Why the CoVision method is not primarily a technological method.
The CoVision method is not about the use of technology, it is about the use of a “Micro-breakout” format. What distinguishes the CoVision methodology most from other large group methodologies are two things: the use of brief, very small group “micro-breakout” discussions in the plenary room; and the rapid synthesis of the input from those discussions into a digestible synopsis that can be immediately shared with the whole group and responded to from the stage.
Technology enables this methodology, but it is a mistake to think of it as primarily a technological method. The dramatic results that can be achieved through the CoVision method depend on understanding how to effectively exploit the “micro-breakout” discussion and synthesis capability. Understanding the technology is not what produces breakthrough results in meetings.
What people think of when they approach CoVision about supporting a meeting are the computers at every table and the network running in the room. These make it seem like a technical method, different from other large group methods where computers aren’t present. But the experience for the participants that is significant and different in a CoVision meeting is not typing into a computer (a very routine action for most people nowadays). The difference is getting to talk with their peers about the content of what is being presented to them. And then getting to hear what the group as a whole thought of what was presented. And then getting to hear the presenter respond to the group’s thoughts. These unique participant experiences are the hallmark of the CoVision methodology – these participant experiences define the method and distinguish it from all other large group methods.
The power of these “micros-breakouts” is that they are simple and fast enough to be used frequently throughout the meeting. This creates the opportunity for the participants to “chew on” what they’ve heard rather than having it stream in one ear and out the other all day long. Although the whole group stays in the plenary room, and time is used very efficiently, the experience for the participants is more like a meeting where they get to leave the room, have group discussions, and reconvene to share their insights. That means that participants stay refreshed, focused, and in an elevated mood. Their experience is that of contributing, rather than passively absorbing.
Yet the speed and simplicity of these “micro-breakouts” allow the leadership to pursue a rigorous and useful agenda. In most cases, even with al of the advantages of this method, the conveners are able to cover the same topics they would usually cover in a standard “presentations plus Q&A” format. For the leadership, the unique experience of the CoVision methodology is not that people are typing into computers (or texting in on their phones, etc.), but rather that they get to find out what the participants are saying about what has been presented. And further, that they have the opportunity, within a rigorous and packed agenda, to respond to what the participants are thinking and move the alignment forward.
While it is obvious and true that other large group methodologies don’t use technology as an enabler, focusing on the technology to try to understand the value of the CoVision method is a mistake. No other methodology allows for multiple, rapid “micro-’breakouts” that roll up into whole group awareness and a back and forth dialogue with presenters from the stage. These experiences are the defining attributes of the CoVision method, and the criteria for deciding on its usefulness for a particular engagement.
Posted by Karl Danskin
