The sub-groups were left to determine how they used their 30 minutes together.? The guiding instruction was to attempt to scan the output generated thus far on the other 6 topics and attempt to discuss 3 and add/build where they wanted.
Each subgroup had a volunteer scribe and another volunteer process keeper: ensuring they remained in generative dialog and managed their available time.
I visited each subgroup to see how they were doing.
7-8 people per subgroup.
Total session was 2 hours.? A later breakout session - they were put in random?groups.? One person shared the discussion?output in plenary and my tech/admin support captured the outputs on a Mural board that I had set up before the workshop.? They enjoyed the visual and dynamic nature of this, and it worked for a single inquiry with 8 x 1 minute plenary sharings with 1 person capturing the output.
The outputs were important as a collective effort towards more work on these topics, and in these sessions the depth & quality of the dialog was most important.
Happy to answer more questions.
Best
Sian
Sian Madden MSc OD, CPF
Organization Purpose, Experience & Development for an Emerging Future
On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 5:34 PM Michael Goldman <goldman@...> wrote:
Hi Sian. Thx for your input. Question: for the second round was each group roughly taking 5 min. each (30 minutes in total) to discuss the remaining six topics? Was there a facilitator per group or just a scribe? How did they quickly determine which 3 ideas to focus on to do a deep dive? What was the number of people per sub-group?
Thx in advance for responding to so many questions!