Harrison, I take something different from Christine's comments about infrastructure. It isn't about charting and categorizing. It's about the means for people to share stories, connect with each other, ask and offer support, to find access to resources. In organizations, the capacity for doing these things are generally built in to the system. For communities, if you can give it some thought, then there's an opportunity to amplify whatever emerged from the session.
Peggy Sent from my iPad P.S. I'm on an airplane without wifi so will have 4 messages in a row coming to you. 425-746-6274 www.peggyholman.com > On Oct 15, 2014, at 10:20 AM, Harrison Owen via OSList > <oslist@lists.openspacetech.org> wrote: > > Christine – on the subject of “follow-through” – I hear what you are saying, > and it is a frustration that a lot of people seem to have. But frankly, I > don’t share it. At the end of the day, stuff gets done when people care to do > it. I know of no plan, method, incantation that changes that equation. And > when you look at the “outcomes” of a big public meeting (OS) it is quite > clear that if they were all carefully placed of a spreadsheet with space > supplied for “accomplished,” the picture is anything but clear. And for sure > it will never look like the Quarterly Report from some corporate planning > effort. But then again, most Quarterly Reports (my experience) are of > doubtful validity. They may well state what people thought would happen, > hoped would happen, should have happened... all subject to change with the > next Quarterly Report. > > But I think problem is simply that the world is a much more complicated > place, overwhelming our capacity to chart and categorize. For example it > could be that most of the recommendations (commitments) were judged upon > further reflection to be not such great ideas. The world changed – Or the > time frame was too short. Great ideas and projects sometimes just need to > “cook” for a while. Or... the real “outcome” was the conversation itself, and > the details were simply irrelevant. Or something... > > Harrison > > Winter Address > 7808 River Falls Drive > Potomac, MD 20854 > 301-365-2093 > > Summer Address > 189 Beaucaire Ave. > Camden, ME 04843 > 207-763-3261 > > Websites > www.openspaceworld.com > www.ho-image.com > OSLIST To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options, view the archives of > OSLIST Go > to:http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org > > From: OSList [mailto:oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org] On Behalf Of > Christine Whitney Sanchez via OSList > Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 11:44 AM > To: Daniel Mezick; World wide Open Space Technology email list > Subject: Re: [OSList] Private vs Public OST Differences? > > Daniel and all, > > In my experience, public events have the same buzz and meaningful results as > an in-organization OST. I’ve facilitated a number of them that were > sponsored by a group of organizations in the community. For instance, > Vibrant Phoenix, was a very productive economic development OST, sponsored by > two mayors of large municipalities and several local businesses. One of the > business sponsors agreed to be the contact for folks who wanted to take their > “actionable ideas” to the next level. However, there was no budget and no > infrastructure to really keep folks connected the the ideas they cared the > most about. > > This is where the public open spaces generally fall short. Because the > ongoing action is not the core mission of any of these organizations, it is > hoped that the participants will self-organize going forward. With very few > exceptions, this does not happen. I believe that sponsorship for the work > after the OST is what is called for. > > The Collective Impact model speaks to this. It’s nothing new, really, but > does represent a simple way to talk about the necessary conditions for > sustaining collective action. I now include my version of this model when I > talk with potential sponsors to shine the light beyond the meeting so that we > can discuss their intentions for providing backbone support for > self-organized action going forward. > > I especially love public Open Space events and look forward to working with > sponsors who see the meeting as merely the first small step in collaborative > action. There is so much potential! > > > Warm wishes from a sunny autumn morning in the rain-greened desert, > > Christine > <image001.png> > Christine Whitney Sanchez, M.C. > Phoenix, AZ, USA • +1.480.759.0262 > www.innovationpartners.com > > Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter > > > On Oct 15, 2014, at 6:33 AM, Daniel Mezick via OSList > <oslist@lists.openspacetech.org> wrote: > > Greetings To All, > > I notice that there are many big differences between public-conference-type > OST events, and OST events arranged for organizations. > > Do you also notice this? Maybe I am imagining this....just making stuff up... > > ...maybe not. In many key dimensions, I experience these differences as > striking. Even disturbing. > > > > And so I have been poking around inside the GUIDE (3rd edition) and I notice > that, in some spots, the implication is that the discussion is about a public > event. Up to page 18 for example, this implication is clear: > > > <THE GUIDE PAGE 18> > > Working With The Client if you ARE NOT the Sponsor > > "To this point I have assumed that you (the reader) will be the sponsor and > facilitator of the Open Space, and therefore it is your decision as to > whether or not to proceed...(emphasis added.) > > </THE GUIDE PAGE 18> > > > > My current belief is that having the same person in the Sponsor role **and** > the Facilitator role is probably a very bad idea for an OST event inside an > organization. For the typical public-conference event on the other hand, this > seems to work just fine. Kinda like a Barcamp or Unconference.... > > > Another current belief I hold is that OST is the essential tool for creating > "Development and Transformation in Organizations". It is best suited for use > in organizations. > > It is interesting to note how the Barcamp and/or "Unconference" formats seem > to get the same or as-good results as Open Space, in the public conference > setting. > > Not so inside organizations! In fact, as of now, I don't think Barcamp or > Unconference has any chance whatsoever at being effective in bringing about > Development and Transformation in Organizations the way Open Space can. > Something about the Sponsor? > > Daniel > > > -- > > Daniel Mezick, President > New Technology Solutions Inc. > (203) 915 7248 (cell) > Bio. Blog. Twitter. > Examine my new book: The Culture Game : Tools for the Agile Manager. > Explore Agile Team Training and Coaching. > Explore the Agile Boston Community. > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
_______________________________________________ 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
