OSI OZ

Fri May 22 20:02:42 PDT 1998

My calendar notes that the Australian Open Space on Open Space is happening
this weekend and I just want to extend very good wishes for a
wonder-filled, creative, innovative, rejuvenating, revitalizing, playful
time to friends in Australia who are at this event.

I wish to share with you some notes that are dear to me about Open Space
using dance as metaphor:

"The boundaries keep us clear so that we are free to dance in the middle.
May the space held for you be large to allow lots of room for the dance"

"People who watch are fools, people who dance are fools; so if I'm going to
be a fool anyway, I choose to dance"----told by a woman at the Open Space
gathering in Seattle this past weekend on the Emergent Role of Women
Leaders

"The living and breathing in Open Space. The pain and the joy. The
learning. Coming together, pulling apart, coming together, pulling apart,
coming together, pulling apart,....the dance. And finally to come together
in the purest of moments. We are terrified of this moment because it is the
complete test of our reality---past, present, and future in the NOW. And at
the now of coming together, we begin to look at the separateness of each
other and to agree to dance together to find this moment again and again.
The gift of Open Space. The gift of the dance."

Blessings to you,
Birgitt

Birgitt Bolton
Dalar Associates/Change Team Canada
55 Ravina Cres., Ancaster, Ontario, Canada L9G 2E8
phone: 905-648-5775    fax: 905-648-2262

>From  Mon May 25 19:39:50 1998
Message-Id: <MON.25.MAY.1998.193950.0400.>
Date: Mon, 25 May 1998 19:39:50 -0400
Reply-To: dgp at cyberus.ca
To: OSLIST <OSLIST at LISTSERV.IDBSU.EDU>
From: Parkinson & Gibeault <dgp at cyberus.ca>
Subject: Concluding Open Space
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
 boundary="------------8C27659C66DC7EF84E2AFA88"

--------------8C27659C66DC7EF84E2AFA88
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hello Open Space friends,

I have been away from the Chat List for a while, and I am very happy to
be back. I would like to share with you an article I wrote for the Open
Space Iinstitute of Canada's latest newsletter. It is on opening more
space while concluding Open Space. I basically worked with ideas
developed at the last OS on OS in Toronto. Many of you probably have
done the same. I know that there has been some discussion on closing OS
a while ago and I did retreive those conversations. I look forward to
hearing from others who may have been experiencing with this second open
space within open space as an ending.  Here goes...

            Opening More Space While Concluding an Open Space

                         By Diane Gibeault, facilitation and training
consultant

How can we keep the spirit of Open Space while narrowing the explored
issues down to priorities and concrete action planning ? At the last
Open Space on Open Space meeting  in Toronto, I had the opportunity to
discuss with other Open Space practitioners, our experience  around
prioritizing processes at the end of an open space meeting. Following a
very creative exchange, we realized that synthesis, prioritization and
aligning action could be achieved by doing an open space within the open
space. That second open space is about opening the space for action.

Using the key elements of this new scenario, I opened space for a few
events, one for planning a national fair on women's issues, another for
positioning and reorganizing a social service lobby group and one
identifying "the next step" for change management teams in the federal
government. My colleague, Jacqueline Pelletier also applied it with a
health related organization facing deep structural change. Here is how
it went.

On the last day, we moved from a divergent to a convergent mode. Reports
of group discussions were circulated. Participants were invited, as they
read the reports, to identify two priorities by answering the following
question: "Considering the results of all the issue discussions, what
are the priorities on which we need to make an action plan ?"  The focus
now moves to the "next steps", the "how" and even to the "who does what
and when".

A new bulletin board type of set up was organized on a wall other than
where day one discussion topics were still posted. A simulation of a
tree trunk with six or seven main branches was created using masking
tape. The theme of the meeting was posted on the trunk, large branches
represented main priority areas, and related ideas would become leaves
along the branch.

Regrouped in the circle, participants were asked to individually note
with a marker on separate sheets of paper, two topics which constituted
their personal priorities, topics for which they had an interest in
developing a next step type of action plan. They signed their sheets
just like when issues are put up on the first day. Participants were
then invited to announce, one of their priorities. That person would
then stick the priority action sheet on one of the branches.

Contrary to the opening on day one, this time, the focus was on
convergence. If a priority topic had already been posted, identical ones
were not to be repeated. Furthermore, topics with a common thread were
put on the same branch. On the other hand, a priority topic could  be
posted on more than one branch if a participant felt it was relevant to
more than one area . Priority areas were identified as follows: after a
few topics appeared on a branch, the group was invited to give a title
that described the priority area of that branch and a colored sheet with
that title was placed on the branch near the trunk. The number of topics
were evidently fewer - five or six - and more focussed than on the first
day. As participants read their priority sheets, they would gradually
automatically name the existing branch where the priority was going or
choose a new branch if none corresponded.

When all priorities were on the wall, a dot voting exercise gave a
reading of the weight each priority area has for the group. Participants
applied two dots on specific topic sheets or on branch title sheets
representing their top two priorities. This provided an interesting
reading of sub-priorities as well as of larger priority areas.

Assigning rooms for priority-action planning discussions followed. Since
all action planning discussions were taking place during the same one
hour time frame, additional meeting sites were identified, even hallways
were designated as meeting places. All were listed on a flip chart sheet
for quick reference and post-it notes appeared beside each room. The
person who authored the first sheet on a branch chose a meeting room and
put the Post-it note on the branch title sheet. Additional Post-its with
other room names were available for participants or groups who wished to
organize discussion groups on specific priority topics within the
branch.

It was now time for the market place, where participants sign up for a
specific priority topic or a priority branch title for which they will
develop an action plan. Participants were reminded that they could sign
up to more than one discussion group or spontaneously decide to
circulate since the four principles of Open Space, the law of the two
feet, the concept of the bumble bee and of the butterfly, all still
applied. Priority topic sheets and branch titles were all left on the
wall so that people who wished to circulate, could come back to identify
where meetings were taking place. The convener of the first topic sheet
of a branch was invited to note on a flip chart, the titles of each
sheet that appeared on that branch for reference in the group
discussion.

The branch group would choose someone to lead the discussion. Rapporters
were asked to write reports clearly  because, typed or not, they would
all be posted on the wall, immediately at the end of that hour for
participants' review.  The same reporting forms as day one were used
except that the words "Action Plan" were  added at the top. Generally,
groups met as a whole priority branch which included everyone that had
signed up to any topic on that priority area. The group could still
decide to subdivide in order to discuss the planning of a single
priority topic or to combine a few topics. Once they decided on group
formation, the priority title was posted at the entrance of the meeting
place so that bumble bees could move around effectively.

In one case, day three was a full day so that there was time to discuss
action plans in plenary. Participants were invited to read action plans
posted on the wall, identifying with sticky dots, their top two choices
for plenary discussion. It was now noon and conveners,  who had not
finished typing their reports completed them. Copies of action plans
were placed on all chairs in time for the plenary. During the plenary, a
few participants  rotated to type on a computer, key points of the
discussion. Copies were made at the end of each action plan discussion
and those of the final action plan topic were made  during the closing
circle of Open Space. Participants left with a full report of all
discussions.

Where the last day of Open Space was only a half day, participants
regrouped in the circle and shared verbally the key points of their
action plans. During that time, their action reports were being
photocopied.  That part of the report could also be sent out later on
that same day  through fax or e-mail so that it awaits participants as
they start their normal activities the next day. They are equipped for
immediate action.

To conclude, I found that opening space for priority setting at the end
of an open space event really injects a second spur of energy into the
group and reinforces the attitude of openness. Titles given to
priorities are more thought out and are now worded differently  as a
result of two days of explorative discussion. They are a better
indication of  where the group is at.

The purpose of day three or rather of the concluding or closing process
is to align and to bring focus. It is also there to connect the openness
of the first part of Open Space to the  reality, through actions and
commitments. As was so well said at the OS on OS meeting, "the last day
done this way, both grounds people in "what next" and reminds them that
the space is always open."

Diane Gibeault is an experienced bilingual consultant in facilitation
and organizational change. She works in partnership with Jacqueline
Pelletier a skilled facilitator who, like Diane has trained on Open
Space Technology with founder, Harrison Owen. They are both members of
the Open Space Institute of Canada. For more information please contact:

Diane Gibeault Associé.e.s /Associates, in Ottawa at (613) 744-2638 or
dgp at cyberus.ca

--------------8C27659C66DC7EF84E2AFA88
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML>
Hello Open Space friends,

I have been away from the Chat List for a while, and I am very happy
to be back. I would like to share with you an article I wrote for the Open
Space Iinstitute of Canada's latest newsletter. It is on opening more space
while concluding Open Space. I basically worked with ideas developed at
the last OS on OS in Toronto. Many of you probably have done the same.
I know that there has been some discussion on closing OS a while ago and
I did retreive those conversations. I look forward to hearing from others
who may have been experiencing with this second open space
within open space as an ending.  Here goes...

<P><FONT SIZE=+1>           
Opening More Space While Concluding an Open Space</FONT>

<P>                        
By Diane Gibeault, facilitation and training consultant

How can we keep the spirit of Open Space while narrowing the explored
issues down to priorities and concrete action planning ? At the last Open
Space on Open Space meeting  in Toronto, I had the opportunity to
discuss with other Open Space practitioners, our experience  around
prioritizing processes at the end of an open space meeting. Following a
very creative exchange, we realized that synthesis, prioritization and
aligning action could be achieved by doing an open space within the open
space. That second open space is about opening the space for action.

Using the key elements of this new scenario, I opened space for a few
events, one for planning a national fair on women's issues, another for
positioning and reorganizing a social service lobby group and one identifying
"the next step" for change management teams in the federal government.
My colleague, Jacqueline Pelletier also applied it with a health related
organization facing deep structural change. Here is how it went.

On the last day, we moved from a divergent to a convergent mode. Reports
of group discussions were circulated. Participants were invited, as they
read the reports, to identify two priorities by answering the following
question: "Considering the results of all the issue discussions, what are
the priorities on which we need to make an action plan ?"  The focus
now moves to the "next steps", the "how" and even to the "who does what
and when".

A new bulletin board type of set up was organized on a wall other than
where day one discussion topics were still posted. A simulation of a tree
trunk with six or seven main branches was created using masking tape. The
theme of the meeting was posted on the trunk, large branches represented
main priority areas, and related ideas would become leaves along the branch.

Regrouped in the circle, participants were asked to individually note
with a marker on separate sheets of paper, two topics which constituted
their personal priorities, topics for which they had an interest in developing
a next step type of action plan. They signed their sheets just like when
issues are put up on the first day. Participants were then invited to announce,
one of their priorities. That person would then stick the priority action
sheet on one of the branches.

Contrary to the opening on day one, this time, the focus was on convergence.
If a priority topic had already been posted, identical ones were not to
be repeated. Furthermore, topics with a common thread were put on the same
branch. On the other hand, a priority topic could  be posted on more
than one branch if a participant felt it was relevant to more than one
area . Priority areas were identified as follows: after a few topics appeared
on a branch, the group was invited to give a title that described the priority
area of that branch and a colored sheet with that title was placed on the
branch near the trunk. The number of topics were evidently fewer - five
or six - and more focussed than on the first day. As participants read
their priority sheets, they would gradually automatically name the existing
branch where the priority was going or choose a new branch if none corresponded.

When all priorities were on the wall, a dot voting exercise gave a reading
of the weight each priority area has for the group. Participants applied
two dots on specific topic sheets or on branch title sheets representing
their top two priorities. This provided an interesting reading of sub-priorities
as well as of larger priority areas.

Assigning rooms for priority-action planning discussions followed. Since
all action planning discussions were taking place during the same one hour
time frame, additional meeting sites were identified, even hallways were
designated as meeting places. All were listed on a flip chart sheet for
quick reference and post-it notes appeared beside each room. The person
who authored the first sheet on a branch chose a meeting room and put the
Post-it note on the branch title sheet. Additional Post-its with other
room names were available for participants or groups who wished to organize
discussion groups on specific priority topics within the branch.
  
 It was now time for the market place, where participants sign up for
a specific priority topic or a priority branch title for which they will
develop an action plan. Participants were reminded that they could sign
up to more than one discussion group or spontaneously decide to circulate
since the four principles of Open Space, the law of the two feet, the concept
of the bumble bee and of the butterfly, all still applied. Priority topic
sheets and branch titles were all left on the wall so that people who wished
to circulate, could come back to identify where meetings were taking place.
The convener of the first topic sheet of a branch was invited to note on
a flip chart, the titles of each sheet that appeared on that branch for
reference in the group discussion.

The branch group would choose someone to lead the discussion. Rapporters
were asked to write reports clearly  because, typed or not, they would
all be posted on the wall, immediately at the end of that hour for participants'
review.  The same reporting forms as day one were used except that
the words "Action Plan" were  added at the top. Generally, groups
met as a whole priority branch which included everyone that had signed
up to any topic on that priority area. The group could still decide to
subdivide in order to discuss the planning of a single priority topic or
to combine a few topics. Once they decided on group formation, the priority
title was posted at the entrance of the meeting place so that bumble bees
could move around effectively.

In one case, day three was a full day so that there was time to discuss
action plans in plenary. Participants were invited to read action plans
posted on the wall, identifying with sticky dots, their top two choices
for plenary discussion. It was now noon and conveners,  who had not
finished typing their reports completed them. Copies of action plans were
placed on all chairs in time for the plenary. During the plenary, a few
participants  rotated to type on a computer, key points of the discussion.
Copies were made at the end of each action plan discussion and those of
the final action plan topic were made  during the closing circle of
Open Space. Participants left with a full report of all discussions.

Where the last day of Open Space was only a half day, participants regrouped
in the circle and shared verbally the key points of their action plans.
During that time, their action reports were being photocopied.  That
part of the report could also be sent out later on that same day 
through fax or e-mail so that it awaits participants as they start their
normal activities the next day. They are equipped for immediate action.

To conclude, I found that opening space for priority setting at the
end of an open space event really injects a second spur of energy into
the group and reinforces the attitude of openness. Titles given to priorities
are more thought out and are now worded differently  as a result of
two days of explorative discussion. They are a better indication of 
where the group is at.

The purpose of day three or rather of the concluding or closing process
is to align and to bring focus. It is also there to connect the openness
of the first part of Open Space to the  reality, through actions and
commitments. As was so well said at the OS on OS meeting, "the last day
done this way, both grounds people in "what next" and reminds them that
the space is always open."

Diane Gibeault is an experienced bilingual consultant in facilitation
and organizational change. She works in partnership with Jacqueline Pelletier
a skilled facilitator who, like Diane has trained on Open Space Technology
with founder, Harrison Owen. They are both members of the Open Space Institute
of Canada. For more information please contact:
 Diane Gibeault Associé.e.s /Associates, in Ottawa at (613) 744-2638
or dgp at cyberus.ca
  
  
  
  
  </HTML>

--------------8C27659C66DC7EF84E2AFA88--