Actually this mathematician loves your simplicity of design There's another part of me that has a shyness - when you bring important people or an important topic together - to have tried too hard to make sure of honouring the technology, and thus of honouring their time and the conflict's gravity
- having met the dynamic nature of OST first with around 50 people several times, I wouldn't have made the jump to confidently saying that Open Space works with 5 people, without somehow thinking more personally about introducing the 5 (as 5 people sponsoring a facilitator would somehow traditionally expect) I think I now see the error of my conditioning, thanks! chris -----Original Message----- From: OSLIST [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Harrison Owen Sent: 24 December 2003 21:15 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Micro Open Space Chris -- I guess it is the mathematician in you -- but I think you are making it all much to complicated. As Michael P. says it is all the same old stuff. As for the 1 and 1/2 hour start up -- Don't take this two literally -- but somehow it always seems to be true. It is not about doing anything additional (Never work harder than you have to -- Always think of one more thing not to do.) -- it is just that a large group (say 2000) snaps right along, and are off to their sessions in that time frame. A small(er) group just seems to take it easier, maybe have a little coffee. And of course, if they are ready to start (whenever) it is always the right time. Harrison -----Original Message----- From: OSLIST [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of chris macrae Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 9:41 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Micro Open Space Harrison - a specific question which arises with 5 people is which do you advise at the agenda stage: Having a process so that they stay at least to start with an elected common agenda sequence (ie where 5 go through the same series of agendas) or having eg 2 agendas at each time slot. (I realise in either case we have law of 2 feet so that eg if the schedule only offered a series of single meetings, some might not go or stay at them) That was the bit of selection versus communal-whole process I was trying to rehearse when we come down to micro such as 5 or 6 participants When you also say it takes an hour and a half to get started , could you give us a for instance of what you've seen done in the first 90 minutes with 5 people. I can imagine such tuning in matters, but I'm not quite sure what typical open space activities blend in here; are we for example allowing people to go round the circle with a longer personal introduction as to why we came? Chris Macrae -----Original Message----- From: OSLIST [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Harrison Owen Sent: 24 December 2003 14:03 To: [email protected] 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 * * ========================================================== [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
