[OSList] Open Space with some off-limits -- Individual Sessions

[Harold Shinsato]

Harrison and Suzanne,

Thanks for attending my session on how to improve individual session 
facilitation!

I totally agree that the "whatever happens" helps deal with the results 
of hosting a session, Suzanne. And I also completely agree that the 
process of the Open Space itself should not be interfered with. I'm not 
looking for an OST intervention!!! Wandering facilitation trainers - ugh!

My wondering isn't about improving Open Space - it's about improving 
myself - and maybe making that learning available to others also 
interested in improving their own participation.

For myself, hosting an Open Space conference has been weirdly more 
simple than getting people to come to my sessions! Part of it is that 
there is so much help for how to host an Open Space. Lisa Heft's 
training was indispensable for me. Attending other people's Open Space 
events was also incredibly powerful. There's the manual, there's OSList. 
And actually hosting and facilitating them was the biggest training 
ground of them all. In a way, that's also true for convening successful 
OST sessions. Practice. Do it. Learn from doing. Do it again. What I 
sense is that there's a lot of the "learn from doing" that we don't 
really have to be doing alone. That could be shared. There's a wealth of 
experience to get to the learning faster!

Interestingly, the one particular challenge I had with getting the Open 
Space to work was the same challenge I had with my sessions. Getting 
people to come. It's nice saying "whatever happens" and "whoever comes" 
but I think more guidance could be made available (but again, not in the 
Open Space). One of the best advice I heard about this is that it's just 
about inviting people into the circle and doing it again and again. But 
again, I think more could be uncovered. One thing I just had a sense for 
myself was to reach out to already existing communities and participate. 
The way to reach out is something I'm still learning. The book "Made to 
Stick" has helped with the wording. But I can tell there's more to learn.

There's another bit of advice I received just yesterday from a fellow 
software developer who is also an Open Space fan. Arlo Belshee was 
attempting to answer the question of an author I respect greatly about 
what would work best as a session. I had already said my piece which 
reflected my awareness of the community and what topics were the most 
interesting, and how that might intersect with his own interests. I 
found Arlo's advice even better, and in a way it was related. Arlo said 
he never plans his sessions in advance as to what he's going to say. 
Instead he reads the room and hears what people are talking about. And 
Arlo gets great attendance at his sessions at all the Open Space events 
I've seen him at - which have been quite a few. In a way, Arlo's advice 
sounded a lot like a Toyote Production Systems practice (a lean 
manufacturing practice) called Genchi Genbutsu 
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genchi_Genbutsu> - "Go to the source to 
find the facts to make correct decisions." It's about being more present 
and see what's actually going on. Some people already know and can 
surface what needs to surface at the right time. I seem to need to work 
at it!

This all happened yesterday for me at Seattle Lean Camp 
<http://leancamp.crowdvine.com/>, which was a properly facilitated Open 
Space Technology conference. Jeremy Lightsmith did a great job opening 
the space. Many people wondered after the event why people are still 
paying thousands for traditional conferences when so clearly we get 
better results for just $50 using Open Space. It's a good question!

I got another powerful hint at what can help get people to come to your 
sessions. At the Open Space evening news on Saturday for Lean Camp 
Seattle, the facilitators asked what percentage of the attendees had 
been to "Lean Coffee". It was over 50%! Their Lean Coffee was described 
as the same thing as Open Space except in just a couple hours. It's an 
open forum that happens about once a month at a cafe' in Seattle to talk 
about lean management/software issues. Whoever comes is the right 
people. They put their topics up on cards, like the Open Space 
billboard, and then work their way through the topics in vote priority 
order. It's not quite the same as an OST conference, but multiple people 
claimed that their lean coffee events were basically "the same" as OST. 
Jeremy Lightsmith and Jim Benson have succeeded in creating a full blown 
Open Space conference and getting high attendance by creating the 
feeling of Open Space in stammtisch style in advance - creating 
community and credibility by taking the time to initiate and invite 
again and again people into conversation.

There's a lot more to be said here but this is already way too long. 
Perhaps it'd be better for me not to ask the question, just be happy 
with the guidance that's already available, and be satisfied. I hope I 
don't offend by continuing to ask the question and wondering - if people 
don't like my question I'm probably going to continue to host the 
session and attend just by myself. I seem to do that often! But I'm 
going to keep asking: How can I get better at convening successful 
sessions at OST conferences?

     Regards,
     Harold


On 7/14/11 3:01 PM, Harrison Owen wrote:
>
> Harold wrote: "It's interesting that Open Space gives very minimal 
> advice for convening sessions - but I can tell that some are much 
> better at it than others. Both in the choice of topics that are 
> relevant and in the actual facilitation of the group conversation. I 
> continue to be curious about what works and what doesn't work for the 
> convening of individual sessions in an Open Space."
>
> It is a curiosity, for sure. And you are not the first, nor doubtless 
> the last to wonder. Over the years, people have tried just about 
> everything, ranging from "Providing Guidelines for discussion" -- to 
> recruiting a corps of wandering facilitators, available upon request. 
> Some even tried "assigned facilitators." Or a "designated process -- 
> e.g. "Dialogue."
>
> I can't say that I have seen it all, but what I have seen brought me 
> to the conclusion that any intervention was, at the very least, more 
> trouble than it was worth. And in worse case scenarios, actually 
> counter-productive. Nobody ever followed the "Guidelines." The 
> "wandering facilitators" were inevitably in the wrong place and either 
> sat on their hands or were totally overwhelmed. Attempts to manage the 
> process with "assigned facilitators" drove the "managers" crazy as the 
> natural dynamics of Open Space refused to follow any process they 
> envisioned, and if they attempted to control the dynamics of OS -- 
> well good luck! Mandating some formal process like Dialogue really 
> gummed up the works. It was just too slow and out of sync with the ebb 
> and flow of discussion. And it often seemed that people were more 
> concerned to "manage the process" than to talk to each other. Even 
> worse, stupid discussions (my judgment) were continued because people 
> assumed that if they got the process right, the discussion would 
> improve.  From where I sat the problem was that the topic was a 
> mindless matter of minimal concern, and yet the moribund horse 
> continued to be beaten. Or something.
>
> Perhaps it is the eternal optimist in me -- or something about half 
> full glasses. My wonderment was that the sessions were as good as they 
> were, and generally speaking -- better than any facilitated session I 
> had ever attended. Could it possibly be that the whole business of 
> "facilitation" was vastly overrated? Heresy!!!
>
> But as I concentrated on what was clearly working very well "all by 
> itself" I began to notice that even in those situations where the 
> discussion was less than outstanding (by whatever standards), 
> nevertheless useful things were happening. For example, was the stated 
> topic never addressed? Yes, but what came up was infinitely better and 
> more interesting, I thought. I think I learned something: People 
> really don't know what they are talking about UNTIL they create to 
> talk. Which is why tightly built agendas never seem to work. Yes you 
> cover the agenda, but did you do anything useful, productive, 
> creative? By definition, NO! You ended up in precisely the position 
> you said you were going to reach -- so why take the trip in the first 
> place? You were already there. Just write the minutes in advance and 
> cancel the meeting.
>
> Then there were those situations where the whole thing was just stupid 
> and snarky. People argued endlessly about nothing of importance -- 
> just for the sake of arguing, it seems. But even that painful 
> experience turned out (more often than not) to be a positive. Folks 
> learned to use the Law of Two Feet. Or at the very least, they learned 
> that they COULD use the Law next time -- unless they honestly enjoyed 
> being miserable and non-productive. Which does happen.
>
> Anyhow, Harold, your wonderment is a shared one. But after some years 
> considering the emergent situation, I have come to the conclusion that 
> any fix I might propose will create more problems than it solves. That 
> could just be lazy, and doubtless younger and more subtle minds may 
> find a way. But I ain't holding my breath.
>
> Harrison //
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20110718/bd20743d/attachment-0008.htm>