To Chris' point, and in the spirit of nurturing the informal/emergent organization, I have started the open space process in multiple concurrent accidental conversations that can at times percolate initial themes -- that can then be used to structure an open space session.
The key is the same: people need to feel like it's an organic, uncentrally controlled process. When I have clients who want to control the themes and predetermine too much of the agenda (usually from their lack of experience), it's my job to assure them that the process will be as dedicated to actionable deliverables in harmony with specific organizational priorities as is will be to collaboration and creativity. thanks, Jack _______________________________________________ Jack Ricchiuto / 216.288.9431 web: http://www.designinglife.com/ blog: http://www.gassho.blogspot.com/ -----Original Message----- From: OSLIST [mailto:osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu]On Behalf Of Chris Corrigan Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 1:19 PM To: osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu Subject: Re: Question - more than one theme? I prefer the blank wall too, but I have also done this: In a recent Open Space on strategic planning with 18 people, coming into the event there was a consensus from the whole group that one of the givens of the event was that there were four main areas of work that needed to be addressed. The News wall had four headings on it and the invitation to the group was as follows: "anything goes in terms of discussion groups, however we have agreed that the plan will address four major areas. So if you can find a way to slot your discussion group reports under one of these four headings, the management will support dealing with it in action planning on day two." As we proceeded, conveners decided which of the four headings their conversation addressed and they kind of "pre-converged" the topics under one of the four. In fact two of the headings got merged together, so on day two we had only three headings. There was one issue that fell outside the four headings, but the group found a way to merge it with one of the other headings at the end of day one. Including that issue in one of the pre-existing categories changed the category a little, and for the better. On day two, there were three flipcharts in three corners of the room, the proceedings had the reports already grouped together and the group went to work on action planning what they wanted to do. The action planning conveners and participants were self-selected and the groups worked for an hour to do their thing, after which we came back and they reported out in the closing circle. I have since used this approach in a situation where the action planning groups were selected only by the Executive Director of the agency, and it turned out he had it all wrong. The postings on day one were clearly not at all related to what he thought they should talk about and so his whole agenda was shot. Luckily, he was totally fine with this. So the lesson is that this might be useful, but only if in the pre-work you have consensus from everyone who will be there that this is what is going to happen. If you don't then you are talking a big risk at opening what is a forcefully closed space. In my second story it made sense from a experimental point of view and the ED was flexible enough to know that he had to let go. He knew that coming in, and the space truly opened as a result. But an ED that is married to these as outcomes will be setting you up for a violation of the Open Space prime directive: do not pre-determine outcomes. In the case of large groups where there has not been consultation with all the participants before hand, this amounts to herding them into places they may or may not want to go, and it doesn't feel right. But in the context of the first story, I have to report that we did it right, and the event felt very much like every other Open Space I had ever done, without the hassle of having to do convergence on day two. We did it on day one instead. However you do it, if you are married to these categories and there is inflexibility in the room around them, then it isn't going to work. You cannot say "only raise topics related to these five areas." You have to invite folks to talk about what is important to them related to the theme of the event, and if there are conversations that fit within the pre-existing categories, the management is committed to moving them forward." Chris --- CHRIS CORRIGAN Bowen Island, BC, Canada http://www.chriscorrigan.com ch...@chriscorrigan.com (604) 947-9236 -----Original Message----- From: OSLIST [mailto:osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu] On Behalf Of Ulrika Eklund Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 3:29 AM To: osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu Subject: Question - more than one theme? Dear all, a new question Is it possible to have an common OS-meeting with one overall theme and then five subtopics within the theme? I am thinking of presenting the big theme and then have five agenda walls with the five subtopics. Have any one tried this? Any other suggestions? Thanks Ulrika Sweden * * ========================================================== osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu, Visit: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html * * ========================================================== osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu, Visit: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html * * ========================================================== osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu ------------------------------ To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of osl...@listserv.boisestate.edu, Visit: http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
