Micro Open Space

[Peggy Holman]

Chris,

A few years back, I spent 2 days in open space with a 5-person board.  As
Harrison says, it is exactly the same dynamics as a larger group.  They were
together in every form you can imagine -- in pairs, in 2's and 3's, by
themselves, all together.  They set their own rhythym according to their
individual needs just as in any open space.

>From alternatively rainy, sunny, and cloudy Seattle,
Peggy

(Finally re-surfacing after an incredibly busy November and December!)


----- Original Message -----
From: "Harrison Owen" <hhowen at comcast.net>
To: <OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU>
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 6:02 AM
Subject: Re: Micro Open Space


> Sure -- it is exactly the same as used with 2000. Less space is
> required, of course, but the interesting thing to me, having worked with
> groups from 5-2108 -- is that it always seems to take somewhere between
> an hour to an hour and a half to get started -- no matter how many
> people are involved.
>
> Harrison
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: OSLIST [mailto:OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU] On Behalf Of chris
> macrae
> Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2003 5:53 AM
> To: OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
> Subject: Micro Open Space
>
> Do we have a Micro Open Space Format and what might its components be?
>
> I am thinking deeply micro, eg 6 people
>
> Some situations where this could be a valid starting point are:
>
> A huge organisation where the 6 people who feel most passionately about
> long-term design purpose want to make sure organisation is always
> capable of doing what it was designed to do (given Harrison's book
> mentions 'many' organisations are losing this long-run structural
> gravity)
>
> Trying to get 6 large peace or humanitarian network coordinators
> together in network of network actions
>
> Where a few entrepreneurs come together because they realise their SME's
> need to cluster either to make sure the geography of the place sustains
> or because they want a network model (for me one big reason most dotcoms
> failed is that they were part businesses that desperately needed other
> partners)
>
> I've just taken some guesses at what a micro-OS format might include.
> I'm taking a guess at a 2-day format. Do feel free to open-edit:
>
> Have say 10 minutes of agenda surfacing time. Then do a poster session
> of all the agendas so that each agenda proposer had a couple of minutes
> to answer questions on the agenda. Aim to choose the top 6 agendas (or
> favourite per person) that everyone wanted to attend. Do these in a row
> back-to-back so all 6 can attend BUT still use the law of 2 feet so that
> people could go use time in their own way if any agenda wasn't working
> for that person.
>
> Have a break. Ask people to add any new agendas to the wall. Start again
> with the whole wall of agendas; some that didn't make the top 6 the
> first time might now.
>
> During this first day have some other stuff. One example might be if an
> actor had pre-interviewed the 6 people to do a short "This is your life
> and passions" collage of all of them. Include some other communal
> exercises as a group.
>
> Before retiring for the day make sure that all the meetings are written
> up in bedtime or waketime reading documentation; including those that
> didn't happen (ie at least a record of how they were Q&A'd at the poster
> session stage)
>
> Day 2 after letting the 6 informally mingle over coffee, proceed by
> letting the group talk in a circle to find out where we are : either
> huge convergence versus 24 hours ago, or no progress, or the opposite. I
> assume the rest of the day divides a lot depending on those 3 paths
>
> Summing up this conversation opener on MICRO OS:
>
> I do believe there are times where 6 people need hi-trust before they
> can take it to lots of people. I suspect their characters would need
> just as many and diverse facilitators as larger events so that the
> intensity of the content conversation is blended with spiritually
> refreshing and respect for each other.
>
> I would hope that if we ever did refine a micro open space format , one
> thing it would do even if it didn't succeed on the issue in hand is
> leave the 6 people likely to want to do big open spaces in the future.
> In other words at least as much a personal conversion process to Opening
> up conversational formats everywhere as typical Open Space
>
> I have no idea whether the sequence above is going in a good open
> direction or not, but look forward to any comments
>
> Chris Macrae, wcbn007 at easynet.co.uk
>
> 2004 Year of Transparency - help nominate events/movements to watch, or
> sign up a Transparency wish of yours : www.valuetrue.com
>
> *
> *
> ==========================================================
> OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
> ------------------------------
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
> view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu,
> Visit:
>
> http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
>
> *
> *
> ==========================================================
> OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
> ------------------------------
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
> view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu,
> Visit:
>
> http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html
>

*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST at LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist at listserv.boisestate.edu,
Visit:

http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html