Advice for convergence

Sun Jun 3 10:34:51 PDT 2007

Lois...this is a massive challenge, and I can only offer some preliminary
thoughts.  However I will say that I'm very interested to know what you
learn about making decisions like this.  Your experience may be very
valuable to me.

On 6/3/07, Lois Reborne <loisee at centurytel.net> wrote:
>
> The client is the Board of the UUA; the goal of the Open Space is to
> provide
> the Board with priorities for setting ends statements. (From the Carver
> model of policy governance jargon; I'm not completely initiated into the
> jargon or model, so I think of these as strategic goals) This is the first
> time anything like this has been attempted in the UUA, or at GA. And as
> you
> can imagine there are many challenges. The OS team, the Board, and the GA
> Planners have all been working to make this happen - we're about to the
> point of letting it happen!

This is a pretty narrow range of outcomes for an Open Space, as you're
probably aware.  I would be working with the Board to help them understand
that the job of actually crafting these statements for their own purpose
will ultimately be theirs.  That way, there is another level of sensemaking
that occurs after the event, where the Board can acutely review all of what
is learned, and not just the official statements and improve the work for
their purpose.  This would also need to be made really clear to the
participants.  This is just to show that responsibility for Board statements
ultimately rests with the Board.

To deal with the numbers and logistical challenges, here's the process we've
> designed:
> We're essentially running ten smaller OS's, with participants randomly
> assigned to one of those initially. Twenty facilitators will attend a half
> day training on Wednesday and work in teams.
> In the first session Day 1 we'll open the space for topics/conveners to
> emerge. Twelve topics will be drawn out of the hat and assigned to the 120
> actual conference rooms/times available over Day 1 and 2. We've also have
> literally open space and opportunity for those conveners whose topics in
> are
> not drawn to go ahead with their sessions.

I don't quite understand the reason or the purpose of randomly drawing
sessions out of a hat and assigning them elsewhere.  If I interpret what you
mean my concerns is that you are possibly separating passion from
responsibility.  I am extremely careful to keep people's names connected to
their work and to ensure that no one moves another person's work around.
Without that you don't have the necessary responsibility to see the
conversation through, especially to convergence.  To me it would make more
sense to find a way to have a central bulletin board so that all sessions
can be posted and viewable to everyone who can then decide which of the
break out groups to go to.

Six Open Space time periods will follow. Participants can choose any among
> the 120 "official" topics plus the "unscheduled" sessions.
>
> Each group's report will contain one brief recommendation to the Board
> statement. Those statements will be available in print for all before the
> first convergence session on day 3. (the remaining info from the session
> reports will be recorded and published on line after the conference) We
> predict there will be multiple statements around some obvious topics, and
> we're looking forward to what else emerges!

It would be interesting to see if groups emerge to make sense of the
overlaps as well.  You may find significant passion in the rom for people to
travel with their statements to the next level.  For example if several
statements emerge around a theme of lay education, it might be worth
convening, at a future date, all of the champions of those statements to
work further on this issue.  In that way you can really champion the
emerging leadership that arises from this conference.

People are being asked to return to their assigned OS room for the two
> convergence sessions 75 minutes long with lunch between. In those sessions
> we will work with the those 12+ report statements that have come from all
> sessions that arose from that group. The output goal for the convergence
> is
> to select three priorities to be sent to the General Assembly delegates
> for
> discussion that afternoon. A final vote the last day of the GA will narrow
> these 30 priorities to ten. This part of the process is set; it's what
> actually happens in the convergence sessions we're still working on -
> understanding that it all may be much clearer on Day 3!

Again, there is a problem with divorcing passion from responsibility.  What
if I'm not interested in any of these conversations?   What if my pet topic,
the one in which I am a deep expert is being dealt with in another room?  I
might worry about a real danger of losing people at this point.   Also the
process of winnowing down statements from twelve to three I don't think will
give you the kinds of information you are looking for.  The results will be
heavily skewed by the randomness introduced into the process and the
inability of people to travel to other sessions to do their work.

Whatever you can do to keep people connected to their own work and passion
is going to result in a better set of recommendations for your Board and a
larger collection of supporters prepared to help make those things happen.
Perhaps there is a way you could have people begin to label their
recommendations on day one.  What I might to is to have people come to a
large wall with their finished recommendations and collectively do an
affinity grouping so that the entire system can see where the major areas of
overlap are.  That might at least give you a feel for the territory.  Then
on Day Two you can invite people to take responsibility for being in groups
to move the recommendations to another level.  But this is tricky.  Even
with 30 sessions, you have groups of 100 people trying to make convergence
happen.

Are you dizzy yet?
>
> As facilitators, our second goal for the convergence is to give
> participants
> the chance to process their Open Space experience, and to generate and
> give
> voice to those kind of new insights that arise not just from a particular
> sessions but from the entire experience. We want to allow for those
> insights
> to be included in the final three statement output.

I don't yet see where you have built this into your process, but it will be
interesting to hear.  I would however caution about asking people to
evaluate their experience of Open Space Technology based on what you have
outlines here.  This is certainly based in Open Space but I would be wary to
give people the impression that this is what most Open Space Technology
meetings are like.  This is an incredible and unique effort, far outside
most people's experience, even that of the wise ones here on OSLIST.

Here's some questions:
> We're liking the idea of opening space again in the first convergence
> session, but I'm not clear what the question would be. What will move
> people
> to think wholly, larger than the recommendation from a group on a specific
> topic? Would people need them to move into small groups on those topics?
> If
> not, what else?
>
> We'll be working in standard conference rooms - rows of those cantankerous
> hooked together seats. There are anxieties and very practical concerns
> about
> trying to move the chairs into small groups.
> * accessibility issues for the mobility and hearing challenged
> * fire safety/evacuation issues in a limited space all jumbled up
> * $1 per chair charge for any chair not in its precise position at the end
> of the session
> * using precious time moving chairs back and forth

Count on incurring a charge for every chair.  That is a ridiculous condition
of the conference facility. What difference does it make if they have to put
away a chair from a row versus from a corner?   And count on huge time spent
moving around.  Others who have done these types of large events report that
BIG time and BIG space is what is required.

Any experience or ideas for working with this challenge?
>
> We're thinking of using dots on posted statements to narrow the selection
> of
> statements. Is a simple three dots per person technique sufficient? Or is
> there a more sophisticated system that would improve the outcome? Again,
> we
> have to acknowledge and plan for the accessibility challenges in this
> process.

I think you should probably look at some technology, but it has to be very
simple.  Ted?

Okay, there's the stage. We await your wise counsel on these questions - or
> other suggestion you may have.

Not much else to say other than good luck!

Chris
-- 
CHRIS CORRIGAN
Facilitation - Training
Open Space Technology

Weblog: http://www.chriscorrigan.com/parkinglot
Site: http://www.chriscorrigan.com

Principal, Harvest Moon Consultants, Ltd.
http://www.harvestmoonconsultants.com

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

To learn about OpenSpaceEmailLists and OSLIST FAQs:
http://www.openspaceworld.org/oslist
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20070603/8b7fc351/attachment-0016.htm>