I have been following this thread with interest.  Some may recall OSonOS 
gathering in Marysville in November 2002 when we went out into the forest to 
see and hear the night creatures.  As we walked into the forest the only sound 
was the sound of our feet on the earth and despite the best efforts of a highly 
skilled ranger no night creatures could be found.  All the components were in 
place, well organised and managed.  No night creatures!  The forest was silent.

Everyone went away with their own thoughts including disbelief that the 
Australian forest is alive at night.  There was a strong sense of 
disappointment - it did not work!

Before the month had ended the environment responded with a series of wild 
fires that included over 6million hectares of high rainfall and alpine forest 
and the National Capital city was invaded by fire.  Complex self organising 
systems at work.

The question then goes back to that silent night.   Some of us listened to the 
silence and with a deep sense of dread realising that all was not well.  There 
was no "silver bullet" quick fix it was a systemic issue way beyond control or 
management.  What we did was prepare the things we had control over  in 
readiness for the fires that would come.  Little did I know that I would spend 
most of 57 days in an incident control centre coordinating information and 
advice to the community about the sate of a rapidly  changing  mostly 
unpredictable wild fire.  The result in Victoria was less that 10 homes lost 
and on the day a rain storm eventually controlled the fire a young lady was 
drowned when her vehicle was washed into a stream by flood waters - yes in a 
drought and after nearly two months of fire.

What did I learn about complex systems, management and control?  

First wild fire cannot be "controlled" by man.  We stay at the edges and do the 
best to protect assets, we mop up and clear up, we do our best to give the 
people the best information to make informed decisions about what they will do. 
(In the end it is their choice).   Mostly people organise themselves well, some 
better than others but in the end, good or bad, the decisions are theirs.

Second willing participants in an "open" environment can achieve outstanding 
things way beyond what expectations might be.  How they do it is up to them, 
they have some guidelines but the process that evolves is theirs.   Again 
sometimes it works and sometimes..... Despite what I think or do.

In a major incident "co-ordination" centre  there is structure with key 
decision points (people) a time table (plan mostly to ensure others needs are 
respected) a massive amount of self organising and adjustment to constant 
change.  Change that could be fatal, change that does not allow the luxury of 
time out to plan a process or select a model and change that needs a response 
now.  Within the organisation the one thing that was most controllable was the 
selection and support of the people working there. The outcome was a sense of 
team with each member working to dovetail into the work of others to remove 
frustration and reach consensus with the best possible outcome.

In some sense the team meetings each day were an open space event with each 
bringing their issues and concerns acting with commitment and accepting a high 
level of responsibility.  The report from the meeting formed the game plan 
until the next change, which at times may only be only minutes away - on one 
night meetings were being held every 15 minutes with broadcasts over national 
and regional radios to inform the community of the changes that may impact on 
them so that they could do what they needed to do (not command or control just 
advice).

12 years later I have spent too much time in incident coordination centres yet 
remarkably, or not so, a similar pattern emerged.  The most successful always 
being where leadership focused on creating and environment where individuals 
could perform at their best while respecting a diversity of responses to change 
that reflect the complexity of the natural, human and economic environment the 
change was taking place in.

What can Open Space technology really offer?  What control do I really have? 
What I am responsible for?
 
As I see it the reality is that as the Facilitator all that I can promise is to 
provide an opportunity for the group to meet and an opportunity to participate 
in dealing with a particular topic.   I can influence the choice of the topic, 
the invitation to participate and the creation of the safe space including the 
structure of the event (environment, food, and other safety needs that form the 
base of Maslow's hierarchy of needs to free the participants from these 
concerns and focus on the purpose of the meeting).

I cannot  promise any solutions, or reports, proceedings, quality of input or 
output, satisfaction and the ongoing relationships between the participants.   
These are the responsibilities of the sponsor or the organisation or community 
who chose to attend.   I may influence the methods that groups may choose to 
explore their agenda item but in the end they must do it their way including 
the law of two feet.

I do not have a simple solution, quick fix, or a "silver bullet".  I do have 
the experience to share, that just as in the parable of the mustard seed there 
will be outcomes way beyond what we can imagine.  The mustard seed grows into a 
tree, so what! The tree becomes an entire habitat for all types of life (macro 
and micro) way beyond a simple tree.  Some of the things that come from 
planting the seed eventually lead to the death of the tree, but if you do not 
plant the seed the tree will never grow and you will never know what 
possibilities / opportunities you have lost including the genetic change in the 
new seed crop that may grow into a new tree, not quite the same as the old.  
The question then becomes, is the "sponsor" willing to allow the "seed" to be 
planted and are they willing to assist the nurture of the "tree"as it grows to 
what ever it will be?

I see my task is in the preparation of the event and ensure the seed is planted 
in the best possible way then, allow the passion and responsibility of the 
sponsor and participants to do what they do.  If there is respect for diversity 
and a will to include all as best as possible there is a real possibility that 
the "organisation" will be successful in their own terms.  

One implication is that there is always something of me left behind as I opened 
the space and, if I have done my job, the participants will be confident that 
they did it their way.

Regards
Rob
_______________________________________________
OSList mailing list
To post send emails to OSList@lists.openspacetech.org
To unsubscribe send an email to oslist-le...@lists.openspacetech.org
To subscribe or manage your subscription click below:
http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org

Reply via email to