At 09:26 PM 5/14/01 -0400, Birgitt wrote:
Dear Anne, I think the topic of reports--their clarity to those who did not attend the session but would like a well done summary of what took place, as well as often time far reaching implications of what is included in the reports is of consequence within what we do with Open Space Technology meetings. I agree with Harrison in terms of getting the reports up on to the wall as quickly as possible and asking all to pay attention and to see their "recorder" if reports require changing before they make it into the book of proceedings. This is difficult regarding the reports entered at the end. There is also a problem when all in the group agree with the report but it has inaccuracies of the type you mention. This could be somewhat offset by how you develop and then communicate the "givens" for the meeting.
I find it very helpful to remind folks at the beginning, middle and end about the "true" nature of the reports. They are much closer to "aide d'memoire" (I think I screwed up my high school French) than what we traditionally understand as "formal reports". I often stamp the reports in large letters DRAFT -- just to make the point. If it turns out that folks want something more finished -- that is a task best undertaken after the Open Space. In short the reports (The Book) is a Work in Progress, the purpose of which is to remind people (at the least) where they have been, and what they might be looking forward to. All of this seems to work in my experience, provided "the whole system" is really in the room -- or at least a much of it as was humanly possible. The reports then are no longer documents designed to inform people who were not there (primarily) but rather "memory jogs" for the folks who were there. Adding that wonderful word DRAFT serves to make the point. Indeed a short note to that effect in the introduction is often helpful, because of course you must assume that the Reports will find their way into the hands of those who were not present. Birgitt raises an important point about folks "not agreeing" with all the details in the report. Over the long haul, this is not a problem, provided it is under stood that it is all a Work In Progress -- but there can be a difficulty when it comes to prioritizing and convergence at the end of Open Space. The way I handle this is to suggest that folks "vote" for the title, and use the discussion merely for purposes of definition. Thus if you think the issue, as stated by the title and defined (generally) by the discussion, is "important" -- it is worthy of your vote even if you totally disagree with the content of the discussion. I guess the real point is that it is the people that are important, and not the reports. I understand that in many organization ":IT" (whatever "IT" is) simply doesn't exist until it shows up in the "official report". This is a place where I think Open Space can make a solid blow for freedom. So it is my practice to suggest that at the end of the Open Space -- Don't forward the Reports for further discussion (usually by the Management/Executive Committee which is typically a black hole from which nothing useful ever escapes) -- Invite the people who cared, and whoever else chooses to join them to make that critical presentation. Not incidentally, this makes it quite clear that Open Space doesn't stop with the closing circle. Harrison Harrison Owen 7808 River Falls Drive Potomac, MD 20854 USA phone 301-469-9269 fax 301-983-9314 Open Space Training www.openspaceworld.com Open Space Institute www.openspaceworld.org Personal website www.mindspring.com/~owenhh [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of [email protected] Visit: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
