Final Thoughts on Innovation and Entrepreneurialism Module, TMA1402

Just rounding off on the final day of the 2nd term of a three term Masters Degree in Digital Media. 

Phew, that was an interesting 12 weeks.

Facilitating what started as a rather disparate group of creative individuals, from a cross discipline pool of talents, ranging from Photographers, Digital Artists / web designers, Graphic Artists, Textile Designers and Fashion (oh, and not forgetting me as a Contemporary Artist & Illustrator), has been a challenge at times, but also great fun.

We set out with a brief that was highly flexible in many ways, almost to the point of ambiguity, but with the right mindset, determined optimism (especially on my part!), we've come a long way. 

Having set good boundaries to work within, documenting our thoughts and meetings, and most importantly, regular contact with our client, (Dr Liam Devlin), we have created a solid structure of delivery. By reflecting, evaluating and checking on the progress of our ideas, both informally in group chats, also with our client, and through formal presentations of those ideas, the group have created various artistic outputs, which meet the brief through innovative design choices.

Outputs from the exhibition, expressly designated as being suitable for archive, include artifacts that are complete in many cases, (Such as the internal reflections / e-portfolio web-site - Which for completeness (Created by Chelsea Horan and myself) can be found here: https://discursivedocuments.wixsite.com/eportfolio

a fully functioning Events Archive Website by Chelsea Horan and Daniel Ainsworth (here) > https://discursivedocuments.wixsite.com/rotor

- The above site is in production readiness for the closing event scheduled for May 5th.

We've started to finish off the long editing process of the film productions of the "Event Discussions" with the First Event (Edited by Grete Tvarkunaite and Adam Summerscales), below;

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HvD-mko0Ko&feature=youtu.be) Video By Adam Summerscales, April 2017

An example of a tangible output that we are proposing to hand to Dr Devlin as a little 'keepsake' is the production of a small book that details our 'interpretations' of each of the three "Discursive Documents" events.  The book will be printed for all the participants on the Masters Degree team, with some additional copies made available for the artists if they wish to have them.

Link to Flash / .SWF file of Discursive Documents "Interpretations" eBook

While this is a work in progress, with the final event (the closing event) due in May, we have a few weeks to finalise the design and produce a sufficient print run of up to 20.

Above all, I think the outputs are 'fit for purpose'.  This is bourn out because of the positive feedback from not only members of the group, but other (albeit anecdotal evidence) casual viewers of our work.  This creates a positive sense of accomplishment.

Final Reflections & Conclusions;

• It has been a pleasure to work with those people in the group who are organised and self motivated.  They have used their own autonomy and initiative to complete tasks to agreed group deadlines, and for that, as a facilitator of the group, I am personally grateful.
• There were a small minority, only two or three within the team, who haven't chosen to, or been able to commit to the group in a particularly organised manner.  There will always be reasons for this, some intrinsic, some extrinsic, and the group structure must allow to accommodate for this. It's basic group dynamics, and good teams are flexible to take up issues.
• I'm disappointed that one of the team started raising issues on the design of the internal website at the eleventh hour.  There has been ample time over the last twelve weeks to collaborate with the group and jointly define what might be acceptable and not acceptable for changes to be made in a timely manner.  Especially as the internal collaborative site was made available to everyone around week 8. To raise observations suggesting changes virtually at 'submission time' isn't very collaborative, or organised.
• Perhaps in reflection, could this issue of someone only just getting involved in the final week be a failing on my part? That is, should I have been even more persuasive towards that individual to get engaged with the group much more at an earlier stage? 
• But then again, as I've considered before, there are those who 'say' they want to engage, and those who actually do.  The American phrase of "there are those who talk the talk, and those who walk the walk" comes to mind.  What people say, versus what they do are two very different things. Simply put, actions do speak louder than words...

References;

Ainsworth. D, & Horan, C. (2017): Website https://discursivedocuments.wixsite.com/rotor
Hadfield, G.P. & Horan, C. & al. (2017); Website https://discursivedocuments.wixsite.com/eportfolio
Summerscales, A.P. & Tvarkunaite, G. (2017); Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HvD-mko0Ko&feature=youtu.be

Thinking back over the last twelve weeks and facilitating the team for the ROTOR project.

Thinking again about the work I've been doing over the last twelve weeks, I've recalled some of the areas that have helped to keep the group happy and focussed, and some of the techniques that I used in my own industry over the last 30 or so years.

To maintain individual's happiness when working in teams, I have found that a key component to keeping those who 'want' to be motivated, (and those who's talents lie elsewhere), is to provide the critical element of autonomy; - the freedom to choose; to decide, to get involved, to produce something of their own.
(or not, as the case may be for some...)!

In the role of facilitator, one might view this very differently from a traditional role of being, say, a 'Manager'.  In older models of behaviour, a professional manager was expected to motivate people and constantly push them towards higher and higher achievements.  This works to a point. - But at what cost?

By driving people too hard, productivity actually falls, - it goes down in line with self-motivation, and I know this result from my own experience when pushing individuals in business to achieve KPI's (Key Performance Indicators) and sales targets too much; especially when working in an environment without the resources necessary to achieve what they have been committed to provide. (This also includes putting too much pressure on myself!)

A report that I read some time ago defined autonomy as: "the feeling that your life, its activities and habits, are self-chosen and self-endorsed." (Mautz, S. 2015, p126). Self-motivation and autonomy go hand in hand, each work in tandem with the other.  Without self-motivation, autonomy on its own doesn't create anything; but without autonomy to make many of your own decisions (within a good 'framework' of governance of course), then self-motivation on its own, without a level of empowerment, can become frustration and bitterness, both of which lead to a reduced creative output.

In his book, "Make It Matter: How Managers Can Motivate by Creating Meaning", the author Scott Mautz quotes Gretchen Spreitzer, a University of Michigan professor.  Her study found "that empowered employees report a high level of job satisfaction and organisational commitment, lower turnover, increased performance effectiveness, and increased motivation. Likewise, supervisors who reported higher levels of empowerment were seen by their subordinates as more innovative, upward influencing, and inspirational". (Mautz, S. 2016).

Mautz provided a framework in his report of eight methods to give people autonomy 'intelligently'.

Interestingly, I seemed to have followed this structure virtually autonomously! (What irony!)...
Mautz says: (I have Italicised his suggestions for readability in the following);

"1. Fulfil the foundational requirements
Ensure a baseline of trust, a practice of information sharing, and a willingness to delegate growth work,"  (Mautz, S. 2016).
This is the 'Framework of Governance'.  In week 2 of the project, after the team had voted for me to become their 'facilitator', I provided a structure to work within. This took the form of stated roles and responsibilities for each team member; a rough time plan; formalised & recorded meeting minutes and other devices, as a foundation for the team to move forwards with, through getting their 'group witnessed' commitment to operating within these loose, yet defined boundaries and expectations.

"2. Create an agreement for autonomy."
In week three, I created a signup sheet for each team member to agree to their roles and responsibilities, now that they had been established.  Everyone was given the opportunity to make their own 'choice' of contribution. Whilst I didn't feel the need to make the formal requirement for each team member to sign their names on a form (as with consideration, this was a voluntary group, - by tying people down too rigidly would probably have had an adverse affect.  In a commercial or salaried environment, such written commitments are, however, the norm). The simple fact that I had created such formalised sheet, and distributed all 12 copies of it so that each individual had a copy and knowledge of what each other's roles were, was felt to be sufficient.  This provided a level of committed 'buy-in'.  In other words, the individuals were not only making a commitment to themselves, but also to the wider group.

Example of Team Roles & Responsibilities documents,

with initial meeting minutes beginning to form.

 


"3. Facilitate recipient readiness."

"Provide training and resources and discuss the benefits of their newfound autonomy. Ease the fears of accountability that can come with empowerment by ensuring they're set up to win--and confident that they will." (Mautz, S. 2016).

The first few weeks of activity within the rotor team was very purposefully very "gentle", and I took a great deal of time to help to explain to each of the members what they had agreed to do, and what was required of each of them, but just as importantly, what the team should expect from me. Patience is happily, one of my better virtues, and I helped each person create a valuable contribution to the team wherever they had the appetite and capacity to do so.

"4. Provide intrinsic and extrinsic reward"
"More work without more reward is rarely welcome. And even if the work must be done, the motivation might not exist to do it. So ensure that there are intrinsic and extrinsic rewards..." (Mautz, S. 2016).

Bearing in mind that the rotor team had been asked to complete various activities on a voluntary basis, the need for continuous praise and the verbal reward was essential.  As the engagement was voluntary, extrinsic rewards of recognition must be sensitively delivered.  I have continually tried very hard to give recognition for all the good work that has been carried out, and I have tried to gently coach some members of the team who needed a little more encouragement.

There will always be people in a group who, for various reasons, may not be able to engage in either the way that they might want to or in a way which the rest of the group desires. Group dynamics, clashes of personalities; personal preferences to working relationships etc. are a complex sensitive human condition that we all fit somewhere into.  I've been careful not to let personalities or issues of motivation scupper the overall focus of the team.  My former management experience has been brought to bear on this through gentle guidance, individual counselling and sometimes direct persuasion.
Generally, I am very pleased that each member has performed well, at least to their own expectations, but mostly in excess of them!

"5. Facilitate by assisting success versus avoiding failure".
"Mistakes will be made when [people] are given autonomy--and then learning happens. So don't react poorly to their mistakes. Act as a facilitator, not a fixer, and allow delegated decisions.... 
shift to a mindset of assisting success. Help empowered people get past mistakes as needed, and then turn your energy back to finding ways to help them succeed." (Mautz, S. 2016).

While I find it reasonably easy to manage small teams like this one, of up to say, 15 people, much of my existing commercial experience in facilitating interpersonal relationships has been put to good use over the last 12 weeks.
I have seen a variety of management practices in my various vocational roles over the past 30+ years, (some good, some not so good, and some really awful!).  I've been able to recall those varied experiences and tried here, in this 'safe' environment, to practice the best elements.
I can remember a number of examples where individuals may have made genuine mistakes and I recall my late father's advice that "people who rarely ever make mistakes, rarely ever 'do anything' themselves!" It was good advice from him, - a company director who knew a great deal about the "humanness" of failure.

A failure is, in fact, a successful lesson, and any mistakes should be treated as such. I have witnessed too many managers in my own past, who were blaming everybody else and their employees for failures that arguably could be attributed back to them as managers. Unfortunately, by focusing on mistakes all the time, those managers were far less successful, and so their teams were equally less successful too.

Example of corrective 'Action Plan'

Thankfully, there have not been any 'failures' as such, as we have all been aware of our achievable objectives, and progress against plans has been carefully managed, applying corrective actions where issues were identified. (See week 7, mid-stage review, action plan for example).

The action plan was put in place to specifically address some observed concerns brought to the group through meeting our 'client' (Dr Devlin). This was extremely useful in helping to steer the team as they approached the 'implementation' phase of the project.

"6. Construct communication loops"
"Breakdowns in communication can mean a breakdown in trust between you and the empowered person. [Encourage] autonomous employees... to find ways to report back regularly on progress.
Checkpoints should be established to provide updates, encouragement, help, training in teachable moments, and to avoid operational drift whereby work migrates away from previously aligned objectives and parameters. 
"Those working autonomously can't forget to check in. You can't just delegate and check out, either. Communication needs to remain a two-way street." (Mautz, S. 2016).

We are social creatures. According to Robert Waldinger, a Harvard University Professor who has studied human motivation and 'happiness' over 3 decades, says that one of the critical things needed to keep people happy is to create healthy social relationships; strong 'networks' to use modern parlance. (Waldinger, R. 2015).

Throughout the whole engagement, after the team had asked me to help facilitate the work, I have made sure that there are clear records of meeting minutes, critical action plans devised and documented as necessary, a clear understanding of each of our availability including individual holiday commitments, and regular weekly progress meetings with clear objectives.

Example of initial Gantt Chart, showing key 'milestone' dates, timescales/timelines, resources and tasks

I initially created a Gantt Chart to show a graphical representation of timelines / tasks to be achieved and resources available.  While such Gantt charts are frequently used in industry and have been for many years, some of the group were not sufficiently familiar with this method and so I was able to provide additional alternative documented methods (e.g. See the Action Plan above in point 5), to help to communicate key issues and time constraints.
Nevertheless, I continued to use the working Gantt chart model for my own cross-referencing of events and to build a single picture of progress ('Actual' versus 'Planned' progress and so on).  The use of Gantt charts allows for what is known as "critical path analysis", which if simply put, is a visual ability to see bottlenecks in a plan. (That is, where conflicts arise because of task timing, execution and 'effort', out-weigh the resource ability to achieve them (in terms of time scheduling, critical task predecessors, task subordinates, execution time, labour and materials resource availability)).

I have also adopted and encouraged the use of "SMART" objectives too. (- More on SMART objectives later in this blog.).  This approach is essential to help generate action plans that are executable. (e.g. See Action Plan example in point 5 above).

"7. Covet communication loops"
"Communicate with empowered [team members] in such a manner that they actually come to covet the communication loops in place over time, viewing them as helpful and rewarding. (Mautz, S. 2016).

By holding regular meetings, and my adopting and adapting the University of Huddersfield's internal Microsoft SharePoint 360 facilities, the publication and communications network has been particularly efficient and useful. We have been able to use the SharePoint 360 facilities as an overall repository, for all the management and collaboration artefacts, together with the practical outputs from each of the "Rotor events". I have been at great pains to make sure that the internal collaboration pages are regularly updated, at a minimum of weekly, but in practice much more frequently. Everybody, therefore, has a clear understanding of where to find information, as well as where to save it.  The meetings have been clearly structured, using an agenda based framework with a review of previous agreements and actions, progress to date and forthcoming actions/actions arising.
See example of meeting notes below;

Example of Meeting Minutes (Week 11), Showing "Traffic Light" status.

"8. [Create} a measurement tether"
Periodically review progress on success criteria. It will keep you informed and keep the empowered motivated since they have tangible evidence they're on track to hitting their goals" (Mautz, S. 2016).

Because I have been able to facilitate the team through an acronym of "SMART" objectives, that is Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Time-bound: each of the actions on our action plan have had clearly defined statements which outline precisely those smart criteria, together with 'due by' or 'action by' date for everybody to see. More recently over the last 3-4 weeks, I have adopted a traffic light, red amber and green notation on the Meeting Notes (See example in Point 7 above), to help to highlight a sense of urgency on some items, where required. This has worked exceedingly well and I'm glad to report that almost all the actions, some 60 or so specific action points, are either complete (at the time of writing 47) and a further 13 amber status actions require some remedial work over the next four weeks to complete, prior to the closing event for the rotor exhibition which will be held on Thursday, 5 May.

Conclusions;

• While Mautz does provide a good framework to inculcate autonomy, I have generally been following his observations in any event.  It is interesting that his framework, having been found after I have already been facilitating the group for a number of weeks, fits with my approach methods too. 
• I'm delighted that my management practices and facilitation skills are still effective, and current. 
• Whether I continue to use these skills post MA study is hard for me to say, as I think much of the methods become baked in over time. 
• I do, however, need to recognise when bad habits are drifting into my ability to facilitate teams, so this last twelve week period has been invaluable to me to bolster up innate skills.

References;

Waldinger, R. (2015): What makes a good life? Harvard Study of Adult Development; https://www.ted.com/playlists/4/what_makes_you_happy

Mautz, S. (2015). Make It Matter: How Managers Can Motivate by Creating Meaning (pp127-129),
and
Mautz, S. (2016), Blog Article, http://switchandshift.com/intelligent-autonomy-give-employees-the-autonomy-they-crave   February 2016; Retrieved 2nd April 2017.

Reflections on a lecture regarding entrepreneurialism and innovation and a recap of the presentation requirements for some attentive fulfilment!

We are now in the final phase of this module. The output of the work over the last term will be to produce three artefacts. The first being a portfolio website, the second a reflective blog and the third critical reflective summary presentation based on the assessment criteria overall. It is necessary to actively edit and generate the content for all of these items now.
With regards to the E-portfolio, this is an online platform to present evidence and ideas of group collaboration, including a devised group identity, research and research methods, generation of innovative ideas, thinking and user experience, research and commercial authorship where appropriate, together with substantial evidence of professional engagement in the chosen project.

In reflection of our own site, (which is a Work in Progress) I'm confident that it covers all the criteria pretty well;

With regards to the website, it is necessary to structure it according to the suggestions based on Dr Bailey's recommended tasks at the beginning of the term. This is what will be presented at the summit of presentation which for our own group, (the Rotor group) will be provided on 22 March 2017.

With regards to both this presentation and our own individual blogs, it is important that one should consider the moments of planning and how my feeling was throughout the progress of the project. I need to further define what I have been experiencing and how this relates to my own experience from working with people generally but also in particular of the specific group dynamics of my team that I have worked with over the last three months. This will include identification of where real collaboration has taken place but will also detail any conflicts and difficulties that I have overcome. In essence, the reflection serves to define obstacles and opportunities regarding growth, or for change.

As I have developed a significant body of work based on my existing blog entries over the past few months, it is worth considering whether I should identify key passages or critical blogs and highlight them to Dr Bailey for her specific reading. I recall the quote "Sometimes 'more' conceals the chaos beneath" that Dr Bailey made.

The use of the Share-Point facility in the University's Microsoft Office 360 domain has proved invaluable in team collaboration activities;

The written / output requirements for this module is based on the total output of approximately 9000 words or equivalent. By breaking this down into segments, this would suggest 3000 words on the presentation. 3000 words on the blog as personal reflections. And 3000 words within an E-portfolio is a collaborative works site.

I need to consider the presentation criteria carefully and how we have investigated and analysed the elements of the project concerning the tasks that we have been asked to perform. In this sense, the initial research questionnaires that we completed as individual contributors to the Rotor group discussions come into play. I also need to consider carefully how I have used primary and secondary research, primary research being through interviews such as those conducted by Grete and Adam which were recorded, our own questionnaires and our own group discussions on the Rotor group exhibition.
With regards to secondary research, the group has been very productive, and we have individually supplemented each other's readings with our own research findings by gaining other artists inputs on affected subjects and themes similar to those being expressed and curated by Dr Liam Devlin, together with other cultural inputs and influences.

I also need to explain and delineate the evidence of understanding, particularly in a commercial view with regards to understanding the clients, and the user's needs. The BBC symposiums and workshops have been very useful for us to create material as evidence which can be reapplied here to demonstrate our proof of research and understanding.

I see the presentation next week as being an opportunity to showcase the development of the project.  I need to keep in mind how I can communicate the relevance of our work to the client (Dr Devlin) and showcase what we have done in, for example, the memorandum of understanding.  I created that document for Dr Devlin to comment upon before our presenting anything to him that our initial presentation at the beginning of the month.

Finally, I must not lose sight that everything must be referenced according to APA six edition.

The final date for submitting the E-portfolio and the blog archive is Friday, 7 April. This will be provided to Dr Bailey through the Turnitin mechanism that the University of Huddersfield users for submission of students papers. The links to any E-portfolio and blog can be defined through a simple Microsoft Word document with all the necessary identification of course and student details placed on them.

And finally it is worth re-visiting some of the previous Master's degree students at the following websites
celmagic.wiksite.com/RSAmove.
Christina saw Bracknell.wiksite.com/makecon
Rebekahutch.wiksite.com/creativethinkers
Together with other online resources. Generally, all of the best presentations for previous Masters degree work contained;

• Research evidence
• knowledge of the audience
• awareness of the client and their needs
• knowledge of the subject, ideation and ideas generation (this is key)
• a series of identified likely outcomes or possible results.
• They all confirmed to the assessment criteria.

Conclusions:

In essence, all of this work is about creating evidence! But it is also about defining working processes too! Working in collaboration means clearly articulating and allocating jobs to individuals with clearly defined timescales. It is worthwhile carrying out some form of strength weakness opportunity threats analysis?

I think I might also insert details for areas for improvements and any observations for further development of my own skills and possibly those of others that I have worked with as a group.

I must avoid descriptive narrative both in my presentation on my blog.

In the reflection of the lecture, it is critical to consider the assessment criteria and use that as a checklist to ensure that the progress of both the project and any presentations or blogs conform to the requirements initially recommended.

References;

(These notes and reflections are based on a lecture/workshop presented by Dr Rowan Bailey on Wednesday 15th March 2017).

Rotor Group; Reflections on a presentation we made to Dr Liam Devlin, Wednesday, 1 March 2017.

The presentation provided to Dr Devlin was centred on the Rotor Group brief to develop a website on the one hand, and to work towards a comprehensive and exciting closing event for the exhibition that he is currently curating entitled "discursive documents".

The presentation itself went quite well I think, there was approximately 20 minutes of time in which we were able to get across our ideas covering research around the website and also closing events in galleries; the development of the site itself; various discussions on the events themselves; and then a summary of the presentation. It was decided that I would open the presentation with an introduction and then bring in additional speakers (Chelsea and Sam) to discuss their findings and work to date. After they had presented their findings, I then closed the conversation with a summary.

The feedback received from both Dr Devlin and Dr Bailey was to look at some of the work by Habermas, particular concerning discussions and writing and the idea of consensus. Another important author in this field is that of the work of Luclas, who comes from the notions of discussion and writing from an entirely different angle, that is dissent.

It is evident from the feedback that we need to consider how we engage. An essential activity for us to progress over the next few weeks is to clarify what the "live" event will be?
How will we stage this?
How will this event "make" itself?
How will we record discussions of people being interviewed as an activity of "live "
The possibilities to engage an interview and mesh/mashing it together for a final film could be interesting. But we also need to consider how we will move around the gallery space.

The crucial thing is to ideate now and then finalise the work over the next few weeks.

It is clear that we need to work towards establishing three key strategies. They are,
social media
imagery and comments
the closing "event".
" to extend the whole exhibition as a final visualised thing at the end of the show.

It will be worthwhile to create a mockup of a proposed live event and give it to the dance group Jerry Turvey, perhaps as an in animation.

In the work that Dr Devlin is doing through the exhibition "discursive documents", he's trying to blur the privileged position of the artist. So it is important that we play with the material in any way we can. The final event is, in essence, a record of the journey. The montage if you like, of the debates.

With regards to potential physical artefacts, each of the team could create a single page of a book and for images to be printed (these can also be text) onto handmade paper. This is something that Tim has completed before and found to be very effective.

Dr Devlin liked the idea of images and the construction photographs that Tim had provided as "making". He is interested in the things that we don't always see. This helps to extend the debate and provides a disclosure of the curatorial process.

We also need to consider authorization and approvals within the next two weeks from the gallery at Huddersfield itself; the University of Huddersfield and the marketing group. Furthermore, ethics forms will need to be completed for that authorisation to be given in a timely manner.

We also need approval from each of the artists to use their images on the website.

Part of the discussion for the closing event could, in fact, be the iterative processes of the development of the site?

With regards to the first of the discursive documents events taking place tomorrow, it is intended to record Alex Beldea, Seba Kurtis, and Andrew Mosley for a short interview to outline the issues that they are addressing and their own individual responses. The further analysis of these recordings will help to feed into the archive.

As recorders of the event, we also need to consider our own position with regards to how we are "participants"? Or are we just mere observers, detached from what is taking place? If the latter is the case, our presence will actually affect the outcomes. We need to decide how we will be involved? As participants or as spectators? In practice, it's likely that we will be participants and will, therefore, have the opportunity to contribute significantly to the discussions.

Group dynamics in action! Reflections of a Group meeting on Weds 22nd Feb.

On the actions arising from the last meeting we had on 15 February, I made sure afterwards that our discussions were sufficiently documented in order to clearly articulate the need for evidence based research, the need to individually contribute a summary of our work so far (and I suggested that we should each produce two "slides" to visually represent this), and have a record (within those slides) of our decision making; This was decided and divided into the group responsibilities of 'Event Research', 'Web Research & Design', 'Event execution, documenting and Archiving'.

I purposefully showed a sense of frustration at this meeting this week, that there seems to be a lack of action.

In particular my main concern at the moment being the progress of the design of the website. As there are two group members responsible for this activity, I was initially worried, but am now pleased, in fact delighted that one of them has not only stepped up and created a strong visual example of suitable a website, but they also provided a good presentation of it which helped the group as a whole engage in productive debate as to suitability.

Notwithstanding this strong presentation, my fears that the web design may become a real issue for us is still present, as it relies upon the two team participants to not only work together successfully, but also help to drive and position other members of the team as well. Whilst I am able to provide a level of maturity in support of their endeavours, (as is always the case within a group), certain people appear to work harder than others.  From my own point of view I am conscious that I need to continue to put pressure on the development of not only the research evidence, but also the finished outcomes, or at least considered outcomes of this task.  This remains a concern as it seems that the two individuals have a slight clash of personalities. That's something we (I) must manage through.

As we will be making a pitch to Dr Devlin next week, it seems appropriate that a rehearsal of the presentation takes place a couple of days beforehand. In the absence of some of the requested information required to construct a coherent slide show from the group (as mentioned above), I felt that this meeting might create even greater worries for some team members through the lack of tangible material...   It is always difficult to explain the need to create 'more' than the 'end' outcome, in order to distil the best parts from their work, and it is very evident that some of the group feel that this process is "wasting their time".   I recognise that this is merely a difference in opinion and in different ways of working, but many years of managing large bids and proposals for projects have shown me that this approach tends to produce far better results than 'just coming up with something the night before!'

However, we are where we are, and in reflection we can only do, what we can do with what we've got!

Initial Conclusions

• In hindsight, there probably is sufficient material now to go forward and create a suitable presentation, albeit, limited. 
• I call this the "Turkish Slipper" approach, as like a Turkish slipper, it almost always turns up at the end!  I don't like this, it's unprofessional, untidy, laissez-faire and poorly considered. So my own personality type is at odds with this approach too.  
• I'm still very cautious though, as likewise, being over confident, hubris is a terrible thing.  I must help the team stay vigilant in trying to create a professional and polished outcome.   I don't like being unprepared, and as there is a focus on me to hold the team together, I'm not sure just how much frustration I can show without upsetting some of the more sensitive team members. This is always difficult to gauge, but if the team want me to lead them properly, I have already said that at times I will make myself un-popular... 
• It's all about negotiation and communication styles ultimately.

Reflections on the Rotor event meeting held on Wednesday, 15 February.

I felt reasonably energised after the previous meeting on the on 8 February, and bearing in mind the exhibition opening night was only one day away, I was keen to make sure that the whole group were aware of their expectations and responsibilities, but sufficiently relaxed not to worry too much!

Unfortunately, as is always the case with a larger group of people, a sizeable number were unable to attend this meeting prior to the event opening night. Sometimes, this might be a good thing in reflection, because those who do attend, seem to bond together just a little bit more. Anyway, a number of decisions were made, which I think again in reflection, were right and proper.

One of the main decisions has been to remove the artificial segregation between group A and group B, as it is clear that we will all need to support each other, in various ways by working on our individual strengths within the team to help it move forward.

My biggest concern at the moment is a lack of what appears to be, an understanding within the group of the grading criteria, with respect to the necessary academic rigour that we need to apply to our practical tasks and obligations. This is particularly evident in the production of the website, as it is now two weeks since the original meeting that we had, and there is a lack of designs and critical reflection having been documented in order to help the group select the most appropriate format for the website.

It seems that my request for some group members to create evidence of their decision-making and research is falling on deaf ears. Whilst I am conscious that this could affect potential marks for the group activity, I'm also conscious that with the correct back filling (that is supplementing any lack of work through the absence of those team members who are appearing to choose not to engage), we can, try to resolve these shortfalls. (I recall after the meeting, saying something like "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink to Dr Bailey)...  However, this puts greater pressure on those members of the team that are conscientious, and wanting to try hard to achieve the best of their ability.

This is a classic example of group dynamics operating, and it appears that this exercise, and these interactive situations, we are no different to any other group. Part of my role is to recognise this, understand blockers and shortfalls, and put plans in place to circumvent, or at least alleviate potential problems, as we move forward.

Nevertheless, as is always the case, various people have their own unique and individual issues to deal with which must always take priority for themselves. So, with a group size of 12 people (that we now have), there is sufficient resource to level out peaks and troughs of productivity demands and requirements.

Further thoughts;

I'm delighted that there was a large number of students that attended the opening event on Thursday, and our previous meeting of the 15th helped to prepare and make sure everyone knew what was expected of them.

Conclusions:

• The group is beginning to gel together.
• There are clearer and more defined roles and responsibilities which helps people to focus on what is expected of them.
• We still have another two weeks to go before we present our ideas back to our client, and so I think it is vital that at our next meeting on 22 February there is clear evidence (from an academic standpoint) to show and to articulate that we have not only researched our ideas, but have collectively selected and chosen the most appropriate recommendations for Dr Devlin.
• We have replayed our own interpretation of the explanation given to us by our client Dr Devlin in a number of different ways within the group. I have been able to document this to a sufficient level to be able to provide him with the confidence that I think he is seeking from us.

Bringing order to chaos, part two.

Following the last meeting after the BBC lecture, at least we were able to start to flesh out roles and responsibilities of each of the individual students. Thankfully, we were able to do this with the help of Dr Bailey, as I'm still finding my own feet within the group and gaining their trust before making the stronger move forward to try and lead them.

I am pleased that my preparatory work in documenting roles and responsibilities for the team last week has been met with positive feedback. The team have appointed me as the group facilitator and project lead, but I have been quick to try to correct team members from calling me boss! I am merely the hands that provide coordination, and I'm keen to ensure that there is no hierarchical behaviour in this collaborative group. Nevertheless, I think everybody recognises the need for a spokesman, and I'm happy to have adopted this role too.

So now we have clear terms of engagement, together with a better understanding of expectations from what I have started to call "our client" Dr Devlin, I have started to write a short statement which reflects those understandings back to him, in our own language. I think this two-way communication between ourselves as a delivery team, and our client, makes for a much better foundation to work forward with.

Within this memorandum of understanding (MOU), I have also articulated some boundaries on the work that the students are expecting to do. Whilst these boundaries are still loose and somewhat flexible, they do set some conscious limits within the relationship, so that our client does not start to grow his own expectations out of proportion with what the team is capable of delivering, within the timescales. This is a typical project management tool and is often referred to as an MOU, whereas a more detailed and specific planning document tends to be referred to as a Statement of Work (SOW).

I need to be careful not to introduce too many project management jargon terms that people both within the group and outside may not fully understand, but I do have the advantage of calling on my experience to help the team activities stay focused, as well as maintaining a positive mental attitude.

As the first opening event is due to take place on Thursday, 16 February, I intend to informally present the MOU to Dr Devlin for him to read at his own leisure. He will have too many things on the opening night to discuss this I suspect, so I will try to engage in further discussion with him the following week to confirm his expectations meet our own.

Creative innovation and entrepreneurialism, working with the BBC, Session 2.

Thinking and reflections on notes taken at the BBC, creative innovation and entrepreneurialism Lecture, Wednesday 2nd February:
This part of the talk provided an overview of the design research and reflective practice together with user experience and design methods conducted by the BBC.
The conference was given by:
 Kelly Lothbrook-Smith, Senior Design Research Consultant;
together with Tina Connolly, Senior UX Designer, CBeebies;
and also Laura Fletcher, UX Designer, BBC content discovery.

Kelly started the lecture by explaining that the "user experience" (UX) is a very overused phrase within contemporary media which just about means anything you want it to be regarding how people perceive things!

Kelly's background is in psychology, having studied the subject through university and as a therapeutic practitioner. She was then invited to join the BBC to assist them particularly with design research on the BBC iPlayer.

The first task but we undertook was a little icebreaker where collectively we were asked to record each of the presenters and their interaction with how they engaged in the simple act of eating yoghurt. This was to (or “intending to”) potentially redesigning the packaging of this product, and to try and articulate how the product taste is better than anything else on the market. From a consumer's point of view, this would include recognising, choosing, buying and consuming this "revolutionary taste experience".

Kelly's explanation of marketing reminded me of a story that I have heard before and the idea that "when it is not yours, don't say that your baby is ugly". In other words, Kelly was touching on the idea of Confirmation Bias. This is a direct link to the psychological concept that there is a tendency to favour information that confirms an individual's belief and hypotheses.

Therefore, it is essential that whenever we are conducting research, it is of particular importance that unedited research results are fully presented. We need to ensure that we never inadvertently inject our confirmation bias into research results.
A phrase that is often used is

"design like you are right…
                           But test it like you're wrong."

Use research as inspiration!
A useful meta name or abbreviation when approaching research might be considered as "what is the P.O.I.N.T.!"
Where;
Problem:         is defined as a problem with the current approach and what it is you're looking to investigate.
Opportunity:  how can we change our approach by using appropriate research?
Insight:          what we know already, how do people behave normally?
Needs:           what are the specific requirements of the research? What are our intended outcomes?
Themes:        through which themes can we engage with the general public or the target audience to carry out our research?
[We then conducted the yoghurt test, where each of the conference speakers individually went through the procedure of selecting a yoghurt, peeling back the lid in various ways, and then eating the contents. This was completed with different ways in which to dispose of the packaging.]

Part one: Research Fundamentals.

1) what do people need?
2) what people want?
(If we think of these as desirables.)
3) can they use the things that we give to them? Furthermore can we "delight" our users, without overwhelming them?
We can conduct research of user experience (UX) usually through the following interventions;

• User interviews
• focus groups
• ethnographic studies
• diary studies
• email surveys
• competitor analysis.

Also, there are further research models that we may choose to use, such as;
UX blueprint diagram; journey mapping; user stories; personas;
analytics review; expert reviews; web surveys; system user acceptance et cetera et cetera.
Research is always useful, but it must always be balanced against:
cost: time; the stage of the project; user availability; the questions that you are asking!
There is a theory by the NN group that suggests that you only need to use five people to test the product to get approximately 85% of the expected failures and answers. If one was to draw a graph of user problems found: versus number of test users, the optimum number of test subjects at 85% can be shown as follows;
See the website HTTP://www.NNGROUP.com/articles/why-you-only-me
Active research is valid only when

• you are asking the right questions
• you employ active listening
• you engage with efficient problem-solving

It is simply wrong to test ideas in silos: however, it is imperative to contextualise things. Beware of Digging into a Rabbit Hole.

Part two: Listening!

One of the fundamental qualities of effective research requires the researcher to be an active listener. Questions, right questions are what is important.
We listen to some examples of radio interviews; some are good, and some are bad! The good ones tend to employ the following steps;
Step one) establish rapport; get down/get up to the respondents level. Talking a secure manner and make the interviewee at ease.
Step two) Ask reasonable questions that are open! Use Rudyard Kipling's classic aide memoir, I had six honest serving men they taught me all I knew, they are what and how and where and when and then finally why and who.
Step three) allow the respondent to go off on tangents and talk about what they want to talk about, but gently give them time to answer.
Step four) steer the conversation back from any tangents they may wander down, steer them through the context as a guide, but do not force answers.
Step five) everything is useful. Record what the respondents have said and how they say it. These sometimes have insights into what the respondents might be thinking, even though, at first, some statements might be confusing.
Step five) be interested in listening. Lean forward and make eye contact. Nod your head regularly, try to mirror the respondent's mood and body language as appropriate. Overall you're trying to convey a sense of warmth and engaged interest.
Step six) replay some of the sentences the respondent has given, this helps with mutual understanding and shows that you are listening. Qualify and ask for further meaning if there is an unusual word that may be used. In this case, only ask "what do you mean by that word XYZ". It is important to ask these questions with a sense of warmth, gentle enquiry. Do not intimidate the respondent by exclaiming "what do you mean by that" on its own, as this can be misconstrued. Ask specifics.
Leading questions that are closed (that is issues that usually have an answer of yes or no) are extremely dangerous as they not only close down respondent if asked to quickly they become intimidating. The interviewee is likely then to give answers that they think you as a questioner wants to hear, rather than their true feelings or desires et cetera.
Keep questions open.
And finally make sure that the languages appropriate to the respondent, regarding intellectual capability, age groups, context, and avoid eccentric or esoteric questioning that might be difficult to understand.

Active listening;
shut out distractions, pay undivided attention, lean forward and observe the respondent body language.
Start with open questions, such as; "tell me about…" Or perhaps "could you explain a little bit about…"
Provide effective prompting; especially when the respondent is stuck for words

Planning;

• Flow-explain introductions, warm-up, context. A logical order of themes. And on a positive note.
• Depth-include key prompts and probing questions at the appropriate time.
• Layout-keep the conversation uncluttered, well spaced, and for written enquiries, make it understandable at a glance.
• Focus-ensure that the key research objectives are covered.

Make sure you have a plan!

Methods:
Guerrilla Testing: this is a phrase that is becoming more popular, and relates to direct approaches to people when you find them within their natural habitat.
Get into the user's domain, a cafe or the street; into their office's, garages and workplace if it's permitted. Another useful place to find respondents is in areas where they are waiting and don't have much to do, such as stations, bus stations, clubs, queues for events and so on.
Catch people when they're killing time.
It works well when you work in pairs together.
Always give the respondents and incentivisation as a thank you, something simple such as a bar of chocolate or sweetie: but never use this as a bribe to influence.
Guerrilla testing is a good way to get "quick data".

Lab Testing: - this is testing in a controlled environment.
-The best way to achieve "lab" interaction is through the use of multiple cameras, with facilitated prompts. It is necessary to observe respondents in great detail, seeing their manner of address, body language and overall movement: et cetera. Watch their every pause, every utterance. With the proper reflective analysis, a whole brain dump of ideas can come from this work.
Learning should be then applied to future lab tests. Any sessions of lab testing should then include iterations of what has been learned from previous meetings. The objective here is to keep improving the quality of the research.
However in lab environments exercise caution, particularly be on the lookout for "double negatives" or "double positives" which can blind your results. These are often seen when interviews are being conducted where there are additional people, superfluous to the exercise within the room. The respondent is psychologically influenced by what they perceive those other people might want to hear.

Remote Testing: - This is dependent on the technology that is available to you and is often a way of helping a researcher find "the journey" that the user might have when interacting, especially with a piece of software.

There are many models of remote testing that are available on the open market to the researcher such as for example:

• Userzoom. 
• Optimal Workshop: 
• loop 11: 
• user testing.com: 
• WhatUsersDo

One of the latest forms of research for visual feedback is a method known as "Eye Tracking" which is a new type of analysis in which users can be critically observed.

Top tips:

Always remember that research is not a test! Any answers are right! There is no right or wrong answer from a respondent.
Silence is golden! Listen to the Focus!
Avoid all bad language! Equally, don't mirror or replay bad words!
Plan! Make a structure.

Good intentions:

1. Avoid recruiting experts. There will just only tell you a narrow band of answers.
2. Test small, test early, test often.
3. focus on what needs fixing (or what needs refining)!
4. Rotate the order of tasks and questions. This keeps people fresh and stops the effect of priming.
5. Your prototype's fidelity is what matters, but it is not critical. When creating a prototype, it does not need to be perfect. Anything can be a prototype, providing that it just needs to be representative. It is a model.
   Prototypes can be remade, readjusted and re-formed. Get as much "representation" as possible into a prototype, rather than just features. When using whiteboards or display walls, use colour coded sticky notes to help navigate.
6. Isolation; be aware that the presence of other people can influence the outcome, even if they don't speak or give answers at the time. People sometimes give answers because they think they "should" choose appropriate solutions, based on social hierarchy and other influences when in the presence of other people.
7. Never take notes on what people are saying, but take notes on what they are doing!

Where to next?
Note taking: cover key themes and research objectives.
Why does one observe? What people say and do are very often different. Observations actually see what happens in reality, rather than relying on self-description, which is often biased (remember confirmation bias?).

• Analysis: there is no magic or science in research.
• Organise your findings and issues into key themes or further research questions to answer.
• Take
• Include background details, methods employed and so on.
• Provide coding: create verbal tags; metadata tags to group research together.
• Create themes: use the metadata tags of coded data to develop ideas.
• Theorise: -build a hypothesis to take forward for further work so that new ideas can come out from your research.

And finally…
Always remember accessibility and colour blindness. Always consider the disability discrimination act in your activities, but also bear in mind that there are other motor based limitations, that are sometimes hard to qualify and quantify. For example, consider mums with babies! Invariably they only have one hand free to facilitate tasks if they are carrying a baby!

Building the team - Rotor Gallery Exhibition, - team activities.

In the reflection of a discussion with Dr Rowan Bailey, (held on Wednesday, 1 February), we were asked to consider how we could stage discussions in contemporary art practice, - through the reflection and debate of topical film. It is intended, therefore, that on future Wednesdays, the film will be screened at 5 PM. After watching the film and making important notes, with the subsequent period of reflection, we will then have a group discussion about the findings of this movie.

Dr Bailey outlined the importance of our maintaining of the blog. Our individual thoughts can be captured as a process, and to develop how we might align our work within current contexts.

It was also reminded that the website we are to grow, as a group, should contain critical research in the following areas;
1) artwork and curatorial thinking together with audience experiences. 'Proper' qualitative research.
2) study and research of cultural awareness; how our research is targeting specific groups.
3) execution. Ideas generation and how we are mapping out to create productive artefacts.
4) an exploration of the social (and Commercial if relevant) benefits of having done this research.

It is important for us to consider how we interpret the module criteria, as this should continually be evidenced, both in the individual blogs that we create and on the team website.

It is also equally important to allocate roles and responsibilities for each of the team members as soon as possible!

In our case, option two, assisting with the Rotor exhibition, we must remember that we have an opportunity to pitch our ideas to Dr Liam Devlin on 1 March!

-------------------------

And now on to what we need to do!

A further meeting in the afternoon of Wednesday 1st, provided me with the following thoughts and notes:

There seems to be a habit of some people within the team of continuing to talk whilst others have the floor. This is really frustrating from a notetaking point of view, but it is also very difficult for everybody to be working on the same page when little sub discussions take place.

I think it might be appropriate to suggest some meeting rules that should be observed for mutual respect and group understanding. Hopefully this will improve cohesiveness within the team and engender a willingness to work with all members, not just a select few or preferred friends.

Rant over:

We need to set up somebody to help in the recording of the setup and installation next week. Tim agreed to attend, having already established that the gallery site technicians do not work on Mondays and Tuesdays, therefore Tim will attend the gallery next Wednesday, 7 February.

Following on from Rowan's suggestion, that we need to set up three sub- teams for areas such as 1) pre-research and customer satisfaction
2) photographers, audio and video recorders, together with web implementers.
3) archivists.

How will we manage the channels of communication? How will this start to work?

Have we considered, 1) are the times of the events appropriate?

Daniel Ainsworth agreed to write up what the recording team needs to do in order to capture effective material to include in the web site. (I have called him the "creative director", therefore).

Alex Oddy can describe what is required for specific photographic shots, of whom we need portrait of, what we need to photograph and when et cetera.

Chelsea Horan suggested: "as we have similar skill sets within the team, rather than everybody turn up on the same day, we could perhaps bid for which day we want to attend. We can individually select what we want to do such as photograph, video and so on, then who wants to do the editing afterwards?" Chelsea suggested that she would set up a "we join in" website for each of the events?

We urgently need to set up a first meeting:

Within this first meeting I would advise that we agree our rules of engagement, not only at future meetings but also at each of the events.
Agree rules of common courtesy where only one person can talk at a time!
Develop themes and ideas for research and also as headlines.
Some of these ideas we may need to contain, others we need to perhaps park until a future occasion.
Once we have the general tasks identified, specific details can then be applied later, but all of this needs to be captured, documented and placed on our website.

Date of next meeting; Wednesday 7th of February, after lunch.

Creating the Archive - Discursive Documents - Thinking about how we set up a project.

In thinking about the discussion that we had with Dr Liam Devlin last week, the new Huddersfield gallery exhibition called "Discursive Documents" which opens on 11 February 2017.  He described it as an exhibition that challenges the idea of photographic practice, to situate the practice of "what was there" into a new form that is "what is possible".

This is a philosophical construct to facilitate that idea through six artists work. Each of these six artists will be paired towards three themes. Each theme is intended to allow a viewer to place oneself between the two artists in their interpretation of work, to situate the viewer as a kind of fulcrum or axis.

The three themes are as follows;

1) Sieba Curtis and Alex Baldea. In their exhibition, they will be looking at the plight of refugees in the current context. The two photographers/artists deal with the subject in two different ways. In the case of Curtis, he provides access to this issue through the notion that refugee groups are usually considered as masses, and his desires to get away from that notion and engage with the individual. For example, Dr Devlin mentioned the recent case of a refugee hiding in a tanker full of talcum powder (magnesium oxide). The irony is that it is virtually impossible for a refugee to cross borders, whereas a commodity, such as talcum powder, is able to cross borders without any impeachment.

In the case of Alex Baldea, he chooses to get his photographic images and the references through the refugees own photographs. He does this by visiting refugee centres throughout the world and literally gives cameras to these refugees. He then specialises in taking a point of view, such as those images created by children, or single mothers, or fathers perhaps (et cetera). The photographic and artistic output, therefore, becomes a multi-vocal point of view.

2) Richard Mulhern and Richard Higginbotham. Photographic Representation.
In this theme of the exhibition, Richard Mulhern explores how we unconsciously regulate our behaviour within society. For example, we always walk on the curb, we know that we need to do that to stay safe! We don't blindly go walking into the middle of a dual carriageway. Mulhern engages with these ideas by trying to use photographs to show how subconsciously we abdicate our behaviours.

Similarly, Richard Higginbottom, whose photographs are explicitly within the city of Manchester, are in response to a piece of text written by Michel de Certeau, and his book "Walking in the City" (2006): seeing and knowing.
Higginbottom encourages the viewer to make connections that wouldn't normally be connected. The images and pictures are taken from different reasons, both are still photography. De Certeau suggests he can see over the whole city from the point of a high Observer, and in his case, while standing on top of the World Trade Centre in New York, Manhattan. He suggests that it is possible to know the city; however his book describes that in reality, it is impossible to take this helicopter view and gain some sort of understanding of the minutiae, because it is a seething mass of possibilities.

3) in the third theme, the exhibition will explore objectification of the female body, through the work of Sarah Eyres, and Leila Sailor.

Sarah Eyres explores this issue through her objects, for example, a collection of wigs (false hair). Her artefacts are usually moving images, photographs and gif files.

Leila's however, explores objectification of the female body through a mannequin. In fact, the manikin is a cheap plastic blow-up doll whom she calls "Dolores". With this goal, she suggests a kind of life force by slowly inflating and deflating it, whilst videoing the doll, and then finally at the end of her video she decapitates it.

Therefore there are three different debates.

We need to think about how we are going to archive all of this work and record it. There is not much time as the exhibition opens on 11 February, less than two weeks away. However, the official opening night and preview will be conducted on 16 February (Thursday).

And then we move on to the events which we will be responsible for. Each of these events will take a similar format and will commence at 2:30 PM in the afternoon and continue for approximately 2 1/2 hours until 5 PM.

The first event will be on 2 March, this will comprise of a short talk by the artists, and then a form of response through invited guests. In the first event, a refugee will be the responder, and a panel style discussion will then ensue. Therefore a practitioner, either Curtis or Baldea will be present to defend his position.

The second event will take place on 23 March. The former will follow the same as the first event with Richard Mulhearn and Richard Higginbottom both being in attendance.

The third event will take place on 6 April with Sarah and Leila. Again the same format as above for the first two events.

While the control of the event is likely to be pretty much up to the event organisers (group B of our team), the suggested format will be to look at the exhibition and work displayed and then open the debate which will also be recorded (again by our team).

The objective of our group engagement is to ostensibly help Dr Liam Devlin;

• to document & record through audio and video,
• to create a public archive/website and or both,
• to plan host develop and manage the complete closing event on 4 May 2017.

With regards to this closing event, it is intended that a contemporary dance team who will be choreography by Gerry Turvey, and the dance group will provide an interpretation of the whole exhibition which we will also be expected to record.
Dr Devlin would also like us to re-present a kind of mash-up of the entire show at the closing event.

Conclusions:

• we need to consider how we curatorial coordinate and capture all of the material
• think how we could develop a publication of the debate
• discuss and document the effects of the exhibition.
• Record interviews and create reflective material and writings
• include any conclusions and aspect of the debate that may need further explanation.
• We therefore urgently need to manage ourselves and organise who will do what?
• Who will do the video?
• Who will manage and develop the website?
• Who will conduct interviews with the artists?
• Who will film the exhibitions and photograph them?
• Who will manage the audio recording of the above interviews?
• At the closing event, the mash up and become something to create further debate from itself perhaps? Ultimately this event is intended to provoke ideas.

Creating order through chaos...

We are now into the beginning of week three of our module for innovation and entrepreneurialism, and I am finding the exercise (option two of the module) very stimulating. Working with a group is always interesting to me, as I enjoy watching the interactions, and psychology of individuals coming through.

The group to which I am attached has been tasked to set up a website, in response to an existing exhibition that is about to launch the Huddersfield Gallery, Huddersfield in early February. This does not leave us much time to set up and develop what I assume to be a public facing website.

Thankfully we had the opportunity to speak with the curator of the exhibition, Dr Liam Devlin, who is one of the tutors, I believe the course leader, for the photographic department of the School of Art, Design and Architecture. We were therefore able to ask a number of questions appertaining to the exhibition and to seek clarification.

I found it interesting that prior to the meeting with Dr Devlin, I had already prepared 10 separate questions to ask him about his view of success, academic scenarios, sequences of events, the closing event, how we might expand the show, who would we be asking to generate debate, funding and approval, marketing and promotion, a list of stakeholders, and how do we engage with additional agencies, et cetera. I was therefore surprised to say the least, that my peers in a team of around 12 other students had not prepared much, if anything, in the way of questions!

Nevertheless, I appreciate that I have had many examples of similar commercial engagements in my personal past, and so I felt it's appropriate for me to help to steer the group in how it is beginning to form into a collective team.

Now that we have had our initial contact meeting with Dr Devlin, I have started to make sure that the various meetings that we have already engaged with our properly minuted. I have also transcribed the interview with Dr Devlin in its entirety, and created a Microsoft office 365 SharePoint for all the students, both in group A, those who are building the website: and group B, who are responsible for creating the final event, and archiving the outcomes. The SharePoint facilities that the University is able to provide are a really useful tool that I am able to use for complete collaboration.

Whilst I am conscious that the group is still not in a cohesive state, I am always mindful that it takes time for the individuals to establish some sort of rapport with one another, together with the mature working relationship. This always takes time, and patience, thankfully I have in bucketfuls!

As a democratic way for each of the students to take their own responsibility for certain actions, I have started to develop a list of roles and responsibilities which I will present to the group at our next meeting on Wednesday, 1 February.

Following that meeting, together perhaps with input from the lecture that we have that day with the BBC, we can start to develop a stronger team structure and organise ourselves more proactively?

Ideas to commence the Creative Innovation & Entrepeneurialism module.

Having chosen the option to assist with the Huddersfield gallery "Rotor" project, we had a brief discussion with Dr Bailey regarding the requirements for developing a collaborative website for this event. The deadline for the submission of our findings for this module is week commencing 1 March which does not give us very much time to prepare. Furthermore the submission of group presentations will be week commencing 22nd of March and final submission of our electronic portfolio will be 7 April 2016. We have a date in the diary to meet with Dr Liam Devlin who is the curator for this event, and this will be conducted in the postgraduate suite on Friday, 27 January.

This meeting will be an opportunity for us to check and find out the vision that he has towards a website. The question we need to ask ourselves is what will success like?

With regards to the public facing website questions such as Willis archive and publicly available window have items such as;

• interviews?
• Critical essays?
• Events?
• What are the milestones and venues?
• Will there be a series of group discussions?
• What will the promotional activities be?

It is already established that there will be a full event launch and a preview night at the beginning of February 2017. The exhibition will then continue for the next three months, and then a closing event will need to be promoted.

For our own management and internal activities we need to ask ourselves;

• What are the timescales?
• What are the deadlines for each of the activities?
• Is there a funding budget?
• What skill sets reside in our group?
• What roles and responsibilities will each of us have?
• What are the disciplines need to be involved?
• How frequently do we need to establish creative workshops?
• How will the website develop, become a platform?
• Will your website just support the show, or other intentions such as an archive?
• What other examples can we draw from?

There are approximately eight exhibitors with work for this exhibition ranging from Alex Baldea, Sieba Kurtis, Leila Sailor, Sarah Eyre, Richard Mulhern/Richard Higginbotham, and ASMA.

Creative Innovation & Entrepreneurialism; Lecture by Dr Rowan Bailey on Wednesday, 18 January 2017

The options for the various activities for term two were put forward in this lecture.

Mostly, this next semester will focus on our individual practice; how we manage our practice, experimentation and trials and ultimately reinforce good behaviour to practice, practice, practice in an entirely immersive state.

At this stage, it would be useful to update my personal development plan and outline my new learning objectives from the feedback I gained from Dr Bailey.

I am currently asking myself what goals I need to set for myself to achieve the self-directed study, and what do I plan to achieve a tangible outcome during this term?

I'm pleased to understand that following the submission of the next PDP, there will be one-to-one meetings with Dr Bailey and other academic staff, however, to achieve that the PDP must be completed by 1 February.

As part of the submission for this module, a new website will be used to demonstrate evidence of collaboration with other students. Also, my blog must continue to reflect my own development and provide a platform for my thought processes.

The lecture continued with an overview of Dr Tina Selig's creation engine. This is something that I came across last year at my undergraduate study, which is based on a Mobius loop, and describes the six elements of creativity which include:
 Imagination; to encourage play. This can be continued through reframing a problem, in a playful way such as how a joke may switch an outcome from the anticipated. Imagination is about connecting and combining ideas. Putting things together that aren't obvious. Challenging our assumptions and opening our minds.

The next element concerning "knowledge" is our toolbox of innovation. For this, to work, it is essential to pay attention to everything that is going on around us to find new points of view.

The third element is an attitude. Creativity requires a mindset, the motivation and drive. This is about engaging with vigour, and is not just about being a puzzle builder, but making and adapting constantly, and leveraging the resources that you have available.

On the inner level of the Mobius loop the three elements essential for creativity are "environment, resources, and culture. With regards to the environment, the habitat in which we immerse ourselves whilst creating require items that are easy to manipulate. Dr Selig calls these "easy manipulatives". It is essential for rules and constraints to be flexible, which also includes our ability to find the necessary resources. Moving on to resources, clearly it is critical that this element plays a massive part in what is created. The more resources available and the more of what you need will undoubtedly help in generating desired outcomes. Perhaps this element itself is the most important. However, it should not be forgotten that adaptation of resources that are to hand is perhaps an essential quality rather than the resources themselves. And finally, the culture in which the creative individual finds themselves within is equally important. The background influences on work produce future ideas through the combination of all the above elements, underpinned by a cultural foundation.