OS and Scenario Planning

Harrison Owen owenhh at mindspring.com
Sun Feb 13 14:13:02 PST 2000


At 03:56 PM 2/13/00 -0500, you wrote:
>
> An associate and I are preparing to respond to a request for development of a
> strategy for a provincial government ministry here in Canada, and they seem
> to be looking for something innovative in the end product.  We plan to give
> them something innovative in the process as well.  My colleague is a veteran
> of scenario-based strategic planning and we thought of using Open Space at
> various stages along the way, partly to provide a richer source of ideas and
> partly as a reality check to avoid an ivory tower strategy.
>
> Can anyone point me to cases where these two methods have been used before?
> With or without success?
>
> Patrick McAuley


********************************
I have used both -- but never together. Based on that experience I think they
would work well in conjunction, but I wouldn't try and combine them. We have
found that mixing up Open Space with anything else ends up being very
confusing. In a word -- when you do Open Space, do Open Space. So I would start
with one or the other, and the trick will be to figure out which comes first.

I think I would opt for the Scenario Planning first, mostly because it is the
most directed. And going from Open Space to an orchestrated process tends to be
very uncomfortable. The scenarios could lay a number of issues on the table,
and the Open Space provide a way for the group to identify multiple un-named
variables and bring it down to action.

Truth to tell, I haven't used Scenario Planning for a number of years,
primarily because I have found that Open Space does just as well and more. The
trick is to really make an effort to get "the whole system" in the room." If
you get all the players (or a goodly portion of them), the natural dynamics of
Open Space does pretty much what scenario planning does, but at a higher level
of complexity and intensity -- if only because the issues and variables come
out of the experience of the group, instead of being presented to the group by
some abstracted body.

But if your client wants something more traditional, front ending with some
time in various scenarios could be useful to set the stage, and let Open Space
stir the pot and bring it down to action.

Of course to get to action (with Open Space) you will need some time, ideally 2
1/2 days -- but I think you could do it in a day and a half. One day to get the
issues on the table, and a half day for prioitization, convergence and
assumption of responsibility for action.

Could be fun either way.

Harrison

>
>
> PTM Consulting
> 20 Magnolia Lane
> Guelph, ON  N1G 4X7
> Canada
>
> Tel:  (519) 827-9396
> Fax:  (519) 827-0956
> <mailto:patrick.mcauley at sympatico.ca>patrick.mcauley at sympatico.ca



Harrison Owen
7808 River Falls Drive
Potomac, MD 20854
USA
phone 301-469-9269
fax 301-983-9314
website
www.mindspring.com/~owenhh
Open Space Institute websites
www.openspaceworld.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20000213/2545cc0e/attachment-0017.htm>


More information about the OSList mailing list