IAEK The Framework For Building The Future of Events
I posted a more detailed analysis of the potential of the IAEK Framework on my blog Digitsising Events. A link to that article is below.
What follows is a slightly more ‘grungy’ exploration of why I feel it may be important and some questions that still need answering. My current thinking is very focused on the B2B event sector.
Why this may be important
Based on my belief, if we can find a uniform ‘code’ for each feature, participant or activity relating to an event, we can begin to apply the type of data and behavioural science used to design experiences in a much more evidence-based manner.
There is still too much guesswork around events, how they are put together, and their impact on markets. As one of my colleagues said, it is still one of the least evidence-based sectors and disciplines that exists.
I have written on Medium about the initial genesis of the IAEK Framework and all the interviews that led me here.
The Flaw in Our Current Approach
If you talk to an event owner or planner, they will first say, “We do events differently.” When pressed about this difference, it is usually not that “different” and very quickly comes down to talking about features and functions. We have more round tables, or we give everyone lunch.
So what is wrong with that? Nothing much on the surface. Nothing seems to be broken. Tables get sponsored, and who does not buy into an exciting and intelligent conversation at a round table?
But what if it is broken?
Too many brands and large companies are beginning to ask some serious and very awkward questions about the impact of events now we are past the “pandemic bounce.”
We are sailing into a digital storm. But where is our compass?
The IAEK Framework and the Future of Events
If we can unlock and describe the nature of an event and its participants’ interaction with it using a straightforward code, a bit like DNA, the possibilities of what we can model, create and predict are fascinating, at least in my head :-)
In DNA, its four nucleotide bases — Adenine (A), Thymine (T), Cytosine ©, and Guanine (G) — form a language where sequences delineate an array of genetic instructions. Despite its apparent simplicity, the sequencing and combinations of these four letters culminate in the spectacular diversity and complexity witnessed within the biological world.
The Four Pillars of IAEK
Information Exchange (I) is the fundamental activity of sharing relevant data. I may pick up a brochure or sign up for an event. The foundational interaction point or marker we need to measure, without which no event can meaningfully exist.
Action/Decision (A) is at the core of any event and its success. If you choose to attend, you are contributing to its success. If you stay away, you are not. This component seeks to understand and influence the actions and decisions taken when experiencing the event and afterwards, resulting from the information and knowledge exchanged.
Engagement/Experience (E) the amount of Engagement and Experience markers a participant, feature, or moment has at an event directly impacts its success or otherwise. Encapsulating the affective, experiential, and qualitative dimensions of events, as an extreme example, a seminar at an event with no attendees has zero engagement and therefore adds no or negative value to an event.
Knowledge Transfer/Gain (K) transpires substantially as more and more Information Exchange markers are created by a feature or interacted with by a participant combined with depths of Engagement or Experience. The more significant the shift in knowledge, the higher the impact of the event and its ability to create a measurable shift in the individuals, organisations to take action and measurable move markets.
A Shared Language for Events and Its Real-World Applications
We can use the IAEK Framework to synthesise a language for event planning and execution that can as accurately and comprehensively represent the multifaceted experiences and outcomes as DNA does for life.
Encoding IAEK into events isn’t merely about elevating individual aspects in isolation but crafting a cohesive, holistic narrative where event components harmoniously converge to create enriched participant experience and maximised value.
Example: Reanimating The Stand, aka Booth
For most tradeshows, The Stand or Booth has almost become an unquestioned given. However, we tend to measure its impact less because it is hard however using the IAEK lens it could become easier.
At the stands, Information Exchange (I) may revolve around product details, company information, or user manuals disseminated through brochures, QR codes, or interactive digital interfaces.
Knowledge Transfer Markers (K) could involve live product demonstrations or expert consultations, enabling attendees to delve deeper than surface-level data.
Action/Decision (A) might involve incentivising immediate sign-ups or purchases through exclusive event discounts or bonuses. Engagement or Experience (E), in its simplest form, is time spent collected in an anonymised way.
The important thing is that giving each stand an IAEK score allows us to benchmark performance and give exhibitors beneficial information on improving and maximising their presence using a scientific method.
Example: Roundtables — Hubs of Collaborative Insight
At a roundtable, Information Exchange (I) might focus on providing concise, relevant data to participants to foster informed discussions. Knowledge Transfer (K) is optimised by ensuring a heterogeneous mix of experts and novices, facilitating bi-directional learning.
For Action/Decision (A), creating clear takeaways or post-event action items, like collaborative projects or whitepapers, would yield tangible outputs.
To amplify Engagement or Experience (E), crafting an inclusive, respectful environment and ensuring participants feel engaged and valued is vital — we can now build correlations to know what the core aspects of this environment need to be.
However, these are just features. The fundamental opportunity is to give each roundtable in a sea of roundtables an IAEK score. We now have a non-subjective way to design for and give feedback on quality.
Keynotes — Anchoring the Event Narrative
Effective Information Exchange (I) might involve strategically placing key data points and takeaways within keynotes, ensuring they're highlighted and easily digestible.
We can elevate Knowledge Transfer (K) by integrating case studies, practical examples, and actionable insights, providing attendees with data and applicable knowledge as they watch the keynote.
Encouraging Action/Decision (A) could involve post-keynote workshops or breakout sessions where insights can be practically applied or discussed further.
Again, the prize is in understanding the optimal IAEK code of a keynote that creates a significant ‘kicker’ for an event, in the sense of moving participants to the next action.
Encoding the Whole Event
We can go on and encode all the event features and, therefore, the event as a whole based on individual and aggregated IAEK scores, which will give us a robust overview of the event's impact in creating a knowledge shift to facilitate action.
We could now use the IAEK lens to view these event elements and dissect, understand, and subsequently enhance the informational, educational, actionable, and experiential value offered at every junction.
It isn't merely about elevating individual aspects in isolation but crafting a cohesive, holistic event narrative where each component — stands, roundtables, keynotes, and beyond — harmoniously converge to create an enriched participant experience and maximise the value they derive from the event.
Example: Participant Profiling — IAEK in Action
As we encode each part of the event and joining that with each participants IAEK score we get a much better way of understanding cohort behaviour and how participants derive value from our events.
Balancing the need for a consistent, structured IAEK application while still honouring and amplifying the unique essence and objectives of each event and its components is a delicate tightrope to walk.
Information Exchange (I) focuses on how participants interact with the information presented at an event. Evaluating this could involve assessing the ease with which participants can access, comprehend, and utilise information.
In assessing Knowledge Transfer/Gain (K), the focus pivots to the depth and applicability of the knowledge shared and acquired during the event. We can now tune post-event surveys and discussions to understand what participants learned and how they intend to apply it, which can provide vital insights.
When evaluating Action/Decision (A), the aim is to discern whether participants are moved to take specific actions or make particular decisions post-event. It could be assessed through follow-up interactions, observing whether participants engage further with presented products, services, or ideas or initiate collaborations and networks spawned from event interactions.
Assessing participant Engagement or Experience (E) involves diving into their event journey's emotional and qualitative dimensions. Utilising feedback platforms, social media interactions, and direct dialogues can unveil how participants felt during and after the event and whether it crafted a memorable, emotionally resonant experience that will linger and bring them back to future events.
We now have a much more explicit focus on tuning and codifying our behavioural analytics and qualitative and quantitative information gathering.
Intersecting IAEK with Diverse Participant Profiles
We must accept that different participants may prioritise I, A, E, and K differently; segmenting participant feedback based on their profiles, roles, and objectives can further refine the IAEK application.
For instance, a vendor might prioritise ‘A’ while an attendee might place a higher value on ‘E’ and ‘K’. Understanding and applying these nuances ensures that IAEK is not just applied but is tailored optimally and used to shift and align behaviours so all participants derive the maximum value from their experiences.
By applying the IAEK framework to evaluate participant experiences and values, we can capture a holistic understanding of the impact of an event, enabling us to tweak and tailor subsequent events to more precisely meet and exceed participant expectations, crafting journeys that inform, educate, inspire, and resonate, ensuring not merely successful events, but transformative experiences.
Challenges and Limitations of Implementing the IAEK Framework
Implementing it universally across diverse events and participants brings several nuances that must be considered and addressed meticulously.
As the events landscape is evolves the IAEK Model is agnostic of form and highly adaptable — which is the core of its potential power.
Quantifying the Intangible — A Struggle with ‘Action’
One of the most salient challenges within the IAEK framework arises when attempting to quantify and measure ‘Action/Decision’ (A). While ‘micro-actions’ are easy to identify, such as where someone went, what time they arrived, and so on, some of the more significant actions are harder to discern.
Actions inspired or decisions made due to participating in an event can often be long-term, multifaceted, and influenced by numerous external variables, making them notoriously difficult to accurately measure and attribute to specific event components or interactions.
Determining a causal link between event participation and subsequent actions/decisions requires more thought — but is a vital nut to crack.
An experience from the past may have an application here. When running an enterprise software event back in the stone ages :-) We would look for win announcements in a magazine called Infomatics (it doesn’t exist any more). Similar signals are now available. For example, we have access to services showing intent data, perhaps the modern equivalent of Infomatics.
I belive we there could be a way of measuring the causal impact of an event on a company's intent to engage with products and services the event focused on.
Capturing Genuine Engagement
While ‘Engagement or Experience’ (E) can be partially gauged through observable metrics like participation duration, interaction levels, and feedback forms, we must refrain from polling participants into apathy.
Beyond mere attendance and interaction, utilising IAEK to understand, measure, and enhance participant journeys ensures that each interaction, session, and moment is crafted with intentionality and empathy.
Capturing participants' genuine, intrinsic engagement and emotional resonance poses a formidable challenge. Ensuring that feedback and engagement metrics are not merely surface-level but delve into the deeper, often subtle, emotional and psychological aspects of participant experience demands nuanced approaches and perhaps even psychological expertise.
Data Privacy and Ethical Considerations
For some reason, events have had a poor relationship with Data Privacy; this must change.
Digitising Events and implementing IAEK effectively demands collecting, analysing, and sharing participant data, which brings forth significant ethical and legal considerations. Ensuring that data collection and analysis is conducted ethically, transparently, and in compliance with global data protection regulations while also ensuring that it does not inadvertently dilute or commercialise participant experiences is pivotal.
It is manageable as we can efficiently anonymise and tune the capture of IAEK markers so that they serve only to create maximum participant value openly and transparently.
Adaptability to Dynamic Event Landscapes
The event landscape is perpetually evolving, shaped by technological advancements, cultural drifts, shifting attitudes to carbon neutrality, and global occurrences (like the recent pandemic, catalysing a seismic shift towards virtual events).
One of the fascinating elements of the IAEK Framework is that it is agnostic of form. Its application can work from webinars to large events, giving us a unique empirical measure to allow us to make the IAEK model adaptable, relevant, and applicable by understanding how it applies to each form.
One of the other beauties of IAEK is that it enables an ongoing and focused dialogue amongst all the areas of expertise involved in orchestrating a successful event from event planners, participants, marketers, sponsors, exhibitors, and speakers — ensuring that the model evolves in tandem with the needs, expectations, and landscapes it seeks to navigate.
IAEK and The Future of Event Experiences: Crafting Authentic, Value-driven Journeys
One of the hopes is that incorporating the IAEK model into the fabric of event planning and execution can reshape how we conceptualise and structure events and how we understand, value, and elevate participant experiences.
While still embryonic, integrating the IAEK framework is more than just a theoretical exercise as we add IAEK scores into The DiG dashboards. It holds genuine potential to forge more meaningful, impactful, and value-driven event experiences for organisers and participants.
Innovation in Event Design and Thinking
We are already seeing shifts as we envisage events through the IAEK lens, facilitating innovative event design and enabling planners to craft experiences that are not merely passive or consumptive but are active, immersive, and collaborative — and now measurable.
Beyond mere logistics and programming, IAEK encourages a deeper dive into understanding and prioritising participants' intrinsic and instrumental values and expectations, crafting events that are attended, actively experienced, interacted with, and valued.
Data-driven Decision-making
In this area, we are making some promising advances; data points which were until now thrown away are now forming useful IAEK markers. It also highlights a need for more veracity from some event tech systems, but that is another post.
Starting to codify events and participant experiences through IAEK, we can surface data-driven insights to make more informed, targeted, and impactful decisions.
Looking at some elements of an event with even a rudimentary IAEK Score completely changes how we can view, analyse, and quantify value.
The model should evolve and refinement of IAEK should not occur in isolation. It demands collective wisdom, diverse perspectives, and a pooling of expertise and experiences from across the event sector. Thus, we warmly invite event organisers, planners, data scientists, analysts, and anyone interested in shaping the future of events to join us on this explorative journey — That is if you belive there is some merit in this approach.