Once the people and the books are together, the instructions are simple. Everybody is invited to read the books, concentrating on those issues they have not seen. Normal time allowed is one hour, or with very large books, one and one-half hours. Since everybody is present, this is also an opportunity to ask other participants about the various issues, their meaning and intent. Since each issue is listed along with the convener and the participants, connecting issues and answers with the people who identified or created them is no great task. As people read the book, they are requested to individually prioritize the issues. There are several ways this can be done. With a large group, the easiest approach is to use a ballot, either handed out when the morning begins or bound into the book itself. The ballot tells people to identify the ten issues that are most significant to them and to rank those issues in priority order. The results of their efforts are entered on the ballot by the number of the issues as it appears in the book.

Tallying the ballots may be done either electronically or by hand. With a sizable group (fifty and larger), electronic tallying is infinitely preferred. The necessary software, called Multi-Voter, is currently available from TASC.

Mount the software on several computers, ideally located in the main room or in some other easily accessible place. Open the polls as soon as the books are available and allow people to vote at their leisure. People should be encouraged to complete their paper ballots before going to the computers, and if they do that, actual voting time will take a maximum of thirty seconds per person. If people come to the computer and then make their choices, it will take much longer. Some people will vote almost as soon as they come into the room while others will take a much more deliberate approach, which tends to spread out the demand over the course of the reading period. We have found that with groups of 150, four computers will be sufficient. Obviously, larger groups will require more computers.

Polls close at the end of the reading period, or sooner if everybody has cast their vote. With the TASC system, it takes approximately fifteen minutes to get the results and another fifteen minutes to prepare for the next portion of the program, which involves converging all the issues and identifying useful next steps. Before proceeding to describe how all of that is accomplished, let me first deal with alternative methods of prioritization.

If you decide not to use the TASC software (or some other software developed for the purpose), the same result may be achieved by manually counting the votes...People are asked to assign a value of ten to their first priority, nine to their second, and so forth. This may be accomplished…by providing a ballot that lists all the issue numbers with a blank following each number. People are invited to vote at their leisure but to have all ballots in the box by the end of the reading period…Total the results by recording two numbers for each issue. All issues can now be arrayed in priority order.

There is yet one more method…involving…the little pressure-sensitive dots that come in a variety of collars and are sold in stationery stores. Begin by spreading out the various issue / topic posters on the wall (from the original agenda-setting). Then provide each participant with a sheet of (HE SAYS %%) stickies and invite them to stick their favorite issues as follows (10 on first, 9 on second THERE MUST BE AN EASIER WAY).

Regardless of the method used, the end result should be the same…we should be ready to move to the next phase, which involves issue convergence and identification of potential actions.

Harrison Owen, H.H. Owen & Company
and originator of Open Space Technology
Potomac, Maryland, USA
http://www.openspaceworld.com
from Open Space Technology, A User's Guide, by Harrison Owen
1997, Berrett-Koehler, Publishers

As for converging topics BEFORE prioritizing, I would approach that with great caution. Folks get very attached to their topics, and take great offence when somehow they get "merged." Having said that there are also times when obviously the same issue was addressed in several sessions. My practice is to go to the several conveners and point out that if their sessions remain separate, they will essentially divide the vote. It would therefore make sense to have a single issue (pick one of the titles). I have never had anybody disagree. The one time I was party to a "forced merge" (done against my advice by the sponsor) we damn near had a revolution. Made it, but only by the grace of God -- and of course it was me -- and not the sponsors in the middle of the circle. As you might understand, there was a rather pointed conversation in the "debrief". I think I made my point.