Running meetings with Open Space Technology Method - A Case Study and lessons learned

Earlier this week, my colleague @nadejdaloumbeva and I (@gaurisalokhe) facilitated an Open Space session. The session was the first, to my knowledge, of its kind in my organization. The session was organised by the climate change study circle, a cross-cutting area of work needing expertise from all parts of the organization. Although there is a more formal structure for ensuring that knowledge sharing takes places between different parts of the organization about climate change, it is primarily at a higher level and also more formal. The CC Study Circle, on the other hand, is informal, cross-cutting and has participants from all levels.

The Open Space started with introductions to the day and its focus on climate change related issues. Once this was done, Nadia and I explained the four principles of Open Space, law of the two feet and started with explaining the process of agenda creation.

To ensure that the 55 or so participants would understand the process of creating the agenda, where they are asked to write topics/issues/ideas that they wish to discuss on a piece of paper and put it on the board, we had planned that two of the organizers of the event will enact and start the process. Once they started, people started coming one by one to post their ideas on the agenda. During this process, there was also discussion about overlapping topics and possible merging of sessions. This was then carried into negotiation phase which allowed participants to reorganise the agenda further. The negotiation process is crucial because it helps clarify the real issue and understand better the idea of the convener in calling for that session.

At the end of the day, we did a quick debrief on the outcomes of the day as well as the thoughts of the participants on the new, informal process.

Here are some of the key lessons learned in terms of what worked well.

• Organization: The event was well organised and kept flexible, in the spirit of informality of the method, so that participants could decide at last moment if they wish to participate. Everyone across the organization was well informed ahead of time and participants were sent an introductory flyer on how an open space works.
• Agenda: The process of agenda creation went in a very positive manner with participants actively contributing broad variety of important topics. One the agenda was relatively final, it was typed out and handed out to participants. This worked extremely well!
• Documentation of outputs: The outputs were all documented using a closed Google Blog.
• Method: The participants appreciated the opportunity to meet other colleagues from across the organization working on same or similar issues. The external participants benefited even because they could meet large number of people working on climate change from different aspects.
  

What could be improved for next time?

• Organization: The participants were asked to prepare their questions/topics for the open space ahead of time, however, this may not have worked well enough due to lack of knowledge about the method (and how it would require them to actively participate in agenda creation process). Additionally, because the event was located in a room where organisers were not allowed to bring any food, there were no coffee breaks. This is something that is critical to ensure that the conversations continue in an informal format outside the sessions and that people build connections.
  
• Agenda: The participants felt that they did not have enough time to negotiate the topics. As negotiation is an important step in using OS methodology, it should be allocated sufficient time. Additionally, some of the topics were grouped together in haste, without really understanding the clear overlaps in the topics. This resulted in sessions with more than one convener and time being spent on trying to figure out the common thread. As there were also too many parallel sessions, the participants sometimes were spread too thin. It might be useful in the future to aim for a group size of at least 6-8 per session.
• Documentation of outputs: Inserting reports in a blog took a lot of time because half of the reports were delivered in handwritten format due to lack of sufficient laptops. In future similar sessions, participants should be asked to bring their laptops or it should be provided in each room to ensure timely and efficient recording of results. One idea for next session could be to use Wikis which can be collaboratively edited by multiple people, further distributing the task of reporting.
• Process: Some sessions were well facilitated, others were not. It is important to brief the conveners before breaking out about their role. Conveners should also be asked to either facilitate or report and not try to do both! If the convener wants to facilitate, s/he should ask for a volunteer reporter.
• Method: Some participants felt that although the method was informal, the reporting of the method was very formalized (a template was provided to capture future action items, who will work on them, by when they will be delivered, etc.).
  

For me, it was a great experience as it showed me that there is an opportunity for events of this nature in my organization. The beauty of this method to me is the self-organizing nature of the agenda and the sessions. With a very broad theme like climate change, this method is fluid and easily extensible wherein participants can modify the agenda throughout the day so that they can make the best of the event without being bound to pre-cooked agenda.

I would like to thank the climate change study circle organisers, Claudia Hiepe and Marja Liisa TapioBistrom, for inviting me and allowing me to be part of this exciting experience and development! The event ended on a positive note, I hope this is just the start!

The Knowledge Sharing Toolkit - - a great KM resource

The CGIAR/FAO/KM4Dev Knowledge Sharing Toolkit brings together knowledge sharing tools (such as blogs, micro-blogs, social network analysis tools) and methods (such as peer assist, world café, open space technology) in one place.

It was first started by CGIAR ICT-KM Program, in collaboration with Nancy White, and is a growing resource which is improved by over 100 different editors since. FAO and KM4Dev have also now joined in as official partners. Although the focus of the Wiki is on agriculture, forestry, fisheries, food safety and sustainable development, its content is extendable to other areas.

In the context of this Wiki, tools are classified as web-based software or offline physical tools that can be used to enhance collaboration and sharing; methods are group processes that people can use to interact with each other, both online or offline. For each tool/method, there is information about what it is, how to use/apply it, what have been lessons learned and, most importantly, who can tell you more about these methods. See:

• KS TOOLS
• KS METHODS
  

When considering a tool or method, it is important to understand the advantages and disadvantages of a tool/method as well as the context for which you are selecting it. The beauty of the KS Toolkit is that it provides a view of the tools based on the functions/tasks they serve. See:

• PLANNING, MONITORING, AND EVALUATION
• LISTENING, GATHERING INPUT, STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT
• SUPPORTING COMMUNITIES AND NETWORKS
• WORKING, RESEARCHING AND COLLABORATING TOGETHER
• MEETING
• CREATING, PUBLISHING AND SHARING CONTENT
• ADVOCACY
• LEARNING AND TRAINING

Instead of creating similar resources for your own organization or teams, you can become part of this growing initiative. Additionally, if you feel that you can contribute to one or more topics, just request login and password (which gives you editing rights) and start contributing! Last but not least, remember to use it, link to it and share it!

Is being extrovert going to get you a job?

This morning I came across an interesting article which talks about using personality tests to hire people who are naturally "extroverts", and therefore enjoy interacting and being around people, to ensure a "flourishing knowledge management culture" within an organization. How to assess if someone is extrovert? According to them, more attention could be given to personality during the recruitment and selection process by asking the applicants to do psychological tests that give preview of personality type. As they add, although this needs to be done by a qualified professional, ensuring "sound analysis", it surely is only one element of the recruitment process and does not guarantee anything.

I know that many companies make new applicants go through aptitude and personality tests during the recruitment process before being selected for a face-to-face interview. My question is: do you think these tests should be part of HR's recruitment process?

Out of curiosity, I looked up personality test and found this one. The result: “Your score on this Introvert/Extrovert test is 20, which means that you are more on the balancing point between Introvert and Extrovert tendencies.” Would I be hired?... ;-)

Can you learn to trust?

In a recent World Café session around sharing knowledge within teams/units/organizations, trust was identified as a crucial factor in facilitating knowledge sharing and collaboration. Trust is often quoted as one of the prerequisites to successful dialogue, exchange and collaboration. One of the persons around the table I was on asked if it was possible to learn how to trust and the answer was "yes". You can create conditions for this to happen, for example, by ensuring colleagues interact on regular basis. Most participants agreed that informal ways to share knowledge, such as through regular group coffee meetings, encourage staff to get to know each other beyond the work environment and discover common hobbies and interests on which respect and trust can be developed. Another important comment was that managers should recognise and reward team achievements instead of individual achievements so that colleagues can trust and collaborate with each other.

What are other ideas for encouraging trust building within organizations?

Which "one" social media tool would you pay for?

I just created a poll to see what you think about the different social media tools. There are so many options I could add to the list but I picked up only a few for the moment. I look forward to the feedback!