Chris, A few years back, I spent 2 days in open space with a 5-person board. As Harrison says, it is exactly the same dynamics as a larger group. They were together in every form you can imagine -- in pairs, in 2's and 3's, by themselves, all together. They set their own rhythym according to their individual needs just as in any open space.
>From alternatively rainy, sunny, and cloudy Seattle, Peggy (Finally re-surfacing after an incredibly busy November and December!) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harrison Owen" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 6:02 AM Subject: Re: Micro Open Space > Sure -- it is exactly the same as used with 2000. Less space is > required, of course, but the interesting thing to me, having worked with > groups from 5-2108 -- is that it always seems to take somewhere between > an hour to an hour and a half to get started -- no matter how many > people are involved. > > Harrison > > -----Original Message----- > From: OSLIST [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of chris > macrae > Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 5:53 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Micro Open Space > > Do we have a Micro Open Space Format and what might its components be? > > I am thinking deeply micro, eg 6 people > > Some situations where this could be a valid starting point are: > > A huge organisation where the 6 people who feel most passionately about > long-term design purpose want to make sure organisation is always > capable of doing what it was designed to do (given Harrison's book > mentions 'many' organisations are losing this long-run structural > gravity) > > Trying to get 6 large peace or humanitarian network coordinators > together in network of network actions > > Where a few entrepreneurs come together because they realise their SME's > need to cluster either to make sure the geography of the place sustains > or because they want a network model (for me one big reason most dotcoms > failed is that they were part businesses that desperately needed other > partners) > > I've just taken some guesses at what a micro-OS format might include. > I'm taking a guess at a 2-day format. Do feel free to open-edit: > > Have say 10 minutes of agenda surfacing time. Then do a poster session > of all the agendas so that each agenda proposer had a couple of minutes > to answer questions on the agenda. Aim to choose the top 6 agendas (or > favourite per person) that everyone wanted to attend. Do these in a row > back-to-back so all 6 can attend BUT still use the law of 2 feet so that > people could go use time in their own way if any agenda wasn't working > for that person. > > Have a break. Ask people to add any new agendas to the wall. Start again > with the whole wall of agendas; some that didn't make the top 6 the > first time might now. > > During this first day have some other stuff. One example might be if an > actor had pre-interviewed the 6 people to do a short "This is your life > and passions" collage of all of them. Include some other communal > exercises as a group. > > Before retiring for the day make sure that all the meetings are written > up in bedtime or waketime reading documentation; including those that > didn't happen (ie at least a record of how they were Q&A'd at the poster > session stage) > > Day 2 after letting the 6 informally mingle over coffee, proceed by > letting the group talk in a circle to find out where we are : either > huge convergence versus 24 hours ago, or no progress, or the opposite. I > assume the rest of the day divides a lot depending on those 3 paths > > Summing up this conversation opener on MICRO OS: > > I do believe there are times where 6 people need hi-trust before they > can take it to lots of people. I suspect their characters would need > just as many and diverse facilitators as larger events so that the > intensity of the content conversation is blended with spiritually > refreshing and respect for each other. > > I would hope that if we ever did refine a micro open space format , one > thing it would do even if it didn't succeed on the issue in hand is > leave the 6 people likely to want to do big open spaces in the future. > In other words at least as much a personal conversion process to Opening > up conversational formats everywhere as typical Open Space > > I have no idea whether the sequence above is going in a good open > direction or not, but look forward to any comments > > Chris Macrae, [email protected] > > 2004 Year of Transparency - help nominate events/movements to watch, or > sign up a Transparency wish of yours : www.valuetrue.com > > * > * > ========================================================== > [email protected] > ------------------------------ > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, > view the archives of [email protected], > Visit: > > http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html > > * > * > ========================================================== > [email protected] > ------------------------------ > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, > view the archives of [email protected], > Visit: > > http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html > * * ========================================================== [email protected] ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of [email protected], Visit: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
