Larry As always, you raise very good points.
We see the theme as critical in attracting the participants and giving them a framework to raise their burning issues. The invitation, hopefully on one page, might also list up to six supplementary questions raised by the planning team as examples of some burning issues. Of course, the theme itself is a given of sorts, because it defines the overall focus of the event. We see the event as a process to deal with existing issues and propose future actions. Because flipchart sheets are always blank until someone writes the issue at the top and the dialogue begins, the process deals with actions for the future. Sometimes the future gets diverted by baggage from the past, but this rarely happens. Our reluctance to discuss what happens before it happens avoids sponsors feeling they can manage the event. It also avoids limits on what participants might discuss and propose. As said previously to Chris Weaver, we find participants are very responsible people, not likely to abuse an opportunity to contribute to their future. As a result, our events tend to be self governing, because people recognise and accept there are limits. Accordingly, resources are not always an issue. When the public is involved, it often is about the sponsor doing something different without extra costs - marketing, access, information, transport, etc. When it involves resources, the action team has an opportunity to make a case for the allocation, something perhaps difficult under other circumstances, particulary when no comparative sense of priorities exists. I would rather take Harrison's approach and let the outputs flow and sponsors respond accordingly. In this way, everyone can be surprised. As almost all our events are 1 to 1.5 days and involve public or quasi public and voluntary organisations, the drive to micromanage resources is less than I would imagine it would be in the corporate sector. Still a sponsor has to ask the question: what am I going to do with a team of people (possibly inside and oustide the organisation) who want to do something that might generate trangible benefits? How do we get to this stage, deal with prerogatives, minimise limits and maximise trust? How do we keep the post space open for possibilities? I also like Joelle's statement: I don't talk a lot about "givens," though I do ask some questions about what will happen, post OS, to ideas and recommendations. Thanks for that good bit of advice. Cheers Kerry Kerry Napuk Open Futures Ltd Edinburgh www.openfutures.com * * ========================================================== [email protected] ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of [email protected], Visit: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
