Marie – I think all the theoretical models etc are very useful... but not to convince us to be agile. I don’t believe you can “think” your way to that status. You just have to DO it. Very much like riding a bike. You can go to all the lectures you want, but at the end of the day you just have to ride. It is precisely at this point that I find good old OS to be very helpful. You really do ride, and not by thinking yourself into a vertical, moving position. In fact the more you think about it the harder it seems to become.
Harrison Harrison Owen 7808 River Falls Dr. Potomac, MD 20854 USA 189 Beaucaire Ave. (summer) Camden, Maine 04843 Phone 301-365-2093 (summer) 207-763-3261 www.openspaceworld.com www.ho-image.com (Personal Website) To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of OSLIST Go to: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org From: oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org [mailto:oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org] On Behalf Of Marie Ann Östlund Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 8:50 AM To: World wide Open Space Technology email list Cc: World wide Open Space Technology email list Subject: Re: [OSList] The OST Game Thank you Harrison for you thoughtfulness and insights. On the point that agility and open space is a natural condition if we stop trying to fix them, and the need for various theories and systems for the facilitator - and on the principles and law of open space (which we don't need as they emerge when we engage in open space): I totally get that open space and agility is a natural state and that we should BE agile, not adopt agility - BUT :) we might need all those theories and manifestos and principles and laws to get us there. If our minds are not open and agile, for various reasons, we might need reasons (for the mind) and practices that bring us there. I mention the principles and law in open space to give people permission to be in open space - or rather, give them space/reasons to allow themselves to be in open space. Our minds and beliefs can block our participation, so reasons, manifestos, principles can be useful to remove our mental blocks and allow us the experience of open space. When we experince and taste the fruits of experience, we don't need them anymore as we have reached a deeper sense of knowing. But we're not all there and so principles and theories are useful. Do keep reminding us to be more simple. That's the role of the Dervish :) and is quite wonderful. Marie Ann Skickat från min iPhone 14 okt 2013 kl. 21:54 skrev "Harrison Owen" <hho...@verizon.net>: A marvelous conversation... and I have been absent a bit for a good cause, I hope. I have been doing my homework, reading all the assigned material about broken reality and culture hacking. Interesting journey! And along the way I came upon an odd realization – I really just don’t like games! Seems it had something to do with early childhood trauma... my mother just loved games, and she would beat me unmercifully. Oh well. Unfortunately that aversion carried on into my adult life, particularly as it related to the so called Group Dynamics games that we were all supposed to play prior to serious discussion. Seems like you just couldn’t have an adult interchange without some “warm-up” to break the ice. Or so they said. Really bugged me. I just couldn’t believe that consenting adults could not communicate without some elaborate foreplay – funny tools drawn from the omnipresent Facilitator’s Tool Box. So much for my inherent pathology and prejudices, but there may be something of a positive outcome. I simply had to believe that given reasonable conditions, human beings could sit down and talk productively with each other – all by themselves. As adults. It did take two martinis to get me there... but “there” was (guess what) Open Space. We have been doing that ever since, and it turns out that children do just as well. What may have started as childish rebellion (against Mother, Facilitators, etc) has only gotten worse. With increasing age and experience it has become clearer and clearer that the less I do the better things work. It is not that I have no agency or contribution, but it does turn out that the ambient wisdom and capacity of the individuals and groups that I am privileged to interact with so vastly exceeds my own that I would do very well to fold my hands and shut my mouth. Anything else has me working much too hard, and generally messing things up... Such are the eye glasses through which I view my world. Distorted perhaps, and different for sure, but I’m stuck with it. And it is through those glasses that I read my assignments, beginning with “Reality is Broken.” Jane McGonigal weaves a fascinating tale of the strange (to me) world of Game Makers, Gaming, and Gamers. I can certainly understand why she has created a stir, and I applaud her massive research and clear prose. That said, my reaction was close to horror, and the thought that the world and techniques she describes should become a model and a means to fix our world was pretty close to terror. Doubtless much of this can be ascribed to my aforementioned phobia – but I suspect that others might share such feelings. Two points stand out in my mind—Gaming is addictive, a point she develops in infinite detail, and secondly that good Game Makers actually capitalize on this phenomenon and make every effort to enhance the addictive power. Their success is obvious and awesome. It seems that one massive, online game attracted 5,000,000 man/years of attention. George Orwell, where are you now that we need you? I joke a bit – and my concerns run deeper. When Jane says, “Reality is Broken,” I feel constrained to ask, Who’s reality? Not mine, for sure. It is not that I experience every day as a walk in the park, but there have been precious few moments when I have felt bored, without challenge, non-productive and unappreciated/respected. And I have many friends and colleagues around the world who seemingly have a similar experience. Doubtless that makes us odd, perhaps aberrant, but there is a certain consolation in numbers. We are not alone. When I think about the factors that positively contribute to my reality they include such things as the indeterminacy of my surroundings. The moment I think I know where it is all headed, I am confounded by the twists of happenstance. Then there is the total lack of clarity when it comes to goals and objectives. Certainly I have hopes and desires, but just about every time I have locked on some particular outcome, it doesn’t turn out that way – usually better. And lastly, if there are clear cut rules, I certainly have never found them. Of course there are moments when I think it is all a dreadful mistake and I am scared to death. But even that has its positive: I know I am alive. So for me, my reality is doing just fine. Exciting, challenging, growthful, rewarding -- In fact it seems to be working perfectly. I am truly sorry for those who have a different experience, but if reality for them is broken, it is reasonable to ask, Who broke it? Or could it be that it isn’t really broken, they just think it is, if only because it doesn’t measure up to their expectations. That would certainly be the case if reality was supposed to work by clear cut rules, heading in a pre-determined direction, always under somebody’s control. That understanding of reality is certainly alternate to anything I know anything about. It just never happened, and if it did I believe it would be unendingly boring. But that might account for the Game Maker’s success – for if I read Jane correctly, that is pretty much the reality they create. And if that is the reality you want, no wonder people spend 5 million man/years immersed in it! And on to a related question: Is OST a game? Possibly, but not according to Jane’s rules/criteria. To be sure, there is a correlation with Jane’s first criteria: Opt in = Voluntary Self Selection, and a second one relating to Good Feedback (we might say documentation). But it seems to me it all goes downhill from there. If there are any rules in Open Space, I have yet to encounter them. To be sure there are 5 principles and a law, but none of them are things you have to do. In fact they all seem to emerge no matter what you do – all by themselves. As for a clear goal, I think you have precisely the opposite. Everything begins with a question, and under the best of circumstances there is no attachment to outcomes. As we say, Whatever happens is the only thing that could have. Just to drive a little deeper. If OST is not a game – what is it? Drum roll... Cutting edge revelation... OST... is ... Life. It does not bring anything new. Represents no mind bending revelation. In fact it doesn’t DO a thing. Nothing. OST simply and quietly invites us to be, fully, what we already are – ourselves. It really is shocking. Just be yourself as you really are. Drawn by a question (Quest) – you are invited to explore what you really care about. No foregone conclusions. No prior exclusions (givens). No rules prescribed (by somebody else). Just be yourself and take it from there. Of course it helps to be honest. What do you really care about? And if you care, take responsibility for what you care about. Nobody else will. And you don’t need an act of Congress, Parliament, the Legislature, or the writings of the latest Guru. It’s just you. But not just you. Who shares your passion? Who will join you in the assumed responsibility? In advance you simply don’t know, nor can you predict. But when it happens, you know it happens. Life not only goes on – it gets deeper and richer with the shared passions and responsibilities that weave the rich tapestry of the human odyssey. I know you have heard this song before, but I think it bears re-singing. The temptation to change this simple invitation into some complex process, procedure, structure is almost overwhelming, driven I am sure by our hope to improve and also perhaps to make it something we own or do. Something that requires the professional touch, as it were. But the truth of the matter, I believe, is that there really isn’t anything to improve and still less to do. Above all, Don’t fix it if it ain’t broke, and always think of one less thing to do. So where does all this discussion leave Agile and OST, or more exactly the relationship between the two? Closely united, I believe – but perhaps not in the way that Dan and others seem to be suggesting, even though that way appears to be eminently rational and definitely a good plan. I understand that Agile (as described in the Agile Manifesto) is an elegant set of principles which await implementation (adoption) through some method or process, SCRUM for example. The principles are magnificent and represent the latest iteration of a longish tradition beginning perhaps with Quality Circles, and passing through Excellent Organizations (Tom Peters et al), Learning Organizations, with possibly a side trip through Process Re-Engineering. In every case, elaborate processes, procedures, and protocols were designed in order to bring the noble ideas into everyday practice. In every case the energy and enthusiasm surrounding the several efforts was considerable (aided I suspect by the fat consulting fees that could be generated). And in every case I believe we learned many useful lessons. However, in terms of the desired outcome, which might be described as “enhanced organizational function,” I think the record is less than positive. Only people of a certain age will even remember Quality Circles, Excellent Organizations seem evident mostly by their absence, The Society of Organizational Learning disbanded last year, and Process Engineering has been retired by general consensus as an embarrassing failure. Jane McGonigal may just have written the epitaph, “Reality is Broken.” Whether Agile and its several implementation procedures (SCRUM, etc) will meet a similar fate remains to be seen. Reasonable people might well ask, how could we invest so much and accomplish so little? Doubtless there are multiple answers, but one stands out for me. We’ve been trying to organize self organizing systems. This is a thankless task if only because we will never get it right; the systems involved (our businesses, countries, organizations) are so complex, inter-related, and fast moving that we can’t even think at that level – let alone effectively structure and control them. Even worse it seems all too often that our best efforts and intentions make the situation worse – our fixes end up with painful unintended consequences. But worst of all our efforts are not needed because the system itself, all by itself, can do a better job. Frankly our efforts are just plain clunky. It is precisely at the point where I think other efforts have been less than successful that OST may enable Agile to succeed -- but not by facilitating the adoption Agile as a set of principles, but in a much more immediate and direct fashion: by enabling Agility. The principles are definitely nice, but what we truly care about is real, meaningful, organizational agility, which others might call High Performance, and Open Space demonstrably delivers on that score. My favorite story, of course is the AT&T design team for the ’96 Olympic Pavilion. In 2 days they designed a $200,000,000 structure which had taken them 10 months on a previous effort. That is a 15,000% increase in productivity. Not bad. If that were the only instance of such a phenomenon it would be interesting but not helpful, but there are others, a lot. And how does all that work? It is just a well functioning self organizing system. And if you ask whether it is all scalable – the answer is it is already scaled to the highest levels. Been around for 13.7 billion years, and the Cosmos (along with everything else) is the product. Don’t adopt Agile, BE agile. Honestly, it is a natural condition if we stop trying to fix it. So I think we have some very good news here. Reality ain’t broke and serious Agility is available any time we want to open the space to let it happen. And if you were wondering who all those friends and colleagues around the world who know that their reality is unbroken (albeit painful sometimes) you can start by looking in a mirror. Yes, I am talking about all those folks who have wandered into Open Space to discover, many times in spite of themselves – that deep, meaningful, productive, playful, respectful encounters with their fellows can and do happen. That is just a taste, of course – but it can happen all the time -- 24X7. I know. Harrison Harrison Owen 7808 River Falls Dr. Potomac, MD 20854 USA 189 Beaucaire Ave. (summer) Camden, Maine 04843 Phone 301-365-2093 (summer) 207-763-3261 www.openspaceworld.com www.ho-image.com (Personal Website) To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of OSLIST Go to: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org From: oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org [mailto:oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org] On Behalf Of Harold Shinsato Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 6:46 PM To: World wide Open Space Technology email list Subject: Re: [OSList] The OST Game Oh Diane - thank you! I had been hoping you would write something. I'm also very grateful for your comprehensive history here only some of which I was aware of. A deep bow of appreciation for the Agile Open series. I'd love to go to every one of those because of the fun, engagement, high level of learning - but mostly from the awesome people I've met and how it has enriched my lives. You've been one of the greatest enrichers of my professional life, Diane! I'm quite excited to be going to Agile Open in Berkeley next week! And the Portland/Seattle Agile Open Northwest is one of the high points of my year. As Harrison said - please ramble more. I've been intrigued and intimidated by the depth I've seen in the Human System Dynamics work and would love especially to hear you speak more about the intersection of OST and HSD - or maybe more appropos to this thread how Finite and Infinite Games is a formal basis for HSD - and that might benefit OST facilitation. Thanks! Harold On 10/9/13 3:21 PM, Diana Larsen wrote: Harold, Michael, Harrison, and all, I've been lurking on the sidelines of this conversation. Honestly, hoping a bit that it would go away. (Not sure about my motivations there.) However, the turn the thread has taken recently prompts me to speak up again. I'd like to remind you about the Agile Open series of conferences (goes back to Europe in 2004 and still continuing) and the Agile Open Program supported by the Agile Alliance (since 2010) and before those the open space formats of Consultants' Camp (started by Jerry Weinberg decades ago), the Consultants' Retreats (Norm Kerth begun in 1997), and Retrospective Faciltators' Gatherings (Norm, Esther Derby, Linda Rising, and me, 2002), all still continuing and having touched many people in the Agile community over the years. What is now the Agile 20xx conferences have had an open space/open jam component since the beginning. As well as John Engle's, Harrison's, & Suzanne's involvement with a variety of Agile conferences. Coming to a Scrum Gathering in Boulder straight from having attended the US-OS on OS in San Antonio TX in 2005(?), I opened the first open space for Scrum (that I know of). Michael opened space at the XP/Agile Universe conference ten years ago and showed everyone there what self-organizing could look like in the moment. (I was there, thank you Michael.) All of which has made fertile ground for Dan's advocacy to take hold in the Agile community. We all stand on the shoulders of giants. Dan may be the most vocal advocate at the moment (and I applaud his visibility), but I wouldn't say he's the most potent advocate. Agile and Open Space have a long, rich and entwined history together. Some of us have been quietly applying Open Space principles in our Agile adoption work for many years. We haven't codified it or named it, but it's been a central part of what we do. Charlie Poole and others have opened space in organizations as a way of introducing, modeling, and applying Agile and self-organization. The theoretical basis of Carse's _Finite and Infinite Games_ underlies much of the thinking in Human Systems Dynamics as well. The idea that the degree to which a system is open or closed, multi-dimensional or single dimensional, non-linear or linear gives us clues about the patterns that may fit the purpose or not, and whether we'd like to shift those patterns or not. Alistair Cockburn used Carse's model to think about competitive and cooperative games, and proposed the idea that software development would do well to think more in terms of cooperation among stakeholders. It's one of the reasons I was drawn into the Agile space. Some in the Agile community have embraced this idea of games as metaphor, games/play as learning tool, but they often do not incorporate (are not aware of?) the deeper meanings from Carse and Cockburn and the complexity sciences. They do it because it's more fun. And that's okay too. It may or may not be a metaphor, explanation or tool that works for the Open Space community. Gratitude for your patience with my rambling, Diana ************** Diana Larsen http://futureworksconsulting.com Envisioning a world where everyone at every level of the organization can say, "I love my work; this is the best job EVER!" Read the books: Agile Retrospectives: Making Good Teams Great Liftoff: Launching Agile Teams and Projects QuickStart Guide to Five Rules of Accelerated Learning https://leanpub.com/fiverules ******************** On Oct 9, 2013, at 1:08 PM, Harold Shinsato wrote: Hi Michael, No fun to hear I'm failing - but it hasn't stopped me before. Try and try again (even if it takes years). I'm not saying OST *is* a game. I'm not saying OST is anything. What I see is that there is value in the metaphor of OST as a game. So Dan is already speaking about OST as a game to Agile circles and making some good cheese with it. And maybe the Agile community has a bit of a leg up on us here because Alistair Cockburn used the game metaphor in his first book in the 1990's about this. And Alistair is one of the signatories of the Agile Manifesto that started the whole "Agile" (with capital letter) conversation. But Alistair wasn't talking specifically about software as in an obscure coding thing thing that will make everyone's eyes glaze over. He was speaking about a different way to look at work and at teams. So I've been in the Agile conversation for over a decade. And it's not always been fun. Much of it has been butting up against minds that were very shut, and it's still not an uncommon experience for advocates to run into a wall. And maybe this might not seem relevant here, but much of that "Agile" conversation has been about people. People people people. It's even a frequent complaint I hear for the techies, because a minority who show up at conferences are only interested in the coding aspect. But they're the minority. The first line of the Agile Manifesto <http://agilemanifesto.org/> - "Individuals and interactions over processes and tools." Yes - I do live in that world of code. But I also live in this world of Open Space, improving human dynamics in teams, OD type stuff etc. And often times having a foot in both worlds causes cognitive dissonance because not too many are comfortable in this lonely between space. Finding language to bring together the contasting perspectives can be difficult. But living in both worlds - I see so much in common. I see so much common ground. I see so many ways that the Agile crowd can help the OST/OD crowd, and most certainly visa versa. The thing is - the Agile universe is already embracing Open Space in a huge way. And not always with the direct help and support and understanding of the folks here. Which is not always a good thing. One last thing - the Agile community is not homogeneous. There are many innovations that cause controversy and big huge disruptions. I'm seeing some of Dan's work in this community as being potentially hugely powerful and disrupting - and in a large way due to his being the most potent advocate of Open Space in Agile today. And this game perspective is part of how he got there. I'm not fully there and understanding his metaphor of OST as a game - and it looks like I'll need to converse with him outside this forum to fully get it. I guess I was hoping for a warmer reception from the voices of authority and seniority on this list. But at least, having attended WOSonOS in Florida and knowing some of what is happening in the Open Space world because of being part of the Open Space Institute/U.S. - I do know that many of us are catching more of the agile mojo and that it will continue to mature. Well, anyway - not sure I just helped you Michael but thanks for giving me an excuse to rant. :-) Cheers, Harold On 10/9/13 11:58 AM, Michael Herman wrote: Not sure you actually accomlished "Against," Harold. I think I just read OST is life, a finite slice of Life. And if the conversation happens in a room full of people who think and talk about games, that's great to say OST is a game cuz everyone in that room or community knows what that means. Probably doesn't work as well on CNN or at an ODN mtg. I guess it still a bit confusing to me if this conversation is about how to talk OST in agile community or how to talk OST in other/larger communities. Translation is always possible, but the game lingo doesn't seem native to the folks I'm usually talking with. Actually, finding some native understanding of (and native language for) OS seems like half the game in many instances. m On Wednesday, October 9, 2013, Harold Shinsato wrote: Harrison, Ok, I'll take your word from previous posts that I won't be in trouble if I risk going up against you again - or maybe it's just a hope that this thread won't be shut down due to misunderstandings. The statement "OST is a game" actually doesn't work for me so much because it uncomfortably reduces all the ideas and philosophy (and practice) of OST into a word that unfortunately has for many negative connotations. But perhaps I'll invite thinking about OST *as* a game instead. Perhaps that can help prevent cognitive dissonance and allow for this conversation to continue. My understanding of the word game as used by Daniel Mezick and others comes from game theory - and could open up many benefits. The briefest way I think to hope to keep this particular door open for those in this community who might find the word game unpleasant would be to suggest the book "Finite and Infinite Games: A Vision of Life as Play and Possibility" by James P. Carse. Mr. Carse actually is a professor of history and literature of religion - and his thinking in that book is very poetic and beautiful. And it reminds me much of Open Space thinking - and I won't even attempt to dive into his thesis any more than to look at what I think sums up the thinking being the final sentence in the book. "There is only one infinite game." The bigger game of Open Space is the game of life - the unending story - the "one infinite game". And an OST meeting or conference is a finite game which seems to open up an experience of the infinite game in a beautiful way. And yet, there's still value in seeing the finite game aspects of OST in that context. Alas, perhaps this attempt will be futile. But I hold out hope that others won't be discouraged from this perspective on OST as a game and it's benefits. Harold On 10/7/13 1:25 PM, Harrison Owen wrote: Dan – Using the word, “game” as you do, I guess it sort of works with OS, but I do confess a certain feeling of cognitive dissonance, which I suspect may be shared by some of my colleagues. In any event, it certainly would not be a word I would use. But that doesn’t mean a great deal. However, when you say, “Leaders choose to play OST. Or not,” I do feel called upon to say something like... Oh Yes? Some people refer to the “Game of Life,” but it is scarcely a game you choose to play (or not). Not playing is called suicide, I think, and while some people do make that choice it is not a choice that most folks would considered good, useful, or positive. It is more like canceling all choices. Out of the Game, so to speak. I feel rather the same way about OS, and for all the same reasons. OS for me is not a process we choose to do or not do – quite simply it is what we are -- Self organizing, and OS is only an invitation to be ourselves fully and purposefully. We can chose to be ourselves with distinction, despair, or something in between -- but so long as we remain on the planet in some viable form, we got no choice. We are what we are, what we are. Put a little differently, OS is not something new and different, it is just a small name change for what has been around for quite a while: life. I guess you can call it a game, but somehow that seems to miss some of the nuances. Harrison -- Harold Shinsato har...@shinsato.com <javascript:_e(%7b%7d,%20'cvml',%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20%20'har...@shinsato.com');> http://shinsato.com <http://shinsato.com/> twitter: @hajush <http://twitter.com/hajush> -- Michael Herman MichaelHerman.com (312) 280-7838 Sent from my iPhone _______________________________________________ OSList mailing list To post send emails to OSList@lists.openspacetech.org To unsubscribe send an email to oslist-le...@lists.openspacetech.org To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org -- Harold Shinsato har...@shinsato.com http://shinsato.com <http://shinsato.com/> twitter: @hajush <http://twitter.com/hajush> _______________________________________________ OSList mailing list To post send emails to OSList@lists.openspacetech.org To unsubscribe send an email to oslist-le...@lists.openspacetech.org To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org _______________________________________________ OSList mailing list To post send emails to OSList@lists.openspacetech.org To unsubscribe send an email to oslist-le...@lists.openspacetech.org To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org -- Harold Shinsato har...@shinsato.com http://shinsato.com twitter: @hajush <http://twitter.com/hajush> _______________________________________________ OSList mailing list To post send emails to OSList@lists.openspacetech.org To unsubscribe send an email to oslist-le...@lists.openspacetech.org To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
_______________________________________________ OSList mailing list To post send emails to OSList@lists.openspacetech.org To unsubscribe send an email to oslist-le...@lists.openspacetech.org To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
