Previously published
Initiation phase
Introduction
The communication
In previous introductory article I presented sort of my personal business case. It was just a brainstorm about a project, which I knew, could work. Having a draft in one’s head is a great start, but in order to launch a successful project, it needs to be communicated. So I have prepared an “in-depth” material that was supposed to be presented to both sides and see, if we can find a common ground in between to fields, that are as of yet unfortunately separated.
The first to happen was virtual meeting with @hansikhouse and @voronoi – the @sndbox founders. As I expected, @sndbox is as mutable as we possibly could be. We could basically act in any possible way that would be acceptable for the Academia. Therefore the actual @sndbox setup will be presented rather close to the end of the initiation phase, for our position is not set as of yet.
This article will then concentrate mainly on the meeting with Dr. Lipková.
My vision…
As I explained in the previously published article, my vision was pretty straight forward. I wanted just another “project-related” subject. But in this case students wouldn’t be creating projects for a company, but rather they would be creating any “self-made” project. Any student that would feel like he/she has any potentially impactful idea and would want to see it realized and fundraised through Steem could “easily” do so. From my point of view, the subject could lay idle for any given number of semesters, because the point of its existence would be to allow students that have any potentially impactful idea to work on it. When there would be students willing to execute their projects, I could step in, explain what Steem and @sndbox is and guide those students in the “Blockchain matters” in order to help them to maximize their fundraising potential. Thus a very unique subject with a heavy emphasis on hierarchy-less project creating techniques would emerge. Its potential would only lie in the hands of the student’s and their projects.
…was partly shattered
Spoiler alert Dr. Lipková actually really likes my vision, but in order for the Academia to accept it as such, a pilot version of the subject has to be run successfully at first. Spoiler alert Such a vision has one flaw in its simpleness. It is very prone to unsuccessful runs. I envisioned “unsuccessful runs” (the state when the student would either create a shit project, or wouldn’t create any part at all) as very likely to occur scenario that doesn’t hinder the credibility of the subject. Quite the contrary to be honest (students would be forced to create something, or otherwise they wouldn’t receive the much needed credits). This is where my and Lipková’s vision didn’t match. She though, as a representative of the Academia, sets the rules (or the rules are set upon her?) and I’ve got to follow them.
Thus said, if I want to see my vision fulfilled (and you bet I want) a successful test run has to happen first. Dr.Lipková wants me to assemble and lead a team of students that I personally will pick for the cause. She explained to me, that the Academia can have nothing to do with the actual cryptocurrency (crypto itself is not the problem…money is). That is totally fine, since students can either have their own Steem accounts, or they can collaborate on one account that will be controlled by @sndbox. Technically the subject would only require from students to create business case of the highest standards. Steem curators of all sorts would be responsible for money allocation. My job would be a mediator in-between those two fields. I would take the role of an overseer. I would probably be the one to release the funds from the communal account to ensure that the students did not lie and truly do use the funds in a way they themselves described. And as I already said I would be the advisor in Steem/Blockchain matters.
What does that mean?
It means that in order to fulfil my vision I have to deviate from it at first. As of yet, I feel like it is impossible to successfully test run the project in a hierarchy-less environment. Or rather its way to risky and if it would fail at first (which as I already said would be highly likely) my vision would never be fulfilled. I will then need to come up with a project. I will need to assemble people that are compatible with its needs and lead the team to…victory.
What’s next?
The most important thing is that Dr. Lipková likes the idea and will support it. In order to gain full support from the Academia I need to come up with a project and assemble a team that would be willing to successfully test run the subject for the first time. That is not a job that I truly wanted, but my motivation shall be the fulfilment of my vision. Should I first seek the people willing to engage in such an endeavour? Or should I come up with the project first and then seek suitable students for it? Many possible ways ahead, but most importantly a lot of work. The journey shall be long and tricky one. Since Its holiday now, another project update may arrive in up to several months.
Posted from my blog with SteemPress : http://localhost/wordpress/2018/07/10/steem-and-the-academia-sndbox-and-charles-university-the-meeting-with-both-sides-initiation-phase/
Thanks for sharing this update @fingersik!
It sounds like good news, even with a roadblock or two in the mix.
Looking ahead, it might be good to put together a 1-page "prompt" for this project, and how students might be able to engage it. We'll send you the proposal we worked on for Temple University, which had to be approved as well (and was a lengthy process!)
Ultimately, we'd recommend creating a 1-pager first and then using that to recruit people who are interested in the experiment.
Exactly! Good news indeed despite few roadblocks.
I’m looking forward to consulting my further actions with you. As soon as you’ll send the proposal I’ll look at it and see what I can learn from it. The 1-pager is also an awesome idea.
Hi @fingersik and fellow sndbox-er I was reading through your work and I feel you, it can be hard getting through the beuracracy. I would like to help out by offering a few thoughts. The academic part requires for you to produce a successful test to help you prove its success, how about using an action research to do so? You can produce as many test runs as possible and each test run which may be a failure can be improved upon. The end result is a presentation of how the project went. Academically, the process is reliable and should make a really good study. What are your thoughts?
I appreciate that you want to help me! Unfortunately I’m not sure what exactly you mean by "action research"? As soon as the subject is launched it has to succeed. I also thought that it could be slowly "built by improvements" but unfortunately that is not the case.
Could you elaborate a bit more either here or on slack? I’m interested in what you have in mind, but as I said I don’t get it as of yet:).
tell sir more about its please