Coonvergence with a difference

[Diane Gibeault]

About Convergence in a Different Way

Thanks Harrison and Michelle for adding to the clarity of the
description of different convergence processes. I'll respond to
Michelle's questions who came in first and also incorporate comments
from Harrison's message. But first I want to say that I am happy to find
out from Harrison that you are also concerned about vote splitting of
the "multi-name/single issue topics during the priority setting and have
found a way to address it so that real priorities get to the top. I was
not aware of that and am now happy to consider yet another way for
convergence to work well.

I would like to point out at the outset that converging topics into a
few priorities is useful when doing an organizational process. It can
get in the way when the purpose of the OS Is for individual exploration
and reflection. In this case, there is no need to combine topics unless
participants see a value to it. Anyone can choose to action plan any of
their topics.

Michelle you describe well the real concern about the possible effect of
vote-splitting: "the top vote-getter was poorly attended and had few
people willing to help move it forward". Your questions:

< "Is it only the initiators that have a role in determining which
topics are combined in advance? Can the initiators back out if they
wish?

-No it's not only the initiators. I did in fact also invite whoever
cared to join the initiators. That resolves your other questions, "Can
the initiators back out?" and  "What if the initiator has left?" But
like Harrison, I state that it is the initiator - or replacement - who
decides if the topic gets combined or not. Harrison I really like your
emphasis here on conservatism around combining to avoid "sponsoring
groups getting carried away and putting a whole mess of stuff together".
I also agree with you when you explain to participants that they should
"use the reported discussion in the book as the definition of  the
issue. No matter what the original title was, it is what they talked
about that counts." That is the message I was giving in my own words to
the initiators at the review meeting.
.
-For a single topic that does not warrant being combined: if the
initiator is absent or doesn't come to the wall and no one else comes
(thinking that the initiator did), the facilitator can do one or two
things. Just before participants come to the wall, indicate that if
someone wishes to pursue into action planning those  topics without site
Post its, they can put a Post-it on the topic and go to that meeting
site. If the group is very large, these kinds of instructions may get
lost, especially if participants are new to OS and its self organizing
approach. The facilitator could add the missing post-its. I know that
this is getting into the slippery slope of taking control as opposed to
leaving the group self organize but it is also argued that the
convergence part of OS is different and is in fact a more guided process
and that the larger the group, the simpler the steps should be. My bias
would be to let participants choose the site if the topic matters
enough. It contributes passively to the screening and priority setting.
Report forms can be placed in advance at all meeting sites in case no
one bothered to put a post-it but someone wants to hold a discussion
there.

<"Is there an opportunity for others to agree-disagree with the
clustering?

-When the whole group has finished reading the reports, participants are
invited to go to the wall and if they feel strongly about a combination,
they can raise it with the concerned initiators (just like in the market
place at the opening). Whenever they are ready (it's the right time)
they go to their planning discussion groups.

<Is there value in inviting someone other than the original convenors to
volunteer to take leadership in the initiator role?

-When initiators - and whoever came to the review meeting - discuss this
among themselves, they can decide among whoever wants to do it.

<Do you identify in the opening that the persons posting discussions
will have the responsibility to take them forward?

-No because they do not "have to" and it would be information overload,
especially that we are talking here about a different process for the
second day.

<How do you handle the topics that cross many or all topics?

Participants could decide to leave them as single issues if they are
important and/or to add a topic sheet to other topics as "combined
issues" and invite different groups to address it from different angles.
An announcement at morning news could be made by whoever has gone that
route.

<Yes the principles and the law of the two feet continue to apply during
discussion groups.

<How much time would work best for this process?

FIRST STEP: Initiators reviewing reports for topic combination: at least
30 min.

It implies they first read reports focussing first on anything that
could be a closely related topics. Surely it would take more time if
there are many topics. That's why I would prefer planning for this step
to happen at the end of the first day when reports are all posted on the
wall to make sure there is enough time.

This is in fact what you do Harrison according to your message. The
difference is that the process I am trying has the combined topics and
new titles that reflect the actual discussions, on the wall. You
indicated that you verbally "invite participants to vote for an
identified title to indicate that specific issue". My concern would be
that this verbal information could get confusing or lost if there were
several topic combinations. What you are probably doing as well is
posting new topic titles on voting computers. One also  could print a
voting sheet that participants tick off  (with original titles in
bracket so you know where topics have gone to) or post on news print
paper on the wall as Michelle has done.

The drawback of reviewing for combinations the night before as opposed
to the morning is that participants are tired, want to go eat or party -
all good things.  This meeting may bring down some of the energy as
initiators and others feel overburdened at this time and it may be
difficult to realize this step in a meaningful way. The reports may be
on the wall but having a copy for every initiator makes their job
easier. For all those reasons, an earlier meeting time in the morning
may have more value.

Harrison, you talk about meeting with the sponsor at the end of the
first day to do this reviewing and where both of you have identified a
potential need to combine, you consult with the original
conveners/initiators. I am not sure you can find the initiator at this
point. Is there time to do so when participants start reading reports in
the morning and enter the new list on computers for voting? Further more
is this "screening for combining" task best handled by  the
facilitator's interpretation who has not been in discussion groups and
the sponsor's who cannot have gone to all the discussions. Can their
choices be really  reflective of participants' experience? I question
myself on this statement. Am I being a perfectionist here? I don't think
so because as I reflect on it, it feels that my preference is founded on
the OS principle of leaving as much as possible the decisions on content
and self organization in the hands of the group ("Doing less").

SECOND STEP: This usually takes between 5 to 15 minutes depending on the
size of the group. It's about the same amount of time as when people
went to the wall on the first day, even shorter.

Just before inviting participants to the wall, I give verbally the
framework as Harrison generally describes it (get the info, plan or open
space it). Having read the reports participants go to the wall to choose
one or more priorities (bumble bees are still in) they feel are
important to the organization and for which they want to invest their
energy to take it to a next step. They go to the first topic of their
choice, sign up and discuss.
I skip signing up at the wall for two reasons: time consuming, and the
topic sheets already have names from the first day.

Harrison's Comments and Questions:

<It seems like a lot of steps.

-There are basically four main steps which have some correspondence with
what you do:
-reviewing topics for multi-name/single issue situations,
-get people to indicate priorities (dot vote)
-get them to the discussion group ( make a choice and sign up with your
2 feet),
-share the results with the larger group (Walk about or other form)

DIFFERENCES
-Dot voting and the two feet vote instead of computer voting. Voting is
important: a participant may think that X an Y issues are real
priorities for him and the organization but feels that he only has
energy or expertise for the Z issue, which was his third choice. The
information that could get missed if one is using only the "voting with
two feet" approach is the participants' second to fifth priorities if
they only make it to one planning discussion group which is often the
case.  That is why, I added the dot vote so that every participant and
the organization's leaders get a quick visual of a broader range of
priorities. This may also affect where participants choose to go for
action planning. If it's not on the top vot-getters, so be it. At least
they'll have some passion for what they are doing and won't get in the
way of others addressing top issues. If the issue chosen goes against
where the organization is going, it's better to know openly about it.
It's going to happen any ways, better to deal with it.

-I use the two feet instead of actual computer voting.  It is faster,
cheaper and technologically simpler so more accessible to more
facilitators and organizations. I agree with Michelle on the benefits of
the visual impact. I have heard some Ahhs! of people at the wall.
Numbers can be counted by the facilitator or the support team as
participants are holding their discussions. The drawback as Michelle
pointed out is that it is not anonymous. If that is a real concern for
an organization then I think they should use the computer system, or the
envelope system that Marcelene Anderson has used with some of the Native
groups she works with. Or have another open space to deal with the trust
issue.

-The Walk About to share results can be done in a simpler form, i.e. you
don't need to have someone from the group staying to answer questions.

-Follow-up meetings are part of what you encourage as well for
commitment and accountability. The way that happens varies from one
event to the other.


<It seems like a lot of instructions

The other explanations I presented are largely on the planning report
sheet so I can review it with initiators or other volunteers who agree
to lead the discussion but I go at it in a summary quick fashion with
the larger group.

Noting on news print the action plans for the walk about: during the
discussions, that information usually gets up first on the news print
paper and the short hand notes for typing are scribbled at the same time
or after. In some cases there is no time for a typed action plan report
to be copied and distributed before participants leave. Either champions
or volunteers agree to type them after the meeting and send them to one
person who coordinates the distribution or else handwritten notes or
news paper sheets are typed by other resource people who preferably have
participated and can understand the context of what they are imputing
(so they can construct meaningful statements when words, lines and dots
are missing).

< Champions
Michelle I agree the term has been overused. I like your term animator.
In French it is the traditional word for facilitator. This might bring
some confusion although the role is that of a facilitator of a
process/plan. I raised that issue with the group I did this new
convergence with and they agreed and suggested "Carrier of the flame".
It is important to check with the specific organization what word turns
them off or ignites their passion.

<What happens when you use this approach with larger groups?

The approach I described  worked well with a small group (around 15) and
so did the voting with your two feet part with a group of 350 (the dot
vote was not done).

I once did with a group of 250, the dot vote and the signing up at the
wall to new title sheets (some topics combined, others not) and a number
of participants were confused with the dot and signing up steps at the
wall and this slowed down the momentum. The dot vote was  for visual
results purpose only (not to bring down the number of action planning
topics). That is why I now ask people to dot vote 5 priorities for their
organization and chose one they have the energy or passion to work on
and go to that discussion group site.

In the walk about people can also sign up to indicate where they have
passion to get involved.

I apologize for the length of this response. I hope we keep on
identifying different ways to converge so we can find the best fit for
different OS events.

Diane
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20000313/4ff1e1b0/attachment-0016.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: dgp.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 265 bytes
Desc: Card for Diane Gibeault
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20000313/4ff1e1b0/attachment-0016.vcf>