i like this example, christine.
and daniel, your latest reminds me that i've seen some very-lite agile
incarnations of opening space. it might be that the hyper focus on
process makes the agile folks prone to go deep with it on the one hand
and to play fast and loose with outer trappings on the other.
as christine's highlighting, the conversation about noticing these
conditions is valuable, separately from the classifying of events.
--
Michael Herman
Michael Herman Associates
312-280-7838 (mobile)
http://MichaelHerman.com
http://OpenSpaceWorld.org
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:44 PM, christine koehler via OSList
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
hi Dan
Maybe the difference does not lie in the difference between public
and private events, but as Harrison says, whether there is a real
« business » issue.
Let me give you an example : I facilitated a public OST event,
sponsored by an ad-hoc collective of non-profit, to discuss the
issue of the role and place, today and in the future,of
non-for-profit organizations. The invitation was quite long, very
strong , and reminded the context to everyone : the lowering of
public funding for more than one third within a few years, and
also the number of jobs that the non-profit sector was providing
and the danger they are now facing. Public authorities were duly
invited (and came). Urgency was stated in the invitation.
Event was public : invitation had been widely sent, via flyers
given hand to hand in the street or put into public places , but
also via email of relevant networks.
And yes, the sponsor had taken a great risk in organizing the
event, but it’s intention was clear and reaffirmed in the opening.
And the follow-up (date and place) of the event was clear also
even before the event started and announced at the event.
The event was a success : very very deep conversations,very few
butterflies, people being really caught in their subjects.
One of the result was that they collective changed its name and
form to represent more clearly the spirit of the discussions that
took place during those 2 days : open, frank, direct and
affirming. New energy was found to organize more discussions and
meetings and they did a few months later another OST, to keep
that open spirit. 8 months after, they are still engaged in
conversations.
It was a much better OST than a private one I had facilitated
before where the sponsor had not committed itself to anything and
felt personally offended when his managers did not dare propose
topics. No real change was expected from the group, only minor
ones, although the group had some real issues. That was obvious .
Very good lesson for me, I learned a lot although it has been very
painful. So now I do take the preconditions very seriously no
matter who the sponsor is, whether the event is public or private
etc... And , as Harrison suggests, I also avoid transforming a
regular seminar (like a managers annual meeting) into an open
space meeting, unless the intention is clearly to change the way
they work every day.
Christine
Le 28 avr. 2015 à 16:12, Daniel Mezick via OSList
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> a écrit :
Hi Jeff, Chris, Michael and All,
First of all thanks for your engagement in the thread's topic;
and adding to the discussion.
And, I feel that I have to explain myself here.
After sleeping on this, I have come to realize that part of what
is motivating me to post about "public vs private" events is....
.....my limited experience in Open Space.
* I've attended dozens of public Agile-conference or
software-conference events with segments that included OST.
* I've arranged and helped to execute and participated in less
than 20 OST gathering held inside organizations.
* I've also attended a few Open-Space-community events that
were all OST over several days.
That's not a huge amount of experience data and almost all of is
Agile-related. Agile being one kind of process change...
...And so here is my "aha", and related confession: almost all of
my OST experience has been part of the Agile community (public
conference events) or using OST with Agile adoptions (private OST
events.)
And the differences are very striking. And that's where I am
starting from when I discuss the divergences between public vs
private events. My entire experience is around Agile stuff. In in
this space, the differences are, well, striking.
The role of the Sponsor being an obvious example...
...Chris contributes:
/"My experience is that sponsors of any event who are unwilling
to do the pre-work to shape an intention and invitation and to
design the architecture for implementation of the results
(whatever those results are expected to be) will miss the mark on
transformation."/
And with respect to private corporate events: you can say that again!
Now if we look at the role of the Sponsor in a public event, say,
an annual confab, like in a community of practice, like the Agile
community for example, we can see some striking differences there.
In a public event, almost anyone can stand up and welcome the
group and discuss the context, introduce the Facilitator, etc. So
for example if the conference Chair wanted to delegate this
temporary Sponsor role to someone else, they could, and the OST
will not likely suffer from that. Because the cohesion is low.
The folks are only there for 1,2,3 days, that is the risk or the
investment or commitment to it.
But if this Sponsor-delegation stuff happened in org, and someone
with little authority sent the invite, did the Sponsor role
stand-up, welcoming etc, the signal is clear: this event is not
authorized and therefore has no oomph.
The Sponsor role:
----------------
With Agile-adoption clients, I've seen this Sponsor-delegation
stuff suggested and have strongly guided against doing it, based
on the hypothesis that for process-change and other kinds of
triggering transitions in organizations, the OST event must be
clearly and highly authorized.
The Invite:
----------------
Plus: n most Agile-conference OST events, there IS NO INVITE
WHATSOVER. The invite is implied via the conference offer, and
attending the event constitutes acceptance of that "invite." Add
to this the fact that the theme is often emergent in nature,
defined not weeks in advance but instead days or hours in advance.
The Proceedings:
----------------
Finally, the proceedings. In public events, they are often
nonexistent or an afterthought. In private events...WOW they are
all over it.
Regarding Agile-related OST events: Not a whole bunch of people
have experience observing public vs private OST events in the
Agile space. If they do, they are not documenting or publishing
them. Harold Shinsato has some experience here and I think Tricia
Chirumbole also has a bit of this experience with both. As I say
previously, most all my experience with OST is inside
Agile-related situations, both public and private events....
...In the end what I am saying is: the way the Sponsor plays,
the Invite, and the Proceedings are all very different in my
experience when comparing public vs private (all Agile-related!)
events.
I think what I am calling "low cohesion" is a real factor in
typical public Agile events. Does this pattern carry to non-Agile
spaces? Circumstantial evidence includes the fact that BarCamp
and Unconference formats have proliferated via public events; I
view these formats as "OST Lite" derivatives of OST.
I wonder of this creation of more bare-bones OST-related
gathering formats like Barcamp and Unconference for conference
events tends to support what I am saying?
...so there you go. I wonder what y'all think about this...
Daniel
On 4/27/15 11:35 PM, Chris Corrigan wrote:
Daniel…
I think what you are proposing is interesting, measuring the
conditions and how much of each there are. I say generally,
that the more of each you have, the better OST works. But I’d
never be able to really put a number on it.
And my experience is that there seems to be no difference
between the likelihood of public or private events being anymore
or less likely to exhibit these conditions. There is nothing
inherent tin the ontology of these two kinds of events that
would predict that. The five pre-conditions do seem to point at
specific factors in the ontology of an event that would make for
a potentially richer OST event. Radical transformation is rare
and is never guaranteed. But we can work with conditions to
create potential.
in fact for me it comes down to the pre-work. My experience is
that sponsors of any event who are unwilling to do the pre-work
to shape an intention and invitation and to design the
architecture for implementation of the results (whatever those
results are expected to be) will miss the mark on
transformation. (and this pre-work includes being clear about
what they are NOT doing as well)
Like any event, the quality of the container matters. Paying
attention to the constraints and the attractors builds a
container where a real need is allowed to produce real
conversations which can create real action and ultimately
change. If you don’t break people’s patterns and expectations of
a meeting or conference beforehand, it’s unlikely they will come
prepared for transformation. And that is the biggest predictor
of “flat feeling” OST events for me.
I think your text tagged <HERESY> below is actually <HYPOTHESIS>
and needs to be tested in some way. But the test will apply to
your practice, your context and the particular events that you
are drawn or invited to. The practice of working with clients
in Open Space is impossible to standardize. It is an artisanal
practice. There are a few basic skills and talents one needs to
have developed in order to assure quality, but nothing can take
the place of experience and the path of mastery that is
individual and practice based.
Chris
On Apr 26, 2015, at 11:30 AM, Jeff Aitken via OSList
<[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
<HERESY>
And that is why I think OST is for "development and
transformation in organizations" (that actual subtitle of the
SPIRIT book) and that it is not at all as effective, in terms
of impact, when implemented in a public conference.
</HERESY>
I am guessing the scores for the 4 dimensions are almost always
be lower in a public vs. private event.
Certainly that is my general subjective observation, based on a
small sample of direct experience (less than 20 experiences
doing OST inside corporations...)
--
Daniel Mezick, President
New Technology Solutions Inc.
(203) 915 7248 <tel:%28203%29%20915%207248> (cell)
Bio <http://newtechusa.net/dan-mezick/>.Blog
<http://newtechusa.net/blog/>.Twitter
<http://twitter.com/#%21/danmezick/>.
Examine my new book:The Culture
Game<http://newtechusa.net/about/the-culture-game-book/>: Tools
for the Agile Manager.
Explore Agile TeamTraining
<http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-training/>andCoaching.
<http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-coaching/>
Explore theAgile
Boston<http://newtechusa.net//user-groups/ma/>Community.
_______________________________________________
OSList mailing list
To post send emails [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
To unsubscribe send an email
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
Past archives can be viewed
here:http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
_______________________________________________
OSList mailing list
To post send emails to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
To unsubscribe send an email to
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
Past archives can be viewed here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
_______________________________________________
OSList mailing list
To post send emails to [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
Past archives can be viewed here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
