<html>
Hello Harrison and all<br>
<br>
This thread is very interesting with many thought provoking posts. Thanks
<br>
to all of you. <br>
<br>
I will came back to Harrison's first message (I have changed the numbers
<br>
of the paragraphs - where K means Kauffman and H means Harrison):<br>
<br>
At 14:15 15-11-2001, Harrison Owen wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>The formulation of Self-organization theory
which I find to be most attractive is that proposed by Stuart Kauffman of
the Santa Fe Institute, which he describes in his book, <i>At Home in the
Universe (Oxford)</i>. Simply stated, Kauffman argues that given
certain quite simple pre-conditions "order happens." These
pre-conditions include the following: K1) A relatively safe and
protected, nutrient environment, K2) High levels of diversity in terms of
the elements present in that environment.K3) High levels of complexity in
terms of potential inter-connections. K4) A drive for improvement, or in
more standard evolutionary terminology, a search for fitness. K5) Sparse
prior connections in terms of the available elements (everything is not
previous "hardwired." K6) The whole thing is on the edge of
chaos.<br>
(...) <br>
<br>
I was immediately struck with the similarity between his pre-conditions
and what for years I have described as the presenting circumstances for
the use of Open Space. Which are: H1) A real business issue of great
concern. H2) High levels of complexity in terms of the elements of the
issue. H3) High Levels of diversity in terms of those involved. H4) The
presence of actual or potential conflict. H5) A decision time of
yesterday -- ie an urgent need for improvement. Even without going
through a detailed comparison</blockquote>I think a more detailed
comparison could be interesting...<br>
<br>
First let me remember that we are comparing:<br>
(K) The preconditions for order to happen (to emerge) out of chaos and
<br>
(H) The (good) preconditions for the use of OST.<br>
<br>
So (H) does not describe the conditions that we generally have within
normal <br>
(conventional) organizations but special conditions that Harrison stated
as <br>
preconditions for a good use of OST.<br>
<br>
Our problem is how does the set {K1,...,K6} relates with {H1,...,H5}
?<br>
<br>
Clearly K2=H3 and K3=H2.<br>
<br>
I also suspect that H1+H4+H5 (+H2+H3?) are the conditions needed for
an<br>
organization to be at the edge of chaos - so they are equivalent to
(K6).<br>
<br>
So, it seems that in (H) we have no equivalent to: <br>
<br>
K1) A relatively safe and protected, nutrient environment, <br>
K4) A drive for improvement, or in more standard evolutionary
terminology, a search for fitness. <br>
K5) Sparse prior connections in terms of the available elements
(everything is not previous "hardwired." <br>
<br>
But I think that we all know that they also happen in OST. The point is
that when <br>
Harrison stated (H)={H1,...,H5} he has not made explicit other things
that are <br>
implicit in OST, namely:<br>
<br>
(H6) - The Sponsor has accepted to adopt OST, has sent an invitation
letter and<br>
some people have accepted (and others eventually not) the invitation.
This (plus<br>
the rules of OST) creates the "safe and nutrient environment"
(K1)<br>
<br>
- One could think that K4 is implied in {H1,...,H5} but I don't think so.
Faced with <br>
conditions {H1,...,H5} an organization may decide to use "business
as usual"<br>
or may decide to use OST. So H6 is also needed to create "a drive
for <br>
improvement"(K4).<br>
<br>
(H7) (or is it also H6?) - The sponsor and the people that accepted the
invitation <br>
have accepted to SUSPEND the normal rules of conducting meetings and
relating <br>
to each other replacing them by "OST rules" that
"unwire" or at least diminish <br>
previous connections (K6).<br>
<br>
I think you may be asking yourselves why I am stating all this. It is
only a preface<br>
for what follows... <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>So what good is all this in practical terms?
First off, it provides an interesting way of looking at, and possibly
answering, the nagging question (for me) of why Open Space works anyhow.
I was trained to know that organization at the human level only
occurred as the product of prodigious effort and great skill. It
required brilliant design, execution and endless maintenance. What we
experience in Open Space simply cannot happen. But of course it does. It
appears that quite inadvertently I stumbled upon the essential
pre-conditions of self-organization. </blockquote><br>
I completely agree with what is written. But I know that my understanding
of what <br>
is written is different from the understanding of the Author... I am
sorry to came <br>
back to this disagreement about what is NOT written above... For that I
will rephrase<br>
part of it... <br>
<br>
"What we experience in Open Space simply cannot happen AND DOESN'T
<br>
NORMALLY HAPPEN IN ESTABLISHED ORGANIZATIONS. But of course it <br>
does. It appears that quite inadvertently I (Harrison) stumbled upon the
essential <br>
pre-conditions of self-organization - CONDITIONS THAT ARE NOT
NORMALLY<br>
PRESENT IN CURRENT ORGANIZATIONS AND THAT OST HELPS TO CREATE<br>
(OR FACITATE?) IN THEM". <br>
<br>
So my point is not that I don't believe that Harrison "stumbled
upon" something <br>
important. My point is that it is much more important than he believes...
Let's<br>
continue...<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>A related question for me has been why does
Open Space work just about anywhere it has been tried, regardless of the
education, ethnicity, economics, national origin, etc of the group? The
answer would appear to be that the groups are "already there."
</blockquote><br>
No, the groups ARE NOT already there. The only thing that one can
conclude from<br>
that is that any group has the potential to be there. But they don't
normally behave<br>
in "Open Space mode" because they are constrained by other
"social rules"<br>
that, even if they seem "invisible", are "out there"
and act as "laws" of organizational<br>
life - those laws are responsible for the fact that the majority of our
organizations<br>
are unsafe and non-nutrient. OST suspends those laws and, for the period
of its<br>
duration, creates new "laws" and "a relatively safe and
protected, nutrient <br>
environment" (K1) - the first precondition for self organization
according to <br>
Kauffman, quoted by you... <br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>There is nothing new to learn or do, although
there may be much to unlearn and stop doing. </blockquote><br>
Indeed, I think that to unlearn is un essential precondition for
learning, and for<br>
me "to learn" and "to unlearn" are sinonimous...
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>One consequence of all this is that the notion
of <i>creating</i> an Open Space Organization is a little absurd. It
already is -- no creation necessary.</blockquote><br>
Again, I don't think so. Like all meetings are not OST meetings, all
organizations <br>
are not Open Space organizations. Like in OST someone must open and hold
the <br>
space so must an OSO be nurtured.<br>
<br>
I will not continue to stress my point. But I would like to ask you a
question that <br>
seems to me a contradiction in your argument, but I am probably wrong...
<br>
Later in your post you wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite cite>I suspect the same thing is true with the laws
of self-organization and their local manifestation every time we
open space. </blockquote><br>
So, you wrote - as many of us did in other occasions - "every time
we open space".<br>
But why is it that we need to "open the space". Shouldn't we
say, according<br>
to your argument, that it is already open, and hence there is no need to
open it?<br>
<br>
Regards to all<br>
<br>
<br>
Artur<br>
<br>
<br>
</html>