If the iPad is the answer, what is the question?

Recently I extolled the virtues of netbooks as an ideal device for travellers, due to their light weight, long battery life and very low (sub $500) cost. When the iPad was subsequently announced I assumed that it would be a “netbook killer”. However, after reading about them and having a brief play with one, I’m not so sure. In fact, once all the current enthusiasm for the iPad dies down, I don’t know exactly what its role will be.

This is not to knock the iPad, through which Apple has done to the tablet computer what it did through the iPhone to the mobile phone – remake the current crop of disparate poorly-implemented devices as a well-executed package integrated with a great, intuitive interface which can be used as a platform for a range of applications. 

iPad (from Wikipedia)

The difference of course is that the mobile phone was already a ubiquitous device when the iPhone came along. Millions of people already had the things and knew roughly what to do with them, though Apple was certainly successful in making a better interface and extending the range of phone-based activities.

 In geological terms, the mobile phone market was not so much as a niche as a very large depression, one only partly filled by a lake of existing devices which the iPhone successfully swamped. To labour the metaphor, the iPhone then went on to fill up most of the neighbouring niches and creating new ones, courtesy of the vast range of iPhone apps.

By comparison the tablet was only a very small niche before Apple arrived. While the iPad is likely to fill this relatively small hole, this is not that significant an achievement. Apple and the apps providers also need to fill a lot of connected niches  – and create new ones to fill as well – to give the iPad critical mass.

This is complicated by the fact that, because of its size, the iPad is unlikely to become a ubiquitous device like the mobile phone – for a start, you can’t just put one in your pocket, or indeed the average handbag, as you zoom out the front door. This will obviously limit its numbers, unless a great killer app or two can be found.

Such an app is unlikely to come from the ranks of iPhone apps ported to the iPad – after all, the iPad can use all of these already. It will likely have to be something new which is best suited to the iPad form factor. One suggested example is the delivery of newspapers, though electronic paper could well do a better job of displaying these (that is, if anyone ever actually releases electronic paper displays on a commercial basis). It may be that the killer iPad app is yet to be written.

This brings me back to the iPad’s potential as a netbook killer. There is little doubt that the iPad may be the ideal device for some travellers, especially those who just want to send and receive emails, look up websites (provided they don’t use Flash) or upload and post holiday photos (provided they buy the appropriate attachment). It also has almost twice the battery life of a netbook and would no doubt suit many (well-heeled) tourists.

However a netbook can do all of these things, albeit less elegantly, and is easier to use for anything more complex such as word processing or photo editing. It is also a lot cheaper – ironically, your average business traveller who can afford to buy an iPad may prefer to stick with a netbook because it is much easier to use the latter to type up that last-minute report on the early-bird flight to Melbourne. This response is also consistent with the suggestion that iPads are best thought of as content consumption rather than content production devices.

While I can’t predict whether such a killer iPad application will emerge or what that application might be, it’s interesting to consider how the iPad might be used in relation to some of the Web 2.0 applications I have previously reviewed. Those workshop or conference tools such as Poll Everywhere or iMeet which require interactive, real time participant input might benefit the most. MyCommittee also has potential, but only once it can be used to run actual committee meetings themselves. 

Perhaps more intriguing are the web-based mind mapping applications I reviewed last year, such as Comapping, Mindomo and MindMeister. These may also require some adjustment but they would offer the potential for brainstorming or mind mapping for small groups using iPads.

In summary, while the jury is still out on the extent to which the iPad will succeeed, there is a lot of potential to use the device to capture feedback interactively in meetings, workshops and conferences which should be explored by NGOs and small businesses – that is, if you can afford to buy the things in the first place. I’d be interested in any suggestions about other Web 2.0 applications for the NGO or small business sectors that are designed for iPads or which might be particularly useful in the iPad format.

iMEET! – a big step towards 21st century conferencing

A while back I reviewed Poll Everywhere – a Web 2.0-based tool for organisations to conduct polls and surveys at meetings, workshops and conferences. The software enables attendees to participate and vote via SMS text messages from their mobile phones in real time. 

iMEET! is aimed at a broadly similar market and is also web-based, but with a somewhat different direction and emphasis. I was fortunate to get some experience in using iMEET! at a workshop recently (disclaimer: I was also helping to run the workshop, though I had nothing to do with the choice of facilitator or technology). 

Just as Poll Everywhere introduced a modern take on voting in conferences, iMEET! does the same for the traditional process of gathering and processing workshop feedback. 

I think everyone has sat through one variation or another of the seemingly timeless process of workshop brainstorming sessions at conferences. You know the drill – everyone breaks into small groups, debates who is going to be the scribe and then leaves that person with the thankless task of recording the discussions on multiple sheets of butcher’s paper. 

These are then used to report back to the whole group in some sort of plenary session – and then after the meeting some poor soul has the job of transcribing a mass of notes, scrawled in different hands, into some sort of coherent report of the outcomes. The process is time-consuming, and to be frank, unexciting, which means that conference organisers all over the world have to deal with the problem of conference participants nicking off before the dreaded final report-back plenary session. 

Relatively few technological innovations have impacted on this process since, it seems, the beginning of time. One was the introduction of electronic whiteboards, but these are clumsy and relatively expensive and most venues usually have only one or two. They really only lend themselves to being used by a small group holding a plenary workshop session. 

Other innovations such as the use of small networked voting pads have not really caught on because of their proprietary nature. Laptops have also been used, but while these have facilitated the process of recording workshop outcomes, there has not been an effective application to integrate the results in a plenary session-friendly discussion format. For most of the workshops I’ve attended and convened it’s been the good old butcher’s paper, even though butchers themselves have long since moved to plastic! 

Enter iMEET!, which is making a strong claim to being the game-changing application for conferences and workshops. It uses lap-tops, but integrates them in a very innovative way, linking them wirelessly so that information can be entered into a web-based iMEET! database directly. 

To quote the company’s website:

“[This] information is stored on a central server and made available to all other laptops, and projected via a data projector onto a large screen for all to view. All that you need to be able to do is enter content via the keyboard into the intuitive interface on the computer, using a standard web browser.” 

In practice the system is easy to use. Each small group is allocated a laptop and in most cases still has to appoint someone to record the outcomes of the workshop (or “focus session” in iMEET!’s parlance). However, instead of scribbling on large sheets of paper, the scribe enters the comments into an interface on the laptop which is a little like an on-line forum (in theory each member of the group could take turns to enter their own comments, but having a single person as the group’s recorder provides more consistency and helps to ensure that the recorded comments are mediated by the whole group in some way). 

Example of iMEET! screen as seen by a workshop focus group (from the iMEET! website)

Drop-down boxes can be added by the facilitator for groups to categorise their comments as they make them – for example, they could be asked to characterise their comments as either, say, positive or negative, or as short, medium or long term actions. Typically, each group sees only its own comments on its laptop, however, the responses are brought together on a single computer to be reviewed by the workshop facilitator and displayed to the whole workshop on a large screen in real time, with the group making each comment clearly marked. 

During the session itself or immediately afterwards the facilitator can prioritise and categorise the comments, bring together related ideas or identify potential conflicts. The fun really begins in the subsequent plenary session, which is much faster and more interactive than usual – no more succession of people dragging sheets of butcher’s paper up to a podium and reading out their hand-written comments. 

Instead the outcomes are immediately available and the facilitator can lead the whole group in making sense of them, identifying key issues and seeking responses from the audience. The material can be reshaped or expanded as a result of input from the whole group. For example, a set of options for future action can be selected and the participants invited to vote on them. As with Poll Everywhere, the outcomes are displayed in real time, though in iMEET!, the number of laptops available at the workshop is obviously a limitation. 

iMEET! screen set up for a work group to vote on options (from the iMEET! website)

After the meeting the final output can be delivered as a Word or Excel document within 24 hours of the event – or the iMEET! session left open for further online comment by participants (via a secured website) with output provided at a nominated time. 

Verdict: having seen iMEET! in action I can vouch both for its effectiveness and for the speed with which the results were produced. I was very impressed, as were most of the workshop participants. 

There is one important difference between iMEET! and programs such as Poll Everywhere and MyCommittee (which I have also reviewed) – even though it is web-based, iMEET! doesn’t lend itself to being treated just as an off-the-shelf product. It really needs at least a preliminary consultation with the consultancy team behind it (Australian-based Global Learning) to understand its full potential and to set it up properly. 

It also works best when workshop participants can be split up into relatively small groups – say no more than five or six people per laptop. This makes it easier for everyone to see what is being recorded and also allows the group’s recorder to keep up with the input. 

Global Learning can provide facilitation services as well as the laptops, or the client can use their own. Any reasonable PC or Mac laptop with reasonable battery life will do, as long as they can access the internet directly or through a wireless LAN. Even netbooks could be used, though the latest crop of CULV laptops with larger screens might be a better bet. 

As a result of the number of options involved it is probably best to get pricing information directly from iMEET!, though I understand that it is available on a conference-by-conference basis. 

The really interesting thing is how iMEET! rounds out the suite of meeting and workshop-related products which are relevant to small and medium organisations, complementing applications already in this arena such as MyCommittee and Poll Everywhere. 

While there is some degree of overlap between these products – particularly between Poll Everywhere and iMEET! – it’s best to think of how these applications can be used together creatively. For example, MyCommittee could be used to setup a meeting, and iMEET! to run workshops or Poll Everywhere to record votes on important issues during the meeting . Or iMEET! could be used to workshop key options through small groups prior to a major conference at which Poll Everywhere is used by a larger group of participants to vote on these options. 

In summary, iMEET! fills an important, if hitherto largely ignored, niche. It could help you to make your next conference much more productive and who knows – the dreaded end-of-day plenary could even become a lot more interesting for you and your participants.

 As always, you should look at the issues I have raised in previous posts about avoiding problems with Web 2.0 applications in evaluating iMEET!

Update – MyCommittee online meeting tool improved

Back in June I wrote a short review of MyCommittee, an online tool to manage committees and meetings. I concluded that there was a lot to like about MyCommittee and that it would suit a small to medium organisation with reasonably complex agendas.

I also highlighted some issues with the interface and a number of limitations, including the fact that the task management feature was problematic for organisations with a staffed secretariat as actions could only be scheduled for committee members. There was also little ability to change the terminology in the agenda, but my biggest concern was the inability to view resolutions in anything other than chronological order and the lack of any facility to extract them for storage in a separate database.

I took up these shortcomings with the program’s creators, who indicated that they might be considered in the next release of the program – and that’s just what has happened. Paul Cox from MyCommittee has just responded, noting that the latest version addresses some of my concerns. I’ve only had a chance to check it out briefly but I’m pleased to confirm what he’s said – plus more. MyCommittee now has the following:

• More flexibility in customising the agenda template – for example, changing the terminology and order of the standing items at the beginning and end.
• The ability to create custom lists of resolutions, by date, keyword, status, etc.
• A facility to export any list of resolutions in PDF, CSV or XML format to print or import into another application or database.
• Access for committee members to subcommittees (to view and download meeting minutes, resolutions, etc.).
• A greater range of roles for committee members, including “resource”. This could cover non-voting staff attending the meeting, who I assume could be allocated tasks, but I have not yet tested this facility.

Of these improvements the ability to create custom lists of resolutions and export them is the most significant. Not only does this make it easier for organisations to set up their own resolutions databases, it also provides the ability to download and backup resolutions offline. I suggested in my review that organisations needing this facility should hold off until it was implemented – but with its incorporation in the latest version, now is definitely time to have another look at MyCommittee.

Running an interactive forum in the 21st Century – Poll Everywhere

In my last post I discussed three web-based mind mapping programs that could transform workshops and brainstorming sessions for small organisations (a discussion I’ll continue in future when I look at other mind mapping software which has online collaboration facilities). In this post I’ll take a look at a tool that could revolutionise how councils, NGOs and others run larger forums, campaigns and even, for NGOs, fund-raisers – Poll Everywhere.

A number of programs such as PollDaddy, SurveyGizmo, SurveyMonkey, QuestionPro and Zoomerang provide facilities for structured online surveys, but Poll Everywhere offers something distinctly different – voting via SMS text messages from mobile phones in real time.

As the Poll Everywhere website suggests, using Poll Everwhere is very simple. For example, if you are holding a forum, all you need is a Poll Everywhere account plan (more on these in a moment), a computer with an internet connection (and ideally a data projector to present results) and an audience equipped with mobile phones.

You then ask your audience a question and your audience send their responses using text messages, twitter or via the web (if they have a PC or smart phone). The results are then displayed in real time.

That’s it, really! But to go through the process more slowly, Poll Everywhere offers three sorts of polls:

The simplest are multiple choice polls where you set a question and provide a list of answers. Each answer is automatically provided with a five-digit code number and, in more expensive plans, a custom keyword. Forum participants then text the code number or word to a mobile phone number. Local numbers are available in Australia and the UK and short number codes in the US and Canada. The UK/Australia numbers can also be contacted from a number of other countries (participants will incur a charge from their mobile carrier for their text message, depending on their phone plan, their location and the number they are texting to).

The poll result is then automatically collated and displayed. As indicated before, participants can also vote via twitter or the web.

The following screenshot shows the poll editing screen with a sample multiple choice poll:

As can be seen, you can set parameters such as whether participants can vote more than once, whether they will receive a confirmation message and the methods for responding.

As everyone votes, Poll Everywhere collates the results in real time and displays them on a graph. In the following example, two people have voted for Policy 1, one for Policy 2 and none for Policy 3:

These results can also be downloaded in a spreadsheet.

Multiple-choice polls are obviously ideal for choosing between different options at strategic forums or even for voting for candidates. Voting can be done anonymously, cheaply and quickly and there is no down-time collating the results.

In many forums, however, prioritising options comes at the end of the process. First, you may want to get a list of ideas, suggestions and/or questions from your audience. Poll Everywhere also provides the ability to do this with free-text polls, a facility to ask open-ended questions to which the audience can respond with text messages, tweets or via the web. This option will test the texting skills of your audience, which may cause some complaints, but at least it will keep the responses short!

The third type of poll is the pledge poll, which allows people to pledge funds for a cause. Unlike the other polls, this one obviously requires the participants to be identified – this can be done, but it requires an upgrade to a paid plan.

On the subject of plans, Poll Everywhere has a free plan with limited features (such as only 30 responses per poll) which lets you access enough of the facilities to evaluate whether the program is suitable for your purposes. There are then a range of plans which allow more responses and access to an increasing number of features such as additional account users, respondent identification, customised keywords and text moderation.

Plans can be upgraded and down graded on a monthly basis. For most small groups, the US$15 a month personal plan which allows up to 50 responses per poll may be adequate; if you are running a larger forum the presenter (250 responses) or plenary (700 responses) options, which cost US$65 and US$140 a month respectively, may be more appropriate.

Verdict: Poll Everywhere offers a very tempting and cost-effective approach to gathering information and conducting polls in workshops or forums. Whilst it should never be seen as an alternative for proper discussion of policy and strategy options, it could be used judiciously to enhance this process, allowing for different questions to be asked and options tested in real time at the meeting. It could also be used very effectively in a brainstorming process with the mind mapping software I have been discussing.

The downsides appear to be limited. Obviously, ongoing costs are significant if you are on one of the higher-end plans – but you can upgrade and downgrade on a monthly basis. Your will need a computer with good internet access at your venue – and good mobile phone reception as well. If you think a significant proportion of your audience are going to have problems with texting or don’t have access to mobile phones, this solution might not be for you – however, if you only have a few participants in this category you could always provide a couple of computers with internet access to allow voting via the web.

As always, you should look at the issues I raised in a recent post about avoiding problems with Web 2.0 applications in evaluating Poll Everywhere. If you do decide to use it I would also suggest a dry run as well as taking a backup voting process to your meeting, forum or workshop.

Addendum: I was contacted by a Poll Everywhere representative after posting the above post (click on the comments flag to see his feedback), who kindly answered a few more of my questions. I was curious about time lags – he assured me they weren’t a problem, as it was statistically very unlikely that two very large (1,000+) polls would be held at the same time and numerous concurrent small polls are not a problem.

Keywords, which are available with the larger plans to replace code numbers, are provided on a first-come first-served basis, so if a common word isn’t available for a particular option when you are holding your poll you may have to be a little more inventive in your choice of keyword.

I’ve also edited my comment in the post regarding Poll Everywhere’s phone numbers to clarify that there are other numbers as well as an Australian number for people to send their text messages to and also that sending a message will a incur mobile carrier charge.