garykoelling

Image via CrunchBase

it's dead.

We had a meeting today, about 30 of us in a room, where we heard from some very high ranking executives as they took us through their thinking on how to implement a relevant digital strategy. Sounds dreadful right? What was different was that there was a huge tv screen next to an overhead projection of the ppt . On the screen was a web app created by @benhedrington call spy . It was rolling every tweet tagged with #BBYCDS from Twitter . Almost everyone in the room and lots outside the room were tweeting thoughts and questions throughout. There were enough tweets, in fact, that the tag #BBYCDS trended on summize to number two right ahead of "sarah palin" and right behind "halloween."

And what struck me was the dynamic of this meeting. It was participatory. No one was talking out loud except the guy presenting the ppt. But the conversation was roaring through the room via twitter. It was exploding. People we asking questions. Pointing out problems. Replying to each other all while the ppt was progressing along it's unwaveringly linear path.

The contrast couldn't have been more striking. Here are two tools that couldn't be more at odds with each other. The linear, planned, predictable progression of slides versus the raucous, organic free-for-all of Twitter connecting nearly everybody in the room plus others scattered across the country. Everyone was trying to turn the problems over searching for potential answers from multiple angles, discussing processes and offering ideas. As I watched this happening I had the feeling that i wanted the twitterfeed to actually change the presentation - to update it, edit it, extend it, pull it into areas it wasn't exploring.

Here was an perfect deck of slides that wanted to be made imperfect by a flurry of conversation. It struck me that what I was seeing was an organization evolving. Here we were trying to do more than our tools (powerpoint) would permit. That we were ready to start trying where before we had settled for planning and then doing. That we were ready for what Shirky describes as publish then edit instead of edit then publish. And that we were ready to let solutions (perfect or not) emerge by way of small things, fast things, without a preconceived ideal of what perfect must look like was evidence of a profound shift not necessarily just in thinking but in believing and admitting that perfect in not only impossible, it's incorrect (we're not launching missiles). And it certainly isn't human.

Who knows, it might just end up being an interesting little social experiment. But I'm pretty sure everyone in that room will remember that meeting (as much as you can remember a meeting). They will remember how cool it felt or how scary it felt or worthless or dangerous or exhilarating. But they'll remember and even if this comes to nothing right now and we still wait for a perfect answer before we act, before we try - people will remember. And they'll see that shit didn't blow up. And that perfect is overrated.

Here's the twitterscript

And here's the Wordle - thanks Ben