Home › Commons › Conversations-Forums › Archived conversations, 2005-2007 › Hosting CI Convergence ›

Designing and hosting our event, January 15, 2007

Submitted by George Por on October 27, 2006 - 07:31.

from Sheri:

designing for generative spaces

this may be more appropriate for a forum on designing and contemplating what we want for our time together.  this would be part of the intention piece for that.  i just read this on the open space list and it resonated with me in terms of what CIC can be: What we are about in opening space is bringing people into proximity,
yes?

Proximity: notice what can happen when we bring people who care near
each other. Ideas bounce and blend and reproduce. Passions infuse. Keep
us in tightly sealed containers and nothing new happens. Juxtapose us
and there is possibility. For fire.

Which raises for me the question of why do people try to keep others in
tightly sealed containers, such as "do me" audiences who are not allowed
to talk back, let alone with each other? Is it lack of experience with
any container where people can let their lights shine on each other? Is
it fear of the fire? Something else?

Ever notice that after a play or a good seminar, when we go home we want
to talk about it? We want to assimilate it, re-enjoy, extend it. What if
we could harness that energy at the event itself? Get the people there
to assimilate, re-enjoy and especially extend it, starting right there?
What if?

Is this what OS is?

Design draft 0.1

Submitted by George Por on December 11, 2006 - 18:00.

Friends, I suggest that we review the many essential points that Sheri and Tom raised in this topic and use them for upgrading what follows.

COLLECTIVE INTELLIGENCE AND HUMAN CHOICE

Presencing the future of collective intelligence
as a field of multi-disciplinary study and practice

a 3-month long collaborative learning expedition
starting on Jan. 15, 2006

design draft 0.1



Objectives of this event

Catalyze conversation and collaboration among the various players on the CI field

Work towards a co-authored public statement about CI, introducing the idea that:

(a) there are numerous forms of and approaches to collective intelligence;

(b) they constitute a potentially coherent field of study and practice, with immense potential synergies among the various approaches, if they start communicating with each other; and

(c) that they collectively have tremendous gifts for the world, perhaps holding important keys to collective survival and thrival in the 21st century, and even evolutionary leaps for civilization.


Process: total time 8 hours, including lunch break, of intense, enjoyable, productive work and networking, using conference calls and online work/play.

Opening circle: 1st conference call

Check in question: What in particular interested you in participating in this overall effort to convene collective intelligence as a field of study and practice?

Introducing the flow of the day

The vision of the callers of this event: the source document summarized and introduced by Tom (You can review it in more details here: ……)

Guided tour of our online space

Working online, individually

Complete your profile and and the answers to the questionnaire if you have not yet done so

What is missing from the source document? How it can be improved?

Write a blog entry about your first impression of this event

2nd conference call

Presencing process - a social technology for co-creation applied to the developing the field of CI,

Generating dialogues - working in triads on Skype or gizmo

Working online, together

World café

Collaborative harvesting

Closing circle: 3rd conference call

How could the CI convergence process best support to your work?
In what ways can you support this collaborative effort?

What did we learn:

content highlights
process highlights

Path forward

Announcing initiatives and inquiries that the announcers would like partners in after the conference

The hosting team's offers and requests



Two organizing contexts completing one another

Submitted by George Por on November 3, 2006 - 13:32.
Tom wrote:

> We have a public purpose as well as a private one:  The announcement of a shared declaration of the field of CI.  If we fail to produce that, we will fail ourselves, our sponsor (Robert) and the people who come to hear that announcement.

I agree with that AND ask myself, what is the context in which we can hold that intention with full commitment AND spaciously? My hunch is that such a context could also guide gently our hosting process before, during and after the event.

> The end product here is SO much more important than in any other conversation I've been in...

That's my hope, too. Let's take a closer look at the end product and how we hold it, which will also illuminate the organizing context that can be useful to generate it. To do so, I'll take clues from further messages by Tom and Sheri, which particularly resonate with me:

> we don't need breakthroughs here, except a shared clarity about what the CI field is… ANY clarity and coherence coming from this group of people (even the ones we have now) will have impact on the field… [T]he amount of divergence should not exceed our collective commitment to process it towards coherence within the constraints (time and other resources) we are functioning in… [L]et's hold our differences lightly, and move to a higher view, as best we can, as we seek common ground among us.


Yes! We are still in the co-initiation phase (in terms of the U) in relation to the field, and all participants are co-initiators. Tom's last sentence above is very much what Scharmer, too, would say about this phase. This is just another example that he didn't invent, only discovered the U, and by studying and capturing its principles and practices, helped others (us) go more consciously/rigorously about our business.

In the co-initiation phase, we certainly don't need the final big breakthroughs, neither the huge divergence useful to produce them. I think that will come in the co-sensing phase that may start with the after-event momentum IF we succeeded with creating a minimum common platform.

So to me, the essence of our hosting work is hosting a learning expedition into the possibility of CI as a liberating discipline. From that perspective, there's no (need for) struggle between "emergence" and "linear organizing" because in spite the stages on the U, presencing is not linear at all.

> But if I mention this and someone(s) among you also sense there is some breakthrough possibility that opens new doors of coherence and emergence for the field, then perhaps we can explore that as a parallel thread while we do our more linear organizing…

If we follow Sheryl's guidance about the quality of interpersonal relationship needed in this process, breakthroughs out to happen. That's why I keep emphasizing the importance of 1-on-1 generative dialogues with all participants. The faculty of Otto's presencing workshops divided the participants list among themselves and made sure that each of us is talked with…  Those conversations were rich sources of shared learning. They created trust and a very inspired and inspiring atmosphere before even the workshop started.

Another way in which we can do the groundwork for future  breakthroughs is considering the questions and implications of the "networks to communities of practice to systems of influence" model outlined in "Using Emergence to Take Social Innovation to Scale" by Meg Wheatley and Deborah Frieze, for our work of hosting the CI field.

That's another, complementary context, from which I operate since I read their paper. What I see through that lens is that we are in the network-formation phase and later, we will need to pass through the cycle of CoP-formation to realize the potential of the field to enable or influence whole system changes. But hey, don't let me get ahead of myself as I frequently do. Let's just focus, for now, on what we need to seed and cultivate a vibrant CI Network.  As Sheri wrote: "how to get people to open up and feel inspired to share their ideas with people they may or may not know, particularly in the online environment?  has this already happened as a result of the invitation?  have we learned anything about this in terms of our communication with our invitees?  how to make the online forum really easy for people so that it integrates into their lives?  and how to design our first conference call?"

Practices for building the container

Submitted by George Por on November 3, 2006 - 11:31.

Friends,

I found Sheri's contribution reminding us some useful principles/practices from the Art of Hosting tradition extremely important and recommend that that we don't just look at it as one of the many interesting ideas posted here but commit to honor  them, individually and together in in our convening/hosting practice. What do you all think?

with love,

George 

something funny happened on the way to the....

Submitted by Tom Atlee on November 3, 2006 - 04:52.
First let me say that I am aware of how focused I have been on the final statement as the best final outcome of this -- and I think with some justification. It is very do-able (given the right attitude and process design) and it could have a profound impact in bringing the field together for the benefit of the world, the future, evolution, etc.

And that is why I have been so cautious (even nervous) about more nonlinear, open-ended, evocative, breakthrough-oriented approaches undertaken with inadequate time and shared intention.

That said, I just had a conversation with Peggy in which I glimpsed out of the corner of my eye a sense of remarkable possibilities that were outside of the box of statement-as-outcome. Is there some other way of seeding the field's coherent emergence and self-awareness than a statement? Might some other approach evoke it? Might the focus on a statement suppress this more remarkable approach from emerging?

I have to say that mentioning this makes me nervous. I didn't actually SEE this different approach. I just intuited it, and it vanished as soon as I tried to look at it. My nervousness is that we will undertake the proverbial "wild goose chase" for this possibility and find ourselves 2-3 months later with nothing to show for it and no time to get back on our statement-as-outcome rails. If we had more time, or if we were meeting a lot face-to-face so we could "sense into the middle" more intensely, I'd feel a lot better about it. But with us struggling to keep in touch, in tune, and underway, we can't afford too many distractions.

But if I mention this and someone(s) among you also sense there is some breakthrough possibility that opens new doors of coherence and emergence for the field, then perhaps we can explore that as a parallel thread while we do our more linear organizing and, if at any time we all suddenly realize that we believe we are on the edge of a breakthrough, we can switch our train to this other track.

shared intention & clarity

Submitted by Sheri Herndon on November 3, 2006 - 03:59.

i never saw it as a dis :)  just that you and george were sharing some thoughts on how OS fits in different contexts.  i wanted to clarify my position as well.  i just tossed out a few seeds.  perhaps i should have prepped the ground a bit more :)

you mention shared intention as one of the "conditions" for breakthroughs and i was wondering how we might focus on creating a shared intention with all the invitees around the purpose. is this a prerequisite for achieving what you/we want to achieve?  and what will that take and how do we design for that?  what can we do as our next steps for that to become manifest?

i'm wondering, amongst all the AoH folks is there a shared clarity around what the CI field is?  i'm curious. 

tom, i love your "advice" and think this is a guiding compass point for our collective navigation.  as stargazers on a ship out on the ocean at night use multiple points, i see this as a beautiful star to be holding our directional pull.

i am also interested in how the online space can accomplish more than just divergence.  the beauty of the potential is that it feels to me like it can be creating the underlying coherence (if done right) while allowing for divergence to be dancing around as well.  and how we do that is still emergent.  

 

sheri

coherence, time, and commitment

Submitted by Tom Atlee on November 2, 2006 - 23:04.
thoughts:

first, in no way do I want to dis you for raising OS perspectives here. they were vital for surfacing what is coming into view here, and very useful for me to get clearer on what makes sense to me. So thank you.

a hypothetical formula comes to mind, which embodies some tentative conclusions I've come to during the salon work

openness + time + shared intention = breakthroughs

we/I very often underestimate the time it takes for the breakthroughs we wish to see. not that they need that much time. they need however much time they need, which is unpredictable. In other words, they need "open" "space"... but few need only 6 hours.

and in a sense we don't need breakthroughs here, except a shared clarity about what the CI field is. this shared clarity can be at a very low, analytical level; it doesn't have to be blinding insight. ANY clarity and coherence coming from this group of people (even the ones we have now) will have impact on the field. We can cobble it together; theoretically, at least, we don't need to see very deeply into it to succeed at this minimal goal.

I have been so enamored of breakthroughs that it feels odd to say this. I have loved OS for its ability to generate breakthroughs, often in very weird and unexpected ways.

I don't know how much divergence is desirable here. As I said, I believe the amount of divergence should not exceed our collective commitment to process it towards coherence within the constraints (time and other resources) we are functioning in. So it is a dance. The more and deeper the divergence we work through, the more potent our outcome will be. But if we get lost in divergence with no product, I will not see all the work I/we put into this as worth it.

So my advice to all of us (incl the invitees) is "Let's bring our full selves and thoughts forward, within a strong commitment to finding coherence within the time we have available. If necessary, let's hold our differences lightly, and move to a higher view, as best we can, as we seek common ground among us."

If we manage to find coherence in the first hour of our time together, then let's do an open space for the remaining 5 hours! :)

growing against? growing towards?

Submitted by Sheri Herndon on November 2, 2006 - 22:37.

tom,

can you speak more to what you wrote here: "The end product here is SO much more important than in any other conversation I've been in, that I find myself growing against my own usual open-exploratory standards!"  is something becoming clear to you as you are growing against?  what are you growing toward?

as you've shared, your sense is that open space will not provide enough coherence for our time together face to face, and george has added to this in terms of a useful critique of OST.

you've said divergence in the pre-conference working groups, and convergence in the face to face time together.  and something in sheryl's email feedback about the necessary conditions for getting people to show up, make a commitment to engage so that we can have the juicy, generative divergent participation we are seeking, is still sitting with me. 

i am holding the public and private purpose as the core intention around which i'm organizing my thinking.  and i am wondering what will take us there.  what are the conditions we want to have in place for this?  some that come to mind are the basics for hosting a gathering, which is why i shared the points earlier from the art of hosting site (which i think is beautiful and inspiring):  making people feel welcome, invited, incredibly valued, and aware that the environment is a warm one and they can trust the container they are in. 

some questions that come up for me are:  how to get people to open up and feel inspired to share their ideas with people they may or may not know, particularly in the online environment?  has this already happened as a result of the invitation?  have we learned anything about this in terms of our communication with our invitees?  how to make the online forum really easy for people so that it integrates into their lives?  and how to design our first conference call?  is there any feedback we could be receiving from the invitees in terms of the design that might help us?

i appreciate deeply tom how much you are holding the importance of this conversation and my inquiry is to how to design our online space and our calls and communications so we can truly achieve this. 

sheri

 

 

 

clarification

Submitted by Sheri Herndon on November 2, 2006 - 22:18.

both tom and george have responded to my postings with some strong energy around the question of the appropriateness of open space for the CIC gathering. i want to clarify that it was never my intention with sharing these little seeds to imply, hey we should use open space in the online space or in our 6 hours together.

i deeply appreciate the posting from david snowden that george shared above. i tend to agree with this and being someone who values the integration of our evolutionary social technologies, my intention in sharing was to highlight some of the underlying principles for how we are holding space for whatever process is most appropriate for this purpose-driven gathering.

just in case there is concern that i was suggesting we use open space as the process for the gathering :)

sheri

Good process?

Submitted by Tom Atlee on November 1, 2006 - 21:05.

"* co host a good process that allows everyone to learn about themselves, each other and the purpose."  I agree (with this and the other bullet points), but it begs the question of what constitutes "good process."  In our CIC case, I think we need to keep in mind the contextual and time-related dimensions of good process. 

I am a strong supporter of OS in circumstances where (a) it is given enough time to work its magic and (b) it is modified as necessary to meet its own high standards for what is possible. 

In our CIC I don't sense we have sufficient clear coherence of intention/commitment among all participants to be able to successfully achieve our purpose in 6 hours of OS. 

We have a public purpose as well as a private one:  The announcement of a shared declaration of the field of CI.  If we fail to produce that, we will fail ourselves, our sponsor (Robert) and the people who come to hear that announcement

So for me the process before the event is where juicy divergence should take place and the extent of divergence welcomed should be in exact proportion to the commitment to find timely convergence after the divergence-explorations. 

The end product here is SO much more important than in any other conversation I've been in, that I find myself growing against my own usual open-exploratory standards!

conversation essentials

Submitted by Sheri Herndon on October 31, 2006 - 13:50.

as i'm reading the art of hosting site, which is a practice i am drawn to and which is a core practice for a number of friends and colleagues in seattle (through imagine cascadia, center for ethical leadership...), i was struck by the essentials and how holding these intentions as we embark in the design and practice, theory and artistry of manifesting, of the upcoming CIC, will act as the conditions for building the container:

What are some essentials that help us to have meaningful conversations about the things that we most care about?

* live now what future you want to create

* be in the present

* do not host it alone - be a good team of hosts

* focus on questions that matters

* go into conversation about what really matters by listening deeply to each other - beyond the words

* allow all voices to be heard so the collective intelligence can surface

* co host a good process that allows everyone to learn about themselves - each other and the purpose

* harvest good essences

* do not act before clarity and wisdom have come

* do not fear chaos - it is creative space where the new order can be born

* go through your fear however it manifests



 

Complexity-informed Open Space

Submitted by George Por on October 27, 2006 - 07:59.

Complexity guru David Snowden wrote about some issues with Open Space, which I tend to agree with, in an excellent article on his use of a complexity-informed Open Space:

It is overly focused on the event itself, rather than seeing open space as a part of a journey

The pendulum is swung too far from expert based interventions, to assuming that the group assembled will have the necessary expertise

Issues of judgement and validation are assumed to belong to the group regardless of context and responsbility; it is worth remembering that Socrates was condemned to death by an open space event because he made the other participants uncomfortable.
credits - content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License