OS and Future Search

[karen s tiller]

Ralph wrote:
At 04:56 PM 6/23/99 -0400, you wrote:
>It seems unncessary to assert the superiority of either of these two
approaches, future search or open space, over the other,. The reasons vary.
 Maybe there's a graduate thesis here somewhere.

Hello everyone:  Ralph is correct about the graduate thesis - he was a
valuable contributer to my 1998 Pepperdine MSOD thesis "A Comparative Study
of Future Search and Open Space Technology" as were many others on both
listserves.  Chris Kloth was extremely helpful as a mentor/teacher.  I
interviewed both clients and consultants who used either one or both of the
processes and while the sample was small, here is an edited version of my
findings and I apoligize for the length.  There was just so much rich,
qualitative info based on my small research project:

COMPARING FUTURE SEARCH AND OPEN SPACE TECHNOLOGY

While the literature was limited regarding a comparision of FS and OST,
similarities were identified by several respondents:  both FS and OST can
include more people at one time than traditional change management
processes, dialogue is encouraged, learning takes place in real time, and
partnerships and collarboration are encouraged.  Differences cited
included: FS is more structured in its planning and process, FS requires
more consultants to facilitate, the process and timing of FS is critical to
the success of the outcomes, OST can be shortened and will be effective,
and OST can accommodate more poeple at one time than FS.

CONCLUSIONS

FS and OST are both powerful ways to bring together large groups of people
to discover a new way of working together large groups of people to
discuver a new way of working together to creat successful change.  FS is
primarily used for visioning about the future, while OST can be used for a
number of applications including visioning.  While research confirmed what
was discovered in the literature, several factors were significant to the
researcher.  Follow-up activity and costs related to the processes were not
addressed in any detail within the literature but were cited in the
research as important.  A number of factors were cited in the literature
and research as important:  criteria for effective interventions (Argyris),
a strong reason to change, leadership, the process structures, commitment
to outcomes and implementation, and learning.

Follow-up was a weakness identified by both FS and OST clients and
consultants.  There is a need to have a FU process in place to support
implementation.  Support needs to include management commitment, financial
resources, people, authority to make decisions, and the time for
implementation.  Clients must be aware that the real work begins after the
FS and OST events and the event itself is not the end but only a means to
an end.

Costs did not appear to be a significant factor for either process but
neither are considered inexpensive processes. However, neither the clients
nor the consultants had a true appreciations for the costs.  One consultant
indicated that money is always available if the client wants to do something.

Both FS and OST incorporate the criteria for what Argyris has defined as a
successful intervention: valid and useful data, free and informed choice,
and individual commitment.

In order for FS and OST to be successful, it appears there must be an
urgent and complex reason for change that can arouse the passion of the
participants.  The participants need to have a vested interest in how
things will be different or a felt need to encourage the motivation to change.

Leadership is an important factor to both processes and requires leadership
that: is willing to share leadership, delegates authority to act, models a
new way of working together, commits to the process and outcomes, and
values stakeholder input.  It can also be concluded that both processes
model the new management theory that researchers say is needed to be
competitive in the future.  Navigating continuous change can no longer be
done by one person or a small group.  The wisdom and experience of the
whole system are needed to implement change to a whole system.

RECOMMENDATIONS

FS should be considered as a large group intervention when the organization
is searching for a new future, vision, or commonalty for an issue that is
complex and urgent.  It is a structured process that needs to be followed
as designed - shortcuts will impact the results.  Planning must include a
clear theme; identification of key stakeholders; how the data will be used;
how the FS outcomes and progress will be communicated after the FS event is
completed; sufficient resources of time, money, and people to implement;
and a follow-up process to maintain the momentum created.  Leadership must
to committed to the process and the outcomes.

OST is recommended for those who are willing to be daring and operate in a
creative way to achieve a quantum shift in how individuals and
organizations operate.  It can be used for a variety of issues including
visioning, improving customer service, productivity improvement, decision
making, and mergers.  Planning is minimal but requires a clear theme around
a complex, urgent, and volatile issue.  OST can be adapted to any size
group or time frame and hard results are produced.  OST requires leadership
that is willling to relinquish control and support the unknown outcomes
that develop from the process.  One caveat with OST is the terminology used
(butterflies/bumblebees) and the use of poems and bells.  It is important
to read the audience and use appropriate terminology to describe the process.


I hope this information is helpful.

Karen Tiller
Lancaster, Ohio