convergence

[Ingrid Olausson]

Michelle, Diane and others.
I had 5 regional Open Space Conferences in a row in the same organization last fall. And I did a convergence process like the ones you have described, but a little more simple and also more selforganized (thanks to several ideas on this list).
I am sorry but this has to be detailed (by the way it is often from the most detailed ideas I get the most help). So here it goes:
We had almost two days (until 3 pm the second day). All reports were handwritten on A3-sheets and put on the wall and read successivly during the conference (we had no printing service). 
The second day before lunch we did the voting process with 5 dots (the smallest size). We voted on the issues on the bulletin board ( I think that is the best and easiest to overlook). I had put them in a row and taped a piece of crossruled paper below each one of them. 
The participants were instructed to put the dots in the squares (one on each of the most important issues or several at one or more of them, just as you do). The squared paper with the dots in rows makes it really easy for everyone to count the dots quickly. The voting was made during a coffebreak and it really creates a lot of fun and talking. 
After the voting I did instruct the conveners (the ones that own their issues) to group the issues so that issues (perhaps with fewer dots) could go together with other of their kind. Once I let them do it in silence, but I found it be more dynamic when they could discuss their choices under way. This can be a very quick process, at the most ten minutes.
Then I called out the issues that were clustered together and asked for an initiator for each cluster (there were 5-6 in each conference with 40-50 participants). This was my only interaction during the whole process. Diane, I also use the term initiator (there is a very good Swedish word for this that means someone who moves things forward). I told them that the initiatior didn't have to pursue the actions decided on but were responsible to convene the group work during the last session. 
Then the participants could sign up for the issues and actions they wanted to be a part of. They had to write their name on the issue (or cluster) they wanted to plan for during the last session. And if they wanted to participate in one or two other groups later on 
they could sign up with a (2) after their name.
Then I gave them a paper where they could fill in the issue (perhaps a new wording), participants, prioritized actions, when to meet next time etc. After a one hour session the initiators were asked to give a three minute report on actions decided on. This gave the participants a very good feeling. Several said: "After so much talking it handn't been good to leave without any decisions being made".
In a one day Open Space it is harder to come to a convergence, but I have done the voting and the grouping in the end of the day (has to be a long one though) before closing circle. It only takes 45 minutes the coffebreak included - 60 minutes if you want to get initiators for next actions. And yes Harrison, it can be made with 100 participants or more without making a mess!
Ingrid Olausson
Högbergsgatan 15
S-116 20 Stockholm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20000316/75ba8489/attachment-0016.htm>