Show pageOld revisionsBacklinksBack to top You've loaded an old revision of the document! If you save it, you will create a new version with this data. Media Files====FoAM v0 - Starlab Cultural Department - (March 2000 - September 2000)==== ===Members=== * The members were * Maja * 2 other core members * One of them, a scientist, moved away after bankruptcy because he needed more stability * Lina, which stayed until 2011 * She was initially supposed to be here with a temporary contract to get a permit in Europe, and then start her own project * Employees on a project basis * Nik arrived just before bankruptcy ====FoAM v1 - Starlab non-profit spin-off - (September 2000 - June 2001)==== ===Structure type=== * Starlab started a non-profit spin-off for proto-FoAM ===Mission / Purpose=== * The mission of this spin off was to * Connect Starlab’s scientific research with art & culture¨ * Put Starlab’s research out in the world * Explore forms at the frontier between art & technology * Quickly make an organization in Belgium to receive money for the project (from Flemish government + Ars electronica) (October 2001) * Create a structure to work with others in the Netherlands (April 2002) ===Members=== * The members were: * Maja, Lina and Nik * They spent their 6 first months without being paid as core members * Maja helped design the mission of this spin-off, but they did not wanted her to be on the board ====FoAM v2 - Non-profit with possible commercial spin-offs - (June 2001 - March 2010)=== ===Structure type=== * This structure was designed by FoAM’s crew, in the post-Starlab era * A non-profit with possible commercial spin-offs * Non-profit as a playground * Develop services and products that could generate income * Feed part of the money back in the non-profit * The creation of spin-offs was not a core mission, but an economic feedback implementation to get revenue in case one was created * Creating multiple FoAM studios rather than one big FoAM * Other FoAM studios based their statutes on FoAM Brussels statutes, but adapting to local situation ===Mission / Purpose=== * The mission of this organization was: * Still focused on art & technology * However, opening to very broad collaborations across disciplines (not only art & technology) in an open way * Wrapping it up, the new elements brought in in this new form of structure * Broader than art & technology * Open source ===Members=== * Formally, regarding membership * It started with Nik, Lina, Maja on the board + 1 belgium person in the general assembly * Strictly minimal legal requirement * But funders did not like it * Funding schemes pushed towards a certain kind of governance, even though it was not a legal requirement * Informally, regarding membership * Very horizontal way of working * Everyone involved was invited to be part of the decision-making * The group came together when it was needed, people not wanting to come did not * All kind of decisions were taken in these assemblies * Yearly meetings for organisational planning * Meetings adressing project design & planning * Before submitting to funders * After getting the project, to decide how to work together * Who would do what ? * How would money be shared ? * About 8-10 people were gathering around the table, up to 20 when gathering all the participants of an EU project * It worked well when things were working, but an implicit power structure (mostly based on legal responsibilities) was revealed as soon as difficulties were showing up * Maja was involved as implicit facilitor, usually also as money handler, too many hats ! * The core members realized they were exhausted, but without understanding why until 2009 * A lot of experiments ([?] on organizational re-design ? ) have been designed ever since ===FoAM v2.1 - (2001-2005)=== ==Activities== * The two main focuses were around * Responsive environments * Groworld, a project related to ecological art * These focuses both started at the same time * Most of the activities were about these two main focuses, and workshops with invited people * No residencies at that time ===FoAM v2.2 - (2006-2009)=== ==Structure type== * FoAM became an artlab * Which is a funding-driven organization ==Mission / Purpose== * After the LETHA project (presented at the Fuckup night), the focus was re-directed on environmentally/socially sustainable projects * For instance, luminous green * Which arose in 2004-2005, but became a project officially afterwards * The mission was redefined around a broader social/cultural/environmental sustainability vision * The circles were opened further * The mission also shifted contentwise * The world situation was quite optimistic at that time * Climate change was becoming mainstream * Multidisciplinarity was being praised for in Davos * And then, all came back as it was previously !!! * This led to the “resilients/what if thinking” phase, which started late 2009 * In late 2009, FoAM became a lab for speculative culture ==Activities== * The work was distributed between * Projects * Sharing knowledge and skills * Both these aspects ran in parallel for a while, and then, both funding and people involved pushed FoAM’s own projects out * There were mostly artists wanting their own projects to be supported * This change was quite imperceptible, and not in the original mission * At some point, FoAM was just about nurturing, and not any more 50 % own work as it used to be * Pushed by EU, Flemish government and radical bureaucracy of funding, more and more reporting to do * Agencies are outsourcing their reporting work on project-managing artist-run structures * For instance for Grig, an EU project which lasted 3 years from 2006 to 2009 * [? TBChecked] FoAM had to manage 5 times its operational budget ====FoAM v3 - Funding-induced structural change - (2010 - 2016)==== ===Structure type=== * A hierarchical structure was imposed by funding in 2010, extension of board + membership) * The funders requested * An extension of the board * A larger general assembly * This change brought extreme excitement and hope, at the idea of finaly sharing benefits AND responsibility across more people (about 20 people involved in all studios) * The idea was to map a circle-based flexible and hierarchical structure on the legal one, including the others studios in the structure * The structure intertwined the board and a core team * The board included a member of the core team (Maja) * The core team included all project leaders and a board member (Nik, for oversight) * Its role was overall stewardship of the organization on a daily basis ([?] including other studios ?) * The general assembly was made of * All people working in FoAM ([?] Brussels ? Working as “paid” or as “participating in projects” ?) * New members were involved by co-optation by the general assembly * [?] Did some inclusion created debate ? * Members could also be excluded by the general assembly * They had few self-exclusions from voting members * They also had few exclusions for inactivity * The inclusion of other studios was designed by involving * A member of Brussels in the (board [?] or general assembly ?) of each studio * A member of each studio in the (board [?] or general assembly ?) of Brussels’ studio * But soon, quorum issues appeared, because the distance made it tricky for people to come at each General Assembly * So the statutes were changed so that members from other studios would be non-voting * The main default of this structure still was that the three core board members were responsible for everything and everyone * General Assemblies looked like a farce * Reasons for this structure not working may include * Members not wanting to be involved in governance, but just wanting to get the benefits * Space access, visibility, etc * Most of the people involved were there because they could get something out of FoAM * When “reciprocity time” came, there were a lot of tensions * [?] If you had to iterate, would you select exclusively people wanting to get involved in governance to join aboard ? * Starting from a crisis start up (bankruptcy), the protocols/procedures which were designed initially were difficult to break * It induced good processes to flow money & energy out ([?] how ?) * No “giving back” to the organization was formally structured * [?] How would you structure it now ? * Lessons learned include * Think it from the beginning ([?] How ? Don’t you have to fail to realize it ?) * Be very selective about the people you invite aboard ([?] how ?) * Untill 2012 [?] > very unsustainable practice * Money for project costs (materials + people) * The “core team” was being payed under minimal wage until 2012 ! * Rates as low as 1,5 € / hour sometimes ! * Share responsibility and benefits of all * If people are on the board and general assembly, then they should be interested in governing the organization * Core team * ([?] TBChecked) This institution is designed to manage FoAM Brussels laboratory on a daily basis * This institution was created in 2010 * Before 2010, this role was informal * Its size stayed in the 4-8 people range * The representation of projects was stopped in 2012-2013 * Centralizing the core team on people running the organization * Board * This institution is designed to be in between FoAM and the external world * It started by including FoAM members only, and then some external advisors were added ([?] post-2010 ?) * Its size stayed in the range of 6-9 people * General assembly * [?] Did you propose to any project contributor to become a member ? * Its sized stayed in the range of 10-20 people * In 2010, Maja and Nik went away for 6 months sabbatical, because burn-out was showing up * The first version of the manual was written at that time * When they came back after 3 months * The studio looked trashed, uncared for, people were having arguments * Maja and Nik spent the next 3 months with more online presence * When coming back from the sabbatical, at the beginning of 2011, things were getting better, but FoAM’s reputation was declining * Many comments of people saying “you cannot let this happen” * This is when the Resilients project started in June 2011 ===Mission/Purpose & Activities=== * From late 2009 onwards, FoAM Brussels is still running 100% in the “nurturing regime” - almost no “own work” * FoAM had its own projects, but was still nurturing other people within the projects, and not working with other skilled people on a “shared” basis * Realization by the end of Resilients & PARN that most of the work was still about nurturing * The projects always started perfectly * The content was co-designed during a workshop * Clear responsibilities were established * The timing was made clear too * But then, it did not work as expected * Maja & Nik felt restricted * They were waiting for people to catch up * They were spending a lot of time explaining things * The partners were “the people who were there”, not the perfect purposed-design crew * It would have been better to work with people who really cared about the topic AND knew how to work on it * It felt like some of the partners did not really had something at stake in the project * The mistake was maybe to have picked people FoAM had pleasantly worked with in the past, but which were not appropriate for these specific projects * These projects were a failure regarding FoAM’s expectation, but were financially successful, EU was very happy about them * All partners were satisfied too * The audit came (for Grig) in 2012, and induced a breaking point * One year and half have been spent on the audit (March 2012-August 2013) * The first report from the auditors was asking ~600 k€ back * At the end of the process, they were asking “only” 300 k€ back, but after a lot of work, stress, etc * In 2013, the decision was made to actively split nurturing activities and own work * Nurturing activities were residencies * FoAM’s own research project was “Future Fabulators” * This project worked much better than the previous ones * It was a “shower moment” from Maja, then shared with everyone else * A good example of a successful feedback loop from “nurturing activities” is the “Future of Unconditional Basic Income” project * The nurturing activity was to train me on the methodology * The feedback is to get the results from the workshop ====General comments==== * Overarching principles of FoAM’s organization * Invest in the minimum required for legal compliance * Regarding structure * Regarding funding * Regarding reporting * In order to have the smallest effort for administration needed * The loop regarding content can be summed up as this * Crowdsourcing interests and questions from the members * Craft a research program within the core team * Feed it back to the network * Looking back on the relationship with the other studios * FoAM Brussels is the Generalists’ studio * Other studios focus on specific aspects - usually with a five years delay * This organisation happened that way, not intentional ====[?]==== * Do you think that a better matching between legal responsibility and decision-making power within the structure would have been better ? ====[TODO]==== * Look at Maja’s doc sent by email * It is now saved in the same folder as the text you are currently reading * Charter (txt) * Organisational diagram (pdf) * FoAM blurbs (txt) * [?] Dates of each blurbs * There are two other online docs to be read * FoAM projects * FoAM mirror (inquiry through foam network) * Group questions labeled in this docPlease fill all the letters into the box to prove you're human. Please keep this field empty: SavePreviewCancel Edit summary Note: By editing this page you agree to license your content under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International manual/interviews/session1.1490440194.txt.gz Last modified: 2017-03-25 11:09by maja
maja