AW: 2108 -- Remember the Number

Pannwitz, Michael M mmpanne at snafu.de
Thu Jun 12 01:44:30 PDT 2003


Dear Birgitt,
the questions that you brought to Harrison and me are a welcome
invitation to revisit the event.
My reactions, quickly:

On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 22:09:07 -0400, Birgitt Williams wrote:
.
>1. The next time, would you have had participants announce their topics or
>would you have left the announcing part out? What happened to the energy
>when this part took so long (about two hours?)?

1.1 The detailed time schedule went like this

7:45 am Break, continuous buffet, arriving, taking your
seats....
8:15 am Opening the Space: Albrecht Mahr
8:20 am Introducing the open space-technology: Harrison Owen
(consecutive translation: Michael M Pannwitz)
Bulletin Board
Marketplace
Break-out sessions at10:15 am,11:45 am, 1:45 pm
3:30 pm Closing Circle
4:00 pm Closing words from the sponsor
4:05 pm End of the conference with a musical farewell

The actual time line was very close to the planned time line.
The announcing of topics (there were 232) took 43 minutes (12 seconds
per issue on the average).
Market was over and people into taking a break (which in my
experience is the usual thing after market and before people move
into breakout sessions) at 10:00.
Lots of groups began their sessions at 10:15.
So the whole process from the start (8.25) till the first break out
session took 1 hour and 45 minutes.
The opening by  the sponsor and our introduction took 25 minutes,
which means that participants were in the "active" mode (posting
issues) at around 9 am.
Considering this "normal" timeline,  I would not think of leaving out
announcing of topics...especially since this is one of the very first
visible signs of selforganisation.
"Energy", I felt, was overwhelming: when the time for posting issues
had been reached, close to a hundred people jumped up
simultaneously...we really had to get out of the way in the face of
what looked like a stampede.


>2. The next time, would you limit the number of topics as you did this time.
>Your agenda wall with its very clear organization for topics  was
>interesting but it is my understanding that you planned for 160 topics but
>many more were generated and there was no planned way to deal with them. It
>didn't look like the agenda wall left any room for the "unplanned". And yet,
>maybe limiting the topics was necessary.

2.1 Especially in an os with more than 2000 participating, chaos and
confusion and conflict are predictable and  the right ingredients for
the emergence of selforganisation with its tendency to produce
healthy, whole and harmonious conditions.
Exactly that happened. At least that is what participants expressed:
"I am amazed how productive and peaceful and loving the discussions
and exchanges were even in matters intensely conflicting".
We had bets out on how many issues there would be, I forgot the
range, my guess was 120 (extrapolating an analysis of the relation
between number of participants and number of issues of 100 actual
open space events ranging from 5 to 430, where the tendency is
eventually a flattened curve suggesting something like 0,1 issues per
participant above 1000 participants).
This question was complicated by the fact that we had a range of 1600
to 2400 potential participants (some 1600 actually had put their
names into a contact list...some 2000 had bought meal tickets...there
had been a huge party in the tents till 1 am the previous night with
more than 1200 people).
There was "planned" space for 150 issues (1 meter per issue)...this
appeared not to have impressed the participants much since they
posted 232 issues.
We had no plan on how to deal with more issues but the crowd designed
one, all 232 issues were posted.
As it became clear that there would be more than 150 issues (we had
50 break out rooms, which meant 150 possible sessions considering
that there were 3 beginning times), the os-team quickly set up more
rooms (extra ballons were in reserve, benches and chairs were in
reserve, extra clip boards were in reserve), I think 15 extra
rooms.....eventually, the 232 issues seemed to organise themselves
into about 185 break out sessions, 150 reports coming in.
So my idea is that I would like to get an even larger space next time
but basically proceed the same way.

>3. The next time, would you have used cushions on the floor as you did to
>accomodate the number of people. We thought that there was probably a lot of
>discomfort esp when we became aware of how long people had to be in their
>seats for the agenda building.

3.1 You cant believe our discussions and plans around the topic of
seating.
Originally, we wanted chairs.
Eventually, it became clear that the bavarian regulations on safety
and fireprotection simply could not be bend enough to allow for 2000
chairs in concentric circles (they in fact would have to be bolted to
the floor and linked together)...so here we got a lesson in providing
"safe space" (those of you into theories of selforganisation, a
"relatively safe space" is the first condition for selforganisation,
"plenty of nutrients" is the second, with that we had fewer problems
since the buffet, bavarian style, was sumptuous).
The "Plan" then was to cover the rough, dusty wooden floor with a
sort of throwaway "carpet" and place cushions on top of it.
Many of us had considerable qualms about it: would people accept it,
would it be comfortable enough, what about handicapped people....we
did provide 199 chairs in little "islands" spread out at the edges of
the sea of pillows which were marked in such a way that it was clear
these were for people that absolutely needed chairs. (One comment
from an obviously angry participant: segregation...so the next time I
would pay more attention on where to provide space with chairs).
Well, in the evening before the event started we were informed: no
carpet.
So all of us pitched in sweeping the floor between 11pm and 1 am at
the same time spreading out the cushions in the cleared spaces.
Considering that people were seated from somewhere between 30 minutes
and 1 hour, I would do it exactly that way again (still try to get a
carpet).
My expectation that participants would object to the cushion solution
was not fulfilled, nobody complained (I had been into organizing
smaller os with cushions, or just sitting on the carpeted floor or
sitting on large balls...never any complaints).
In fact, one participant wrote a long mail exhilarated about the
cushions. She observed that she was more mobile and that getting up
from a cushion involved an entirely differnt set of movements than
getting up from a chair...she felt it energising....well, there you
go.
Some people stood during the entire intro and agenda building...first
I was concerned (why???!!!) and then noticed that they appeared quite
relaxed.

>4. The handwritten reports and then enlarged by photocopying for posting
>seemed to work. Do you recommend this to others? Any glitches? How was the
>actual book of proceedings created?

4.1 This is a common procedure in these parts, I actually always do
it this way: handwritten reports on A4 (as the basis for the book of
proceedings), enlarged to A3 for the news wall. No glitches.
The book of proceedings is online, here is the url
>http://www.leidenschaft-und-verantwortung.com
both in German and English...someone typed the handwritten notes.
Do I recommend it to others? It depends on what the sponsor wants.
There has been a long discussion on the german oslist (there are 103
of us presently on that list) about books of proceedings, sustaining
the work after the event, etc.
In a nutshell my position: the book of proceedings is the backdrop
for action (if that is wanted) and it is the backdrop for action (if
that is not wanted).

>5. Could one of you have facilitated this meeting on your own or did it
>really require the two of you to "open" and then "hold" the space. What was
>your reflection about it being so much male energy in the facilitation--two
>men opening the space instead of one male and one female? Did you feel that
>sharing the opening of the space was a positive effect on your own energy or
>did co-facilitating deflect some of your energy to your partner?

5.1 The sponsor wanted everyone to understand the introduction. Some
of you know what ho thinks of his German. And 85% of the crowd was
German but there was this minority that does not understand German.
So it was thought to be a "consecutive" translation. It was pointed
out at the beginning of the introduction that it would not be a
consecutive translation but instead the two of us introducing os in
our particular styles. This gave both of us a "singular" role and
perhaps prevented that what you felt might have hapened (deflecting
energy) Well, the way it turned out, the both of us together took 4
minutes more than it usally takes one of us when doing  it solo.
Many of the people present apparently understood enough english so
that there was laughing and clapping at the different styles.
For my part, I felt fine and I think we succeeded well in our task to
make space for the system to focus on itself and not on us to get
their show on the road.
I think one person could have introduced ost, I have done it in mixed
crowds using  German and English simultaneously.
Actually, as a rule I highly recommend just one person doing it
unless there is a need to have two.
On the male/female energy: we decided to use the dynamic of the
circle and choreographed walking the circle in opposite directions,
taking in the earth element and the cosmic element, or the clockwise
and the counterclockwise and as some say, the female and the
male.....
A number of participants approached me during the day expressing
their appreciation of how the introduction went....including a
comment that there did not seem to be two people. Hmmm.
(When you take a look at the program, also online at the above url,
you see that Harrison Owen was billeted as the "facilitator", I was
given - together with a team - the role of "organisation", so from
the participants viewpoint there was one facilitator....the idea of
the two of us doing the duett developed later...as it turned out for
my own health and energy, I should have paid more attention during
the last three days before the event not to be any longer part of the
organisation team, my need for sleep and recovery was intense, I had
two more events in May after Würzburg and a training at the end of
May...eventually I decided to not take on any jobs all of June which
I have stuck to save my addiction to the internet)

>6. What is the real advantage in a large OST meeting such as this one? What
>was accomplished that could be cited as  tangible results? Would it have
>been better to break the large group into smaller ie:600 person simultaneous
>OST meetings? Would that have been better for the participants. We noted in
>the pictures that some of the breakout groups had hundreds of participants
>and we were imagining that it would not be very fulfilling---but Erich
>pointed out that likely these in fact were like classes continuing on with
>masters from the "constellation work" so they were not meant to be really
>interactive.

6.1 I dont think there is anything novel about a large os. Its large,
its a challenge considering the pre-organisation but as a whole its
no different from an os with 300 people (it certainly is different
from an os with 5 people...but when I think about it, even that is
not really so).
One advantage is efficiency, if you have 4 os simultaneously, you
need 6 extra facilitators (add anything from 30 to 60 thousand extra
bucks), and more tents (the tents we were in cost 250 000 bucks, they
were used for 4 days, so the cost is just about 60 000 per day, here
you might have to add another 180 000) and of course, you need more
real estate, more assistants, more copying machines, additional PA
systems, on and on.
The question of tangible results is something relating to the work
with the sponsor up front. What does the sponsor expect, what is his
vision regarding the outcome?
Here it was the idea to give everyone a chance to reflect on the
prior 3 days of the conference under the heading of "Whats next after
the conference...where will our passion and responsibility take us?".
Reflection, networking, processing, continuation of some projects,
etc....no reserved space for "action planning".
That was achieved as born out through the work of the system and the
responses of participants (never had such an onslaught of mails,
letters - handwritten -, calls, and a trippling of the hits on my
website, Harrison reporting on similarly increased activity on the
websites....perhaps it has something to do with Würzburg).
By the way, a quick round of calls confirmed my impression that the
largest breakout groups were 80 to 100, certainly not hundreds ...
but even if that were so, who is to say whether it is fullfilling?
And why should that be a concern of a facilitator?


>7. In what circumstances would you recommend such a large OST meeting and
>what could the client expect to achieve?

7.1 I would recommend it for similar situations....pointing out to
the client that a 4 day conference could be cut down to three days,
be more fun and more productive if he did the whole thing in open
space... and there are some in Germany who are going exactly that
route...but thats another story, yet.
>

>Well, that is it for the questions that I said that I would bring to you,
>
>Thanks for helping us with understanding this better. Again, we think it is
>a very valuable teaching story.
>

Thanks for the questions, Birgitt...this was a fun 1.25 hour for me
writing my responses.

Peace,
mmp





Michael M Pannwitz
boscop
Draisweg 1
12209 Berlin, Germany
FON +49 - 30-772 8000     FAX +49 - 30-773 92 464
www.michaelmpannwitz.de

An der E-Gruppe "openspacedeutsch" für deutschsprechende open space-PraktikerInnen interessiert? Enfach eine mail an mich.


*
*
==========================================================
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20030612/66dc9c50/attachment-0016.htm>


More information about the OSList mailing list