Last week Kacy O’Brien discussed an alternative model for conferences on HowlRound. She describes the Open Space Technology conference model as the coffee break segment of a conference, except that it occurs all day. The coffee break being the part of a conference where all the valuable connections and discussions occur.

O’Brien confesses her initial skepticism:

“Now, I’m a concrete, practical kind of person, so when I learned that an Open Space Technology conference means there are no speakers, there is no agenda, that breakout sessions are determined by participants the day of the conference, I laughed a derisive little laugh and said, “There is no way this will ever work.”

And talks about the guiding principles of Open Space Technology

There are a few guiding open space principles:

The people who are there that day are the right people to be there. Subtext: You’ve made the time to be here so you’re passionate about this.

​The rule of two feet: If you are no longer getting anything out of a breakout session or no longer contributing to the discussion, get up and walk away—move on to something else. Subtext: Only the most engaged people will be participating in a conversation at any given time.

Whenever something happens is the right time for it to happen. Subtext: An idea will succeed only when there is enough energy, time and passion behind it—don’t force it.

Ultimately, she seems impressed by the format and is happy to admit she was wrong about it being a viable method.

She mentions that she decided to lead a session and was prepared to heed “The rule of two feet” when it appeared no one was going to show up. But a few more people did join her break out and within a short time she had four action items she would have never devised on her own and the names of interested parties who could advise her, if not provide direct assistance with her project.

I was intrigued and excited by Kacy O’Brien’s description because she was describing the type of conference I would be interested in attending. But, to my chagrin, I am preparing my first session for a national conference and so it is sort of in my interest to have a more formalized structure.

Though to be honest, I wouldn’t be opposed to the model O’Brien describes. There really isn’t any difference in the end results of having an empty break out session regardless of what model the conference is using.

However, in the case of the session I proposed, there are two people participating as speakers who would not otherwise been attending the conference. I am not so proud that I can’t admit that their contribution could possibly be more valuable than my own. It is not likely I could have organized as high quality a session on the fly with those in attendance at the conference.

It also struck me that it would be problematic to use this model at a large national conference due to the difficulty of communicating the topic and location of all the break outs. While the information could be disseminated on social media, not everyone has the tools to receive that information equally. There is already a certain level of stratification among arts organizations and this could result in a further increase.

Though anyone who has participated in a successful Open Space conference involving thousands of attendees, please share your insights. I wouldn’t doubt that it could be done with proper preparation, I am just not able to imagine how to satisfactorily perform all the operational details.