Not sure the differences you articulate have anything to do with public and private, Daniel. It's about the different structures. I've seen very loose corporate add-on events and very productive and long-lived action (spanning years and continents) come from open public conferences. So id say structure matters much more than setting.
On Friday, October 17, 2014, Daniel Mezick via OSList < [email protected]> wrote: > Greetings Christine, > > Thanks for your detailed reply. I must admit, I have no experience > whatsoever with doing quasi-public OST events arranged for guilds, > industry-associations and the like. I'm clueless! > > As such, my opinion does not have much (if any) validity about those use > cases. I do have some theories however, and I hope I can ask some questions > about OST for guilds & industry associations... > > I see it like this: > > (1) At one extreme end of the spectrum, there is the very private, > business-org-specific event. A kind of big-family system. > > (2) At the other extreme, there is the totally public conference that > anyone can attend, if they pay the money... > > - It is an event that has some Open Space of varying quality, in 1/2 > day, full day or multiple day formats. > - It may of may not have a Sponsor, it may of may not have > Proceedings. It may or may not have posters on the wall. If it has > Proceedings at all, they are often late. > - "Agile" conferences are commonly at found at this end of the > range. > > > My theory is that quasi-public OST events for and with guilds, industry > associations and the like lie somewhere in the middle of these two > extremes. And I can certainly imagine (theorize) how these events take on > the look, feel, tone, temp and flavor of the very private, > business-org-specific event. They might even effectively BE private events. > It's not like anyone with the fee (if any) can just waltz into the meeting > right? > > > And so, for now, I want to set these quasi-public OST events aside, and/or > characterize them as private events. Is that OK? > > > > > > > And so, referring to (1) and (2) above, I continue to see very huge > differences between these two ways to use Open Space. > > Like, the difference between Night and Day. > > > Here's one of those very striking differences: in public-conference events > where OST is an add-on in 1/2 or full day formats, getting good Proceedings > is difficult. Or impossible. The Proceedings are typically late and poorly > formatted, or more commonly: *non-existent.* > > Yet inside private events, you can't pull the people off the task of > Proceedings creation. The task attracts them like a magnet. They typically > wave off any offers of help and take an absolutely huge interest in the > Proceedings generation. They rivet on it. > > > > And this is just one example. There are many more BIG differences. And so > I continue to assert that for public-conference events where OST is a full > day or 1/2 day add-on, a Barcamp or Unconference can and does get > equivalent, similar, as-good results. > > Stated another way, Barcamp and/or Unconference can never do what Open > Space does for organizations. And that's because Open Space is optimized > for enabling "development and transformation in organizations. " > > And those other two aren't. > > > Daniel > > PS I realize some public, paid, Agile conferences that feature all-day > Open Space do a very good job with Proceedings. Yet this is clearly the > exception, and not the rule where Agile conferences are concerned. > > > > > On 10/15/14 11:43 AM, Christine Whitney Sanchez wrote: > > Daniel and all, > > In my experience, public events have the same buzz and meaningful > results as an in-organization OST. I’ve facilitated a number of them that > were sponsored by a group of organizations in the community. For instance, > Vibrant > Phoenix <http://vibrantphx.com/next-actions/top-ideas/>, was a very > productive economic development OST, sponsored by two mayors of large > municipalities and several local businesses. One of the business sponsors > agreed to be the contact for folks who wanted to take their “actionable > ideas” to the next level. However, there was no budget and no > infrastructure to really keep folks connected the the ideas they cared the > most about. > > This is where the public open spaces generally fall short. Because the > ongoing action is not the core mission of any of these organizations, it is > hoped that the participants will self-organize going forward. With very > few exceptions, this does not happen. I believe that sponsorship for the > work after the OST is what is called for. > > The Collective Impact > <http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/channeling_change_making_collective_impact_work> > model > speaks to this. It’s nothing new, really, but does represent a simple way > to talk about the necessary conditions for sustaining collective action. I > now include my version of this model when I talk with potential sponsors to > shine the light beyond the meeting so that we can discuss their intentions > for providing backbone support for self-organized action going forward. > > I especially love public Open Space events and look forward to working > with sponsors who see the meeting as merely the first small step in > collaborative action. There is so much potential! > > Warm wishes from a sunny autumn morning in the rain-greened desert, > > Christine > > Christine Whitney Sanchez, M.C. > Phoenix, AZ, USA • +1.480.759.0262 > www.innovationpartners.com > > Facebook <https://www.facebook.com/ChristineWhitneySanchez> | LinkedIn > <https://www.linkedin.com/in/christinewhitneysanchez> | Twitter > <https://twitter.com/CWhitneySanchez> > > On Oct 15, 2014, at 6:33 AM, Daniel Mezick via OSList < > [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > > Greetings To All, > > I notice that there are many big differences between > public-conference-type OST events, and OST events arranged for > organizations. > > Do you also notice this? Maybe I am imagining this....just making stuff > up... > > ...maybe not. In many key dimensions, I experience these differences as > striking. Even disturbing. > > > > And so I have been poking around inside the GUIDE (3rd edition) and I > notice that, in some spots, the implication is that the discussion is about > a public event. Up to page 18 for example, this implication is clear: > > > <THE GUIDE PAGE 18> > > Working With The Client if you ARE NOT the Sponsor > > "To this point I have assumed that you (the reader) will be the sponsor > and facilitator of the Open Space, and therefore *it is your decision as > to whether or not to proceed*...(*emphasis added.*) > > </THE GUIDE PAGE 18> > > > > My current belief is that having the same person in the Sponsor role > **and** the Facilitator role is probably a very bad idea for an OST event > *inside > an organization*. For the typical public-conference event on the other > hand, this seems to work just fine. Kinda like a Barcamp or Unconference.... > > > Another current belief I hold is that OST is the essential tool for > creating "Development and Transformation in Organizations". It is best > suited for use in organizations. > > It is interesting to note how the Barcamp and/or "Unconference" formats > seem to get the same or as-good results as Open Space, in the public > conference setting. > > Not so inside organizations! In fact, as of now, I don't think Barcamp or > Unconference has any chance whatsoever at being effective in bringing about > Development and Transformation in Organizations the way Open Space can. > Something about the Sponsor? > > Daniel > > > -- > > Daniel Mezick, President > > New Technology Solutions Inc. > > (203) 915 7248 (cell) > > Bio <http://newtechusa.net/dan-mezick/>. Blog > <http://newtechusa.net/blog/>. Twitter > <http://twitter.com/#%21/danmezick/>. > > Examine my new book: The Culture Game > <http://newtechusa.net/about/the-culture-game-book/>: Tools for the Agile > Manager. > > Explore Agile Team Training > <http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-training/> and Coaching. > <http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-coaching/> > > Explore the Agile Boston <http://newtechusa.net//user-groups/ma/> > Community. > _______________________________________________ > OSList mailing list > To post send emails to [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: > http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org > > > -- > > Daniel Mezick, President > > New Technology Solutions Inc. > > (203) 915 7248 (cell) > > Bio <http://newtechusa.net/dan-mezick/>. Blog > <http://newtechusa.net/blog/>. Twitter > <http://twitter.com/#%21/danmezick/>. > > Examine my new book: The Culture Game > <http://newtechusa.net/about/the-culture-game-book/>: Tools for the Agile > Manager. > > Explore Agile Team Training > <http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-training/> and Coaching. > <http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-coaching/> > > Explore the Agile Boston <http://newtechusa.net//user-groups/ma/> > Community. > -- -- Michael Herman Michael Herman Associates 312-280-7838 (mobile) http://MichaelHerman.com http://OpenSpaceWorld.org
_______________________________________________ OSList mailing list To post send emails to [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
