When I learned about meeting graphics we were introduced to a broad range of chart types, featuring mostly templates from the Grove Consultants. Having pioneered the field, their line of templates is thorough, well-researched and tested, and well documented for leaders. The other thing they are is Expensive.

Returning to Victoria and starting out with my first couple of gigs, I didn’t have the money to invest in Grove products, and I wasn’t really certain how the whole graphic facilitation thing was going to fit with my existing practice in strategic planning. I adapted the concept of the OARRs and made a chart using a theatre metaphor for my first gig, leading the retreat for the BoD of a local theatre production company. The rest of that gig started with blank paper on which I captured brainstorming in a fairly loose way. I found myself organizing information in an organic, on-the-fly way and I was pleased with the results. But I still felt a debt of gratitude to all the templates and the work of other graphic facilitators that I’ve seen and learned from.

Today I delivered an intro strategic planning session with a new client, and I produced my own adaptation of the Grove “Big Waves Vision” chart on easel-chart paper. Because it was so heavily influenced by the Grove template, I put an attribution “Adapted from Grove Consultants ‘Big Wave Vision’ ” on the bottom of the page. This is the first time I’ve used a Grove model (with the waves and sun-circle), and it was extremely helpful in keeping a meeting on track, although there are still ways I would customize the headings for the client’s situation. I want to do my own thing, specifically oriented to the client’s exact situation. That’s why I’m not too keen on shelling out the dollars for a full-sized Grove chart. That, and the insane brokerage fees to get any Grove materials delivered to me up here in Canuckland.

On the blending/adapting side, I don’t think it’s possible to get seriously into graphic facilitation without a hefty dose of observing and adapting what you see on other practitioner’s portfolios. I’ll never draw an airplane or map out the flow of a conversation in the same way that another person would, and I’m not trying to turn myself into the next Sunni Brown or Christina Merkley. Their artistic styles are distinct and evolved from their own experiences and artistic “upbringing” (referring to one’s training explicitly but also how people responded to one’s drawing etc when you were growing up which influences your relationship to doing drawing etc now). My history with color and drawing is different and I see patterns in information differently, which is why my work will always be unique. However, I still pick up ideas from other graphic recorders especially, and learn from seeing their use of white space, various headings/font choices, etc.

I guess the point of this post comes down to trying to find a line in the sand between what is copying, and what is acceptable adaptation. Intellectual property should always be respected and credited, but when you take somebody’s example of a particular model or concept, and you add in your own thoughts/values/experiences to create a new experience for your client, how do you properly account for the evolution of the idea? If you borrow idea A from person X, and they adapted their idea A from person Q who had idea B, and based on these things you create idea C and take it to market… who gets the credit? Without boring the client with a historical overview, one should give proper credence, I think. The line in the sand is drawn with the baton of integrity, I suppose.