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
