[OSList] open message to Nick Martin

Tue Jun 4 23:33:18 PDT 2019

Thanks for your open letter Marai. I'm always excited and willing to 
receive feedback.

As you'll remember over a year ago I opened up the content of this 
article for comments and input from this list in the form of a Google Doc.

Such was the passion exhibited in the original thread I was eager and 
excited to receive your inputs. Unfortunately only two people replied 
though. I'm very grateful to both you and Keith Blundell for taking the 
time.

I must admit life took over and in my wait for more input other 
priorities took over. I'm happy to revisit it now though as I can feel 
the energy is back and I'd like to the right thing in the eyes of this 
excellent community.

Here's the link - 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ufIsy0BQvIqlRUbW0FAyXHGV0IKw3VdDT8L91RIJJU8/edit?usp=sharing

Please add your thoughts, comments and feedback and amend the article as 
best I can.

photo

Nick Martin
Founder & CEO, WorkshopBank

M +45 42 47 00 74 <tel:+45 42 47 00 74> E nick at workshopbank.com 
<mailto:nick at workshopbank.com> W workshopbank.com <http://workshopbank.com>

<http://facebook.com/workshopbank> 
<http://dk.linkedin.com/in/nickmartn> 	<http://twitter.com/workshopbank>

On 05/06/2019 01:53, Marai Kiele wrote:
> Hello Nick Martin,
>
> I find myself tense in my belly after reading your newsletter today:
>
> I just wanted to share with you a popular WorkshopBank tool 
> <https://t.dripemail2.com/c/eyJhY2NvdW50X2lkIjoiMjM3MTU2MiIsImRlbGl2ZXJ5X2lkIjoiNjc1OTQzNzE4MiIsInVybCI6Imh0dHBzOi8vd29ya3Nob3BiYW5rLmNvbS9vcGVuLXNwYWNlLXRlY2hub2xvZ3k_dXRtX3NvdXJjZT1kcmlwXHUwMDI2dXRtX21lZGl1bT1lbWFpbFx1MDAyNnV0bV9jYW1wYWlnbj1uZXctdG9vbC1vcGVuLXNwYWNlXHUwMDI2X19zPXFtZXdvcGZiZnpzMnBvY3ltZTRnIn0> you 
> can start using with your clients right away. Let me know what you think.
>
> You suggest that the reader lets you know what they think. I choose to 
> do that.
>
> I also choose to do that in the form of an open letter, as several 
> months back you asked on the os-list for input to your description of 
> the OST process for the Workshopbank.
> You introduced your version of „OST with a twist“, and there was a 
> somewhat heated discussion on this list about it.
> I participated in both, revising and giving you feedback on your 
> description (as requested) and discussing about „is something with 
> such a twist still OST?“
>
> Your twist was about giving the leaders control about the topics.
>
> Back then I used the analogy that you are mixing red wine with coca 
> cola (which some people actually do and drink — I tried it out as a 
> teenager).
> And that calling such a beverage „red wine with a twist“ is an 
> inaccurate representation of a) red wine and b) the taste that a 
> consumer will experience.
> (side note: usually, this mix is done with red wine of poor quality)
> In my analogy, OST is the red wine and controlling the process is the 
> coke.
>
> In your description, you early on distinguish between OST and OST with 
> a twist. I first appreciated you for making that distinction so upfront.
> Then I read what you wrote under:
>
> *If you’re following the traditional Open Space Process...*
>
>  *
>     1
>     Gather your participants together and briefly explain how Open
>     Space events work using Harrison Owen’s 1 Law and the Guiding
>     Principles as appropriate. Traditionally you should do this with
>     everyone in a circle around youbut you don’t necessarily have to.
>  *
>     2
>     Ask participants to spend 10 minutes thinking through if they have
>     any issues they’d like to raise.
>  *
>     3
>     If there is a general agreement that the issue has enough support
>     and passion behind it invite the issue owner to add the issue to
>     the schedule.
>  *
>     4
>     Once all issues have been added invite the participants to sign-up
>     for the sessions they’re planning on attending (they are free to
>     change their mind later if they want to).
>  *
>     5
>     Your sessions start.
>
>
> There is much more on this page that, as I see it, is NOT "the 
> traditional Open Space Process“. I am giving just some further examples:
> https://workshopbank.com/open-space-technology
>
>
>     Process for a Session
>
>  *
>     1
>     Each session should be a round group of chairs (no table in the
>     middle) with preferably one facilitator to lead the discussion and
>     a scribe on the flip-chart.
>  *
>     2
>     A session starts with the issue owner welcoming and thanking the
>     group for coming and then giving a description of the issue as
>     they see it.
>  *
>     3
>     The facilitator then leads the discussion inviting people to give
>     their input at their request.
>  *
>     4
>     The scribe records the discussion on flip chart paper making sure
>     to mark Issues, Ideas, Questions (that can’t be answered today) &
>     Actions. When a flip is finished they should tear it off and put
>     it in the center of the circle or on a nearby wall for people in
>     the group to see.
>  *
>     5
>     Allow people to leave and arrive as they see fit though don’t
>     allow them to interrupt or slow-down your progress. It is a new
>     arrival’s responsibility to catch-up with the discussion using the
>     flip chart outputs no matter how high up or important they are.
>  *
>     6
>     When the issue looks like it has been covered and there are no
>     more inputs coming from your group thank them for their time and
>     invite them to join other groups if the session time is not over.
>
>
> To me, calling this description "the traditional Open Space Process“ I 
> wonder if
>
> - I am totally rigid and should just loosen up to the variations of OST
> - You have never experienced a traditional Open Space Process
> - You just don’t care about the originality and instead rather cater 
> to business needs of controlled processes that limit self-organisation
> - I misremember all my trainings with Harrison Owen, Michael M 
> Pannwitz, Michael Pannwitz jr, Joe Töpfer, and last but not least 
> Birgitt Williams.
> - or… ?
>
> I totally don’t get it.
> I don’t like what you are doing.
> I also dislike that you market this description of „the traditional 
> Open Space Process“ as „a popular WorkshopBank Tool“.
>
> I feel sad when I imagine people following your description and 
> spreading the word that „this is the traditional way of doing OST“.
>
> Using my former analogy:
> I imagine what you are doing is like a beverage shop introducing 
> someone who has never tasted a good red wine to that beverage.
> Because this person usually drink coke, they are being given red wine 
> mixed with coke (to match their taste buds).
> And then they are being told, „this is a traditional Cabernet Sauvignon“.
>
> I want you to revise your description and move your adaptions away 
> from "the original version" to „OST with a twist“.
>
> Are you willing to do that?
>
> Probably even better: Call it „…………….. - a process partly inspired by 
> Open Space Technology“
>
> I look forward to your response,
> Marai
>
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/marai-kiele/
> https://about.me/maraikiele
>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openspacetech.org/pipermail/oslist-openspacetech.org/attachments/20190605/6315f7bb/attachment.html>