I've led many 1.5 hour facilitation pieces in my 35 years of practice with a sponsor preset, brief opening, 45mn to 1hr self-organized discussions, report forms, brief conversation at the end sometimes with a "fishbowl" type format with the initiators. I've done it for groups of 100 or more. They seem to like it and it gets some results.
I tend not to call it Open Space but a derivative. To me opening space is about creating the conditions for self-organization. One round allows them to self-organize likely only one discussion (or two short ones) - different than participants knowing/experiencing they are organizing a day or multiple hours themselves, with limited facilitation intervention. It is clear that the sponsor or facilitator is still guiding the short discussion. It stills gives the client (or facilitator) the illusion of control. The outcomes can be achieved, the slight burst of energy in the direction that is desired. It is primarily instrumental rather than creating the conditions for believing that "whatever happens" is worth taking the risk. I do find that for many these days even 1.5 hours of openness is beyond some sponsor's capabilities - and it is certainly better than no openness at all. So, I understand why it is sometimes required. I've just gotten tired of doing it that way. I hope the "demo" leads to a fuller experience. Larry Larry Peterson & Associates in Transformation Toronto, Ontario, Canada <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] 416.653.4829 <http://www.spiritedorg.com/> http://www.spiritedorg.com From: OSLIST [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lisa Heft Sent: April-15-10 2:27 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [OSLIST] Demo OS in 90 minutes? (okay, here also is my test to see if I am back on the OSLIST, able to post and to receive - thanks Michael for your thoughtful attention and thanks to the Boise person as well...here...goes... with my signature in its colored font intact - if this does not work I will try with a plain text signature...) Thanks for inviting this, Annamarie - It helps me explore where my own points of 'going for it' are - and where I tell a client it is not the right tool when there is so short a time: I have also done very short Open Spaces - I bow to Jeff Aitken who inspired me in this area when I was holding so tightly to 'no shorter than three or four hours'. However, I am a big believer of analyzing overarching objectives, desired outcomes, context of the task and what comes before and after this particular meeting connected to that task, designing in appropriate and useful participant-driven documentation and more. I then ask myself: with this short a time availability, and for these objectives and desired outcomes, what is the right tool for the deliverables? (including Open Space, World Cafe and other great dialogic tools - and knowing that Open Space has different deliverables depending on the amount of meeting time). I am also passionate about access and inclusion. So another question I ask myself is - is making very short discussion rounds or only a few minutes to post topics favoring only the quick responders in the room - and does that give a sense of the overall group's interests or issues. I consider how one of the useful elements of Open Space is *multiple* sessions so people can see their thoughts link and change across the sessions, and as the conversations progress, notice things they didn't see before. I am also very big on documentation - a way to provide data for the ongoing work of the group - more than the feeling of the moment of conversation. I ask the host if more time is available (including that lunch, including that networking time - whatever I can get to expand the meeting length) and I explain why more is better. I explore what other designs would deliver what the host is asking for in a way that allows for reflection or emergence or breathing room. And if I end up using OS (which I have done on occasion for such a short time) it is because there is no other alternative which will provide the desired outcomes and deliverables in this short of a timeframe. I do not use a part of Open Space and call it Open Space. If I use one element or adjust it (for example just the part about inviting people to think of topics they are passionate about, making a sign, posting it on the wall and being amazed at the diversity of thought) I do not call it Open Space. And I look out for opportunities to invite the group or host to a full-on Open Space sometime soon, so they will come to know the difference in what is possible and how the mind (and relationships, and networking, and discovery) work over longer times in Open Space together. Thank you for inviting the question - I had fun opening up my brain to see how I do things when asked to do short Open Spaces. Lisa Lisa Heft Consultant, Facilitator, Educator Opening Space [email protected] www.openingspace.net Ask me about the Open Space Learning Workshops - April 21-23 and December 15-17, 2010 - San Francisco October 15-17, 2010 - Medellin, Colombia OSLIST - the World Open Space community in conversation (English) <http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html> http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html The Open Space World Community space (all languages) http://openspaceworld.ning.com * * ========================================================== [email protected] ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of [email protected]: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs: http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist * * ========================================================== [email protected] ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of [email protected]: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs: http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
