<HTML>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman" DEFAULT="FACE"><FONT SIZE="3" POINTSIZE="12" DEFAULT="SIZE">Dear Birgitt,<BR>
the questions that you brought to Harrison and me are a welcome invitation to revisit the event.<BR>
My reactions, quickly:<BR>
<BR>
On Wed, 11 Jun 2003 22:09:07 -0400, Birgitt Williams wrote:<BR>
.<BR>
>1. The next time, would you have had participants announce their topics or<BR>
>would you have left the announcing part out? What happened to the energy<BR>
>when this part took so long (about two hours?)?<BR>
<BR>
1.1 The detailed time schedule went like this<BR>
<BR>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman" DEFAULT="FACE">7:45 am Break, continuous buffet, arriving, taking your seats....<BR>
8:15 am Opening the Space: Albrecht Mahr<BR>
8:20 am Introducing the open space-technology: Harrison Owen (consecutive translation: Michael M Pannwitz)<BR>
Bulletin Board <BR>
Marketplace<BR>
Break-out sessions at10:15 am,11:45 am, 1:45 pm<BR>
3:30 pm Closing Circle<BR>
4:00 pm Closing words from the sponsor<BR>
4:05 pm End of the conference with a musical farewell<BR>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman" DEFAULT="FACE"><BR>
The actual time line was very close to the planned time line.<BR>
The announcing of topics (there were 232) took 43 minutes (12 seconds per issue on the average).<BR>
Market was over and people into taking a break (which in my experience is the usual thing after market and before people move into breakout sessions) at 10:00.<BR>
Lots of groups began their sessions at 10:15.<BR>
So the whole process from the start (8.25) till the first break out session took 1 hour and 45 minutes.<BR>
The opening by the sponsor and our introduction took 25 minutes, which means that participants were in the "active" mode (posting issues) at around 9 am.<BR>
Considering this "normal" timeline, I would not think of leaving out announcing of topics...especially since this is one of the very first visible signs of selforganisation.<BR>
"Energy", I felt, was overwhelming: when the time for posting issues had been reached, close to a hundred people jumped up simultaneously...we really had to get out of the way in the face of what looked like a stampede.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
>2. The next time, would you limit the number of topics as you did this time.<BR>
>Your agenda wall with its very clear organization for topics was<BR>
>interesting but it is my understanding that you planned for 160 topics but<BR>
>many more were generated and there was no planned way to deal with them. It<BR>
>didn't look like the agenda wall left any room for the "unplanned". And yet,<BR>
>maybe limiting the topics was necessary.<BR>
<BR>
2.1 Especially in an os with more than 2000 participating, chaos and confusion and conflict are predictable and the right ingredients for the emergence of selforganisation with its tendency to produce healthy, whole and harmonious conditions. <BR>
Exactly that happened. At least that is what participants expressed: "I am amazed how productive and peaceful and loving the discussions and exchanges were even in matters intensely conflicting".<BR>
We had bets out on how many issues there would be, I forgot the range, my guess was 120 (extrapolating an analysis of the relation between number of participants and number of issues of 100 actual open space events ranging from 5 to 430, where the tendency is eventually a flattened curve suggesting something like 0,1 issues per participant above 1000 participants).<BR>
This question was complicated by the fact that we had a range of 1600 to 2400 potential participants (some 1600 actually had put their names into a contact list...some 2000 had bought meal tickets...there had been a huge party in the tents till 1 am the previous night with more than 1200 people).<BR>
There was "planned" space for 150 issues (1 meter per issue)...this appeared not to have impressed the participants much since they posted 232 issues.<BR>
We had no plan on how to deal with more issues but the crowd designed one, all 232 issues were posted.<BR>
As it became clear that there would be more than 150 issues (we had 50 break out rooms, which meant 150 possible sessions considering that there were 3 beginning times), the os-team quickly set up more rooms (extra ballons were in reserve, benches and chairs were in reserve, extra clip boards were in reserve), I think 15 extra rooms.....eventually, the 232 issues seemed to organise themselves into about 185 break out sessions, 150 reports coming in.<BR>
So my idea is that I would like to get an even larger space next time but basically proceed the same way.<BR>
<BR>
>3. The next time, would you have used cushions on the floor as you did to<BR>
>accomodate the number of people. We thought that there was probably a lot of<BR>
>discomfort esp when we became aware of how long people had to be in their<BR>
>seats for the agenda building.<BR>
<BR>
3.1 You cant believe our discussions and plans around the topic of seating.<BR>
Originally, we wanted chairs. <BR>
Eventually, it became clear that the bavarian regulations on safety and fireprotection simply could not be bend enough to allow for 2000 chairs in concentric circles (they in fact would have to be bolted to the floor and linked together)...so here we got a lesson in providing "safe space" (those of you into theories of selforganisation, a "relatively safe space" is the first condition for selforganisation, "plenty of nutrients" is the second, with that we had fewer problems since the buffet, bavarian style, was sumptuous).<BR>
The "Plan" then was to cover the rough, dusty wooden floor with a sort of throwaway "carpet" and place cushions on top of it. <BR>
Many of us had considerable qualms about it: would people accept it, would it be comfortable enough, what about handicapped people....we did provide 199 chairs in little "islands" spread out at the edges of the sea of pillows which were marked in such a way that it was clear these were for people that absolutely needed chairs. (One comment from an obviously angry participant: segregation...so the next time I would pay more attention on where to provide space with chairs).<BR>
Well, in the evening before the event started we were informed: no carpet. <BR>
So all of us pitched in sweeping the floor between 11pm and 1 am at the same time spreading out the cushions in the cleared spaces.<BR>
Considering that people were seated from somewhere between 30 minutes and 1 hour, I would do it exactly that way again (still try to get a carpet).<BR>
My expectation that participants would object to the cushion solution was not fulfilled, nobody complained (I had been into organizing smaller os with cushions, or just sitting on the carpeted floor or sitting on large balls...never any complaints).<BR>
In fact, one participant wrote a long mail exhilarated about the cushions. She observed that she was more mobile and that getting up from a cushion involved an entirely differnt set of movements than getting up from a chair...she felt it energising....well, there you go.<BR>
Some people stood during the entire intro and agenda building...first I was concerned (why???!!!) and then noticed that they appeared quite relaxed.<BR>
<BR>
>4. The handwritten reports and then enlarged by photocopying for posting<BR>
>seemed to work. Do you recommend this to others? Any glitches? How was the<BR>
>actual book of proceedings created?<BR>
<BR>
4.1 This is a common procedure in these parts, I actually always do it this way: handwritten reports on A4 (as the basis for the book of proceedings), enlarged to A3 for the news wall. No glitches.<BR>
The book of proceedings is online, here is the url<BR>
<FONT COLOR=000000 DEFAULT="COLOR">><FONT COLOR=0000ff><U>http://www.leidenschaft-und-verantwortung.com<BR>
<FONT COLOR=000000 DEFAULT="COLOR"></U>both in German and English...someone typed the handwritten notes.<BR>
Do I recommend it to others? It depends on what the sponsor wants.<BR>
There has been a long discussion on the german oslist (there are 103 of us presently on that list) about books of proceedings, sustaining the work after the event, etc.<BR>
In a nutshell my position: the book of proceedings is the backdrop for action (if that is wanted) and it is the backdrop for action (if that is not wanted).<BR>
<BR>
>5. Could one of you have facilitated this meeting on your own or did it<BR>
>really require the two of you to "open" and then "hold" the space. What was<BR>
>your reflection about it being so much male energy in the facilitation--two<BR>
>men opening the space instead of one male and one female? Did you feel that<BR>
>sharing the opening of the space was a positive effect on your own energy or<BR>
>did co-facilitating deflect some of your energy to your partner?<BR>
<BR>
5.1 The sponsor wanted everyone to understand the introduction. Some of you know what ho thinks of his German. And 85% of the crowd was German but there was this minority that does not understand German.<BR>
So it was thought to be a "consecutive" translation. It was pointed out at the beginning of the introduction that it would not be a consecutive translation but instead the two of us introducing os in our particular styles. This gave both of us a "singular" role and perhaps prevented that what you felt might have hapened (deflecting energy) Well, the way it turned out, the both of us together took 4 minutes more than it usally takes one of us when doing it solo.<BR>
Many of the people present apparently understood enough english so that there was laughing and clapping at the different styles.<BR>
For my part, I felt fine and I think we succeeded well in our task to make space for the system to focus on itself and not on us to get their show on the road.<BR>
I think one person could have introduced ost, I have done it in mixed crowds using German and English simultaneously.<BR>
Actually, as a rule I highly recommend just one person doing it unless there is a need to have two.<BR>
On the male/female energy: we decided to use the dynamic of the circle and choreographed walking the circle in opposite directions, taking in the earth element and the cosmic element, or the clockwise and the counterclockwise and as some say, the female and the male.....<BR>
A number of participants approached me during the day expressing their appreciation of how the introduction went....including a comment that there did not seem to be two people. Hmmm.<BR>
(When you take a look at the program, also online at the above url, you see that Harrison Owen was billeted as the "facilitator", I was given - together with a team - the role of "organisation", so from the participants viewpoint there was one facilitator....the idea of the two of us doing the duett developed later...as it turned out for my own health and energy, I should have paid more attention during the last three days before the event not to be any longer part of the organisation team, my need for sleep and recovery was intense, I had two more events in May after Würzburg and a training at the end of May...eventually I decided to not take on any jobs all of June which I have stuck to save my addiction to the internet)<BR>
<BR>
>6. What is the real advantage in a large OST meeting such as this one? What<BR>
>was accomplished that could be cited as tangible results? Would it have<BR>
>been better to break the large group into smaller ie:600 person simultaneous<BR>
>OST meetings? Would that have been better for the participants. We noted in<BR>
>the pictures that some of the breakout groups had hundreds of participants<BR>
>and we were imagining that it would not be very fulfilling---but Erich<BR>
>pointed out that likely these in fact were like classes continuing on with<BR>
>masters from the "constellation work" so they were not meant to be really<BR>
>interactive.<BR>
<BR>
6.1 I dont think there is anything novel about a large os. Its large, its a challenge considering the pre-organisation but as a whole its no different from an os with 300 people (it certainly is different from an os with 5 people...but when I think about it, even that is not really so).<BR>
One advantage is efficiency, if you have 4 os simultaneously, you need 6 extra facilitators (add anything from 30 to 60 thousand extra bucks), and more tents (the tents we were in cost 250 000 bucks, they were used for 4 days, so the cost is just about 60 000 per day, here you might have to add another 180 000) and of course, you need more real estate, more assistants, more copying machines, additional PA systems, on and on.<BR>
The question of tangible results is something relating to the work with the sponsor up front. What does the sponsor expect, what is his vision regarding the outcome?<BR>
Here it was the idea to give everyone a chance to reflect on the prior 3 days of the conference under the heading of "Whats next after the conference...where will our passion and responsibility take us?". Reflection, networking, processing, continuation of some projects, etc....no reserved space for "action planning".<BR>
That was achieved as born out through the work of the system and the responses of participants (never had such an onslaught of mails, letters - handwritten -, calls, and a trippling of the hits on my website, Harrison reporting on similarly increased activity on the websites....perhaps it has something to do with Würzburg).<BR>
By the way, a quick round of calls confirmed my impression that the largest breakout groups were 80 to 100, certainly not hundreds ... but even if that were so, who is to say whether it is fullfilling? And why should that be a concern of a facilitator?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
>7. In what circumstances would you recommend such a large OST meeting and<BR>
>what could the client expect to achieve?<BR>
<BR>
7.1 I would recommend it for similar situations....pointing out to the client that a 4 day conference could be cut down to three days, be more fun and more productive if he did the whole thing in open space... and there are some in Germany who are going exactly that route...but thats another story, yet.<BR>
><BR>
<BR>
>Well, that is it for the questions that I said that I would bring to you,<BR>
><BR>
>Thanks for helping us with understanding this better. Again, we think it is<BR>
>a very valuable teaching story.<BR>
><BR>
<BR>
Thanks for the questions, Birgitt...this was a fun 1.25 hour for me writing my responses.<BR>
<BR>
Peace,<BR>
mmp<BR>
<FONT COLOR=000000 DEFAULT="COLOR"><BR>
</HTML>
<HTML>
<LEFT>
<FONT FACE="Times New Roman" COLOR="#000001" SIZE="3" POINTSIZE="12" DEFAULT="ALL">
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Michael M Pannwitz<br>
boscop<br>
Draisweg 1<br>
12209 Berlin, Germany<br>
FON +49 - 30-772 8000 FAX +49 - 30-773 92 464<br>
www.michaelmpannwitz.de<br>
<br>
An der E-Gruppe "openspacedeutsch" für deutschsprechende open space-PraktikerInnen interessiert? Enfach eine mail an mich.</HTML>
*
*
==========================================================
OSLIST@LISTSERV.BOISESTATE.EDU
------------------------------
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change your options,
view the archives of oslist@listserv.boisestate.edu,
Visit:
<p>
http://listserv.boisestate.edu/archives/oslist.html