[OSList] "Parallel" Open Space at XP2014 Rome?

Fri Apr 25 10:13:47 PDT 2014

For me... just because a conference convenor might ask me to do Open Space - and even though I love Open Space - does not mean I would do it. I have so many other questions to ask them before I know what process 'tool' is a best fit for the objectives, desired outcomes, time available, physical space available, and so on. And to do so (in a mixed-form conference) I would have to know about the entire conference's design. And in the conversations about this, many things come to light when we (prospective client and I) explore 'why?' 'why that?' 'why that at that point in the conference?' and so on. Always checking back into how does each question we are asking (therefore how does each design decision) support the objectives and desired outcomes.

During these conversations things often becomes obvious (to me + client) as our conversational exploration opens up an understanding of what might fit better schedule-wise if expanded a bit, what might be placed differently to support an arc of learning and exchange across the day(s) of the conference, and more. So many useful and informative things pop up in these conversations.

Often it comes out that the 'why' is because a conference organizer thought including OS would be cool, but not because it served the objectives / desired outcomes or because they (that year) had the space or time resources. And in our exploration we unfold great possibilities, and opportunities, informing for example whether a full-form / longer OS can happen or whether this is the time to do some different and nicely dynamic form / process for dialogue and interchange. 

I find that often, when there is a concurrent / parallel track Open Space, the facilitator tells me how hard this was (for them and for the participants) and they reflect that they had never asked the client about what-ifs, options, why's and so on. And in these reflections it becomes clear to them that if they could have just shifted a few things (food in the room for example allowing more time for the Open Space, or Closing Circle being a great closing to the mixed-use conference, and so on) - those design decisions could have better supported the success, productivity, relationships and knowledge exchange in the overall conference. In all of its mixed-method parts.

I myself would find it very unusual to say yes to doing a concurrent Open Space. I have done it in the past so I've tried a few things as sort of an action-research way of seeing what from my previous experiences could inform an improvement for future use. I have observed that participants have a harder time getting a sense for what's going on at the conference, feel pulled away from the Open Space conversations because they have to show up at x time to attend or give a traditional-conference workshop in another part of the conference, have trouble deepening their thinking because they can only stay a moment, miss the opening / don't feel the 'container' or find their two feet to take most advantage of how OS is different than just a room with discussions in it, and so on. In some cases, they even feel irritation at the conference sponsor for giving this deep conversation space less focus than they feel it deserves (by making it concurrent so it's harder in their observation for people to attend). And, as a facilitator, I find that holding that really open open open not-quite 'container' for that day is oh-so-much-more physically-energetically difficult. And guess what else? Every time I have had a de-briefing with a conference after that sort of thing to see if it worked *in the best way it could have* - the conference organizers (and participants who have been included in the evaluation) always say 'yeah, we would do better next time if we made it separate not concurrent' because of these same reasons.  

I can only speak for myself, of course. And there is power in vocabulary. I could never say that something someone else feels is helpful and useful to an organization or conference and the individuals in it is outdated, childish, purist, dogmatic, fixed, damaging... - even if it was very different than the way I myself would do it, decide to do it, welcome it, or say no doing it.

Why? Because on this OSLIST I have learned from many people who do OS very differently than me - including you, Paul - that things are possible, differently-seen, useful to the participants, done with the full-on spirit of Open Space. I could only say in some cases that what some of you-all here on this list may do is not what I myself might do, or am comfortable with, or see as the best dialogue tool for that particular situation. 

That's (the welcoming of this community to different ways of seeing things) what makes us (or me, anyway) rich and full and always learning - the ability to explore diverse ways of looking at and exploring this amazing Open Space stuff. I've done quite a few Open Space events over the years, in many different situations, cultures and settings. I have learned a lot from my own experiences. And still, I am always learning from all of you - from my fellow long-time-experienced colleagues to you have-not-done-it-yet newest-to-it questioners.

How lucky am I to have you and your different ways of thinking?

Very...

Lisa

Lisa Heft
Consultant, Facilitator, Educator
President Emerita, Open Space Institute US
Fellow, Columbia University Center for International Conflict Resolution
Opening Space

On Apr 25, 2014, at 9:22 AM, Graydancer <graydancer at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 11:00 AM, paul levy <paul at cats3000.net> wrote:
> Perhaps those who don't think these blended forms work, are bringing a purist mindset that creates a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Sometimes do it by the book, and sometimes let the in-the-moment book of life suggest the pace and form.
> 
> ...or perhaps it is simply a matter of taste, and therefore whether it is childish or silly (I'm sorry, were those words supposed to be negative?) it is simply a matter of preference.
> 
> I'm very glad to see that your events went well. I suspect that your being able to plan them from the beginning (my, how I envy that "we" you keep mentioning) is a good measure of the success. 
> 
> In my experiences it has been more along the lines of "We keep hearing good things about these events of yours. We don't want to do one like that, but we can give you 3 hours because we need something new for our conference." They usually have no idea what Open Space is, either from experience or research. It's just the sexy new flavor.
> 
> Therefore, I choose to say "No thank you." Not from dogmatic reasons, but more for personal preference - much like my weariness with "programmed conferences." I'm not sure how a preference can be outdated or childish. Perhaps you mean to say you are tired of hearing other people talk about it? That I can certainly understand.
> 
> 
> Gray

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20140425/8e1c6c8b/attachment-0008.htm>