OST + EBOv2 + Engaging Emergence, Pt. 2

In trying to isolate the primary mechanism of OST, it will be important to distinguish between Open Space Technology and what has been called Open Source Technology -- although anyone familiar with both may find much overlap.

• Where open source technology has as its primary mechanism the availability of information or, in the instances where the idea is used relating to warfare, to goods as well as information (information being a good, although including also innovative technology made available to all),
• open space technology has as its primary mechanism the space in which co-operative endeavors may occur toward a common purpose.

I.e., with open source technology, technology (including information) is openly accessible and individuals may access it without ever directly communicating or interacting with one another, using that technology in their own disparate pursuits.  The technology in the phrase open space technology is that very space, or the context in which individual pursuits and motivations may be explored freely, but ultimately complimentarily, in pursuit of a shared goal.

In "A brief guide to Open Space Technology," Doug Reeler of the Community Development Resource Association summarizes the general idea behind OST:

Open Space operates on the principle that to gain maximum contribution and commitment, people must be given the free space and time to deal with issues that they feel passionate about and with people who wish to be there with them.

In writing about Fifth Gradient Warfare, I have often stressed the idea, making it a key principle, that "hands in the field" will be necessary for conducting 5GW.  Many reasons exist for this decision to label that principle as key.  If 5GW is to remain "secret", a key aspect usually assumed to be necessary, then anyone conducting 5GW must not operate directly when shaping the context by which others orient in relation to, and act upon, their environments; indeed they, the hands, will be doing most of this work.  If 5GW is to be broad-spectrum, shaping a whole system through many domains, a mere handful of individuals or organizations will not be able to do all the work, requiring mass co-option instead for accomplishing these things.  Since others will be shaping the context themselves, or doing the work, we must assume that self-interest will remain a primary motivator -- this, also, will obscure the 5GW facilitators, because anyone forced to act in a certain way or against their own self-interest will not only become suspicious but will likely begin to operate against the 5GW plan.

In order to create this Open Space in which individuals may freely operate, OST utilizes 4 principles, 1 law (more of an uber-principle), and 2 key ideas relating to all 5.  These are the general requirements for the possibility of self-organization, the overall mechanism behind the idea of OST.

Here are the 4 principles; but keep in mind what Doug Reeler succinctly and brilliantly stated in his essay as the purpose of these principles,

These are largely philosophical (and quite amusing for most), but are important to clear away preconceptions and any commitments to particular outcomes, apart from those inherently in the major theme.  It focuses responsibility on the people attending for the process and the outcomes.

"Whenever it starts is the right time."

In other words, no strict deadlines or time lines -- which would set undue limitations on the actions and interactions of the participants as well as on the emergence of self-organization.  As the Wikipedia article states it, this principle "clarifies the lack of any given schedule or structure and emphasizes creativity and innovation."

With reference to 5GW:  The time scales involved for shaping large systems may be correspondingly large...or even small.  For any given emergence in the system, i.e. an emergence occurring as a result of shifting contexts within any number of domains, no specific time line may be apparent beforehand.  This allows the possibility of creative adaptation, not only within any given domain and for any given individual, but also for those who have initiated the 5GW.  Additionally, the decision to act is not motivated by the pressures of an arbitrary time line, but is instead motivated by an individual's recognition of a matter of self-interest needing to be addressed.


"Whoever comes is the right people."

Although OST meetings have an overarching purpose or theme which might not have been set beforehand by all the participants, invitations are handed out before the meeting and only those who have some reason for going (whatever the reason) are the ones who show up.  I.e., these are the people who have a stake in the proceedings.  This means that everyone who shows up will be the right people -- because they have a) a motivation for being there, and b) are therefore likely to act upon the theme in any case with or without the meeting's occurrence.  This principle, stated at the beginning of OST meetings, also acts as assurance that any given participant has value with respect to the proceedings -- additionally, that every participant is also responsible for the process and the outcome.

With reference to 5GW:  Since 5GW will be focused on whole systems, anyone within those systems will be the right people.  I.e., anyone with a stake in the outcome will be working toward an outcome, whether that is the outcome the initiators of 5GW desire or not.  This requires the acknowledgment by those initiating 5GW of these stakes and an acceptance of the "hands in the field" who are likely to affect the system (whether within a particular domain or from without; i.e. the whole system.)  Stating the principle at the initiation will not be so important, because anyone with a stake in the outcome will self-select anyway, per their own self-interests and to the degree that they see themselves in relation to any given system or domain.


"Whatever happens is the only thing that could have."

Per Wikipedia:  "this tells the attendees to pay attention to events of the moment, instead of worrying about what could possibly happen."  I would add, "or what could have happened in an alternate universe or past."  In other words, this principle forces an acknowledgment of the chaotic process of self-organization.  Given the fact that only those with a stake in the proceedings are acting upon the proceedings, and that these are individuals who would have been working upon the theme with or without the meeting in any case, then whatever happens during the course of the meeting would likely have happened anyway in one form or another.  This forces the participants to acknowledge diversity of opinions and diversity of motivations and "diversity of innovations" borne of the individuality and unique perspectives of the participants.

With reference to 5GW:  For the 5GW initiators, this principle would serve as a forward-progressing motivator.  Whatever events occur through the process of emergence, as domains and systems -- contexts -- shift, are a natural result of what has gone before; thus, instead of worrying about what might have been, the 5GW initiators have an opportunity for creative adaptation to the unfolding events.  For the multitude of hands-in-the-field, this will primarily be an issue of education:  or, an awareness of the intricacies of inter-domain causes and effects.  While secrecy has been stressed as a requirement for the 5GW initiators, all occurrences within the field of battle will need to be made clear.  I.e., people do not act upon their environments, as a consequence of context, unless they see that context.  The degree to which they need to see the reality of the situation will not be as important as their ability to develop an understanding and acknowledgment of the context for themselves.  This will prevent the kind of nihilistic, wanton uber-destruction promoted in Global Guerrilla theory, or Joker theory, and keep hands in the field moving forward to accomplish their own self interests and definite goals.

"When it’s over it’s over."

Wikipedia: "encourages the participants not to waste time, but to move on to something else when the fruitful discussion ends."  Whenever a stumbling-block occurs, which limits forward movement, or else when a participant has gained everything he can gain from a present interaction, he's encouraged to move on to something else.  OST meetings, after their initiation, involve multiple parallel discussions around various topics or issues relating to the primary theme or goal.  Personal responsibility and personal motivation, in order to be fully addressed, require the freedom to move on to a different topic or discussion.  No one can be locked into an unfruitful discussion.


With reference to 5GW:  For the initiator of 5GW, this principle would encourage a broad-spectrum view of the system. When some domains, although altered, reach a state of stability or inertia, other domains nonetheless exist in which the initiator of 5GW may operate.  In other words, 5GW is not a "one-track pony."  (Sorry, couldn't resist.)  For the hands in the field, this principle will involve issues of mobility, which is one reason I am so enthusiastic about Thomas P. M. Barnett's writings, since nearly everything he writes involves a consideration about how mobility must be improved -- and indeed, is being improved -- for people around the world.  However, regardless of that ideal, most hands in the field already have other opportunities for mobility, at the level of social groups, friendship groups, scholastic groups, or internet groups already.  Self-interest will dictate needs for mobility which most people will recognize as available, even if on a small scale; in a 5GW operation, perturbations of one sort or another (from global to quite local) will bring to the fore this need to expand reach or increase the availability of sources for inspiration or potential areas of improvement.  The central point of this principle, from a 5GW approach, is to avoid creating quicksand or stumbling-blocks for hands in the field and to encourage an awareness of opportunities for forward movement.


The one "Law" of OST is "The Law of Two Feet":

If at any time during our time together you find yourself in any situation where you are neither learning nor contributing, use your two feet. Go to some other place where you may learn and contribute.  (Wikipedia)

This relates directly to the 4 principles already outlined.  It is a "law" insofar as it sets the primary requirement for any self-organizing social system:

Without this mobility and freedom to follow self-interest, hierarchical controls set in and would have an undue effect on shaping an outcome toward, if not a single predetermined outcome, then a multitude of disparate, non-complementary outcomes which might in fact continue to work at cross-purposes and produce ongoing, never-ending conflict. I.e., limitations on initial conditions in the form of command and control will produce limited outcomes, or a type of atrophy, unable to address the full system.

It is assumed, then, that a self-organizing social system will find long term stability ultimately as a result of having these minor conflicts occur as a part of the process of organization; as these conflicts are worked out in a non-rigid, open space, they are more likely to produce a system which addresses the individual self-interests of the participants.  (Indeed, Peggy Holman, referenced earlier, has said that conflict is necessary for a successful OST meeting.)

This law of OST then presupposes the existence of two types of actor, The Bumblebee and The Butterfly, for those who use the Law of Two Feet to withdraw from a present interaction.

The Bumblebee is a cross-fertilizer, moving from one group to another as individual interactions in groups become unproductive.

The Butterfly may not stay in any group for long but flits about the groups not a part of them, perhaps going to an outer hall or to a coffee table, where other Butterflies might chance to go, and spontaneous conversations concerning the main theme may occur, producing innovations or breakthroughs which are ultimately taken back to a group.

From a 5GW perspective, Bumblebees are likely to be prominent hands-in-the-field who operate in multiple domains -- or else, quite possibly also 5GW initiators who are able to cross-pollinate in a manner which will keep groups on-track toward accomplishing the primary 5GW goal.  (It is likely that subtle pollination may occur in relative secrecy if these Initiator Bumblebees do not stay for long in any given group, or perhaps if they are not seen as Bumblebees because members of groups do not see them interacting with other groups.)

5GW Butterflies are likely to be a bit of a problem for 5GW planners, because much of what they do will remain beyond the bounds of primary activities.  There exists the possibility of a corruption of memes, for instance, or a development of unforeseen memes, in a memetic style of 5GW operation, between these chance meetings of Butterflies.  Nonetheless, following the principle of "Whatever happens is the only thing that could have," 5GW initiators should be able to adapt creatively.  It may also be that the 5GW planners will themselves be Butterflies, as they meet to discuss what they have discovered or observed from the various "meetings" occurring within the battlespace.

Conclusion:

There will be other considerations arising from a consideration of Open Space Technology & 5GW, perhaps useful and perhaps not useful, depending upon what aspects of OST are studied.  For instance, Doug Reeler, in his concluding thoughts to his essay, mentions this:

Tobin Quereau, in an email to me, has suggested that Open Space is a process that is "open to what emerges from the group rather than attempting to shape the group effort into an outcome that is predetermined...that validates the notion of a systemic "field" of knowledge, energy, and insight which can be accessed when the conditions are appropriate."   These "conditions" are, I would argue, contained in a participative culture that is created in the design and the early unfolding of Open Space.  I say early unfolding because responsibility for the process is handed over by the facilitator usually within the first hour of Open Space after which s/he has a very small role to play until the final symbolic convening.

Because it is a process of unfolding rather than a top-down process of guiding, how can any singular "5GW Plan" be operationalized via an OST approach?  Nonetheless, the distinction between Open Space Technology and Open Source Technology, as described above, does point at how OST may be used to create an order rather than let chaos reign supreme (as "open source war" proponents often predict.)  I.e., taken on the whole, everyone is already a member of a system, the global system, which, as it "shrinks" or becomes interconnected, already suggests on overriding Theme:  How do we all get along?

We can already see intimations of OST in the interconnections present in the world.  The most obvious case would be the World Wide Web:  from forum sites to blogs to the central nodes of major corporations and news sites on the WWW, we can see people being Bumblebees or Butterflies, and there is great movement between sites, or cross-pollination.  If I don't like one community, I can move to another for a time or I can create my own.  If I need to find more productive inspiration, I can go to Wikipedia or some other site with more information than any I am now exploring.  Behind the very ideas of Democracy, Free Trade, and Capitalism rests this idea of Open Space; even if some would limit these, nonetheless many of the conversations about how we should limit these are occurring on the more open WWW.

Much of the freedom to innovate and freedom to act and explore presupposed by Open Space comes from the very anonymity possible on the Web -- however, the concurrent requirement of OST is that individuals should be made aware that they are responsible for outcomes.

What should become clear:  The scope of the battlespace is increasing daily, and the scope of operations must also increase.   In face of this complexity, we should recognize the fact that self-organization is already occurring.  The question for those who would conduct 5GW is simply, What can be done to promote the most positive outcome?