Event owner lens
Use this record to benchmark whether a comparable event makes the work after the room visible. The score is 42/100, so the next move is to benchmark the weakest pillars before repeating the format.
action-oriented convening agenda analysis
Workshop Program in VLDB 2020 Conference Page - Workshops - International Workshop on Very Large Internet of Things (VLIoT 2020)
This action-oriented convening in Unknown shows 32 visible agenda rows from ifis.uni-luebeck.de and scores 42/100: a moderate design signal with incomplete evidence. The clearest public signals sit in Participation Architecture and Learning Transfer; the main limits are Network Design and Follow Through. Visible mechanisms include Participant work, Commitments, Feedback, and Network design. Follow-through or tracking is at least visible enough to inspect, though causal proof still depends on stronger evidence. A practical reading: For a reader, this is a comparison record more than a model to copy: it reads as an action-oriented convening, with the strongest visible signal in participation architecture and learning transfer and the biggest open question around network design and follow through. The practical test is whether the published agenda connects the room to post-event continuation and evidence. This page is an original public-evidence analysis, not a copy of the source agenda or an endorsement of the event. The score places the visible agenda in the moderate design signal band. The strongest visible pillars are Participation Architecture, Learning Transfer, and Future-of-Work Fit; the thinnest visible pillars are Network Design, Follow Through, and Evidence Maturity. Visible mechanisms include Participant work, Commitments, Feedback, Network design, and Learning transfer. The extracted agenda preview includes 32 visible rows. The most common formats are Workshop, Unknown, and Keynote; the most common inferred purposes are Co Creation, Unknown, and Thought Leadership.
Eight-pillar fingerprint
Hover any pillar to see what it measures and, where it scored low, what the agenda is missing.
Participation Architecture?67
Participation Architecture - 67/100. Participant work, contribution, interaction, and alternatives to passive broadcast.
Follow Through?22
Follow Through - 22/100. Owners, dates, commitments, progress checks, and accountability after the room.Missing: Add named owners, dates, implementation checkpoints, and a visible post-event continuation path.
Problem Specificity?41
Problem Specificity - 41/100. A clear costly problem, objective, decision, or performance target.Missing: Name the costly problem, decision, or performance target the gathering is meant to move.
Personalization?48
Personalization - 48/100. Role, path, goal, preparation, or connection tailoring for participants.
Network Design?16
Network Design - 16/100. Structured weak ties, bridge-building, mixers, and relationship persistence.Missing: Replace generic networking blocks with designed introductions, ask-offer exchanges, peer groups, or bridge-building rituals.
Learning Transfer?59
Learning Transfer - 59/100. Applied practice, feedback, workplace use, refreshers, and 30-90 day transfer.
Evidence Maturity?41
Evidence Maturity - 41/100. Baseline, comparison, follow-up, isolation, and attribution confidence.
Future-of-Work Fit?51
Future-of-Work Fit - 51/100. Value against time, hybrid reality, accessibility, AI, and meeting load.
Fix the gaps
Field-tested exercises matched to this agenda's weakest pillars, from the exercise library.
Network Design (16/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: Fun Trust-Building Group Game for Team Connection - Izzat... · Exciting Group Trust Activity for Building Confidence... · PFP: September 2005
Follow Through (22/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: Mental Toughness Workshop • WorkshopBank · 15% Solutions • WorkshopBank · Network Patches
Problem Specificity (41/100)
Exercises that strengthen it: 0 - “Two Person Scene” Theory · Challenge Axis - Knowmium: The Un-Training Consultancy · Fist to Five • WorkshopBank
Agenda Preview
The actual agenda we captured. Every block is classified by format and purpose. Open any block to see how we read it; the colored edge shows whether it is participant work, broadcast, logistics, or a showcase.
Room vs wrapper
41 percent of the 32 classified blocks put participants to work; the rest broadcast, show, or handle logistics. That mix is what drives the participation score.
Participant workBroadcastShowcaseLogistics
all eventInternational Workshop onWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all event HomeUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventThe International Workshop on Very Large Internet of Things (VLIoT 2022)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventWe will run this workshop as pure online event.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventMore...UnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
all eventIf you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the workshop chairs!WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventThis workshop is organized in cooperation with the International Federation for Information Processing (IFIP) Working Group WG2.6 Database.WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventAims of the WorkshopWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventThe goal of this workshop is to bring together academic researchers and industry practitioners working in the field of IoT and to allow them to report and exchange their findings addressing these challenges. This workshop also intends to discuss other closely-related technologies such as Nanotechnology, Fog-, Edge-, and Dew-Computing for IoT. The ideas of Fog, Edge and Dew Computing may indeed solve or attenuate the problems of a very large Internet of Things (w.r.t. performance, energy-efficiency, as well as security and privacy aspects).WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventThe workshop welcomes contributions describing original ideas, promising new concepts, and practical experience. In particular, we solicit papers of different types:Opening RemarksOrientation+
Format · BroadcastOpening RemarksFraming or welcome from the stage. Orients the room, not participatory.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventExperiments and Analysis Papers focusing on the experimental evaluation of existing approaches including data structures and algorithms for Internet of Things and bring new insights through the analysis of these experiments. Results of experiments and analysis papers can be, for example, showing benefits of well-known approaches in new settings and environments, opening new research problems by demonstrating unexpected behavior or phenomena, or comparing a set of traditional approaches in an experimental survey.DemoShowcase+
Format · Participant workDemoA hands-on or applied walkthrough that invites attendee questions and direct engagement.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventWorkshop: September 8, 2022WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventWe have currently recruited 25 PC members and chairs listed below who are experts in the topics of interest of our workshop. The current PC members and chairs are selected from 14 nations all over the world as shown also by the map below. While most PC members are from academia, we have 3 experts also from industry (12%). 6 of the PC members and chairs are women (24%).WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventRelevance to the WorkshopWorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
9pmIn order to be more attractive for participants, we moved to one day earlier on Thursday, 8th September 2022. We offer a dense schedule considering local US and Europe timezones for our authors. We start early, such that participants in Sydney can watch the presentations in the evening (starting and ending (+1d) Sydney time). Following times are according to CEST.PresentationKnowledge Transfer+
Format · BroadcastPresentationSpeakers present, the audience receives. Awareness only unless paired with practice or follow-up.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
1pm(CEST): welcome Workshop ChairsOpening RemarksOrientation+
Format · BroadcastOpening RemarksFraming or welcome from the stage. Orients the room, not participatory.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventShort Welcome (Sixth Edition of the Very Large Internet of Things Workshop (VLIoT))Opening RemarksOrientation+
Format · BroadcastOpening RemarksFraming or welcome from the stage. Orients the room, not participatory.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
1:05pm(CEST): paper Ariane Ziehn, Christian Mandel, Kathrin Stich, Rolf Dembinski, Karin Hochbaum, Steffen Zeuch, Volker MarklUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
1:25pm(CEST): paper Peter Baumann, Dimitar MisevUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
1:45pm(CEST): paper Andrea Cimmino Arriaga, Raúl García Castro, Andrea Cimmino ArriagaUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
2:05pm(CEST): paper Simon Paasche, Sven GroppeUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
2:25pm(CEST): break BreakBreakWellbeing+
Format · LogisticsBreakA pacing or recovery block between sessions.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventKeynote 1KeynoteThought Leadership+
Format · BroadcastKeynoteA featured talk from the stage. Builds awareness and energy, produces no participant output on its own.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
3pm(CEST): keynote Yiran Chen (Duke University, USA)KeynoteThought Leadership+
Format · BroadcastKeynoteA featured talk from the stage. Builds awareness and energy, produces no participant output on its own.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
4:15pm(CEST): paper Juan Leon , Yacoub Hanna, Kemal AkkayaUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
4:35pm(CEST): paper Peng Yuan, Lu-An Tang, Haifeng Chen, Moto Sato, Kevin WoodwardUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
4:55pm(CEST): paper Ahmed Khaled, Rousol Al GobooriUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventKeynote 2KeynoteThought Leadership+
Format · BroadcastKeynoteA featured talk from the stage. Builds awareness and energy, produces no participant output on its own.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
5:30pm(CEST): keynote Ian F. Akyildiz (Truva Inc, USA)KeynoteThought Leadership+
Format · BroadcastKeynoteA featured talk from the stage. Builds awareness and energy, produces no participant output on its own.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventSubmission to International Workshop on Very Large Internet of Things (VLIoT 2022)WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventPlease use the following links for further information on the edition of the given year of the International Workshop on Very Large Internet of Things (VLIoT):WorkshopCo Creation+
Format · Participant workWorkshopParticipants work on a problem and produce something. The strongest signal of participation architecture.
Evidence basisMediumRead from source
all eventProgram CommitteeUnknownUnknown+
Format · BroadcastUnknownFormat not classified from the source; treated as a broadcast block by default.
Evidence basisLowRead from source
The Full Reading
Why It Ranks This Way +
Calibrated from GES design 43/100 and verified 43/100 with no fourth-loop cap.
Reader Takeaway. For a reader, this is a comparison record more than a model to copy: it reads as an action-oriented convening, with the strongest visible signal in participation architecture and learning transfer and the biggest open question around network design and follow through. The practical test is whether the published agenda connects the room to post-event continuation and evidence.
Strongest signals: Participation Architecture, Learning Transfer, and Future-of-Work Fit. Weakest signals: Network Design, Follow Through, and Evidence Maturity.
How This Agenda Could Improve +
- Replace generic networking blocks with designed introductions, ask-offer exchanges, peer groups, or bridge-building rituals.
- Add named owners, dates, implementation checkpoints, and a visible post-event continuation path.
- Add baseline measurement, comparison logic, tracking, or post-event impact reporting so effectiveness is not inferred only from format.
Fastest next move: Add named owners, dated next steps, and a visible continuation path before treating the event as outcome-ready.
Role-Specific Reading +
Sponsor lens
Look beyond exposure. Strong sponsor value would show qualified interaction, problem work, buyer learning, customer evidence, or follow-up. The practical sponsor move is to look for structured introductions, buyer-seller fit, and relationship persistence.
Designer lens
The agenda is useful as a pattern sample from ifis.uni-luebeck.de. Redesign attention should go first to the lowest-scoring pillars; in practice, turn the thinnest agenda blocks into participant work.
Executive lens
Treat the visible agenda as an operating plan. The executive move is to require owners, dates, and evidence before treating the event as strategic. If owners, proof, and follow-through are not visible, the public record does not yet prove strategic movement.
Aggregator lens
Treat the source URL as evidence, not decoration. The data-product move is to label the source boundary clearly before ranking the record before ranking or syndicating the record.
What GES Means Here +
The Gathering Effectiveness Score is a strict 0-100 public-evidence reading of the agenda across eight pillars. It rewards visible participant work, follow-through, transfer, network design, and proof mechanisms more than polish, speaker fame, attendance, or satisfaction.
Visible mechanisms: Participant work, Commitments, Feedback, Network design, Learning transfer, Personalization.
Evidence boundary: Scores reflect visible agenda/source evidence and should not be read as proof of causal event impact.
Limitations, Score Caps, and Review Flags +
Limitations
- No baseline measurement is visible.
Score caps
- No fourth-loop score cap applied.
Review flags
- No additional public review flags.
Is this proof the event worked? +
No. This is a strict public-evidence reading of the agenda. Proof would require baseline, comparison, follow-up, attribution, and impact evidence beyond the listing.
What should a reader inspect first? +
Start with the source URL, then compare the eight pillar scores against the agenda rows. The biggest opportunities usually sit in follow-through, evidence maturity, and participant work.
Why publish weak records? +
Weak records are part of the map. They show where public agendas still describe sessions and speakers more often than outcomes, commitments, transfer, or proof.
How should I use the rows? +
Read the agenda rows as the visible design trace: formats, purposes, and evidence labels show what the public source made inspectable, not everything that happened in the room. This is a source-grounded interpretation of the public agenda record, not a copy of the source, and not an endorsement of the event.
Embed the verified badge +
This record is in the hand-verified gold set. Copy the snippet below to embed the verified badge on your own site.
<a href="https://unitedwetransform.com/events/evt_2020_lsgda_github_io_2020_workshop_program_in_vldb2020_conference_page_workshops_1752c6"><img src="https://unitedwetransform.com/badge/ges-verified.svg" alt="GES verified by United We Transform" height="40"></a>Where To Go Next
Compare this agenda against other Unknown events scored on the same eight pillars.