re/ an ongoing DF methodology

[Richard Moore]

Greetings,

I imagine many of you are familiar with a process typically used when they get people together to envision a more resliient community. People put ideas on post-its and stick them on the wall, clustering ones together that are related. It's an interesting process because it has the potential to be ongoing, with the group – or another group – able to come in later and add to the tableau: an ongoing collective conversation.

With different-color post-its I think some of the dynamics of DF could be brought into such a conversation. Red = Stop = Problem; Green = Go = Solution; Yellow = Caution = Concern. With string, scissors, and tape a problem post-it could be connected to solution post-its, and in turn to concern post-its: an ongoing collective conversation in mind-map format.

I'm hoping to find an opportunity to try this, and I thought I'd pass it by you folks to see what you think.

By the way, in a recent workshop, we started using 'Assumptions' for the fourth chart, rather than 'Data'. One person's obvious data, we discovered, may be a controversial claim in someone else's eyes.

best wishes,
richard

[Andrea Gewessler]

Good morning

I just wanted to reply to Richard's two ideas

I feel the post-it idea is worth pursuing but I would not term it ongoing DF methodology. There is always space for other facilitation, depending on the issue.

The point on terming the data sheet assumptions I would be cautious about. I feel one of the reasons DF works because it honours people's point of view. I consider myself a constructivist and constructivism is based on the premise that we socially create reality and that as such we each create our own reality, so data is rarely factual stuff. Even scientific data changes as knowledge grows. However, we firmly believe that our assumptions are data and I can see that there is potential where people may feel resentful about things being put on an assumptions sheet which either are data for them or are in fact data in this present moment. Data makes people feel valued, I wonder whether assumptions would do the same?

Best wishes from London

Andrea

Andrea Gewessler
Change that Matters Ltd
www.changethatmatters.co.uk
M 0796 396 0194
O 020 8776 9111
LinkedIn and Twitter Andrea Gewessler
Skype Andrea.Gewessler

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DynamicFacilitation" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to dynamicfacilita...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to dynamicfa...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dynamicfacilitation/6E02F769-8798-40DC-B4DC-F671A5193A54%40quaylargo.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Rosa Zubizarreta]

Hi Richard, hi Andrea,

Great thoughts! 

Yes, I've experienced the "sticky wall" before... Richard, it sounds like you are thinking about tweaking it into a participatory "Dialogue Map"!  Sounds great.. let us know how it goes! 

Andrea, I hear you saying that this may be a valuable approach, and at the same time, it may not be "classic DF". I see it that way too... that this is "something different", that might benefit from including a few DF-like features. 

Richard, that's what I heard from you, as well... and, my one concern would be that there are some situations where people really need to feel heard / hear themselves more deeply, and having a "reflection" step in there, can very helpful for that.

***

About the "Data Chart"... JIm used to described this as being "the dog's data" in contrast to "scientific data" i.e., it includes anything that people think, feel, believe... (of course I don't think he says that to clients, that's more an expression he's used when teaching!)

Andrea, I really value your point about respect for people's beliefs, and your concern that putting the word "Assumptions" as the label of the chart, could in itself provoke some controversy or feel disrespectful...

Here's how I've worked with this before. As I see it, "it's ALL information....", and so I've sometimes called it the "Information" or the "Perspectives" chart. 

Another way I've worked with it, is to keep the chart labeled as "Data", but to write on it, "Some of us believe that.... " or "Some of us feel strongly that.....". This then becomes an unarguable descriptive statement... 

What I've just realized right now in this conversation, is that this is one area where DF has a similarity with Future Search.... the differences that come up on the "Data" chart are ones we just acknowledge and leave up there, without needing to have any resolution for them in any way,  just as they do in FS, during the whole of their mind-mapping activity.... 

Of course, it's all up to the participants in the group -- someone might say, "I really want to find out if X is true..." in which case the facilitator might respond... "if it were up to you, how would you go about doing that?" and you might end up with another Solution for the Solutions Chart.... 

***

thanks for writing, both of you!  fun conversation...

all best wishes,

Rosa 

Rosa Zubizarreta

Diapraxis: Facilitating Creative Collaboration
http://www.diapraxis.com

[Richard Moore]

Thanks Andrea and Rosa, and yes I agree – 'ongoing DF methodology' was a very misleading label. The scheme I'm proposing does not prescribe any particular group process; it is just a tweak on sticky-wall recording, as Rosa says.

What I am hoping is that it could bring the 'every contribution is positive' quality of DF to the sticky wall, by turning rebuttals into concerns. And the mind-map links add coherence to the tableau of post-its, so that contributions naturally become part of a choice-creating process, rather than just adding to a cluster of related ideas. Finally, I could see the scheme used as an efficient conversation-starter for a group. Right at the beginning, everyone could put up their 'biggest problem' stick-it, add to it their 'favorite solution', and then hunt around the evolving tableau for places to post concerns and solutions. Everyone working in parallel, sharing their perspectives, and getting a start on the conversation before sitting down to business.

I suppose I called it an 'ongoing DF methodology' because I see the tableau itself as being a DF-like conversation, regardless of what the people were doing that led them to post things. 

As regards the Data chart, I agree that Assumptions isn't a good label, and I really like Perspectives. It's more respectful than Assumptions, and it's more self-describing than Data.

richard

______

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dynamicfacilitation/CAHp709d1XT2gf2FGu-qx89%2BhQUqtGz67NQ%3Dxkkv-iJOZL%2BiuCw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Rosa Zubizarreta]

Thanks for "saying more" about your idea, Richard! 

I can see how as a "collaboratively-created Dialogue Map", it would be an amazing conversation-starter.... i love it!!!   

as to "what to call" your innovations...  maybe you could take a page from Scott Riordan, and call it "DF 4.0"?   :-)  :-) :-) 

(in case you've not seen his work before, I'm pasting it below...)

***

Dynamic Facilitation 2.0

“Informal – Stealth DF”        by Scott Riordan, State of Oregon

           

• DF can be done overtly – or just done, on a limited basis under several different circumstances, without anyone knowing that you are DFing.
• A single sheet of 11x17 paper can be folded into quadrants for the 4 DF categories. Items can be recorded as the conversation progresses, just like DF 1.0.  This can be shown to participants so they can see what’s written and respond. 

 

• DF 2.0 can be done on yourself, by yourself.  It can be done with one other person or with couples or small groups.
• You will still act as the facilitator, not just a recorder, by reflecting back to them, drawing out more information and asking questions they hadn’t thought of.
• “Interventionist DF”: the stealth mode is used to resolve conflicts, say between two neighbors, to the degree that it dissipates any earlier negativity.

 

• We call it “stealth” DF because it’s like “don’t ask, don’t tell.”  Don’t confuse people or make them uncomfortable with terms like “DF” and “choice-creating.”  Just do it.  If someone asks what you are doing, just say, “this is a system I use to take notes and organize the discussion.  It’s a normal tool we use.”

 

• Two types of DF 2.0 – Purpose and Issues specific DF.  Can be used when time is a constraint, at beginning of a project during initiation phase, for summit meetings and as compressed version of DF.  Mimb software can be used to project the session on a screen for viewing and then downloaded and emailed to everyone. 

 

• Once the DFer starts using DF 2.0 to such an extent that it becomes a way of life, an organizational shift occurs.  Once this happens, the DFer becomes the organization’s “agent of change.” This in turn leads to “Hub DF,” where the DFer becomes the hub, a repository around which people come to deposit and purge.

 

• We have what’s called a “Sandbox.”  It’s a room where DF takes place 24/7.  People can come in whenever they want and add/participate in the DF in progress, which leads to “group participation DF” which leads to a “Cellular DF” which is how small teams of two to four people who work together on a daily basis communicate, which leads to a “Culture of DF,” which of course, becomes the normal way to communicate within the organization.  After a while normal conversation takes place in a DF format.  This could be considered DF 3.0.

 

• Once DF 3.0 takes hold, there is such a cultural change in the organization that it becomes an “agile enterprise” wherein people must change their behavior in order to keep up.  The organization is transformed from the old paradigm to the new. 
• DF 3.0 and the “hub” effect draw the organization into “opportunity assessments” and “strategic coordination” models to begin implementing DF as a “way of life.”

 

Rosa Zubizarreta

Diapraxis: Facilitating Creative Collaboration
http://www.diapraxis.com

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dynamicfacilitation/AFA9B1AA-B802-4FD5-89A0-21DF3A860901%40quaylargo.com.

[Richard Moore]

How about "Sticky DF"? 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/dynamicfacilitation/CAHp709ecuA6Z4Fkj5CCXiys%2BoDrZD-kUe-d85qXsNm%2BErVhOzg%40mail.gmail.com.