CW20 Risk Management¶

For events such as CW, we typically look at the following risk aspects:

The main stakeholder and funder (the Software Sustainability Institute)
Other stakeholders (sponsors, keynote speakers, attendees, session chairs, organising committee members, volunteers/helpers at the event)
Budget
Event agenda
Venue
Catering
Communication (with various stakeholders)
Policies, guidelines and documentation

We admit that a global pandemic was not considered as part of our risk assessment and mitigation plan. We began undertaking our COVID-19 contingency plan at the start of March - before the UK Government had made any official decisions or published any official restrictions to travel and events in response to the virus. We therefore had to plan for scenarios where there were and weren’t official restrictions, which had implications on existing contracts with vendors (venue, catering, accommodation, etc.) and insurance. The three options we considered for CW20 were to carry on with the event in person, move the event fully online, or cancel the event outright. We dismissed the option of a hybrid event - a blend of in-person and online - as we knew we would not have the resources or time to carry this out effectively.

The main stakeholder¶

The risks that we identified and needed to mitigate relating to the main stakeholder - in this case the Software Sustainability Institute - were:

Event goals and objectives not aligned with the main stakeholder goals
Damage to the main stakeholder’s reputation
Financial losses (which will be discussed below in the Budget section)

In discussion with the main stakeholder, we identified the objectives of CW as the following:

Topical issues are highlighted, and participants are brought up to speed on them and work towards enablers for them
Participants come away having met new people, whom they hope to form collaborations with
It helps improve diversity and representation of voices in this community
It nurtures SSI Fellows network and other existing communities we interact with
It’s an enjoyable, welcoming and safe environment
It raises the profile and reputation of the SSI
Participants may learn good practice in running similar events
It improves the interworking of SSI staff at scale

While having an in-person event can strengthen the outcomes of these objectives, they can also all be achieved through a virtual event. Cancelling the event outright would prevent us from achieving many of these objectives.

The following considerations were taken into account regarding the main stakeholder’s reputation:

If we carried on with the event in person, we risked damaging the Institute’s reputation if participants travelled and became ill (or infected others as a result), or if there was limited attendance and the event did not achieve its objectives.
If we moved the event fully online, we risked damaging the Institute’s reputation if it was not run well or didn’t meet participants’ expectations.
If we cancelled the event outright, we risked damaging the Institute’s reputation through our community’s and participants’ disappointment.

We decided to move the event fully online (primarily due to the reasons outlined in the Attendees section below), thus mitigating the damage to the Institute’s reputation through clear and consistent communication with registrants and by managing the expectations of participants.

Other stakeholders¶

Attendees¶

In true unconference fashion, the first thing we did was email CW20 registrants a Google Form asking for their input into our contingency plan and to better understand their feelings and preferences about how the event should proceed in light of the rapidly changing COVID-19 situation.

We asked participants what their preferred course of action would be for CW20 in light of Coronavirus (COVID-19): - Option 1: Carry on as planned with the event in person - Option 2: Move event fully online - Option 3: Cancel the event

We received 48 responses, with 37.5% indicating to carry on as planned with the event in person, 47.9% indicating to move event fully online and 14.6% indicating to cancel the event outright.

It was clear that participants preferred not to travel and attend the event in person. If we went ahead with an in-person event, we risked a significant drop-out in attendance, which would be detrimental to an unconference. More importantly - if we went ahead with an in-person event, we risked the health and safety of our participants. This was the primary reason we decided to cancel the in-person event.

Once the decision was made to move the event fully online, we identified the following risks:

Participants lose travel and accommodation costs
Not enough participants or many dropping out right before the event
Too many participants
Participants complain about a certain aspect of the event (long days, Zoom fatigue, technical issues, general expectations not met)

The strategy we took to mitigate these risks included:

Provide guidance and documentation to help registrants claim back travel and accommodation costs
Reduce ticket prices as we would no longer be providing a physical venue and catering
Close registrations after certain number is reached (~100 in our case) to avoid having more participants than we could manage
Communicate general guidance and Code of Conduct clearly before and at the event to set the expectations
Empower participants to come and go from the event as necessary based on their needs

Sponsors¶

Two questions we considered with regards to CW20 sponsorship were:

What limits would our sponsors place on event changes before they withdraw or reduce sponsorship?
Will there be any longer-term implications for getting sponsorship from them in the future?

The risks were that the sponsors would pull out of the event if we made any last minute changes or would not want to partner with the event again in the future. The strategy we took to mitigate these risks was to contact the sponsors immediately after the decision was made to notify them that the event would be moving online and offer to renegotiate any previously agreed packages.

Keynote speakers¶

The risks identified regarding the keynote speakers were that they might pull out of the event if we made any last-minute changes. The strategy we took to mitigate this risk was to contact the speakers immediately after the decision was made to notify them that the event would be moving online and provide support and opportunities to test their presentation setup before the event.

Risks that we hadn’t considered but that could have been an issue included sickness or being unable to present due to caring or other responsibilities imposed based on lockdown restrictions. We did not have backup keynote speakers in place and would have provided a break during that period or additional networking time in breakout rooms.

Session chairs¶

The risks identified regarding the session chairs included connection or other technical issues. The strategy we took to mitigate this risk was to have backups for every event role.

Risks that we hadn’t considered but that could have been an issue included sickness or being unable to present due to caring or other responsibilities imposed based on lockdown restrictions. However, our mitigation strategy still applies to these scenarios.

Organising Committee members¶

The risks identified regarding the Organising Committee members included: - Not kept up to date with the progress of event planning - Not sure how to contribute or how to share information and coordinate between different organising committee teams - Do not know where help is needed and what their duties are at the event - Feel unappreciated or excluded - Some members being unable to help during the event due to insufficient equipment or other implications arising due to lockdown - Members having connection or technical issues preventing them from carrying out their duties

The strategy we took to mitigate these risks included:

Define different roles and let people choose what they want to do, communicate clearly what is expected from each role
Have backups for every event role
Devise a duties roster for the event, where everyone is assigned tasks, and share it ahead of the event
Thank our Organising Committee members during the event, make sure they are made known to the audience and feel appreciated

Risks that we hadn’t considered but that could have been an issue included sickness or being unable to present due to caring or other responsibilities imposed based on lockdown restrictions. However, our mitigation strategy still applies to these scenarios.

Volunteers/helpers at the event¶

The risks identified regarding volunteers/helpers at the event included:

Not having enough volunteers/helpers
Volunteers/helpers having connection, technical or other issues preventing them from carrying out their duties
Volunteers/helpers feeling unappreciated or excluded

The strategy we took to mitigate these risks included:

Reach out to our community and recruit more people with experience organising online events
Recruit enough volunteers/helpers in order to have backups for every event role
Communicate expectations clearly and make a duties roster for the event to make sure everyone knows what they are doing
Make sure they are made known to the audience, thanked during the event and feel appreciated

Budget¶

As part of the initial discussion with the main stakeholder, we considered the following with regard to our finances:

What are our committed expenses, lost income (sponsorship, registration), expenses incurred for other things such as refunding Fellows
- What proportion of people are we supporting to attend?
- How much will we have to reimburse for travel?
Are there any additional costs to modify the event?

As part of our contingency assessment, we calculated the financial risk and projected balance for the three scenarios:

Carry on in person
- No change in sponsorship
- Might lose some registrations
- No change in what we pay for staff/fellows hotels, although some may now not attend
Move CW20 online
- We would need to seek sponsors’ approval
- We might lose some registrations
- We would have to change what we charge from £250 for a full in-person ticket to £50 for an online pass to attend (to go towards invested staff time and prizes)
- There would be no additional costs as we already had the video conferencing infrastructure in place
- We could potentially lose a significant amount of money from cancelling the venue, accommodation and reimbursing travel costs that we had agreed
Cancel event outright
- We lose all of the income (registration fees and sponsorship)
- We pay all of the costs

Event agenda¶

The risks identified regarding the agenda included:

Not fulfilling certain plans (such as social activities)
The days are too long for an online event leading to Zoom fatigue
Some sessions don’t translate well to an online setting
Lose nascent quality of unconference event
Fewer opportunities for networking (for example, no hallway chats)
Technical issues

The strategy we took to mitigate these risks included:

Hack the agenda to reduce the length of each day (we removed the social programme to facilitate this and we note that a social element is what participants missed the most)
Add more breaks into the schedule
Add an icebreaker session each morning to allow participants to meet new people
Provide guidance for mini-workshop sessions, although we note to ask for more interaction in the future (and not comprise solely of presentation)
Reformulate Hack Day and judging process

Venue and catering¶

Major risks to changing the event at this late stage included the Institute’s reputation with our hosts in Belfast as well as the large financial loss we expected if we cancelled the in-person event (based on the cancellation terms and conditions in our contract).

To mitigate these risks, we arranged a call with the Belfast stakeholders to discuss the situation surrounding COVID-19 and possibly postponing the in-person event to a future date. We were exceedingly grateful that they agreed to postpone to a future date, with no charges for the changes to the room booking dates, audio/visual and catering.

Communication¶

The risks identified regarding communication included:

Lack of transparent, efficient and effective communication with different stakeholders; for example, not communicating clearly the changes to the event, expectations, planning decisions, task delegation
Participants confused about the agenda or not getting information on the right channels and at the appropriate time/frequency
Too many or not enough pathways to engagement

The strategy we took to mitigate these risks included:

Update the CW20 website and Eventbrite page as decisions and changes were made (for example, we added a notice about our response to COVID-19, updated the agenda with reformatted programme, made changes to the session descriptions, etc.)
Consistent emails with registrants communicating any changes made to the event and any updated information regarding refunds, connection details, programme, and general guidance for getting the most out of the virtual event (although we note that we should have provided advice on physical setup, such as having a second monitor for additional screen real estate and a comfortable headset with microphone)
Documentation for the delivery team (comprised of session chairs, the Organising Committee and volunteers/helpers), such as Zoom instructions for hosts, duties roster, etc. to make sure that everyone was on the same page and knew their responsibilities
Documented all relevant instructions, links and other information in the participant-facing collaborative notes document to keep everyone synchronised
Slack workspace for the event that would persist outside of the Zoom meeting for sharing information and participant engagement

Policies, guidelines and documentation¶

The risks identified regarding policies, guidelines and documentation included:

Lack of clearly stated policies and guidelines suitable for an online event (e.g. Code of Conduct policy and breach reporting and handling procedures, privacy policy, contribution guide)
Data privacy issues related to using Zoom and risk of “Zoom-bombing”

The strategy we took to mitigate these risks included:

Revise Code of Conduct and reporting procedure for online setting and interactions
Schedule Code of Conduct Committee meeting to make sure everyone understands how to handle reported harassment
Introduce Code of Conduct Committee at the start of each day
Ask participants not to publicly share any of the Zoom room links or collaborative documents which contain links to the Zoom rooms and Slack channel

We note that we did not change our privacy policy or apply a license to our collaborative documents; thus to make them available after the event we had to remove personal identifiable information to be compliant with GDPR. In the future, it is worth considering having a privacy policy and license in place to enable easier sharing of these outputs, but this is a discussion for the Steering and Organising Committees and would need to be properly communicated to participants.