Patterns & Metaphors
Workshop methods
Template:
The workshop method at its most basic level is consistent with the art form method. The major points of difference are the point of reference and the intent of the method. The art form conversation uses the object or situation being discussed and the participants' relationship to it as points of reference. It uses the objectivity of the art form to maintain focus to the conversation and the structure of the conversation to deepen the participants' relationship to the issue being raised indirectly by the art form. The workshop method uses the focus question and the experience and ideas of the participants as the points of reference. The structure of the sequence of the workshop process is as follows.
The first process in the workshop is to set the contextual framework for the discussion. This process sets the parameters for the thinking of the participants and gives a focus to the conversation.
The second process is to have the participants "brainstorm" ideas about the focus question. This is best done individually first in order to broaden the potential input from the group. A large number of items in a limited amount of time maximizes the use of the right brain. Intuitions that are unreflected are often quite useful in creating new ideas. The group may then be asked to share their insights one item at a time. This process is getting out people's lists; not reflecting on them. It is most helpful that these items be put up without comment about their relevance or irrelevance. This encourages participants to participate and creates an atmosphere of openness to ideas.
The third process is to organize the data, to create a "gestalt". Because of the large number of ways in which any big body of data can be organized, it is important to reach agreement on what the organizing principle will be. This organizing principle will help form the questions for the brainstorm and help focus the brainstormed ideas into helpful insights. As the pattern of the organization begins to emerge new insights may emerge; participants should feel free to add them.
The fourth process is to give names to the groups, sub-groups, and sub-sub-groups, etc. into which the data has been organized. These names should be as concrete as possible while being inclusive of all the data in the group. Some attention should be paid to the language used in naming. The type of language used should reflect the organizing principle. For example, if specific steps to implement a plan are being organized then action verbs and verb modifiers should be used for the names.
The final process is to write prose descriptions of the groups and sub-groups. Where possible the data should be used for this purpose along with additional insights as the data is organized, named and written. This written material is the basis of agreement for the workshop. It is the product of the workshop. It is at this point that the group may be asked if that is their decision. While the group has been making decisions all along here is where the final decision is articulated and symbolized.
While it is possible to have workshops in size from an individual to over 1000 people participating, the optimum size is from 15 to 30 people. For groups larger than this it is best to divide into several groups dealing with the same questions and to gestalt the results of these workshops in a plenary session. In this case each group would be treated as an individual in the smaller workshops.
In the dynamics of the workshop the objective level is the context and the brainstorm. The reflective level is the gestalting process. The naming process is the level of interpretation. The last step is the decisional level.
