Convergence Design

[Chris Corrigan]

Harrison wrote:

"Chris -- I suggest being a littlecareful here. If it was true that all
the issues were posted by the Planning Committee members
(could have happened) there is no issue. But since that was probably not
the case (never has been , in my experience) you are
running the distinct possibility that the actual conveners will feel
disempowered. That would be a major loss. If there is still time,
I would suggest that (at the very least you invite all the conveners of
the several issues to join the committee. That is where your
energy is -- with the conveners. Use it!"



Wise counsel as always.

I've thought about this a fair amount and decided on the above quoted
process for these reasons:

1.  There's a lot happening in the community already as a result of the
Open Space and frankly, I'm a little reluctant to bring the convenors
into a meeting of government people who will be trying to figure out how
to geth their ministries involved in the activity.  I'm sure that would
kill the intitiave out there.  In fact, one of the big challenges I
outlined to the group before holding the event was the communication
challenge posed by the divergence.  They were warned, and gave it some
thought, and they're exploring ways of keeping track of what's happening
as well as finding ways to support the community.

2.  This exercise is primarily for the government folks to develop some
persoanl committment around the issues the community elucidated.  They
have a deep well to drink from (45 sessions and a lot of concrete
action) and my intention is to set them loose on the work and figure out
what role they can play to be supportive.

3.  I think it is too late to involve the convenors at the planning
meeting, but, there is talk of a follow up, so hopefully we can harness
the energy there.

4.  This process was so liberating for most people that I actually think
that it will be hard to disempower the ones that took action.  A lot of
people are looking to the planning committee to define how the
government will support these initiatives, and the planning committee is
eager to get on with the work, so seeing the twin pillars of passion and
responsibility at work here, I thought I might try it the way I
described it.

I'm hip to hearing further thoughts on this.  Thanks for the intial
advice.

Chris

--
CHRIS CORRIGAN
108-1035 Pacific Street
Vancouver BC
V6E 4G7

Phone: 604.683.3080
Fax: 604.683-3036

>From  Thu Jan 27 12:13:47 2000
Message-Id: <THU.27.JAN.2000.121347.0100.>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:13:47 +0100
Reply-To: skaparlust at swipnet.se
To: OSLIST <OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU>
From: Agneta Falk <skaparlust at swipnet.se>
Subject: Future search versus Open Space
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Hi everybody!

I  will also, as many of you have done, express my thanks for the many
inspiring and wise conversations on the list. I open my Email  every day,
eagerly looking for your contributions. Now I would like to have a little
feedback on my thoughts after a  four day workshop on how to facilitate a
Future Search Conference, it was the first time I´ve experienced this
meeting form.

Firstly, I felt that personally this is not my cup of tea. It is much too
structured and controlled. I agree with Harrison when he says ”why
complicate things”. I lacked joy and inspiration and it made me greatly
appreciate the freedom of OS. But, you might have experiences from a ”real”
Future Search, the energy might be different there from a simulated
workshop.  Here we were people from all kinds of places and our theme was
very wide ”How to create participation and new meeting forms in community
work.” So we really didn´t have a common focus, that we could gather around
and also do something about. No natural work groups. I would be interested
to hear your experiences.

I also reflected on this procedure to have the ”whole system” in the room
all the time. I can see that it would be very unpractical to break out in
small groups since the time for different tasks is quite short and you
report every now and then. But.. I felt the difference in the group energy,
that the attention is split between an individual in the group and the rest
of the room. Is this feeling of being part of a whole group more important
than creating intimacy and real listening in a breakout group? Is one way
better than the other? I have of course thought of the idea to have the
whole Open Space system in the same room too. Any thoughts?

I realise that there might be situations where you need all this
information about the past, the present and the the future and in the
different aspects (global, local, personal) and the list making. But is it
really necessary for the creation of a preferred future and future
projects?  What type of situations would call for a Future Search, instead
of Open Space?  Or would the choice more depend on the sponsors need for
controlling a process?
Best regards
Agneta Falk