To accelerate impact, we must change the way we gather. This report outlines 15 experiments conducted at the United We Transform 2024 event to test new modalities and applications for improving community impact and unlocking opportunities for future prosperity in Minnesota.
Hypothesis: Experiment with real-time workshop modalities and AI applications to improve community impact, unlocking new opportunities for the future prosperity of Minnesota.
Quick Stats
• 15 Experiments conducted
• 7,545 AI-assisted interactions
• 6 Other states requested to host the next experiment
• 1,200 Registrations
• 23% Loved their AI bios
• 100% Custom and unique experience for every attendee
Experiments
New Name Tag Format
• Problem: Most name tags are too small, use excessive plastic/magnets
• Hypothesis: Make them legible, informative, and support networking
• Positives: Very legible, informative, conversation-focused
• Negatives: Many did not fill them out well, large format slightly cumbersome
• Recommendation: Include name tag creation in first exercise, 1/2 letter size
• Applicability Rating: 4/5 for most events
Event Signage
• Problem: Traditional signage is expensive, environmentally taxing
• Hypothesis: Use reusable markers on recycled cardboard
• Positives: Clear, simple, cost-effective, environmentally friendly
• Negatives: Some found it too simple or childish, requires manual effort
• Recommendations:
Simplify signage for environmental benefits
Encourage incorporating art from local communities
Use all caps block lettering for readability • Applicability Rating: 4/5 for most events
Refundable Registration
• Problem: High no-show rates for free events without famous people
• Facts: 1,245 registered, charged refundable fee
• Positives: Over 80% showed up
• Negatives: Caused some confusion, manual refund processing
• Recommendation: Implement with amendments like clear refund timelines and integrated payment processing
• Applicability Rating: 1/5 for most events
No Registration Table (In-Person)
• Problem: Long lines for traditional registration tables
• Hypothesis: No registration desk, engage people immediately
• Positives: Used QR codes and sections for seamless entry, set welcoming tone
• Negatives: Temporary staff quality, some struggled to find names
• Recommendation: Improve staffing and guidance
• Applicability Rating: 5/5 for larger events
Assignments
• Problem: Ensuring faster collaboration in networking/small groups
• Hypothesis: Share assignments to guide collaborative outcomes
• Positives: Kept people working collaboratively, enabled specific outputs
• Negatives: Some required more guidance, sequencing was difficult
• Applicability Rating: 3/5 for most events
Swag
• Problem: Most event swag ends up in landfills
• Hypothesis: No swag giveaways
• Positives: Sparked conversation about swag value and environmental impact
• Negatives: People like receiving swag
• Recommendation: Force the conversation about sustainable swag practices
• Applicability Rating: 5/5 for all events
Panel Discussions
• Problem: Panel discussion format is centuries-old
• Hypothesis: Experiment with alternative formats for better information sharing and connections
• Round 1: Experts shared latest learnings in a participatory small group
• Round 2: Participants chose topics and met interested experts/others
• Positives: New format, positive learning/feedback, facilitated connections
• Negatives: Caused some confusion initially
• Recommendation: Panel discussions need disruption, share more experiments
• Applicability Rating: 4/5 for most events
Speeches
• Problem: Most talks don’t inspire lasting change, content is forgotten
• Hypothesis: Shorter speeches combined with immediate actionable work
• Positives: Excellent speeches, provided breaks from talking
• Negatives: Instructions for next steps didn’t resonate well
• Recommendation: While impactful speeches were delivered, the format needs further refinement
• Applicability Rating: 2/5 for most events
Artificial Intelligence Bios
• Problem: Traditional bio pages lack useful, actionable information
• Hypothesis: Use AI to analyze digital trails and provide engaging bios
• Positives: 23% loved their AI bios, generated AI use case discussions
• Negatives: Small percentage disliked bios, impacted workshop experience
• Recommendation: Promising area but needs refinement for people to see value in digital footprint/AI partnership
• Applicability Rating: 2/5 for most events, 5/5 for AI-related events
Topics/Event Content
• Problem: Topics typically decided by organizing committee
• Hypothesis: Let AI decide content based on participant interests
• Positives: 2/3 engaged with topics of interest, wanted to learn more
• Negatives: 1/3 of topics undersubscribed, causing confusion
• Recommendation: While AI-driven content matched actual attendance, trust in AI still needs to be built
• Applicability Rating: 2/5 for most events currently
No Rows of Chairs, Breakout Rooms, or Stage
• Problem: Most events use the same physical setup
• Hypothesis: No pre-set chairs, stage, or breakout rooms
• Positives: 85% stood for 4 hours, 100% engaged in numbered breakout groups, speakers had high engagement
• Negatives: Some unaware of chair availability, standing fatigue
• Recommendation: Rethink budgets for physical environments to improve accessibility
• Applicability Rating: 3/5 for most events
“No” Agenda
• Problem: Agendas are typically established in advance
• Hypothesis: Adapt agenda based on participant connections and requests
• Positives: No complaints, half the event determined on-the-fly (enabled by AI)
• Negatives: Up to 40% of participants were confused at times
• Recommendation: As AI advances, significant opportunity to amplify experiences
• Applicability Rating: 2/5 currently for most events
Diversity in Teams
• Problem: People tend to interact with similar individuals
• Hypothesis: Place people in groups with <5% likelihood of meeting
• Positives: No resistance, 90% scanned others (indicating interest)
• Negatives: Long-term effectiveness data pending (6 months out)
• Recommendation: Increase diversity across all aspects of events
• Applicability Rating: 5/5 for all events
Re-Inventing Networking
• Problem: Traditional networking approaches are limited
• Hypothesis: Integrate networking throughout, with multiple connection methods
• Positives: 7,545 networking interactions recorded, new analog methods used
• Negatives: People still defaulted to similar connections, technical issues
• Recommendation: Significant opportunity to reinvent networking
• Applicability Rating: 5/5 for all events
New Breakout Models
• Problem: Consequential work happens in breakout groups
• Hypothesis: Accelerate breakouts to support individual journeys
• Positives: 160 coded breakouts, instant info/participant matching via QR codes
• Negatives: Initial confusion, open format allowed easy departures
• Recommendation: Breakout models need continual innovation
• Applicability Rating: 2/5 currently, no clear superior model yet
The report concludes by inviting insights, ideas, tests, experiments and data to be shared at uwt@collaboration.ai to continue improving event experiences. It recognizes the collaboration of over 25 companies and highlights the facilitation by theDifference and software/ecosystem by Collaboration.Ai.
