Hello Nick Martin,
I find myself tense in my belly after reading your newsletter today:
I just wanted to share with you a popular WorkshopBank tool
<https://t.dripemail2.com/c/eyJhY2NvdW50X2lkIjoiMjM3MTU2MiIsImRlbGl2ZXJ5X2lkIjoiNjc1OTQzNzE4MiIsInVybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vd29ya3Nob3BiYW5rLmNvbS9vcGVuLXNwYWNlLXRlY2hub2xvZ3k_dXRtX3NvdXJjZT1kcmlwXHUwMDI2dXRtX21lZGl1bT1lbWFpbFx1MDAyNnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1uZXctdG9vbC1vcGVuLXNwYWNlXHUwMDI2X19zPXFtZXdvcGZiZnpzMnBvY3ltZTRnIn0>
you can start using with your clients right away. Let me know what you think.
You suggest that the reader lets you know what they think. I choose to do that.
I also choose to do that in the form of an open letter, as several months back
you asked on the os-list for input to your description of the OST process for
the Workshopbank.
You introduced your version of „OST with a twist“, and there was a somewhat
heated discussion on this list about it.
I participated in both, revising and giving you feedback on your description
(as requested) and discussing about „is something with such a twist still OST?“
Your twist was about giving the leaders control about the topics.
Back then I used the analogy that you are mixing red wine with coca cola (which
some people actually do and drink — I tried it out as a teenager).
And that calling such a beverage „red wine with a twist“ is an inaccurate
representation of a) red wine and b) the taste that a consumer will experience.
(side note: usually, this mix is done with red wine of poor quality)
In my analogy, OST is the red wine and controlling the process is the
coke.
In your description, you early on distinguish between OST and OST with a twist.
I first appreciated you for making that distinction so upfront.
Then I read what you wrote under:
If you’re following the traditional Open Space Process...
1
Gather your participants together and briefly explain how Open Space events
work using Harrison Owen’s 1 Law and the Guiding Principles as appropriate.
Traditionally you should do this with everyone in a circle around you but you
don’t necessarily have to.
2
Ask participants to spend 10 minutes thinking through if they have any issues
they’d like to raise.
3
If there is a general agreement that the issue has enough support and passion
behind it invite the issue owner to add the issue to the schedule.
4
Once all issues have been added invite the participants to sign-up for the
sessions they’re planning on attending (they are free to change their mind
later if they want to).
5
Your sessions start.
There is much more on this page that, as I see it, is NOT "the traditional Open
Space Process“. I am giving just some further examples:
https://workshopbank.com/open-space-technology
Process for a Session
1
Each session should be a round group of chairs (no table in the middle) with
preferably one facilitator to lead the discussion and a scribe on the
flip-chart.
2
A session starts with the issue owner welcoming and thanking the group for
coming and then giving a description of the issue as they see it.
3
The facilitator then leads the discussion inviting people to give their input
at their request.
4
The scribe records the discussion on flip chart paper making sure to mark
Issues, Ideas, Questions (that can’t be answered today) & Actions. When a flip
is finished they should tear it off and put it in the center of the circle or
on a nearby wall for people in the group to see.
5
Allow people to leave and arrive as they see fit though don’t allow them to
interrupt or slow-down your progress. It is a new arrival’s responsibility to
catch-up with the discussion using the flip chart outputs no matter how high up
or important they are.
6
When the issue looks like it has been covered and there are no more inputs
coming from your group thank them for their time and invite them to join other
groups if the session time is not over.
To me, calling this description "the traditional Open Space Process“ I wonder if
- I am totally rigid and should just loosen up to the variations of OST
- You have never experienced a traditional Open Space Process
- You just don’t care about the originality and instead rather cater to
business needs of controlled processes that limit self-organisation
- I misremember all my trainings with Harrison Owen, Michael M
Pannwitz, Michael Pannwitz jr, Joe Töpfer, and last but not least Birgitt
Williams.
- or… ?
I totally don’t get it.
I don’t like what you are doing.
I also dislike that you market this description of „the traditional Open Space
Process“ as „a popular WorkshopBank Tool“.
I feel sad when I imagine people following your description and spreading the
word that „this is the traditional way of doing OST“.
Using my former analogy:
I imagine what you are doing is like a beverage shop introducing someone who
has never tasted a good red wine to that beverage.
Because this person usually drink coke, they are being given red wine mixed
with coke (to match their taste buds).
And then they are being told, „this is a traditional Cabernet Sauvignon“.
I want you to revise your description and move your adaptions away from "the
original version" to „OST with a twist“.
Are you willing to do that?
Probably even better: Call it „…………….. - a process partly inspired by Open
Space Technology“
I look forward to your response,
Marai
https://www.linkedin.com/in/marai-kiele/
https://about.me/maraikiele
_______________________________________________
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
Past archives can be viewed here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.openspacetech.org
