Good question - do you need a 'critical mass' to build a community! Of course numbers help, no doubt about that, but what draws numbers is purpose and activity!
When a new person joins any community, if there is activity, there's more potential for participation. It's like going to a party - if you are first there, it's tougher, but if it is in full swing, it's easier to join in, especially if the conversation is appealing and you feel you can contribute.
So here's a party conversation you are invited to join.....
On a couple of occasions I've used the four innovation styles and related questions as a framework to promote conversations around a key issue. In this case, it was how to apply some recent research on models of professional development to redesigning a PD framework. The participants had not done the ISP or were even aware of it.
VISIONING: What would be the ideal application of the research findings?
EXPLORING: What assumptions to we need to test about how we currently offer professional development?
EXPERIMENTING: How could we realign what we currently offer to more fully reflect the key research findings?
MODIFYING: What is one small step we could take that would have the most significant impact on implementing the research findings?
Even without an awareness of the ISP, participants found this a very useful framework. It's a bit like reverse marketing. If participants see the value in such a framework, then imagine how the process could be strenghtened with the addition of the underlying knowledge the ISP could bring!
So here's my question: Is it always necessary to start with the ISP, or can it be introduced in a more subtle way, with the offer of strengthening a process that has already been experienced? In other words can the use of ISP tools lead to an interest in utilsing ISP?
Would be keen you hear everyone's feedback on this!
Jay, Dale, Tom, Diane, Ed, John, William, Debra, Alain ... what's your opinion?