner (NFAC 110) Noon - 1 p.m. (1 hour; 60 minutes) • Presented logo and competition name • Discussed the want of a diverse group of Jurors • Decided/discussed on a video length (30 sec - 3 min) • Discussed legal issues • Discussed scholarship budget • Layout of conference/session to explain process
10/31/2018 Group Meeting (Class) 11 a.m. - 1:15 p.m. (2 hours 15 minutes; 135 minutes)
12
11/14/2018 Group Meeting (Class) 11 a.m. - 1:15 p.m. (2 hours 15 minutes; 135 minutes) • Copy for promotional email • Disclaimer for legality • Copy for newsletter • Decided on third Juror (Jordan)
11/21/2018 Group Meeting (Class) 11 a.m. - 1:15 p.m. (2 hours 15 minutes; 135 minutes)
11/28/2018 Group Meeting (Class) 11 a.m. - Noon (1 hour; 60 minutes) • Worked on updated progress report/design brief • Started website
Third Meeting with Community Partner (NFAC 174) 12:15 - 1:10 p.m.
Throughout Semester Combined Individual Outside Work (20 hours)
TOTAL HOURS: 51.4 TOTAL COST: ~ 200 hours
(total hours multiplied by 4 for each member)
(55 minutes) • Scholarship amounts/gift cards to help with creativity to give out to winners • Discussed design brief and current calendar/timeline for deliverables
11/30/2018 Meeting with Community Partner at Hotel (Milwaukee) 12:30 - 2 p.m. (1 hour 30 minutes; 90 minutes) • Viewed hotel space that is available for conference • Brainstormed space layout for videos to be displayed
12/05/2018 Group Meeting (Class) 11 a.m. - 1:15 p.m. (2 hours 15 minutes; 135 minutes)
13
meetings + communication.
MEETING ONE Our initial meeting was to get introduced to our community partner and answer any questions we had about the scope and what exactly was our job for the project. We found out that they don’t have much budget for promoting the competition, so we needed to keep our means of marketing strictly digital if possible. We learned about the mission of the conference itself and what exactly goes on there, who the audience will be for this competition, and who would be involved with it. A lot of the questions that we asked didn’t have answers to them yet, but we mainly just got a feel for what they expedcted out of us and a general idea of the confernce and competition.
MEETING TWO For our second meeting, we introduced our concept and name for the competition, along with a progress report of what we have planned out so far. We presented our ideas for the marketing and social media plan, a timeline, and deliverables we could make, the process of receiving videos, the video requirements, how we might display the videos at the conference and through a possible website, possible jurors, scholarships (if they have funds), a people’s choice award and legality issues.
15
MEETING THREE Our third meeting was a quick check up before our planned trip down to the venue. We wanted to make sure everything was in place before going down there, and wanted to update our partner with our progress and if he had anything from his end. We showed Eric our mock ups of the promotional materials and also an updated report with new dates and the final jurors. He had some concerns about the Jurors not representing diversity, but we quickly explained to him our reasoning for our picks, and that their choice may need to change. The other option is having 5 jurors instead, but we felt that would be too much. Eric did like how our promotional material looked like, but made a good point about included youth in thepromotional email somewhere. He also requested something to give to possible sponsors that would tell them about our competition and maybe influence them to donate. Finally, we figured out a plan for our venue trip.
16
MEETING FOUR: MILWAUKEE Our final meeting with our partner was actually at the venue the conference will be held at. We met Eric at Thy Hyatt Regency in Milwaukee, WI, along with the hotel’s their tech guy and the organizer. They gave us a tour of the space taht we will have for the confernce, and opportunities to display our exhibit throughout. The tech guy was very thorough in explaining what equipment he had and could provide for us, depending on the budget. The organizer was a great resource also. She answered all our questions and even offered her skill set when designing the layout (she has access to a program that can map out everything at the venue and it’s set up.)
17
OTHER MEETINGS
Meeting with Marcus (App guy) This meeting we had a conference call with Marcus, who is a poart of the developing team of the App for the conference. We came prepared and had a few questions we had for him to answer. He also gave us great information on how the app itself will work during the conference, and he showed us how we can add a section/tab for our digital video competition. He had also given us access to the dashboard so we could add what we would like for our portion in the app. Meeting with Alex This meeting we met with Alex Ingersoll, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point who teaches communications and video work. At the beginning of the meeting we explained what we’re doing (conference, video competition, and our job with it). We came to him as we were looking/interested in some guidance from someone who is experienced in video production. He told us he had experience in this work, so we asked if he would like to be a juror for the competition and he happily agreed to it. In this short meeting, he also gave us pointers on what works best with receiving and viewing videos that are submitted and how to handle them.
18
Meeting with other possible jurors During this group meeting, we had gone and met with potentional jurors. We had explained what the project was and other questions to see if they would be interested in being a part of this project as juror. We then asked them and they happily agreed.
anaylsis + partner statement.
ANALYSIS Working with the community partner proved to be an interesting experience, for sure. We got to have a look into what working for a client in the “real world” will be like and we all learned a lot from working with the WIPPS teams.
POSITIVES One of the positives of this project was that there was a good mix of skills sets that were present in our group. Our personalities meshed really well together and there was mostly even split of tasks between the group members. We had a lot of control over the creativeness and direction that the project went in and had a lot of support in the ideas we gave them, which was really appreciated. Eric, our main contact, was very willing to meet us here and talk about the project and good at communicating through email, for the most part.
NEGATIVES When the project first began, we struggled with low unstructured the project was, which caused us to be confused at times, and unsure of what we needed to actually do. One of the most frustrating things that we noticed from the start was, during the meetings, we would ask really good questions, and would receive a “that’s a
20
great question” which was very frustrating for us and went back to how unstructured the project was. We had a couple of times when we needed a response and Eric would not get back to us and we would have to prompt him and even call him once to get our answer, which we still didn’t receive. There was a lot of people involved in this project that we would suddenly have involved in our conversation and weren’t even introduced to, or some people we were introduced to, or some people we were introduced to, but didn’t need to be, which was slightly confusing to use, trying to remember all their names and roles for our project. For our meetings, Eric always wanted Anne to be involved either through phone call or in person, but it seemed like she never could, which got slightly annoying because she wanted to be a part of everything without actually being a part of it. One last negative about the project that we noticed was sometimes Eric acted like we had full control and power over decisions, when we actually didn’t. One example of this was with the budget and asking us how much scholarships should be and then backtracking and saying we don’t know how much money we have. Another example of this was when we took our trip down to Milwaukee, Eric acted like we were in control and would steer the conversation to us and say “this is about your competiion” and focused it on us, and wanted us to ask questions, when we had no
idea how the conference would be set up and so we would then direct it back to him, which was slightly annoying as well. Although there are quite a few negatives, they helped us realize that this is how it is to work with clients in the professional world and we got better at not being pushed around and became more confident in ourselves.
21
Toward One Wisconsin: A Conference on Overcoing Barriers to Inclusion
COMMUNITY PROJECT STATEMENT December 11, 2018
The Wisconsin Institute for Public Policy and Services (WIPPS) was fortunate to have learned about the opportunity to be a community partner for the Art 410 class, and to have been assigned as one of the projects for the following UWStevens Point student team: 1. Adriana Reese 2. Vanessa Van Den Elzen 3. Katelyn Kaiser 4. Jaana Paske We asked the sudent team to assist us in organizing a digital video contest for high school students as part of a statewide conference to be held April 11 - 12, 2018 entitled, Toward One Wisconsin: A Conference on Overcoming Barriers to Inclusion. This conference, to be held in Milwaukee, is expected to draw over 500 people with over 100 different presentations over two days. From the outset in September, the students approached the project with a high level of positive energy and inquisitiveness. Over the course of the semester, the
22
students proactively engaged the WIPPS team, for which we were extremely grateful. With the video contest being one small part of a large and complex conference planning process, we felt fortunate to have the students committed to carrying out the organization and design of the contest and accompanying planning and marketing materials. In fact, with a largely colunteer planning committee, the UW-Stevens Point student proved to be one of the more reliable and professional aspects of the entire planning process. The community team was both impressed with and grateful for the students’ commitment. Specifically, the students’ work and engagement was: Timely: Students communicated frequently and often with the community project team, organizing face-to-face meetings or teleconference calls about twice per month on aberage. They also set project timelines and goals and adhered to them faithfully. Focused: The students didn’t stray from the agreed p l a n , stayed focused on the goals and objectives of the project, and actually helped the conference planning team keep on track. Professional: The students treated the project planning team as if we were business clients. They asked us appropriate questions, set goal and achieved them in a timely manner; and listened and engaged us respectfully.
High quality: Ultimately, we hoping for a high quality product, but in truth we were unsure whether or not the students could deliver. In fact, the students designed and delivered plans and materials that exceeded our expectations. Their work was universally appreciated by the conference planning team, including by our marketing team, which includes several marketing and communications professionals. Flexible: Ultimately, the student team proved able and willing to adjust their plans, expectations and product to meet our team needs. This was important because no project goes exactly according to plan. Even as the project was wrapping up, there remained some “unknowns” that had to be incorporated into the students’ work. For example, the project budget proved to be a moving target, and while we kept in communication with the students about this variable, ultimately the students had to adjust their activities and products across a range of potential outcomes. They did so with creativity and grace. In sum, we couldn’t have been more pleased with the process and outcomes of the students’ work. It was a pleasure associating with them and their deliverables exceeded our expectations. It is our hope that we can continue to work with the students beyond the class itself to help carry out the video contest on behalf of the confernce. We are still awaiting news about sponsorships and, if all goes according to plan, we intend to empoy a subset of the student team to continue with the project through the end of the conference.
23
artifacts + deliverables.
initial logo
social media logo 25
emailer
26
social media info graphic 1
call for arts
social media info graphic 2
27
website
28
final/most recent “design brief�
29
final/most recent “design brief� continued
30