The 24 hour conversation is over.

My immediate reflections are positive. I really think that the organisers have pulled off a successful event, in what was a very challenging format. Proposing to host a continuous conversation with 200 people, multiple speakers, plenty of prominent Mancunian advocates and a number of celebrities (not to mention a couple of ego’s), was a brave move.

As a ’stop gap event’, the TWE has probably raised a good number of complications about how a more permanent memorial to Tony Wilson should take shape. Talk of a summer school was still evident in some quarters over the last day or so, plus calls from Peter Saville to repeat the conversation next year.

What Manchester City Councils stance is on that is yet to be seen. But everyone at the Council should be very happy with this weekend. Sarah Benjamins, the project manager at MCC, should be applauded for managing the City’s input. Similarly, Sir Richard Leese, Leader of the council has shown a side that most people would perhaps never see - the willingness to engage in open and transparent conversation at a forum like this.

I was particularly impressed with his interjection during one of the sessions, where he implored people to look forward…that’s what the ‘talent’ and the discussion was there for - to look forward and shape the city as a valuable part of the regional and wider economic development. At a time when many were in retrospective mood, I thought it was a timely reminder.

Similarly, everyone else involved in the organisation and delivery should be pretty pleased. Obviously, there’s always things to learn and build on…so from my perspective (and from talking to a few people in attendance) what could make it better next time?

I heard from a couple of people that the conversation was a little mono directional at times, with not enough opportunity for the talent to question the experienced. Indeed, I’m echoing Paul Robinsons comment that even when appealing for a little more chaos, the “rowdy ones were always shut up“. That’s a shame, as it seems that much about the people and activity being remembered were just that, a little chaotic.

A difficult line to tread. However, perhaps the active internet stream forum on Mogulus could have been fed into the tent for those who couldn’t attend to have had a chance to enter the conversation. This would certainly have opened up the dialogue a little and perhaps prompted more discussion inside. Generating lively discussion is difficult, especially for 24 hours and perhaps if the more ‘unconference’ style of some gatherings had been followed then the level of discussion may have been even lower. To have an agenda that just said “turn up and talk’ could have led to a very flat event indeed.

Having said that, there’s definitely opportunity for social tools and some of the methods used amongst the social media crowd to have more of a prominence next time. Some sessions could have been more like workshops and the restriction on photography and video lifted. Harnessing sites like Flickr and Twitter could have helped build more of a real time presence on the web than was evident this time.

Even more, a reworking of the green room could have helped as discouraging true mixing of the experienced and talented was sometimes reflected in the conversations. A bit of a ‘them and us’ feel that was commented upon a couple of times to me. Some more intimate break out sessions, wouldn’t have gone amiss and helped the talent get closer to the experienced. After all, we know that it’s difficult to walk up to someone you admire and strike up a conversation.

So, a difficult challenge. The organisers set themselves a format that was a tough ask. All in all, they pulled it off.

One final thought. I hope we at i4SM get a chance to talk to Peter Saville about our vision for the Institute.  That’s a conversation we’d really relish.

Over and out.

-pc.