Ralph wrote: At 04:56 PM 6/23/99 -0400, you wrote: >It seems unncessary to assert the superiority of either of these two approaches, future search or open space, over the other,. The reasons vary. Maybe there's a graduate thesis here somewhere.
Hello everyone: Ralph is correct about the graduate thesis - he was a valuable contributer to my 1998 Pepperdine MSOD thesis "A Comparative Study of Future Search and Open Space Technology" as were many others on both listserves. Chris Kloth was extremely helpful as a mentor/teacher. I interviewed both clients and consultants who used either one or both of the processes and while the sample was small, here is an edited version of my findings and I apoligize for the length. There was just so much rich, qualitative info based on my small research project: COMPARING FUTURE SEARCH AND OPEN SPACE TECHNOLOGY While the literature was limited regarding a comparision of FS and OST, similarities were identified by several respondents: both FS and OST can include more people at one time than traditional change management processes, dialogue is encouraged, learning takes place in real time, and partnerships and collarboration are encouraged. Differences cited included: FS is more structured in its planning and process, FS requires more consultants to facilitate, the process and timing of FS is critical to the success of the outcomes, OST can be shortened and will be effective, and OST can accommodate more poeple at one time than FS. CONCLUSIONS FS and OST are both powerful ways to bring together large groups of people to discover a new way of working together large groups of people to discuver a new way of working together to creat successful change. FS is primarily used for visioning about the future, while OST can be used for a number of applications including visioning. While research confirmed what was discovered in the literature, several factors were significant to the researcher. Follow-up activity and costs related to the processes were not addressed in any detail within the literature but were cited in the research as important. A number of factors were cited in the literature and research as important: criteria for effective interventions (Argyris), a strong reason to change, leadership, the process structures, commitment to outcomes and implementation, and learning. Follow-up was a weakness identified by both FS and OST clients and consultants. There is a need to have a FU process in place to support implementation. Support needs to include management commitment, financial resources, people, authority to make decisions, and the time for implementation. Clients must be aware that the real work begins after the FS and OST events and the event itself is not the end but only a means to an end. Costs did not appear to be a significant factor for either process but neither are considered inexpensive processes. However, neither the clients nor the consultants had a true appreciations for the costs. One consultant indicated that money is always available if the client wants to do something. Both FS and OST incorporate the criteria for what Argyris has defined as a successful intervention: valid and useful data, free and informed choice, and individual commitment. In order for FS and OST to be successful, it appears there must be an urgent and complex reason for change that can arouse the passion of the participants. The participants need to have a vested interest in how things will be different or a felt need to encourage the motivation to change. Leadership is an important factor to both processes and requires leadership that: is willing to share leadership, delegates authority to act, models a new way of working together, commits to the process and outcomes, and values stakeholder input. It can also be concluded that both processes model the new management theory that researchers say is needed to be competitive in the future. Navigating continuous change can no longer be done by one person or a small group. The wisdom and experience of the whole system are needed to implement change to a whole system. RECOMMENDATIONS FS should be considered as a large group intervention when the organization is searching for a new future, vision, or commonalty for an issue that is complex and urgent. It is a structured process that needs to be followed as designed - shortcuts will impact the results. Planning must include a clear theme; identification of key stakeholders; how the data will be used; how the FS outcomes and progress will be communicated after the FS event is completed; sufficient resources of time, money, and people to implement; and a follow-up process to maintain the momentum created. Leadership must to committed to the process and the outcomes. OST is recommended for those who are willing to be daring and operate in a creative way to achieve a quantum shift in how individuals and organizations operate. It can be used for a variety of issues including visioning, improving customer service, productivity improvement, decision making, and mergers. Planning is minimal but requires a clear theme around a complex, urgent, and volatile issue. OST can be adapted to any size group or time frame and hard results are produced. OST requires leadership that is willling to relinquish control and support the unknown outcomes that develop from the process. One caveat with OST is the terminology used (butterflies/bumblebees) and the use of poems and bells. It is important to read the audience and use appropriate terminology to describe the process. I hope this information is helpful. Karen Tiller Lancaster, Ohio