This is a CTP of initiative: Omstilling Ry (Transition Ry - Denmark)
This critical turning point occurred in the early autumn of 2011. It involved a shift in the way that the initiative was organized and the type and nature of the meetings that were scheduled. The group had been having monthly public meetings since the launch of the initiative (see CTP 96) but, following this CTP, this pattern was changed to having three public meetings per year. One was an annual meeting held in January. This is a formal business meeting where the core group is elected. Then in spring and in the autumn there would be two project meetings. These are held using an open space format where people can come and discuss their ideas. These are aimed at new people and are partly an introduction for people who have become involved more recently (e.g. including start-up talks focusing on: “What is Transition?”, “What is resilience?” etc.). They are aimed at people who have joined but don’t know the underlying basis and philosophy of the whole project.
It was a CTP because they had to find a better way to arrange the initiative and manage their resources so that they wouldn’t just give up or burn-out. It helped define the function and the role of the core group – thus making people more comfortable and confident in participating because tasks became more clearly defined.
The interviewee described this period as a ‘crisis’. Following the initial successful three meetings, they had continued to run monthly open meetings for the public. These required a considerable degree of effort to organize and publicize, but they found that the number of attendees was gradually declining. This culminated in the cancellation of a summer party that had been planned due to a lack of interest [although the timing of this during the holiday season might have also played an undermining role].
The core organisers were putting a lot of energy into organizing these meetings, and the fact that they were not well attended was demoralizing and sapping their energy. There was also a sense that the groups were struggling as they were not getting much support from the core group. Some of them had died, had been isolated, and/or had not received much support from the core group. This approach therefore also freed up some time and resources for the core group to provide more support to the different groups that existed and co-ordinate between them.
Core group meetings continued to be monthly.
There were not many different elements that contributed to this turning point.
The turning point took the form of a core group meeting of the three main organisers at one of their houses. At this meeting they discussed the problem and how it might be resolved. Through this discussion, they came up with the idea of changing the overall process. The sense of 'crisis' described above was the main element that drove this CTP.
The initial three meetings (that had been very successful) set the scene for the ongoing pattern of monthly meetings.
The cancellation of the summer party was important in signifying the loss of momentum in the group. The fact that some groups were also struggling added to this perception.
Most of the subsequent activity of Omstilling Ry can be connected to this CTP in the sense that it enabled them to find a sustainable organisational model which allowed them to continue.
There wasn’t any disagreement around this CTP. It was all agreed that there was a need to change the way it was structured.
At the time, neither of the interviewees realized that this was a particularly important CTP for the organization. There was just a sense that the structure and process wasn’t working very well and that something needed to change.
With hindsight, both could see how it was important in maintaining the momentum of the group and that the new structure reinvigorated the initiative.
After the CTP, the core group became more defined and more people began to contribute.
The interviewee felt it helped the initiative continue and sustain itself.
The roles and responsibilities within the core group become more defined and this made it more effective and it functioned better. The role of the core group had, previously, been “fluffy”.
By reducing the public meetings and separating them from the role of the core group, people felt empowered to participate and take on specific roles (e.g. someone volunteered to do the newsletter).
The core group therefore grew in size. It was suggested that they learned to be patient with themselves and that they themselves had limited resources which could only be used for certain activities.
Stay informed. Subscribe for project updates by e-mail.
