<html>
At 03:56 PM 2/13/00 -0500, you wrote: <br>
<font face="arial" size=2><blockquote type=cite cite>An associate and I
are preparing to respond to a request for development of a strategy for a
provincial government ministry here in Canada, and they seem to be
looking for something innovative in the end product. We plan to
give them something innovative in the process as well. My colleague
is a veteran of scenario-based strategic planning and we thought of using
Open Space at various stages along the way, partly to provide a richer
source of ideas and partly as a reality check to avoid an ivory tower
strategy.</font><br>
<br>
<font face="arial" size=2>Can anyone point me to cases where these two
methods have been used before? With or without
success?</font><br>
<br>
<font face="arial" size=2>Patrick McAuley</font></blockquote><br>
********************************<br>
I have used both -- but never together. Based on that experience I think
they would work well in conjunction, but I wouldn't try and combine them.
We have found that mixing up Open Space with anything else ends up being
very confusing. In a word -- when you do Open Space, do Open Space. So I
would start with one or the other, and the trick will be to figure out
which comes first.<br>
<br>
I think I would opt for the Scenario Planning first, mostly because it is
the most directed. And going from Open Space to an orchestrated process
tends to be very uncomfortable. The scenarios could lay a number of
issues on the table, and the Open Space provide a way for the group to
identify multiple un-named variables and bring it down to action.<br>
<br>
Truth to tell, I haven't used Scenario Planning for a number of years,
primarily because I have found that Open Space does just as well and
more. The trick is to really make an effort to get "the whole
system" in the room." If you get all the players (or a goodly
portion of them), the natural dynamics of Open Space does pretty much
what scenario planning does, but at a higher level of complexity and
intensity -- if only because the issues and variables come out of the
experience of the group, instead of being presented to the group by some
abstracted body. <br>
<br>
But if your client wants something more traditional, front ending with
some time in various scenarios could be useful to set the stage, and let
Open Space stir the pot and bring it down to action. <br>
<br>
Of course to get to action (with Open Space) you will need some time,
ideally 2 1/2 days -- but I think you could do it in a day and a half.
One day to get the issues on the table, and a half day for prioitization,
convergence and assumption of responsibility for action.<br>
<br>
Could be fun either way.<br>
<br>
Harrison <br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite> <br>
<font face="arial" size=2>PTM Consulting<br>
20 Magnolia Lane<br>
Guelph, ON N1G 4X7</font><br>
Canada<br>
<br>
<font face="arial" size=2>Tel: (519) 827-9396<br>
Fax: (519) 827-0956<br>
<a href="mailto:patrick.mcauley@sympatico.ca">patrick.mcauley@sympatico.ca</a></font></blockquote><br>
<br>
<div align="center">
Harrison Owen<br>
7808 River Falls Drive<br>
Potomac, MD 20854<br>
USA<br>
phone 301-469-9269<br>
fax 301-983-9314<br>
website <br>
<a href="http://www.mindspring.com/~owenhh" eudora="autourl">www.mindspring.com/~owenhh</a><br>
Open Space Institute websites<br>
<a href="http://www.openspaceworld.org/" eudora="autourl">www.openspaceworld.org</a><br>
</html>