Re: [OSList] OST: Public vs Private events: apples and oranges?
Dan Wrote: Once in a while a real/burning/business issue can show up in public events; these to me are exceptions that prove what appears to be a more general rule. Seems like there might be something of a burning issue in Baltimore. ho 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 Daniel Mezick via OSList Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2015 6:04 AM To: oslist@lists.openspacetech.org Subject: Re: [OSList] OST: Public vs Private events: apples and oranges? Yes, I think Christine's reference to a real/burning/business issue is an important one. At issue is, on balance, which setting provides a greater probability that the real/burning/business issue can be clearly identified before the gathering. My current belief is that, on balance, all else being equal.these real/burning/business issues are much more likely to be found inside organizations rather than inside conferences. Once in a while a real/burning/business issue can show up in public events; these to me are exceptions that prove what appears to be a more general rule. Daniel www.OpenAgileAdoption.com On 4/28/15 3:57 PM, Michael Herman via OSList wrote: i like this example, christine. and daniel, your latest reminds me that i've seen some very-lite agile incarnations of opening space. it might be that the hyper focus on process makes the agile folks prone to go deep with it on the one hand and to play fast and loose with outer trappings on the other. as christine's highlighting, the conversation about noticing these conditions is valuable, separately from the classifying of events. -- Michael Herman Michael Herman Associates 312-280-7838 (mobile) http://MichaelHerman.com http://OpenSpaceWorld.org On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:44 PM, christine koehler via OSList oslist@lists.openspacetech.org wrote: hi Dan Maybe the difference does not lie in the difference between public and private events, but as Harrison says, whether there is a real « business » issue. Let me give you an example : I facilitated a public OST event, sponsored by an ad-hoc collective of non-profit, to discuss the issue of the role and place, today and in the future,of non-for-profit organizations. The invitation was quite long, very strong , and reminded the context to everyone : the lowering of public funding for more than one third within a few years, and also the number of jobs that the non-profit sector was providing and the danger they are now facing. Public authorities were duly invited (and came). Urgency was stated in the invitation. Event was public : invitation had been widely sent, via flyers given hand to hand in the street or put into public places , but also via email of relevant networks. And yes, the sponsor had taken a great risk in organizing the event, but its intention was clear and reaffirmed in the opening. And the follow-up (date and place) of the event was clear also even before the event started and announced at the event. The event was a success : very very deep conversations,very few butterflies, people being really caught in their subjects. One of the result was that they collective changed its name and form to represent more clearly the spirit of the discussions that took place during those 2 days : open, frank, direct and affirming. New energy was found to organize more discussions and meetings and they did a few months later another OST, to keep that open spirit. 8 months after, they are still engaged in conversations. It was a much better OST than a private one I had facilitated before where the sponsor had not committed itself to anything and felt personally offended when his managers did not dare propose topics. No real change was expected from the group, only minor ones, although the group had some real issues. That was obvious . Very good lesson for me, I learned a lot although it has been very painful. So now I do take the preconditions very seriously no matter who the sponsor is, whether the event is public or private etc... And , as Harrison suggests, I also avoid transforming a regular seminar (like a managers annual meeting) into an open space meeting, unless the intention is clearly to change the way they work every day. Christine Le 28 avr. 2015 à 16:12, Daniel Mezick via OSList oslist@lists.openspacetech.org a écrit : Hi Jeff, Chris, Michael and All, First of all thanks for your engagement in the thread's topic; and adding to the discussion. And, I feel that I have to explain myself here. After sleeping on this, I have come to realize that part of what
Re: [OSList] OST: Public vs Private events: apples and oranges?
Yes, I think Christine's reference to a real/burning/business issue is an important one. At issue is, on balance, which setting provides a greater probability that the real/burning/business issue can be clearly identified before the gathering. My current belief is that, on balance, all else being equal.these real/burning/business issues are much more likely to be found inside organizations rather than inside conferences. Once in a while a real/burning/business issue can show up in public events; these to me are exceptions that prove what appears to be a more general rule. Daniel www.OpenAgileAdoption.com On 4/28/15 3:57 PM, Michael Herman via OSList wrote: i like this example, christine. and daniel, your latest reminds me that i've seen some very-lite agile incarnations of opening space. it might be that the hyper focus on process makes the agile folks prone to go deep with it on the one hand and to play fast and loose with outer trappings on the other. as christine's highlighting, the conversation about noticing these conditions is valuable, separately from the classifying of events. -- Michael Herman Michael Herman Associates 312-280-7838 (mobile) http://MichaelHerman.com http://OpenSpaceWorld.org On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:44 PM, christine koehler via OSList oslist@lists.openspacetech.org mailto:oslist@lists.openspacetech.org wrote: hi Dan Maybe the difference does not lie in the difference between public and private events, but as Harrison says, whether there is a real « business » issue. Let me give you an example : I facilitated a public OST event, sponsored by an ad-hoc collective of non-profit, to discuss the issue of the role and place, today and in the future,of non-for-profit organizations. The invitation was quite long, very strong , and reminded the context to everyone : the lowering of public funding for more than one third within a few years, and also the number of jobs that the non-profit sector was providing and the danger they are now facing. Public authorities were duly invited (and came). Urgency was stated in the invitation. Event was public : invitation had been widely sent, via flyers given hand to hand in the street or put into public places , but also via email of relevant networks. And yes, the sponsor had taken a great risk in organizing the event, but it’s intention was clear and reaffirmed in the opening. And the follow-up (date and place) of the event was clear also even before the event started and announced at the event. The event was a success : very very deep conversations,very few butterflies, people being really caught in their subjects. One of the result was that they collective changed its name and form to represent more clearly the spirit of the discussions that took place during those 2 days : open, frank, direct and affirming. New energy was found to organize more discussions and meetings and they did a few months later another OST, to keep that open spirit. 8 months after, they are still engaged in conversations. It was a much better OST than a private one I had facilitated before where the sponsor had not committed itself to anything and felt personally offended when his managers did not dare propose topics. No real change was expected from the group, only minor ones, although the group had some real issues. That was obvious . Very good lesson for me, I learned a lot although it has been very painful. So now I do take the preconditions very seriously no matter who the sponsor is, whether the event is public or private etc... And , as Harrison suggests, I also avoid transforming a regular seminar (like a managers annual meeting) into an open space meeting, unless the intention is clearly to change the way they work every day. Christine Le 28 avr. 2015 à 16:12, Daniel Mezick via OSList oslist@lists.openspacetech.org mailto:oslist@lists.openspacetech.org a écrit : Hi Jeff, Chris, Michael and All, First of all thanks for your engagement in the thread's topic; and adding to the discussion. And, I feel that I have to explain myself here. After sleeping on this, I have come to realize that part of what is motivating me to post about public vs private events is .my limited experience in Open Space. * I've attended dozens of public Agile-conference or software-conference events with segments that included OST. * I've arranged and helped to execute and participated in less than 20 OST gathering held inside organizations. * I've also attended a few Open-Space-community events that were all OST over several days. That's not a huge amount of experience data and almost all of is Agile-related. Agile being one kind of process change... ...And so here
Re: [OSList] OST: Public vs Private events: apples and oranges?
You get what you prepare for (or not). So in terms of cohesion I think there is a correlation between how cohesive a group is and the intensity of engagement. I also think there is no way to know if you have enough or not enough cohesion. Instead it's about creating the conditions that invite the group into engagement. And invitation is not a noun but a verb. It is a way of being and talking about why we need to come together and meet. I like to invite people to participatory processes in participatory ways. If the conversation is important and strategic, I go find the people that need to be there and work closely with them. Of course let's be clear too that every OST event has its own purpose. I don't think I have ever used OST explicitly for transformation. And sometimes the purpose of an OST meeting is action and sometimes it isn't. Sometimes it's just learning. So it's hard for me to talk about how much cohesion is important for transformative potential to be activated. Instead my basic heuristic around building invitation is Start the conversations long before the meeting begins. Chris -- CHRIS CORRIGAN Harvest Moon Consultants Facilitation, Open Space Technology and process design Check www.chriscorrigan.com for upcoming workshops, blog posts and free resources. On Apr 28, 2015, at 10:12 AM, Daniel Mezick d...@newtechusa.net wrote: Hi Jeff, Chris, Michael and All, First of all thanks for your engagement in the thread's topic; and adding to the discussion. And, I feel that I have to explain myself here. After sleeping on this, I have come to realize that part of what is motivating me to post about public vs private events is .my limited experience in Open Space. I've attended dozens of public Agile-conference or software-conference events with segments that included OST. I've arranged and helped to execute and participated in less than 20 OST gathering held inside organizations. I've also attended a few Open-Space-community events that were all OST over several days. That's not a huge amount of experience data and almost all of is Agile-related. Agile being one kind of process change... ...And so here is my aha, and related confession: almost all of my OST experience has been part of the Agile community (public conference events) or using OST with Agile adoptions (private OST events.) And the differences are very striking. And that's where I am starting from when I discuss the divergences between public vs private events. My entire experience is around Agile stuff. In in this space, the differences are, well, striking. The role of the Sponsor being an obvious example... ...Chris contributes: My experience is that sponsors of any event who are unwilling to do the pre-work to shape an intention and invitation and to design the architecture for implementation of the results (whatever those results are expected to be) will miss the mark on transformation. And with respect to private corporate events: you can say that again! Now if we look at the role of the Sponsor in a public event, say, an annual confab, like in a community of practice, like the Agile community for example, we can see some striking differences there. In a public event, almost anyone can stand up and welcome the group and discuss the context, introduce the Facilitator, etc. So for example if the conference Chair wanted to delegate this temporary Sponsor role to someone else, they could, and the OST will not likely suffer from that. Because the cohesion is low. The folks are only there for 1,2,3 days, that is the risk or the investment or commitment to it. But if this Sponsor-delegation stuff happened in org, and someone with little authority sent the invite, did the Sponsor role stand-up, welcoming etc, the signal is clear: this event is not authorized and therefore has no oomph. The Sponsor role: With Agile-adoption clients, I've seen this Sponsor-delegation stuff suggested and have strongly guided against doing it, based on the hypothesis that for process-change and other kinds of triggering transitions in organizations, the OST event must be clearly and highly authorized. The Invite: Plus: n most Agile-conference OST events, there IS NO INVITE WHATSOVER. The invite is implied via the conference offer, and attending the event constitutes acceptance of that invite. Add to this the fact that the theme is often emergent in nature, defined not weeks in advance but instead days or hours in advance. The Proceedings: Finally, the proceedings. In public events, they are often nonexistent or an afterthought. In private events...WOW they are all over it. Regarding Agile-related OST events: Not a whole bunch of people have experience observing public vs private OST events in the
Re: [OSList] OST: Public vs Private events: apples and oranges?
Hi Jeff, Chris, Michael and All, First of all thanks for your engagement in the thread's topic; and adding to the discussion. And, I feel that I have to explain myself here. After sleeping on this, I have come to realize that part of what is motivating me to post about public vs private events is .my limited experience in Open Space. * I've attended dozens of public Agile-conference or software-conference events with segments that included OST. * I've arranged and helped to execute and participated in less than 20 OST gathering held inside organizations. * I've also attended a few Open-Space-community events that were all OST over several days. That's not a huge amount of experience data and almost all of is Agile-related. Agile being one kind of process change... ...And so here is my aha, and related confession: almost all of my OST experience has been part of the Agile community (public conference events) or using OST with Agile adoptions (private OST events.) And the differences are very striking. And that's where I am starting from when I discuss the divergences between public vs private events. My entire experience is around Agile stuff. In in this space, the differences are, well, striking. The role of the Sponsor being an obvious example... ...Chris contributes: /My experience is that sponsors of any event who are unwilling to do the pre-work to shape an intention and invitation and to design the architecture for implementation of the results (whatever those results are expected to be) will miss the mark on transformation./ And with respect to private corporate events: you can say that again! Now if we look at the role of the Sponsor in a public event, say, an annual confab, like in a community of practice, like the Agile community for example, we can see some striking differences there. In a public event, almost anyone can stand up and welcome the group and discuss the context, introduce the Facilitator, etc. So for example if the conference Chair wanted to delegate this temporary Sponsor role to someone else, they could, and the OST will not likely suffer from that. Because the cohesion is low. The folks are only there for 1,2,3 days, that is the risk or the investment or commitment to it. But if this Sponsor-delegation stuff happened in org, and someone with little authority sent the invite, did the Sponsor role stand-up, welcoming etc, the signal is clear: this event is not authorized and therefore has no oomph. The Sponsor role: With Agile-adoption clients, I've seen this Sponsor-delegation stuff suggested and have strongly guided against doing it, based on the hypothesis that for process-change and other kinds of triggering transitions in organizations, the OST event must be clearly and highly authorized. The Invite: Plus: n most Agile-conference OST events, there IS NO INVITE WHATSOVER. The invite is implied via the conference offer, and attending the event constitutes acceptance of that invite. Add to this the fact that the theme is often emergent in nature, defined not weeks in advance but instead days or hours in advance. The Proceedings: Finally, the proceedings. In public events, they are often nonexistent or an afterthought. In private events...WOW they are all over it. Regarding Agile-related OST events: Not a whole bunch of people have experience observing public vs private OST events in the Agile space. If they do, they are not documenting or publishing them. Harold Shinsato has some experience here and I think Tricia Chirumbole also has a bit of this experience with both. As I say previously, most all my experience with OST is inside Agile-related situations, both public and private events ...In the end what I am saying is: the way the Sponsor plays, the Invite, and the Proceedings are all very different in my experience when comparing public vs private (all Agile-related!) events. I think what I am calling low cohesion is a real factor in typical public Agile events. Does this pattern carry to non-Agile spaces? Circumstantial evidence includes the fact that BarCamp and Unconference formats have proliferated via public events; I view these formats as OST Lite derivatives of OST. I wonder of this creation of more bare-bones OST-related gathering formats like Barcamp and Unconference for conference events tends to support what I am saying? ...so there you go. I wonder what y'all think about this... Daniel On 4/27/15 11:35 PM, Chris Corrigan wrote: Daniel… I think what you are proposing is interesting, measuring the conditions and how much of each there are. I say generally, that the more of each you have, the better OST works. But I’d never be able to really put a number on it. And my experience is that there seems to be no difference between the likelihood of public or private events being
Re: [OSList] OST: Public vs Private events: apples and oranges?
i like this example, christine. and daniel, your latest reminds me that i've seen some very-lite agile incarnations of opening space. it might be that the hyper focus on process makes the agile folks prone to go deep with it on the one hand and to play fast and loose with outer trappings on the other. as christine's highlighting, the conversation about noticing these conditions is valuable, separately from the classifying of events. -- Michael Herman Michael Herman Associates 312-280-7838 (mobile) http://MichaelHerman.com http://OpenSpaceWorld.org On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:44 PM, christine koehler via OSList oslist@lists.openspacetech.org wrote: hi Dan Maybe the difference does not lie in the difference between public and private events, but as Harrison says, whether there is a real « business » issue. Let me give you an example : I facilitated a public OST event, sponsored by an ad-hoc collective of non-profit, to discuss the issue of the role and place, today and in the future,of non-for-profit organizations. The invitation was quite long, very strong , and reminded the context to everyone : the lowering of public funding for more than one third within a few years, and also the number of jobs that the non-profit sector was providing and the danger they are now facing. Public authorities were duly invited (and came). Urgency was stated in the invitation. Event was public : invitation had been widely sent, via flyers given hand to hand in the street or put into public places , but also via email of relevant networks. And yes, the sponsor had taken a great risk in organizing the event, but it’s intention was clear and reaffirmed in the opening. And the follow-up (date and place) of the event was clear also even before the event started and announced at the event. The event was a success : very very deep conversations,very few butterflies, people being really caught in their subjects. One of the result was that they collective changed its name and form to represent more clearly the spirit of the discussions that took place during those 2 days : open, frank, direct and affirming. New energy was found to organize more discussions and meetings and they did a few months later another OST, to keep that open spirit. 8 months after, they are still engaged in conversations. It was a much better OST than a private one I had facilitated before where the sponsor had not committed itself to anything and felt personally offended when his managers did not dare propose topics. No real change was expected from the group, only minor ones, although the group had some real issues. That was obvious . Very good lesson for me, I learned a lot although it has been very painful. So now I do take the preconditions very seriously no matter who the sponsor is, whether the event is public or private etc... And , as Harrison suggests, I also avoid transforming a regular seminar (like a managers annual meeting) into an open space meeting, unless the intention is clearly to change the way they work every day. Christine Le 28 avr. 2015 à 16:12, Daniel Mezick via OSList oslist@lists.openspacetech.org a écrit : Hi Jeff, Chris, Michael and All, First of all thanks for your engagement in the thread's topic; and adding to the discussion. And, I feel that I have to explain myself here. After sleeping on this, I have come to realize that part of what is motivating me to post about public vs private events is .my limited experience in Open Space. - I've attended dozens of public Agile-conference or software-conference events with segments that included OST. - I've arranged and helped to execute and participated in less than 20 OST gathering held inside organizations. - I've also attended a few Open-Space-community events that were all OST over several days. That's not a huge amount of experience data and almost all of is Agile-related. Agile being one kind of process change... ...And so here is my aha, and related confession: almost all of my OST experience has been part of the Agile community (public conference events) or using OST with Agile adoptions (private OST events.) And the differences are very striking. And that's where I am starting from when I discuss the divergences between public vs private events. My entire experience is around Agile stuff. In in this space, the differences are, well, striking. The role of the Sponsor being an obvious example... ...Chris contributes: *My experience is that sponsors of any event who are unwilling to do the pre-work to shape an intention and invitation and to design the architecture for implementation of the results (whatever those results are expected to be) will miss the mark on transformation.* And with respect to private corporate events: you can say that again! Now if we look at the role of the Sponsor in a public event, say, an annual confab, like in
Re: [OSList] OST: Public vs Private events: apples and oranges?
This is a great thread. I'm so impressed how this methodology has grown up. The level of expertise in this community is profound. I love that Open Space can work beautifully in these complex situations and large organizations. It's so needed. On the other end are people just learning the practice, who want a simple way to gather people in a more effective and energizing fashion in settings that they care about. I guess my eyes are always open for folks who are starting out and want encouragement to jump in. There's room for all of us, and plenty of time to learn the subtle arts over months and years. Onward! Jeff Lagunitas California Original message From: Michael Herman via OSList oslist@lists.openspacetech.org Date:04/28/2015 12:57 PM (GMT-08:00) To: christine koehler chris.alice.koeh...@gmail.com,World wide Open Space Technology email list oslist@lists.openspacetech.org Subject: Re: [OSList] OST: Public vs Private events: apples and oranges? i like this example, christine. and daniel, your latest reminds me that i've seen some very-lite agile incarnations of opening space. it might be that the hyper focus on process makes the agile folks prone to go deep with it on the one hand and to play fast and loose with outer trappings on the other. as christine's highlighting, the conversation about noticing these conditions is valuable, separately from the classifying of events. -- Michael Herman Michael Herman Associates 312-280-7838 (mobile) http://MichaelHerman.com http://OpenSpaceWorld.org On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:44 PM, christine koehler via OSList oslist@lists.openspacetech.org wrote: hi Dan Maybe the difference does not lie in the difference between public and private events, but as Harrison says, whether there is a real « business » issue. Let me give you an example : I facilitated a public OST event, sponsored by an ad-hoc collective of non-profit, to discuss the issue of the role and place, today and in the future,of non-for-profit organizations. The invitation was quite long, very strong , and reminded the context to everyone : the lowering of public funding for more than one third within a few years, and also the number of jobs that the non-profit sector was providing and the danger they are now facing. Public authorities were duly invited (and came). Urgency was stated in the invitation. Event was public : invitation had been widely sent, via flyers given hand to hand in the street or put into public places , but also via email of relevant networks. And yes, the sponsor had taken a great risk in organizing the event, but it’s intention was clear and reaffirmed in the opening. And the follow-up (date and place) of the event was clear also even before the event started and announced at the event. The event was a success : very very deep conversations,very few butterflies, people being really caught in their subjects. One of the result was that they collective changed its name and form to represent more clearly the spirit of the discussions that took place during those 2 days : open, frank, direct and affirming. New energy was found to organize more discussions and meetings and they did a few months later another OST, to keep that open spirit. 8 months after, they are still engaged in conversations. It was a much better OST than a private one I had facilitated before where the sponsor had not committed itself to anything and felt personally offended when his managers did not dare propose topics. No real change was expected from the group, only minor ones, although the group had some real issues. That was obvious . Very good lesson for me, I learned a lot although it has been very painful. So now I do take the preconditions very seriously no matter who the sponsor is, whether the event is public or private etc... And , as Harrison suggests, I also avoid transforming a regular seminar (like a managers annual meeting) into an open space meeting, unless the intention is clearly to change the way they work every day. Christine Le 28 avr. 2015 à 16:12, Daniel Mezick via OSList oslist@lists.openspacetech.org a écrit : Hi Jeff, Chris, Michael and All, First of all thanks for your engagement in the thread's topic; and adding to the discussion. And, I feel that I have to explain myself here. After sleeping on this, I have come to realize that part of what is motivating me to post about public vs private events is .my limited experience in Open Space. I've attended dozens of public Agile-conference or software-conference events with segments that included OST. I've arranged and helped to execute and participated in less than 20 OST gathering held inside organizations. I've also attended a few Open-Space-community events that were all OST over several days. That's not a huge amount of experience data and almost all of is Agile-related. Agile being one kind of process change
Re: [OSList] OST: Public vs Private events: apples and oranges?
hi Dan Maybe the difference does not lie in the difference between public and private events, but as Harrison says, whether there is a real « business » issue. Let me give you an example : I facilitated a public OST event, sponsored by an ad-hoc collective of non-profit, to discuss the issue of the role and place, today and in the future,of non-for-profit organizations. The invitation was quite long, very strong , and reminded the context to everyone : the lowering of public funding for more than one third within a few years, and also the number of jobs that the non-profit sector was providing and the danger they are now facing. Public authorities were duly invited (and came). Urgency was stated in the invitation. Event was public : invitation had been widely sent, via flyers given hand to hand in the street or put into public places , but also via email of relevant networks. And yes, the sponsor had taken a great risk in organizing the event, but it’s intention was clear and reaffirmed in the opening. And the follow-up (date and place) of the event was clear also even before the event started and announced at the event. The event was a success : very very deep conversations,very few butterflies, people being really caught in their subjects. One of the result was that they collective changed its name and form to represent more clearly the spirit of the discussions that took place during those 2 days : open, frank, direct and affirming. New energy was found to organize more discussions and meetings and they did a few months later another OST, to keep that open spirit. 8 months after, they are still engaged in conversations. It was a much better OST than a private one I had facilitated before where the sponsor had not committed itself to anything and felt personally offended when his managers did not dare propose topics. No real change was expected from the group, only minor ones, although the group had some real issues. That was obvious . Very good lesson for me, I learned a lot although it has been very painful. So now I do take the preconditions very seriously no matter who the sponsor is, whether the event is public or private etc... And , as Harrison suggests, I also avoid transforming a regular seminar (like a managers annual meeting) into an open space meeting, unless the intention is clearly to change the way they work every day. Christine Le 28 avr. 2015 à 16:12, Daniel Mezick via OSList oslist@lists.openspacetech.org a écrit : Hi Jeff, Chris, Michael and All, First of all thanks for your engagement in the thread's topic; and adding to the discussion. And, I feel that I have to explain myself here. After sleeping on this, I have come to realize that part of what is motivating me to post about public vs private events is .my limited experience in Open Space. I've attended dozens of public Agile-conference or software-conference events with segments that included OST. I've arranged and helped to execute and participated in less than 20 OST gathering held inside organizations. I've also attended a few Open-Space-community events that were all OST over several days. That's not a huge amount of experience data and almost all of is Agile-related. Agile being one kind of process change... ...And so here is my aha, and related confession: almost all of my OST experience has been part of the Agile community (public conference events) or using OST with Agile adoptions (private OST events.) And the differences are very striking. And that's where I am starting from when I discuss the divergences between public vs private events. My entire experience is around Agile stuff. In in this space, the differences are, well, striking. The role of the Sponsor being an obvious example... ...Chris contributes: My experience is that sponsors of any event who are unwilling to do the pre-work to shape an intention and invitation and to design the architecture for implementation of the results (whatever those results are expected to be) will miss the mark on transformation. And with respect to private corporate events: you can say that again! Now if we look at the role of the Sponsor in a public event, say, an annual confab, like in a community of practice, like the Agile community for example, we can see some striking differences there. In a public event, almost anyone can stand up and welcome the group and discuss the context, introduce the Facilitator, etc. So for example if the conference Chair wanted to delegate this temporary Sponsor role to someone else, they could, and the OST will not likely suffer from that. Because the cohesion is low. The folks are only there for 1,2,3 days, that is the risk or the investment or commitment to it. But if this Sponsor-delegation stuff happened in org, and someone with little authority sent the invite, did the
Re: [OSList] OST: Public vs Private events: apples and oranges?
in organizations and communities? well, i think we already probably open a bit differently in every different place we go. it's always starts with whatever people are there in a new place where we're invited to work. i'm not sure where this can lead us. yes, and that is a great starting point, is it not? close to ideal perhaps... wondering, daniel, is this an exploration of uncharted territory or are you laying the groundwork for a larger story. IF what you say is absolutely true, where do we go? can we go there even if the answer is maybe? yea and in general, there is an allergy around the use of precise language. the vague language with fewer terms and words and words with multiple meanings can be the cause of many sorrows for those trying to learn this stuff. consider the newb on OSLIST how it trying to grok this stuff. How does vague language that does not make distinctions between this and that context serve that new student? as it stands, there is no agreed-upon definition for OST, because OST is a spirit that defies definition. and even when it does not, there are plenty of people that are happy to to the defying. the five preconditions for good OST provide a starting point for discussion. what you are really asking is what is your intent Daniel? and the intent is to advance the work. Daniel m -- Michael Herman Michael Herman Associates 312-280-7838 (mobile) http://MichaelHerman.com http://OpenSpaceWorld.org On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 12:43 PM, Daniel Mezick via OSList oslist@lists.openspacetech.org mailto:oslist@lists.openspacetech.org wrote: Yo Harrison, Where are you lately hearing about 'scaling up' OST? I'm interested in knowing the origin of that. Daniel On 4/26/15 12:12 PM, Harrison via OSList wrote: To add a bit... The 4 (actually 5) “preconditions” were simply what I, and others, had observed to be the situation. I can’t actually remember, but I think my original motivation was to question what seemed to be the conventional wisdom regarding what it took to have a good meeting. I think we all know the drill – there should be a clear agenda, closely ordered procedure, something close to absolute control, and the like. With thoughts like these in mind, Open Space was not only counterintuitive, but wrong, dangerous, and obviously heretical. What we were experiencing was definitely a horse of a different color. And yes, Jeff, there is certainly no “requirement” that all conditions be at maximum red alert. That said, if none are present there would seem to be little reason have a meeting, let alone Open Space. After all who would want to waste the time when there was no business issue, everything was crystal clear, everyone thought exactly the same way, no passion or conflict, and the sense of urgency non-existent? Sounds like a non-starter to me. Then again it constantly amazes me that every day in organizations all over the world folks hold meetings just because you are supposed to. Is it any wonder that people are bored, disengaged, and cynical? But actually what really got me excited was when I realized that my “5 Preconditions” almost exactly paralleled the essential preconditions for self organization as described by Stuart Kauffmann and others. That made a connection which produced my greatest learning in and about Open Space. It is all self organization. It is not a process we/I created, invented, or whatever. All we actually “do” is to invite people to remember what they have been doing for ever. Well at least for the last 13.7 billion years. And just for a tag line to those who might be thinking about “scaling up” Open Space, I would suggest you save your energy. It’s already happened. It is all self organizing. It is all open space. Of course it is true that things get pretty sloppy and gooey when we set about organizing a self organizing system. Oh well. Harrison Winter Address 7808 River Falls Drive Potomac, MD 20854 301-365-2093 tel:301-365-2093 Summer Address 189 Beaucaire Ave. Camden, ME 04843 207-763-3261 tel:207-763-3261 Websites www.openspaceworld.com http://%20www.openspaceworld.com www.ho-image.com http://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 *Jeff Aitken via OSList *Sent:* Sunday, April 26, 2015 11:31 AM *To:* Daniel Mezick; World wide Open Space Technology email list *Subject:* Re: [OSList] OST: Public vs Private events: apples and oranges? Hi Daniel. When Harrison's four conditions came out way back when, I imagined them as a way to tell a client
Re: [OSList] OST: Public vs Private events: apples and oranges?
, and obviously heretical. What we were experiencing was definitely a horse of a different color. And yes, Jeff, there is certainly no “requirement” that all conditions be at maximum red alert. That said, if none are present there would seem to be little reason have a meeting, let alone Open Space. After all who would want to waste the time when there was no business issue, everything was crystal clear, everyone thought exactly the same way, no passion or conflict, and the sense of urgency non-existent? Sounds like a non-starter to me. Then again it constantly amazes me that every day in organizations all over the world folks hold meetings just because you are supposed to. Is it any wonder that people are bored, disengaged, and cynical? But actually what really got me excited was when I realized that my “5 Preconditions” almost exactly paralleled the essential preconditions for self organization as described by Stuart Kauffmann and others. That made a connection which produced my greatest learning in and about Open Space. It is all self organization. It is not a process we/I created, invented, or whatever. All we actually “do” is to invite people to remember what they have been doing for ever. Well at least for the last 13.7 billion years. And just for a tag line to those who might be thinking about “scaling up” Open Space, I would suggest you save your energy. It’s already happened. It is all self organizing. It is all open space. Of course it is true that things get pretty sloppy and gooey when we set about organizing a self organizing system. Oh well. 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 http://%20www.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 oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org] *On Behalf Of *Jeff Aitken via OSList *Sent:* Sunday, April 26, 2015 11:31 AM *To:* Daniel Mezick; World wide Open Space Technology email list *Subject:* Re: [OSList] OST: Public vs Private events: apples and oranges? Hi Daniel. When Harrison's four conditions came out way back when, I imagined them as a way to tell a client that even in the most challenging situation it's quite possible that Open Space will work very well. In other words, don't hesitate to consider it, even if you're afraid things are just too messy to try this strange new process. Having hosted and seen many great open spaces in which the scores were low, so to speak, I never took seriously that these are absolute preconditions. To me they are a kind of inoculation against a prospective sponsor being afraid to make that phone call or send that email. With lots of appreciation for your good work Jeff Lagunitas, California Original message From: Daniel Mezick via OSList Date:04/26/2015 6:20 AM (GMT-08:00) To: World wide Open Space Technology email list Subject: [OSList] OST: Public vs Private events: apples and oranges? Greetings All, ...I notice these well-worn, well-understood set of starting conditions for great Open Space, on Wikipedia...hmm... WIKIPEDIA Hundreds of Open Space meetings have been documented.[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Space_Technology#cite_note-4[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Space_Technology#cite_note-5 Harrison Owen explains that this approach works best when these conditions are present,[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Space_Technology#cite_note-OST-3 namely high levels of 1. *Complexity*, in terms of the tasks to be done or outcomes achieved; 2. *Diversity*, in terms of the people involved and/or needed to make any solution work; 3. *Conflict, real or potential*, meaning people really care about the central issue or purpose; and 4. *Urgency*, meaning that the time to act was yesterday. /WIKIPEDIA In an organization, we could work with formally authorized leaders to gauge the magnitude of each dimension. So for example we could gauge or rank the magnitude, with 1 being lowest and 10 being the highest magnitude for gauging each dimension. For a really nice opportunity to use Open Space, we might be looking for a combined score of, say, 32 or higher (out of a possible 40) The Public Conference Event Now let's consider the PUBLIC conference event. What is the typical combined score in a public conference... for these 4 elements? I am guessing the combined score is something like 20 or lower for the typical conference event. Maybe 25 out of a perfect 40? The cohesion is just (generally speaking!) *so much lower* in a public vs org-based (private) event... HERESY
Re: [OSList] OST: Public vs Private events: apples and oranges?
Daniel… I think what you are proposing is interesting, measuring the conditions and how much of each there are. I say generally, that the more of each you have, the better OST works. But I’d never be able to really put a number on it. And my experience is that there seems to be no difference between the likelihood of public or private events being anymore or less likely to exhibit these conditions. There is nothing inherent tin the ontology of these two kinds of events that would predict that. The five pre-conditions do seem to point at specific factors in the ontology of an event that would make for a potentially richer OST event. Radical transformation is rare and is never guaranteed. But we can work with conditions to create potential. in fact for me it comes down to the pre-work. My experience is that sponsors of any event who are unwilling to do the pre-work to shape an intention and invitation and to design the architecture for implementation of the results (whatever those results are expected to be) will miss the mark on transformation. (and this pre-work includes being clear about what they are NOT doing as well) Like any event, the quality of the container matters. Paying attention to the constraints and the attractors builds a container where a real need is allowed to produce real conversations which can create real action and ultimately change. If you don’t break people’s patterns and expectations of a meeting or conference beforehand, it’s unlikely they will come prepared for transformation. And that is the biggest predictor of “flat feeling” OST events for me. I think your text tagged HERESY below is actually HYPOTHESIS and needs to be tested in some way. But the test will apply to your practice, your context and the particular events that you are drawn or invited to. The practice of working with clients in Open Space is impossible to standardize. It is an artisanal practice. There are a few basic skills and talents one needs to have developed in order to assure quality, but nothing can take the place of experience and the path of mastery that is individual and practice based. Chris On Apr 26, 2015, at 11:30 AM, Jeff Aitken via OSList oslist@lists.openspacetech.org wrote: HERESY And that is why I think OST is for development and transformation in organizations (that actual subtitle of the SPIRIT book) and that it is not at all as effective, in terms of impact, when implemented in a public conference. /HERESY I am guessing the scores for the 4 dimensions are almost always be lower in a public vs. private event. Certainly that is my general subjective observation, based on a small sample of direct experience (less than 20 experiences doing OST inside corporations...) ___ 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
Re: [OSList] OST: Public vs Private events: apples and oranges?
Hi Daniel. When Harrison's four conditions came out way back when, I imagined them as a way to tell a client that even in the most challenging situation it's quite possible that Open Space will work very well. In other words, don't hesitate to consider it, even if you're afraid things are just too messy to try this strange new process. Having hosted and seen many great open spaces in which the scores were low, so to speak, I never took seriously that these are absolute preconditions. To me they are a kind of inoculation against a prospective sponsor being afraid to make that phone call or send that email. With lots of appreciation for your good work Jeff Lagunitas, California Original message From: Daniel Mezick via OSList oslist@lists.openspacetech.org Date:04/26/2015 6:20 AM (GMT-08:00) To: World wide Open Space Technology email list oslist@lists.openspacetech.org Subject: [OSList] OST: Public vs Private events: apples and oranges? Greetings All, ...I notice these well-worn, well-understood set of starting conditions for great Open Space, on Wikipedia...hmm... WIKIPEDIA Hundreds of Open Space meetings have been documented.[4][5] Harrison Owen explains that this approach works best when these conditions are present,[3] namely high levels of Complexity, in terms of the tasks to be done or outcomes achieved; Diversity, in terms of the people involved and/or needed to make any solution work; Conflict, real or potential, meaning people really care about the central issue or purpose; and Urgency, meaning that the time to act was yesterday. /WIKIPEDIA In an organization, we could work with formally authorized leaders to gauge the magnitude of each dimension. So for example we could gauge or rank the magnitude, with 1 being lowest and 10 being the highest magnitude for gauging each dimension. For a really nice opportunity to use Open Space, we might be looking for a combined score of, say, 32 or higher (out of a possible 40) The Public Conference Event Now let's consider the PUBLIC conference event. What is the typical combined score in a public conference... for these 4 elements? I am guessing the combined score is something like 20 or lower for the typical conference event. Maybe 25 out of a perfect 40? The cohesion is just (generally speaking!) so much lower in a public vs org-based (private) event... HERESY And that is why I think OST is for development and transformation in organizations (that actual subtitle of the SPIRIT book) and that it is not at all as effective, in terms of impact, when implemented in a public conference. /HERESY I am guessing the scores for the 4 dimensions are almost always be lower in a public vs. private event. Certainly that is my general subjective observation, based on a small sample of direct experience (less than 20 experiences doing OST inside corporations...) ...Yes: some exceptions do exist. As is almost always the case. Right? That said, I feel these exceptions prove the general rule... that private events have a much higher combined score, all else being equal. Ironically, the OST format was originally formulated to ease the effort required to arrange and execute public conference events. And then 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 Past archives can be viewed here: http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.openspacetech.org
Re: [OSList] OST: Public vs Private events: apples and oranges?
To add a bit... The 4 (actually 5) preconditions were simply what I, and others, had observed to be the situation. I can't actually remember, but I think my original motivation was to question what seemed to be the conventional wisdom regarding what it took to have a good meeting. I think we all know the drill - there should be a clear agenda, closely ordered procedure, something close to absolute control, and the like. With thoughts like these in mind, Open Space was not only counterintuitive, but wrong, dangerous, and obviously heretical. What we were experiencing was definitely a horse of a different color. And yes, Jeff, there is certainly no requirement that all conditions be at maximum red alert. That said, if none are present there would seem to be little reason have a meeting, let alone Open Space. After all who would want to waste the time when there was no business issue, everything was crystal clear, everyone thought exactly the same way, no passion or conflict, and the sense of urgency non-existent? Sounds like a non-starter to me. Then again it constantly amazes me that every day in organizations all over the world folks hold meetings just because you are supposed to. Is it any wonder that people are bored, disengaged, and cynical? But actually what really got me excited was when I realized that my 5 Preconditions almost exactly paralleled the essential preconditions for self organization as described by Stuart Kauffmann and others. That made a connection which produced my greatest learning in and about Open Space. It is all self organization. It is not a process we/I created, invented, or whatever. All we actually do is to invite people to remember what they have been doing for ever. Well at least for the last 13.7 billion years. And just for a tag line to those who might be thinking about scaling up Open Space, I would suggest you save your energy. It's already happened. It is all self organizing. It is all open space. Of course it is true that things get pretty sloppy and gooey when we set about organizing a self organizing system. Oh well. 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 Jeff Aitken via OSList Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2015 11:31 AM To: Daniel Mezick; World wide Open Space Technology email list Subject: Re: [OSList] OST: Public vs Private events: apples and oranges? Hi Daniel. When Harrison's four conditions came out way back when, I imagined them as a way to tell a client that even in the most challenging situation it's quite possible that Open Space will work very well. In other words, don't hesitate to consider it, even if you're afraid things are just too messy to try this strange new process. Having hosted and seen many great open spaces in which the scores were low, so to speak, I never took seriously that these are absolute preconditions. To me they are a kind of inoculation against a prospective sponsor being afraid to make that phone call or send that email. With lots of appreciation for your good work Jeff Lagunitas, California Original message From: Daniel Mezick via OSList Date:04/26/2015 6:20 AM (GMT-08:00) To: World wide Open Space Technology email list Subject: [OSList] OST: Public vs Private events: apples and oranges? Greetings All, ...I notice these well-worn, well-understood set of starting conditions for great Open Space, on Wikipedia...hmm... WIKIPEDIA Hundreds of Open Space meetings have been documented.[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Space_Technology#cite_note-4 [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Space_Technology#cite_note-5 Harrison Owen explains that this approach works best when these conditions are present,[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Space_Technology#cite_note-OST-3 namely high levels of 1. Complexity, in terms of the tasks to be done or outcomes achieved; 2. Diversity, in terms of the people involved and/or needed to make any solution work; 3. Conflict, real or potential, meaning people really care about the central issue or purpose; and 4. Urgency, meaning that the time to act was yesterday. /WIKIPEDIA In an organization, we could work with formally authorized leaders to gauge the magnitude of each dimension. So for example we could gauge or rank the magnitude, with 1 being lowest and 10 being the highest magnitude for gauging each dimension. For a really nice opportunity to use Open Space, we might be looking for a combined score of, say, 32 or higher (out of a possible 40) The Public Conference Event Now let's consider the PUBLIC
Re: [OSList] OST: Public vs Private events: apples and oranges?
Now that I think of it, my hope is that prospective sponsors are not hesitating to reach out because they think they do not meet enough conditions. And I hope that budding OST facilitators are not hesitating for the same reason. It works great, folks! Of course there is good pre-work to do. But even if the 'scores are low' it's a fun and productive way to be together. Jeff Lagunitas California Original message From: Jeff Aitken r.jeff.ait...@gmail.com Date:04/26/2015 8:30 AM (GMT-08:00) To: Daniel Mezick d...@newtechusa.net,World wide Open Space Technology email list oslist@lists.openspacetech.org Subject: RE: [OSList] OST: Public vs Private events: apples and oranges? Hi Daniel. When Harrison's four conditions came out way back when, I imagined them as a way to tell a client that even in the most challenging situation it's quite possible that Open Space will work very well. In other words, don't hesitate to consider it, even if you're afraid things are just too messy to try this strange new process. Having hosted and seen many great open spaces in which the scores were low, so to speak, I never took seriously that these are absolute preconditions. To me they are a kind of inoculation against a prospective sponsor being afraid to make that phone call or send that email. With lots of appreciation for your good work Jeff Lagunitas, California Original message From: Daniel Mezick via OSList Date:04/26/2015 6:20 AM (GMT-08:00) To: World wide Open Space Technology email list Subject: [OSList] OST: Public vs Private events: apples and oranges? Greetings All, ...I notice these well-worn, well-understood set of starting conditions for great Open Space, on Wikipedia...hmm... WIKIPEDIA Hundreds of Open Space meetings have been documented.[4][5] Harrison Owen explains that this approach works best when these conditions are present,[3] namely high levels of Complexity, in terms of the tasks to be done or outcomes achieved; Diversity, in terms of the people involved and/or needed to make any solution work; Conflict, real or potential, meaning people really care about the central issue or purpose; and Urgency, meaning that the time to act was yesterday. /WIKIPEDIA In an organization, we could work with formally authorized leaders to gauge the magnitude of each dimension. So for example we could gauge or rank the magnitude, with 1 being lowest and 10 being the highest magnitude for gauging each dimension. For a really nice opportunity to use Open Space, we might be looking for a combined score of, say, 32 or higher (out of a possible 40) The Public Conference Event Now let's consider the PUBLIC conference event. What is the typical combined score in a public conference... for these 4 elements? I am guessing the combined score is something like 20 or lower for the typical conference event. Maybe 25 out of a perfect 40? The cohesion is just (generally speaking!) so much lower in a public vs org-based (private) event... HERESY And that is why I think OST is for development and transformation in organizations (that actual subtitle of the SPIRIT book) and that it is not at all as effective, in terms of impact, when implemented in a public conference. /HERESY I am guessing the scores for the 4 dimensions are almost always be lower in a public vs. private event. Certainly that is my general subjective observation, based on a small sample of direct experience (less than 20 experiences doing OST inside corporations...) ...Yes: some exceptions do exist. As is almost always the case. Right? That said, I feel these exceptions prove the general rule... that private events have a much higher combined score, all else being equal. Ironically, the OST format was originally formulated to ease the effort required to arrange and execute public conference events. And then 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 Past archives can be viewed here: http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.openspacetech.org
[OSList] OST: Public vs Private events: apples and oranges?
Greetings All, ...I notice these well-worn, well-understood set of starting conditions for great Open Space, on Wikipedia...hmm... WIKIPEDIA Hundreds of Open Space meetings have been documented.^[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Space_Technology#cite_note-4 ^[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Space_Technology#cite_note-5 Harrison Owen explains that this approach works best when these conditions are present,^[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Space_Technology#cite_note-OST-3 namely high levels of 1. /Complexity/, in terms of the tasks to be done or outcomes achieved; 2. /Diversity/, in terms of the people involved and/or needed to make any solution work; 3. /Conflict, real or potential/, meaning people really care about the central issue or purpose; and 4. /Urgency/, meaning that the time to act was yesterday. /WIKIPEDIA In an organization, we could work with formally authorized leaders to gauge the magnitude of each dimension. So for example we could gauge or rank the magnitude, with 1 being lowest and 10 being the highest magnitude for gauging each dimension. For a really nice opportunity to use Open Space, we might be looking for a combined score of, say, 32 or higher (out of a possible 40) The Public Conference Event Now let's consider the PUBLIC conference event. What is the typical combined score in a public conference... for these 4 elements? I am guessing the combined score is something like 20 or lower for the typical conference event. Maybe 25 out of a perfect 40? The cohesion is just (generally speaking!) /so much lower/ in a public vs org-based (private) event... HERESY And that is why I think OST is for development and transformation in organizations (that actual subtitle of the SPIRIT book) and that it is not at all as effective, in terms of impact, when implemented in a public conference. /HERESY I am guessing the scores for the 4 dimensions are almost always be lower in a public vs. private event. Certainly that is my general subjective observation, based on a small sample of direct experience (less than 20 experiences doing OST inside corporations...) ...Yes: some exceptions do exist. As is almost always the case. Right? That said, I feel these exceptions prove the general rule... that private events have a much higher combined score, all else being equal. Ironically, the OST format was originally formulated to ease the effort required to arrange and execute public conference events. And then Daniel -- Daniel Mezick, President New Technology Solutions Inc. (203) 915 7248 (cell) Bio http://newtechusa.net/dan-mezick/. Blog http://newtechusa.net/blog/. Twitter http://twitter.com/#%21/danmezick/. Examine my new book:The Culture Game http://newtechusa.net/about/the-culture-game-book/: Tools for the Agile Manager. Explore Agile Team Training http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-training/ and Coaching. http://newtechusa.net/services/agile-scrum-coaching/ Explore the Agile Boston http://newtechusa.net//user-groups/ma/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 Past archives can be viewed here: http://www.mail-archive.com/oslist@lists.openspacetech.org
Re: [OSList] OST: Public vs Private events: apples and oranges?
, invented, or whatever. All we actually “do” is to invite people to remember what they have been doing for ever. Well at least for the last 13.7 billion years. And just for a tag line to those who might be thinking about “scaling up” Open Space, I would suggest you save your energy. It’s already happened. It is all self organizing. It is all open space. Of course it is true that things get pretty sloppy and gooey when we set about organizing a self organizing system. Oh well. 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 http://%20www.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 oslist-boun...@lists.openspacetech.org] *On Behalf Of *Jeff Aitken via OSList *Sent:* Sunday, April 26, 2015 11:31 AM *To:* Daniel Mezick; World wide Open Space Technology email list *Subject:* Re: [OSList] OST: Public vs Private events: apples and oranges? Hi Daniel. When Harrison's four conditions came out way back when, I imagined them as a way to tell a client that even in the most challenging situation it's quite possible that Open Space will work very well. In other words, don't hesitate to consider it, even if you're afraid things are just too messy to try this strange new process. Having hosted and seen many great open spaces in which the scores were low, so to speak, I never took seriously that these are absolute preconditions. To me they are a kind of inoculation against a prospective sponsor being afraid to make that phone call or send that email. With lots of appreciation for your good work Jeff Lagunitas, California Original message From: Daniel Mezick via OSList Date:04/26/2015 6:20 AM (GMT-08:00) To: World wide Open Space Technology email list Subject: [OSList] OST: Public vs Private events: apples and oranges? Greetings All, ...I notice these well-worn, well-understood set of starting conditions for great Open Space, on Wikipedia...hmm... WIKIPEDIA Hundreds of Open Space meetings have been documented.[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Space_Technology#cite_note-4[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Space_Technology#cite_note-5 Harrison Owen explains that this approach works best when these conditions are present,[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Space_Technology#cite_note-OST-3 namely high levels of 1. *Complexity*, in terms of the tasks to be done or outcomes achieved; 2. *Diversity*, in terms of the people involved and/or needed to make any solution work; 3. *Conflict, real or potential*, meaning people really care about the central issue or purpose; and 4. *Urgency*, meaning that the time to act was yesterday. /WIKIPEDIA In an organization, we could work with formally authorized leaders to gauge the magnitude of each dimension. So for example we could gauge or rank the magnitude, with 1 being lowest and 10 being the highest magnitude for gauging each dimension. For a really nice opportunity to use Open Space, we might be looking for a combined score of, say, 32 or higher (out of a possible 40) The Public Conference Event Now let's consider the PUBLIC conference event. What is the typical combined score in a public conference... for these 4 elements? I am guessing the combined score is something like 20 or lower for the typical conference event. Maybe 25 out of a perfect 40? The cohesion is just (generally speaking!) *so much lower* in a public vs org-based (private) event... HERESY And that is why I think OST is for development and transformation in organizations (that actual subtitle of the SPIRIT book) and that it is not at all as effective, in terms of impact, when implemented in a public conference. /HERESY I am guessing the scores for the 4 dimensions are almost always be lower in a public vs. private event. Certainly that is my general subjective observation, based on a small sample of direct experience (less than 20 experiences doing OST inside corporations...) ...Yes: some exceptions do exist. As is almost always the case. Right? That said, I feel these exceptions prove the general rule... that private events have a much higher combined score, all else being equal. Ironically, the OST format was originally formulated to ease the effort required to arrange and execute public conference events. And then Daniel -- Daniel Mezick, President New Technology Solutions Inc. (203) 915 7248 (cell) Bio http://newtechusa.net/dan-mezick/. Blog http://newtechusa.net/blog/. Twitter http://twitter.com/#%21/danmezick/. Examine my new book: The Culture Game http
Re: [OSList] OST: Public vs Private events: apples and oranges?
Yo Harrison, Where are you lately hearing about 'scaling up' OST? I'm interested in knowing the origin of that. Daniel On 4/26/15 12:12 PM, Harrison via OSList wrote: To add a bit... The 4 (actually 5) “preconditions” were simply what I, and others, had observed to be the situation. I can’t actually remember, but I think my original motivation was to question what seemed to be the conventional wisdom regarding what it took to have a good meeting. I think we all know the drill – there should be a clear agenda, closely ordered procedure, something close to absolute control, and the like. With thoughts like these in mind, Open Space was not only counterintuitive, but wrong, dangerous, and obviously heretical. What we were experiencing was definitely a horse of a different color. And yes, Jeff, there is certainly no “requirement” that all conditions be at maximum red alert. That said, if none are present there would seem to be little reason have a meeting, let alone Open Space. After all who would want to waste the time when there was no business issue, everything was crystal clear, everyone thought exactly the same way, no passion or conflict, and the sense of urgency non-existent? Sounds like a non-starter to me. Then again it constantly amazes me that every day in organizations all over the world folks hold meetings just because you are supposed to. Is it any wonder that people are bored, disengaged, and cynical? But actually what really got me excited was when I realized that my “5 Preconditions” almost exactly paralleled the essential preconditions for self organization as described by Stuart Kauffmann and others. That made a connection which produced my greatest learning in and about Open Space. It is all self organization. It is not a process we/I created, invented, or whatever. All we actually “do” is to invite people to remember what they have been doing for ever. Well at least for the last 13.7 billion years. And just for a tag line to those who might be thinking about “scaling up” Open Space, I would suggest you save your energy. It’s already happened. It is all self organizing. It is all open space. Of course it is true that things get pretty sloppy and gooey when we set about organizing a self organizing system. Oh well. 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 %20www.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 *Jeff Aitken via OSList *Sent:* Sunday, April 26, 2015 11:31 AM *To:* Daniel Mezick; World wide Open Space Technology email list *Subject:* Re: [OSList] OST: Public vs Private events: apples and oranges? Hi Daniel. When Harrison's four conditions came out way back when, I imagined them as a way to tell a client that even in the most challenging situation it's quite possible that Open Space will work very well. In other words, don't hesitate to consider it, even if you're afraid things are just too messy to try this strange new process. Having hosted and seen many great open spaces in which the scores were low, so to speak, I never took seriously that these are absolute preconditions. To me they are a kind of inoculation against a prospective sponsor being afraid to make that phone call or send that email. With lots of appreciation for your good work Jeff Lagunitas, California Original message From: Daniel Mezick via OSList Date:04/26/2015 6:20 AM (GMT-08:00) To: World wide Open Space Technology email list Subject: [OSList] OST: Public vs Private events: apples and oranges? Greetings All, ...I notice these well-worn, well-understood set of starting conditions for great Open Space, on Wikipedia...hmm... WIKIPEDIA Hundreds of Open Space meetings have been documented.^[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Space_Technology#cite_note-4[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Space_Technology#cite_note-5 Harrison Owen explains that this approach works best when these conditions are present,^[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Space_Technology#cite_note-OST-3 namely high levels of 1. /Complexity/, in terms of the tasks to be done or outcomes achieved; 2. /Diversity/, in terms of the people involved and/or needed to make any solution work; 3. /Conflict, real or potential/, meaning people really care about the central issue or purpose; and 4. /Urgency/, meaning that the time to act was yesterday. /WIKIPEDIA In an organization, we could work with formally authorized leaders to gauge the magnitude of each dimension. So for example we could gauge or rank the magnitude, with 1 being lowest and 10 being the highest
Re: [OSList] OST: Public vs Private events: apples and oranges?
Well said Harrison! So I hope people will ask a practitioner to help them discern when it's the right time for open space - and not hesitate. Operators are standing by ; ) as they say in TV marketing ads. Jeff Lagunitas California Original message From: Harrison hho...@verizon.net Date:04/26/2015 9:12 AM (GMT-08:00) To: 'Jeff Aitken' r.jeff.ait...@gmail.com,'World wide Open Space Technology email list' oslist@lists.openspacetech.org Subject: RE: [OSList] OST: Public vs Private events: apples and oranges? To add a bit... The 4 (actually 5) “preconditions” were simply what I, and others, had observed to be the situation. I can’t actually remember, but I think my original motivation was to question what seemed to be the conventional wisdom regarding what it took to have a good meeting. I think we all know the drill – there should be a clear agenda, closely ordered procedure, something close to absolute control, and the like. With thoughts like these in mind, Open Space was not only counterintuitive, but wrong, dangerous, and obviously heretical. What we were experiencing was definitely a horse of a different color. And yes, Jeff, there is certainly no “requirement” that all conditions be at maximum red alert. That said, if none are present there would seem to be little reason have a meeting, let alone Open Space. After all who would want to waste the time when there was no business issue, everything was crystal clear, everyone thought exactly the same way, no passion or conflict, and the sense of urgency non-existent? Sounds like a non-starter to me. Then again it constantly amazes me that every day in organizations all over the world folks hold meetings just because you are supposed to. Is it any wonder that people are bored, disengaged, and cynical? But actually what really got me excited was when I realized that my “5 Preconditions” almost exactly paralleled the essential preconditions for self organization as described by Stuart Kauffmann and others. That made a connection which produced my greatest learning in and about Open Space. It is all self organization. It is not a process we/I created, invented, or whatever. All we actually “do” is to invite people to remember what they have been doing for ever. Well at least for the last 13.7 billion years. And just for a tag line to those who might be thinking about “scaling up” Open Space, I would suggest you save your energy. It’s already happened. It is all self organizing. It is all open space. Of course it is true that things get pretty sloppy and gooey when we set about organizing a self organizing system. Oh well. 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 Jeff Aitken via OSList Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2015 11:31 AM To: Daniel Mezick; World wide Open Space Technology email list Subject: Re: [OSList] OST: Public vs Private events: apples and oranges? Hi Daniel. When Harrison's four conditions came out way back when, I imagined them as a way to tell a client that even in the most challenging situation it's quite possible that Open Space will work very well. In other words, don't hesitate to consider it, even if you're afraid things are just too messy to try this strange new process. Having hosted and seen many great open spaces in which the scores were low, so to speak, I never took seriously that these are absolute preconditions. To me they are a kind of inoculation against a prospective sponsor being afraid to make that phone call or send that email. With lots of appreciation for your good work Jeff Lagunitas, California Original message From: Daniel Mezick via OSList Date:04/26/2015 6:20 AM (GMT-08:00) To: World wide Open Space Technology email list Subject: [OSList] OST: Public vs Private events: apples and oranges? Greetings All, ...I notice these well-worn, well-understood set of starting conditions for great Open Space, on Wikipedia...hmm... WIKIPEDIA Hundreds of Open Space meetings have been documented.[4][5] Harrison Owen explains that this approach works best when these conditions are present,[3] namely high levels of Complexity, in terms of the tasks to be done or outcomes achieved; Diversity, in terms of the people involved and/or needed to make any solution work; Conflict, real or potential, meaning people really care about the central issue or purpose; and Urgency, meaning that the time to act was yesterday. /WIKIPEDIA In an organization, we could work with formally authorized leaders to gauge the magnitude of each dimension. So
