After 26 years in event planning and especially in academic conference management, I've noticed a pattern: conferences don't just "get better" or "get worse" randomly. They move through recognizable phases - especially when the same conference repeats annually with rotating chairs and committees, shifting budgets, and evolving scientific priorities.

Dr. Esat Arber

Below is a simple but powerful model you can use to diagnose where a conference currently stands, predict what risks are next, and decide what kind of management it needs.

The Core Model: Rise - Drift - Crack

532329097-e8ada113-ef2f-4fd2-b45f-4343f77de87c.png
  • Trust: fairness, transparency, scientific integrity
  • Capacity: operations, tech, people, processes
  • Adaptability: ability to listen, improve, and innovate

When those are strong and aligned, the event rises. When they stagnate, it drifts. When they break, the event starts to collapse.

Phase 1 - Rise (Open & Experimental)

This is the "young, hungry, learning" stage.

  • Core trait: Openness
  • Decision style: Consent-based (collaboration)
  • Event culture: Meritocratic and community-led

What it looks like in conferences

  • New ideas are welcome (formats, tracks, session types, hybrid elements).
  • Criticism is treated as a contribution ("Good catch-let's fix it").
  • Scientific decisions feel fair: topics, reviewers, acceptance logic and program construction.
  • Speakers are selected due to their contribution, not their connections.
  • People feel belonging: "This is our community's event."

Operational signature

  • Fast iteration, quick improvements year-to-year.
  • Lean processes, less paperwork, more action.
  • Volunteers feel energized, not exploited.

Key growth engine

A strong feedback loop: the event listens - improves - trust rises - submissions grow - sponsors follow.

I've experienced this most clearly in emerging field conferences - nanotechnology conferences in the mid-2000s, polymer conferences in the 2010s. Small teams, high energy, genuine scientific excitement driving every decision.

Phase 2 - Drift (Bureaucratic & Defensive)

This is not "collapse." It's when the event stops improving - or improves only on the surface.

  • Core trait: Bureaucracy
  • Decision style: Deception/persuasion (PR over truth)
  • Event culture: Status quo protection

This step is the most dangerous phase precisely because it feels stable.

  • What it looks like in conferences
  • Committees become protective: "We always do it this way."
  • Processes multiply: approvals, forms, rules - often to justify roles.
  • Feedback gets "managed" instead of used.
  • The program starts to feel repetitive:
    • Same speaker circles
    • Same topics emphasized regardless of submission reality
    • Innovation becomes cosmetic ("We added a panel!")

Early warning signals (very practical)

  • Growth stalls: submissions plateau; attendance relies on campaigns.
  • Sponsor fatigue: fewer renewals, more negotiation, smaller packages.
  • Community voice weakens: fewer unsolicited volunteers, fewer enthusiastic ambassadors.
  • Reviewer/committee burnout rises: more complaints, late reviews, "no time" culture.
  • Reputation gap appears: marketing claims don't match the onsite experience.

The hidden risk

Drift creates fragility. The event may look stable, but it becomes unable to handle stress.

Phase 3 - Crack (Coercive & Opportunistic)

Crack is when the event becomes fragile + rigid. Problems are no longer "fixable with effort" - because the system stops learning.

  • Core trait: Coercion / Opportunism
  • Decision style: Force / Compliance
  • Event culture: Survival Mode

What it looks like in conferences

  • Criticism is silenced ("Don't make trouble.")
  • Decisions become opaque:
    • Invited speaker choices ignore the scientific program needs
    • "Friendship invitations" dominate
    • Standards and rules apply selectively
  • People stay involved only because of habit, title, or obligation.
  • Attendees feel like a revenue source - not a community.

Operational signature

  • Details are avoided.
  • Last-minute changes become normal.
  • Vendor/venue problems spiral.
  • Quality drops: sessions poorly matched, schedules messy, communications inconsistent.
  • "We'll fix it next year" becomes the annual excuse.

What collapse actually means

When a conference collapses, the consequences extend far beyond one cancelled event: financial losses for organizing institutions, reputation damage that takes years to repair, disruption to scientific communities that lose their primary gathering space, and the waste of hundreds of hours invested by volunteers and committee members.

The collapse trigger

Crack rarely ends the event by itself. What ends it is the perfect storm.

The Perfect Storm Principle (Why Collapse Feels Sudden)

Most event collapses feel surprising because drift is slow - but collapse is fast.

A conference in crack phase cannot survive multiple shocks at once, such as:

1. Economic + Sponsor Issues (most common)

  • Sponsor withdrawal + budget crisis
  • Price increases + declining perceived value

2. Competitive Threats

  • Competitor event same dates + community split
  • Better venue/location elsewhere + migration of key speakers

3. Operational Failures

  • Venue failure + last-minute relocation
  • Tech breakdown + registration chaos

4. Reputation Damage

  • Ethics scandal + media attention
  • Program quality complaints + social media backlash

Healthy events absorb shocks because they have trust and adaptability. Cracked events don't - because criticism was silenced, data was ignored, and problems were hidden.

A Diagnostic Tool: The 6-Dimension Event Health Map

To locate your event in the cycle, score each dimension as Green / Yellow / Red:

  1. Governance & Transparency
    • Clear roles? Decisions documented? Conflicts managed?
  2. Scientific Integrity
    • Reviewer quality, fairness, topic-speaker alignment, program logic.
  3. Community Energy
    • Volunteers, returning attendees, organic promotion, "buzz."
  4. Innovation & Learning
    • Feedback loop, experimentation, willingness to change.
  5. Operational Reliability
    • Registration flow, communications, deadlines, onsite execution.
  6. Economic Sustainability
    • Sponsor renewal, realistic pricing, balanced budget, value perception.

Interpretation

  • Mostly Green - Rise
  • Many Yellow - Drift
  • Several Red (especially 1-3) - Crack risk

Quick Self-Assessment: What Phase Are You In?

Answer these questions honestly:

  1. When someone on your committee raises a concern, is the first instinct to fix it or defend against it?
  2. Can you clearly explain why each invited speaker was selected based on scientific merit?
  3. Do your submission numbers grow organically, or do they require increasingly aggressive campaigns?
  4. Would your volunteers enthusiastically recommend this committee work to colleagues?
  5. If you lost your top three sponsors tomorrow, could the event adapt without crisis?
  • Mostly "fix it" / "yes" answers? You're likely in Rise.
  • Mixed answers with defensive instincts? You're in Drift.
  • Mostly "defend" / "no" / "crisis" answers? You're approaching Crack.

Management Style Required in Each Phase

One of the biggest mistakes committees make is using the wrong management style for the phase.

  • Rise needs: empowerment + experimentation + fast feedback
  • Drift needs: simplification + truth-telling + refocusing on core value
  • Crack needs: reset structure + restore trust + remove fragility

A "Fourth Phase" You Can Choose: Renewal

Unlike empires, conferences can renew - but only if they intentionally rebuild trust and adaptability.

  • What renewal requires
  • Tightening governance and transparency
  • Redesigning the value proposition for attendees and sponsors
  • Reconnecting invited speakers to submission reality
  • Focus on young researchers and early careers
  • Updating and simplifying your procedures
  • Restoring an honest feedback culture

The reality of renewal

Successful renewal typically takes many years of sustained effort. In my experience, the success rate is modest - perhaps one in three conferences that attempt renewal actually achieve it. This is why we see conferences splitting or giving rise to new ones. Starting fresh with a new structure or platform is often more efficient than renewing a cracked system, though it comes at the cost of institutional memory and established networks.

Closing: Use the Model as a Conversation Tool

The right questions matter more than the right answers:

  • "Are we rising or drifting?"
  • "Where are we becoming bureaucratic?"
  • "Are we still learning, or just protecting and defending?"
  • "What shocks would weaken or break us if they hit together?"
  • "Who on our committee is willing to tell us the truth?"

Over 26 years and through working with hundreds of conferences, I've seen these patterns repeat. The good news? Once you can name the phase, you can choose the right response. The framework gives you language to protect the investments of scientists who dedicate their valuable time and energy to these conferences.

I wish you sustainable success in your event planning! We're here to support you with MeetingHand Online Conference Management Software, where all of this know-how is invested.

Please spread the word about this post if you find it beneficial - especially to those struggling with maintaining or restructuring their conferences.