资源共享 参与合作 各尽其能 各得其所

设为首页 加入收藏

Open Space and Other Methods - 参与式工具箱 - 城市社区参与治理资源,ccpg

热门关键词:

Open Space and Other Methods

责任编辑:ccpg  来源:  作者:  人气:745  发布时间:2014-03-11 17:06:21

joelle lyons everett, washington, usa:  

Artur Silva wrote: The diference between the rules of other methods and the ones of OST is that the former are still too "structured" to allow for Kaufman 's conditions of self organization, I think...  

I would agree with you on that, Artur. And I have also been intrigued for a long time about the degree of behavior change which often happens when the rules are changed a bit. But I would agree that it is within a structured system which constrains the full operation of self organization. Re: Winnie-the-Pooh, although my youngest child is now 27 and a father himself, Paul and I still find ourselves quoting Winnie-the-Pooh. Paul used to read it aloud to our sons--when he read to the youngest, it was amazing what the older ones, some of them teenagers, found to do within hearing range of the story. Hope all is well in your world.  

michael m pannwitz, berlin, germany:  

Hi there Joelle and Artur... what rules? greetings from a baltic weekend retreat  

harris on owen, maryland, usa:  

I'm with you Michael. What Rules? We ain't got no rules -- just 4 principles (which merely describe what folks are going to do anyhow) and one Law -- which is really a commandment to go out there and Self-Organize. Just keep those feet moving! !!!  

j. paul everett, washington, usa:  

Michael, Artur; Here is a real life example of what can happen when the "rules" are changed. A client of mine had a paper machine that had been idle for two years. There came an opportunity to re-start the machine, create some more good jobs, and make some money. The management plan was for the 'standard process', estimated to take 5 months.  

One of the discoveries about becoming a world class performer that we made in the 80's was the concept of the "Outrageous Goal"---defined as a clearly unreachable goal under current "rules" (paradigms). Therefore, to make the goal, one has to shatter the current paradigm (rules) and re-think the whole effort. I have dozens of examples of this working for most who try it.  

In this case, one of the engineers suggested "Why don't we listen to what Paul has been showing us and set an Outrageous Goal?" After the laughter had died down, he kept it on the table and when they challenged him, he said "How about two weeks?" (Instead of five months). When the  


                                        now-nervous laughter had died down again, they started to think what it might mean to do so. Market capture was a big one. So, they altered the "rules" about how the project would be done.  

In the case of maintenance and engineering, they said: You can work on what you want, when you want, as long as you want (minimum of 10 hours off the job), with who you want. The only requirement is absolute safety at all times (this company has the best safety record in the industry) and to come in and check off the steps on the PERT chart. Result: In 15 calendar days, they ran test paper, and ran good paper on day 17. Over 100 people were on the floor cheering as the good paper came off the machine onto the roll. (Is that a self-organization statement or what??)  

The value was over $2.5 million in additional sales during the remaining "5-month planned start-up period" and a presence in the market before anyone else could get there. The head of quality accompanied the first roll of paper to the customer and the customer ran up and hugged him!! "First time in 30 years of working I've been hugged by a customer" said the QC super.  

This is an example of how altering the "rules", which I see as paradigms about how we think and do things around here, can have dramatic results.  

artur silva, portugal:  

Hello Michael: Speaking for myself, when I wrote that I was comparing OST "rules" with the "rules" of other "large group intervention methods", namely "Future Search" and "Real Time Strategic Change".  

By "rules" of OST I mean: "the way OST works", or the "foundations of OST", the circle, breath, theme, bulletin board, market place and the law of two feet.  

By rules of the other methods, I was thinking about the procedures used as they are described by Jacobs (RTSC), Weisbord and Janoff (FS), or  

generally by Bunker and Alban for those and other methods.  

In all those methods, except OST, there is an Agenda pre-defined and the tasks to do and methods to use in each point are defined by the facilitator, which also closelly guides participantes in all the phases and procedures. Because of that, those  

methods are the contrary of letting go from  

the facilitator and empowering the participantes - hence, imo, they are the contrary of self-organization....  


ralph copleman, new jersey, usa:  

Well, maybe. I work with both FS and OS, and offer these thoughts...  

1.     To describe what happens in future search as closely guided by the facilitator misses the point of the design. Yes, there's a pre-set structure, but all the conversations that occur in smaller groups are, in my view, highly self-organized. As for the large group discussions, they're directed by the facilitator almost completely, to just about the same extent as the opening and closing of OS often are.  

2.     On another plane, I'm for any method that breaks down the conventional boundaries and mind-frames, on one hand, and shows people how to cooperate on the other. I worry less and less about how what I do conforms to conceptual principles and more about how well it helps the world transform.  

Both OS and FS open the doors I want to help people go through.  

peggy holman, washington, usa:  

Here! Here! After looking closely at 18 approaches to changing human systems for The Change Handbook, my own conclusion is similar to Ralph's. What I have come to believe is that the choice of approach has more to do with chemistry among practitioner, method and client than anything else. They all have the potential to transform. Further, I've concluded the choice of process has much to do with the beliefs of the practitioner. Many different choices can work in a given situation. I believe the amount of structure required is a reflection of the beliefs of the practitioner doing the work. When there is a perception that people need to be led, then they will prove that out. If the perception is that participants will figure things out for themselves, they somehow do. So, how much "help" you think people need will guide how much help they turn out to need. Peggy  

john engle, haiti:  

peggy, thank you for taking the time to share your views on this. they (your views) are extremely helpful to me and i am about to paste your words into a document that i share with others. assuming this is all right with you.  

artur silva, portugal:  

I could not understand, Peggy, if all the 18 have the potencial to be useful to create good meetings or if they have the potencial to profoundly transform the organizations where they have been applied.  


If it were the second hypothesis that you stated, I would like to know if you are telling your opinion or if you have researched (action research?) enough cases of companies that applied those methods to conclude that.  

The point is that my information until now went in a different direction. For instance, see the interview with Peter Senge to Fast Company in   1999 in   http://www.fastcompany.com/online/24/senge.html.  

The 1st question was "What's your assessment of the performance of large-scale change efforts over the past decade?"  

Senge answered (in part):  

"My own experience at MIT and at the Society of Learning (Sol) has mostly been with big companies. How much change have they actually accomplished? If I stand back a considerable distance and ask, 'What's the score'" I have to conclude that inertia is winning by a large margin. Of course, there have been enough exceptions to that conclusion to indicate that change is possible. I can identify 20 to 30 examples of significant sustained change efforts in the SoL community. On the other side of the ledger, there are many organizations that haven't gotten to first base when it comes to real change and many others that have given up trying. When I look at efforts to create change in big companies over the past 10 years, I have to say that there's enough evidence of success to say that change is possible and enough evidence of failure to say that it isn't likely. Both of those lessons are important."  

So it seams that change is not easy and probably not all methods are equal. By the way this was an interview after the publication of "The Dance of Change" where some methods and disciplines were not so empathized as in the past and some new ones were referred - like the concept of Communities of Practice and the OST methodology ;-)  

peggy holman, washington, usa:  

Artur, Thanks for the furthering this discussion. I believe all 18 methods have the potential to create good meetings and to profoundly transform. I do know of example of profound change for each of the 18 methods that I looked at. I would not consider it enough to say that I have empirical evidence for my statement to be more than an opinion. And I would heartily agree with your quote from Peter Senge that ".. .there's enough evidence of success to say that change is possible and enough evidence of failure to say that it isn't likely." I wouldn't say that all methods are equal, just that profound change is possible with all of them. In other words, there are factors beyond method that are likely to make the difference. My belief (and I don't have sufficient empirical evidence for it to be more than an opinion) is that while method may be one factor in success or failure the beliefs of the facilitator are an even greater factor.  

I seem to recall that you have an information systems background, as do I. In the early days, were you ever in discussions about which programing language is best for a given task? Often, the  


conclusion we'd reach is that it is possible to program anything in any language. While some languages are more conducive to particular tasks than others, in the hands of a skilled programmer, it is possible to make anything work.  

I think it is the same with methods. The core beliefs of the facilitator influence their actions and the unspoken cues they send. Are there methods that are better fits in different circumstances? You bet. And yet, I can take the similar circumstances and put different facilitators in them using the same method and get results with widely differing impact. Further, I believe I could take the same facilitator, use different methods and get similar results. I don't have empirical evidence for this. It is an opinion reached by observation of, discussion with, and reading of comments from a variety of people using a variety of methods. I think what started me down this path was the deep conviction of virtually every expert that their way was the most effective. One thing they all had in common was an expectation that what they were doing worked and worked profoundly. Additionally, there was the evidence of talking with people using these same methods in similar circumstances and getting much less powerful results. What was different? I think this is fertile ground for research.  

My untested theory is the factors involved in success include sponsor beliefs (particularly around their passion for and audaciousness of the desired future, sense of invitation to particpate, generosity of spirit), facilitator beliefs (particularly around people's capacity to act wisely for the good of the whole as well as themselves), and method. I'd love to hear other perspectives on this.  

By the way, the reason Open Space is so core to my own practice is it makes it so visible that people have the capacity to create what they want. I have seen other methods get people there but there's something so elegant in OS's simplicity in enabling people to live this experience. And at a practical level, there's something that Harrison mentions a lot. If I can accomplish the same thing with a lot less work, doesn't that make sense to do?  

artur silva, portugal:  

Thank you very much for your further explanations, Peggy. I think I will need some time to reflect and try to digest the information. In the meanwhile I have one more question and some comments to further the dialogue.  

Peggy Holman wrote: I seem to recall that you have an information systems background, as do I. In the early days, were you ever in discussions about which programming language is best for a given task? Often, the conclusion we'd reach is that it is possible to program anything in any language. While some languages are more conducive to particular tasks than others, in the hands of a skilled programmer, it is possible to make anything work. I think it is the same with methods.  

Yes I do and I understand your point - one can use different programming languages with success. But I am note sure if the same is true of using different programming methods (say "spaghetti programming" versus structured programming versus object oriented programming). So I would expect methods to be one of the factors or success - not the only one of course, but one of them.  


And yet, I can take the similar circumstances and put diferent facilitators in them using the same method and get results with widely difering impact. Further, I believe I could take the same facilitator, use diferent methods and get similar results.  

Sorry, I can't understand the last sentence - similar to the previous sentence (different impacts) or similar impacts?  

peggy holman, washington, usa: I am offering 2 variations:  

1.     The same situation, the same method, handled by facilitators with different beliefs will lead to different results. The point being that the different beliefs have a strong impact.  

2.     The same situation, different method, same facilitator will lead to similar results. In other words, the beliefs of the facilitator have the greater impact, no matter the method.  

artur silva, portugal:  

peggy wrote: I don't have empirical evidence for this. It is an opinion reached by observation of, discussion with, and reading of comments from a variety of people using a variety of methods. I think what started me down this path was the deep conviction of virtually every expert that their way was the most efective. One thing they all had in common was an expectation that what they were doing worked and worked profoundly. Additionally, there was the evidence of talking with people using these same methods in similar circumstances and getting much less powerful results. What was diferent? I think this is fertile ground for research.  

Have you obtained your information mainly from the change agents or have you checked that out with the people of the "changed organization"? The problem is that the facilitator (and even the sponsor) can be biased - for a matter of research it would be interesting to talk with people at various levels of the organizations that were subjected to change. (By the way I don't like to use the expression I have used "organizations subjected to change" as they must always be "agents" and not only "subjects" for any profound change to take place).  

My untested theory is the factors involved in success include sponsor beliefs (particularly around their passion for and audaciousness of the desired future, sense of invitation to participate, generosity of spirit), facilitator beliefs (particularly around people's capacity to act wisely for the good of the whole as well as themselves), and method. I'd love to hear other perspectives on this.  

I tend to agree with you. What confused me at first was the fact that all 18 methods could be equally effective.  


By the way, the reason Open Space is so core to my own practice is it makes it so visible that people have the capacity to create what they want. I have seen other methods get people there but there's something so elegant in OS's simplicity in enabling people to live this experience. And at a practical level, there's something that Harrison mentions a lot. If I can accomplish the same thing with a lot less work, doesn't that make sense to do?  

I agree with the elegance. But I think the point is not only elegance. If Harrison's statement that "less is more" is true than I tend to think that "more is less" is also true. So I have doubts about methods where the facilitator "facilitates too much" as they tend to disempower people (except the facilitator himself).  

Further I tend to agree with Lewin that to change an organization first the old rules and procedures must be unfrozen. And I think OST is more apt to unfreeze previous rules and procedures that some other methods that are more "directive".  

peggy holman, washington, usa:  

I agree with your point about directiveness. In a funny way, it led to my conclusion about the power of the facilitator's beliefs. I discovered an interesting irony when working with the different contributors to my book. I kept asking questions about where the power was. 100% saw power increasingly belonging to participants. Even those that I perceived to be the most directive saw themselves as letting go of power and creating greater openness. When I started exploring this, I realized how much it has to do with their current knowledge base. To state this in an extreme way, if all I know is dictatorship and someone invites me to offer an opinion, that creates more freedom. If I've never seen even greater freedom (like an OS), just asking is a breakthrough. So, by my standards, with Open Space as a context, just inviting an opinion is quite directive. To those experiencing this new freedom for the first time, it is a great innovation and can transform.  

   

    热门文章

    最新推荐

    网站首页 政策法规 思考与探索 参与式工具箱 参与治理案例 活动现场 关于我们 官方微博

    Copyright © 2014-2016 http://www.ccpg.org.cn 版权所有 |

    关键词 :社区参与治理 社区自组织 社区活动 最新新闻