Hi, folks - Daniel it’s hard for me to stay in these email streams for immediate back-and-forth because my life and client task work does not always allow that - but I wanted to ‘dip my toe’ in and say I echo what Michael H and Chris and others say about it not in my experience being anything about public or private, organizational or community, existing community or temporary one, or any of that. It’s about thoughtful pre-work, appropriate documentation design, selecting the right process (tool for the job), doing good full-form Open Space, and other things very specific to each client (sponsor / host / convenor / however we wish to name them) and each situation or need.
We’ve had earlier conversations on this list about what is the minimum for what is Open Space, and our other conversations (though you could see it differently / that’s welcome) tend to find: - host / client / sponsor / coordinator / convenor - usually useful if it is not the facilitator - facilitator though it does not have to be one that is ‘professional’ or uses this way of naming themselves - opening circle - agenda co-creation (without a facilitator’s ‘helping’, merging, synthesizing, the group voting, etc. - all ideas welcome and on the agenda) - explanation of 4 principles and law (some people use the 5th principle, some do not, either works), butterfly, bumblebee (for some, also ‘be prepared to be surprised’, for some people, not) - these guidelines / invitations above - about how participants might choose to be - are usually helpful on visual / posters - multiple discussion areas around (ideally) a great big room, (ideally but different people have different opinions) over multiple session times - closing circle for reflection and comments - ideally, some form of documentation so folks can see / learn across all the groups, not just the ones they were able to get to Okay now here is where I would like to invite you to imagine that each situation is different, when it comes to documentation. I would like to invite you to release a measurement of what is ‘timely’ and what is ‘late’ proceedings. Assuming thoughtful discussions have happened in the pre-work, appropriate documentation is designed, and this is (ideally) custom for each event / organization / community / situation / need / context. There are some conversations which inform us (facilitator and client) that it is absolutely appropriate to have a full book-like, full-on narrative of all the conversations that happened-sort-of-style-of Book of Proceedings. And reasons to either turn it around overnight - right there in the event - or reasons to on-purpose, delay dissemination to actually leverage the momentum of the event, include reflective thinkers taking more time for their notes (not just the quick-responders), help people rest and integrate their experience before looking back at their ‘data’ to learn about the knowledge shared across all the groups, and so on. Reasons to say ‘everything in by x:00 and we won’t be helping you remember that - whoever is in by then is in’ - and reasons to interact with each convenor and notes-taker post-event to ask if the’d like to add or refine or complete or add things. Each need / situation appropriate to the context, culture, use of information post-event, and so on. Sometimes documentation is appropriate as a list of who raised what topic, and that is all. Sometimes it’s about action and next steps. Sometimes it’s just about knowledge-sharing without the need for next steps. And so on. Whether organization or community, public or private, conference or planning meeting, issue or experience-sharing. Then there is the ‘sponsor commitment to follow through’ - which is nice (in those particular instances when that was appropriate to the situation) but not always necessary, in my experience. People do amazing things and (as someone mentioned) not always measurable to the eye, ‘by 5:00’, post meeting, for us to see. People do the work whether approval happens, if they want to. They stay with an organization or leave it to follow their passion, if they discovered their passion and voice in the Open Space event. They find ways around. They decide not to. So yes - in an organization, it’s always nice when the sponsor commits, when pre-work conversations help the sponsor think in advance, perhaps even create the mechanisms that support follow-up and post-event sustainability. When really thoughtful pre-work discussions inform whether action or next steps *are* needed and possible *after THIS* event - or are unrealistic / unsupportable, in reality. Or are better discerned and articulated after reflecting on the patterns and learnings of this event, even perhaps after more work is done identifying resources or champions or partners and such, and where the Open Space is part of a *chain* of meetings / actions / steps / reflections / and so on over time. And to me? It’s not about the process, that part. That part is universal to any facilitation process that engages group wisdom and diverse voices. Here I go swimming away back into my life and client work but I do like dipping in now and then ;o) As always, thanks for inviting the question, Dan, and I look forward to hearing, as always, what others think and have experienced… Lisa On Oct 17, 2014, at 11:38 AM, Daniel Mezick via OSList <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Michael, > > I'm confused now, and so I believe I am about to learn something new here... > I'll know by your answers to these questions: > > What are the minimum essentials of Open Space structure? For example, are the > following elements necessary at all? > > Sponsor > Theme > Invitation in advance, referring to Theme > Opening Circle > Facilitator > Explanation of the 1Law/ 5Principles > Posters > Closing Circle > Timely Proceedings > Sponsor commitment to follow though on Proceedings > > If these are not essential to structure, why not? If so, why so? > > Thanks for your help! Very Eager to hear your (hopefully detailed) answers! > > Daniel > > > On 10/17/14 1:27 PM, Michael Herman wrote: >> No. I'm saying the setting, context, culture doesn't matter so much. The >> structure, setup and commitment matter. I'm saying don't assume that public >> gatherings aren't capable of having real impact. And of course >> corporate/organizational/private isn't any guarantee of impact and >> followthrough. >> >> >> On 10/17/14 10:15 AM, Michael Herman wrote: >>> 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. >>> >>>
_______________________________________________ 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
