Wow Lisa,
I am very grateful for your detailed reply to my 4 questions, and for
your kind invitation. Thank you!
I receive and accept your kind invite. But before I act, I plan to
ruminate on your thoughtful send.
Regards,
Daniel
On 10/19/14 7:39 PM, Lisa Heft - wrote:
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]
<mailto:[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?
1. Sponsor
2. Theme
3. Invitation in advance, referring to Theme
4. Opening Circle
5. Facilitator
6. Explanation of the 1Law/ 5Principles
7. Posters
8. Closing Circle
9. Timely Proceedings
10. 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.Â
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.Â
--
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]
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
