Great and useful conversation! For me the fundamental difference between Open Space and Future Search is how hard you have to work. Several years ago, through the kind connecting of Ralph C. -- Marv Weisbord and I (along with Ralph and Sandra Janov) spent a day together on just the question posed here. In terms of substantive outcomes, I don't think we identified any differences. Both can enable the production of action plans for the future and such like. What was clearly different was how hard you have to work before and during. With Open Space, given the people, theme and place, you are ready to go. In my experience, all of that can take 20 min. And then during the event -- for OST clearly he/she who does least, does best -- although there certainly has to be a high quality of "being." This may seem like a bit of an over-statement, but with large gatherings, I have actually had people come up to me on the 2nd day, and ask me who I was. Clearly I hadn't made a major impression. Anyhow, my final question to Marv was -- "Why are you working so hard?
All of the above has given rise to something of a joke -- to the effect that those who facilitate Open Space have stumbled upon the ultimate scam. You do absolutely nothing and the client writes the report. But it turns out that doing nothing with style requires no small amount of preparation and occasionally some very exhausting work -- particularly when you just know that it is essential for you to intervene. Holding on to something can turn the whole occasion into a white knuckle trip. For me the fundamental difference is all about self-organization. Open Space works because self-organizing human systems work. All we do is to determine the presence of the essential pre-conditions and it just goes from there. Conditions such as High levels of Diversity, High levels of complexity, High levels of potential or actual conflict, and a decision time of yesterday. Given all or most of the above -- it is off to the races. Actually I find myself with the curious conclusion: There is no such thing as a non-self-organizing system. There are only a number of mis-guided souls who think they are in charge. What is crystal clear in Open Space is that NOBODY is in charge -- and when, as, or if somebody tries to be -- some very interesting things happen. I like Ralph's comment about "Open Space Organization" -- and what seems to be the case that one would NOT contemplate a "Future Search Organization." Open Space Organization is not something new and different. It is simply Self-Organizing Systems by a different name. But herein lies the major impact of OST -- so far as I am concerned. It is a marvelous re-introduction to our essential nature -- as self organizing systems. Somewhere along the line we really thought we did it. And it is very painful to the old ego (collective and individual) to discover that most of what we had thought we had done would have happened pretty well by itself -- and indeed it usually turns out that most of our ministrations actually got in the way. Just like the first Open Space at OT3 when I discovered that all the really good stuff at OT 1 happened in the coffee breaks, and that all the effort I had expended arranging for panels and papers and speakers was nothing more than an impediment to the main event. Too much work, especially when it does no good. So what is special about Open Space? For groups from 5 - 1000+ it is a marvelous laboratory in which to experience and experiment with what we have always been -- self-organizing. Anybody with an ounce of common sense would understand that Open Space simple can't work. It is much too simple, with facilitators who take naps, and even when present seem to do nothing at all. So I guess if you really want something complicated, where you truly get your money's worth of facilitator sweat -- for God's sake don't use Open Space. Harrison