When the situation is stable, predictable, and well-understood, traditional hierarchy prevails. But when decisions need to be made quickly, decisions will migrate to the edge, where people can sense and respond to situations in real time.

At the end of the post Dave invites us to use this story as a metaphor for other large complex systems. One such large complex system is the so-called “software development process.” A documented process presupposes a simplistic ecosystem, but the ecosystem of enterprise software development — like the ecosystem of an aircraft carrier — is enormously complex. Beyond one person, a small team, or even a team of teams, enterprise software development is of the same order of complexity as the enterprise itself.

And as such, as Dave says, “there ain’t no manual.”

Sure, we need some abstractions (like UML) to help us quickly get our minds around general concepts. And we need some procedural checklists (like automated code-management tools). But mistaking these for “how to do software development” guides reminds me of Martin Fowler’s warning against mistaking software design docs for the software itself: “the code is the best source of comprehensive information, as the code is the easiest thing to keep in sync with the code.” Martin is reminding us that abstractions of complex systems are useful, but they are not the thing itself. Guidelines are useful, but manuals are useless.

So what do you do when your manual for the system will be as complex as the system itself? You don’t try to foster compliance — you foster learning.

And I have seen that scare the pee out of many people. They don’t want to learn. They don’t ever want to be the “new recruit” who has to learn how to best fit their own talents into that of the organization. They went to school, they have a degree, they have 10 years of experience, they want to prove to their organization that they “follow all the right processes and procedures.”

No wonder something like Scrum — three roles, three artifacts, three meetings, and 1 big rule: “adapt your work to best realize the needs of the product” — can be unsettling.

So, why are we learning to be afraid of learning?

I’ve written about it below, but I’m a visual person so I’ve added a lot of captioned pictures if you want the gist, and the how-to “recipe” for doing this mindset-shift yourself is at the end.

"As-is"

Becoming Agile is an Agile Process

We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them. –Einstein

A few months back I had a conversation with Esther Derby about an organization which we both knew was trying to adopt Agile.  The problem was that they were trying to adopt Agile in a deterministic way:

"To-Be"

1. Map the “as-is” process
2. Design the “to-be” process
3. Determine the steps necessary to go from “as-is” to “to-be”
4. Execute the steps and control for variation from the steps

Hmm.  Didn’t seem too Agile to me, and it didn’t to Esther, either.  I run into this problem with organizations quite often, and I’ve found that talking about it doesn’t cause the necessary mental shift. Rather than focus on always doing what can be done to get better (“Evolving”), people often get hung up on all the barriers to being perfect (“Solving”).

Learning: a Change of Behavior as a Result of Experience

I was asked to facilitate a day-long planning meeting for an Agile Leadership Group.  The team had identified many barriers to adopting Agile at their org, and the sheer number and scope of the barriers were starting to make some of the leadership team uneasy.  They didn’t have enough experience in working any way other than as described above, and the energy of Solving was high.

I’m a lazy sort, and I hope also a compassionate sort, so rather than debate with the team about their objections or tell them that their fears were silly I thought I’d help them gain some experience… and most importantly, the change of behavior that comes from processing that experience.

Here’s how the day went.

First I spent 5 minutes reviewing the problem of using deterministic methods to manage complex change:

How to go from "as-is" to "to-be?" It's tempting to treat the transformation as a project and manage it like you manage all your projects: plan well, then execute.

Then I spent another 5 showing how an adaptive transition to Agile might work.  The “Agile Working Group” (AWG) here is a Scrum team charged with iteratively evolving the current processes, people, procedures, and corporate policies from “Waterfall” to “Agile.”  This is the same as evolving a software product from “what it is now” to “what our stakeholders really want.”

Then the questions started coming. “But what if our tests aren’t automated? But what about managers who manage functional silos? But what if…?”  At this point we could have spent several hours in Q&A, and most of my answers would have been variants on “let’s look at your specific concern and determine how to make the situation better than it is now.”

Instead, it was time to give the leadership some experience in the difference between adaptive/agile work and predictive/deterministic work.  I had them break into several teams, handed out sheets of newsprint, and set them a problem.

Experience

The learning objectives here were for leadership to internalize and be able to apply:

• the value of evolved vs. designed solutions when dealing with a complex domain (one near the upper-right of the Stacey Diagram) such as process change
• the necessity of an extant process to improve upon
• the power of repeated implement-inspect-adapt cycles over plan-once-then-execute when adopting Agile

So we got right to it.  The teams got a “process” and “requirements” shown below:

"Process:" The teams had 3 rounds to "build a bridge." Each round included both development (building) and inspection/adaptation.

"Requirements:" The teams were asked to "maximize the 4 constraints."

Notice the “process:”  no roles, no boss, no Agile terms.  Just cycles of build-inspect-adapt.  No hard and fast requirements, just a vision for “a bridge that has qualities of load-bearing, length, height, and aesthetics.”

And vicious time-boxes, of course.  Right out of the gate, the teams went to town:

A different team starts on their product.

Team 1 starts on their outcome.

We saw all the hallmarks of Agile work:  good-enough design, simultaneous work, prototyping, learning by doing and experimentation, rich collaboration, the need for visibility, making the bridge itself part of the team, innovation and adaptation beyond mere requirements… by the wrap-up iteration the teams had created very impressive bridges:

A different team opted also built a sturdy, aesthetic bridge and overcame the "impediment" of "no more paper" by incorporating the cardboard backing into the structure.

One team made a suspension-type bridge, continuously tested its load with cell-phones, and incorporated elements from the environment.

The teams demonstrated their final outcomes to each other, shared a bit of their challenges and successes, and admired each others’ adaptability.  Then we sat down for the real mindset-shift.

Reflection (Debriefing)

I led the teams through a structured debriefing.  This is the part of experiential learning or “games” that is most often neglected, and as a result people have fun but they don’t make the necessary mental shift to enable different behavior.  With 3 teams, we handled each step first in small groups, and then each team shared their findings with the rest of the group before moving on to the next step.

The teams discussed each step in their groups, and then shared their findings with the other groups.

We started with Step 1, Feelings and Facts:  let people vent their feelings (e.g. “the time intervals made me panic!” and “this was fun but I’m not sure what it has to do with real life”) and review what observable facts happened in the exercise.  No interpretation yet — just facts like “we started with a sketch,” or “we all worked at the same time,” or “we didn’t notice the pylons were mismatched until we lined them up.”

Each team wrote their findings on a flip chart and then shared them with the rest of the group.

Step 2, Interpretation, allowed the teams to think about the implications of their work on the bridge.  Here we shifted from purely observable facts to insights and evaluations: “I noticed that even though we didn’t have a leader, we figured out what to do” and “its funny how those requirements were really open-ended and yet we hesitated about not getting them right.” Most interesting to me were “I think we did poorly because our bridge didn’t match our initial sketch” from one team and “our bridge is different than I imagined it, but it’s actually better” from another.

Each team wrote their findings on their flip chart page, posted it next to their “Feelings and Facts” page, and then shared highlights with the rest of the group.

In Step 3, Generalization of the experience to Agile concepts, I provided some key ideas I wanted leadership to consider — chosen especially for this organization and what they were trying to achieve — and asked them to find instances of how they showed up when the teams were building the bridge.  This did two things:

First, it helped fix the concepts in everyone’s minds with concrete examples, both as individuals and as a group.  Weeks later I heard one person from the group say to another “we don’t know what’s best yet — remember how our bridge design changed only after we created the first iteration of it?  We need to get SOMETHING running NOW.”

But more importantly, it helped make the concepts understandable via a concrete, emotional experience.

Debrief Step 3 - Generalization: "How did these concepts show up when you did the exercise?"

It would have been one thing to try to get concept #2 across by telling the team “inspecting and adapting on an actual product is better than over-refining a plan” and then tell some stories from my own experiences.  But by finding instances of this idea at play in their exercises, the teams were able to discover for themselves the truths they wrote on their flip charts.  Truths like “adapting our bridge was easy because we were only making small changes at a time;” and “being able to see each other work reduced communication overhead;” and “having both a mostly-built bridge and general goals actually gave us very clear direction — it was easy to see the next step forward.”

Once again I had the teams share highlights of their findings with the group, then we moved to the final step: applying these Agile concepts to their work of process change.

In Step 4, Application to real life, we tied the learnings from the experience and debrief thus far back to my initial 10-minute presentation about Continuous Improvement vs. needing to solve all barriers up front.  I asked everyone to consider what their principles from Step 3 meant to them for how they would evolve Agile at their organization.  Each team then picked their top 3 items and posted them on a common piece of paper (shown above).

Outcome: a Change of Behavior

The outcome of all this was that a leadership team which in the morning had been feeling paralyzed by all their perceived barriers to adopting Agile, had a shared understanding and motivation to move forward by lunchtime.  They spent the rest of the afternoon choosing their first pilot teams and projects, and identifying which barriers they were going to tackle first.

Wrap-up: The top actions from each of the 3 teams... based on experience.

They were able to do this because they learned a set of key Agile concepts directly relevant to their situation, rooted in a shared experience, which they themselves uncovered.

This whole process took about 2-1/2 hours with breaks:

• 10m – Agile adoption as an Agile process (whiteboard presentation)
• 40m – Agile experience: 10m for Objectives and instructions, 25m for Teams to build a product, 5m for Teams to show off product
• 60m – Structured debrief (~15m / step, with each step being done first at individual teams then whole group)

Debrief has 4 steps:

• Feelings/observable facts from the experience
• Implications of the observed facts
• Generalization of the experience to concepts
• Application of the concepts to real life

I was really pleased to have the opportunity to have this session with the leadership team.  They didn’t just demand that the “expert consultant” tell them what to do, they were willing to start off their Agile adoption by finding their own way with a little guidance. (That’s the difference between an organizational consultant and a organizational coach, by the way.)

So after a day, leadership was ready to rock and we all had a great time. How was YOUR last leadership kickoff about Agile adoption?

I did have a tweaks to the explanation, having to do with the example of Joe seeing Jim throw a plate on the floor, where Jim says “…if I was doing that I’d have been crazy.”

That’s an example of a judgmental statement couched in advocacy/enquiry language.  The judgement there is “you are crazy” and the interaction is tending toward the implication that there is some fault on the part of Jim.

If Joe were truly approaching the situation with desire to find out Jim’s internal motivation and wished to balance advocacy with enquiry, Joe might have said something like:

“I saw you throw that plate on the floor (fact), and I was frightened because to me throwing things is a sign of anger (advocacy).  Can you help me understand what was happening? (enquiry)“

Advocacy requires that you expose your own internal frame/motivation, which doesn’t necessarily mean keeping your emotions to yourself — it just means that you expose them directly by stating what they are, rather than indirectly through tone of voice, gesticulating, etc.

Of course, being able to do this requires that you know what’s going on inside your own head too… not always easy to be aware of when emotions are high. :)

Servants and service, our ev’ry whim
Fulfilled -
Singers, dancers, masseurs, chefs
A multitude of choices arrayed
To delight and dazzle us
Confounding our inner judge
Drowning out its strident
Admonitions: “You may not. You must not. There is not enough.”
“You just haven’t earned it yet.”

Freedom from want, freedom from duty
“Sit back, relax, and enjoy the flight.”
Freedom from normalcy, free refills
“You’ve been upgraded.”
Freedom from lack, freedom from fear
“You’ve earned it.”

But Nature is in the world, if you see Her
The songs are in your heart, if you hear them
The wine is from your soul, if you taste it
The food is with your friends, if you share it
The dance is in your work, if you dance it.
Stand up, relax, and enjoy the walk.
You need no upgrade.
“You may. You must. There is enough.”

It
Is yours
And has been –
From the very start.

I’ve noticed a disturbing trend at a few different clients now as far as how UX folk and Agile folk get along.  It put me in mind of a song from Rodgers & Hammerstein’s Oklahoma, barely-recalled from my high-school musical days.  Let me explain by way of example:

Steve is a User Experience (UX) expert on an Agile/Scrum team working on the new HipStartup.com website.  He’s excited because he recently returned from an Agile conference and got a lot of great ideas from Jeff Patton’s session about User-Centered Design.  John is the Product Owner (PO) for the site and is juggling multiple voices and requests, but knows that each day without a new site feature delivered is another day that Venture Capital money is burned with no return on investment.  Geri is the ScrumMaster (SM) for the team and she wants everyone to follow the Scrum process because she knows it’s the best way to deliver value incrementally.

Three weeks ago at the meeting with the VC folks, John heard that they would really love to see HipStartup.com do single-sign-on integration with Facebook, Twitter, NetFlix, and the FAA.gov websites — with a unified look and feel.  This morning during the sprint planning meeting, developer Brian cautiously raises the issue of design: does Steve have any wireframes or web composites done for Brian to use in his estimation of story size?  Steve replies that he’s still testing the wireframes with their user focus group and wants to make sure the design for the new single-sign-on will work for them before he releases them to the rest of the team.

John explodes. “What? It’s been three weeks! You’re telling me we still don’t have a thing to demo yet?”  Steve looks helplessly at Geri — surely she will understand the need for a good design?  ”John has a point,” Geri says.  ”All this user testing you keep talking about smells a lot like Big Up-Front Effort to me.  Can’t you get some wires to Brian ASAP, even if its just for a few stories?”  Steve is appalled.  Wires for just a portion of the site, when the VC folks clearly wanted a unified look and feel?  ”Well, sure,” he huffs, “I can give you what I’ve got so far, and you can get right to work on it… if you don’t mind the users thinking it’s crap!“

Let us let the curtain of imagination close over this scene for now.

I’d like to say a word fer the farmer
He come out west and made a lot of changes –
That’s right! He come out west and built a lot of fences,
And built ‘em right across our cattle ranges!

Just like the farmer and the cowman, User Experience folk and Agilistas/ScrumMasters each provide value in ways that can inherently interfere with each other.  The UX person wants a good experience, and so needs to engage in some sort of holistic design.  This doesn’t have to mean Big Up-Front Effort, but it can look that way to the Agilista who has been fighting waterfall for much of her professional life.

They also each work in ways which tend to stir up the fears of the other.  The Agilista wants a continuous flow of bite-sized chunks of value, with frequent opportunities for inspection and adaptation.  This doesn’t have to mean a Frankenstein’s monster of cobbled-together parts, but to the UX person, even the possibility of creating such a monster is, pardon the phrase, horrifying.

I’d like to teach you all a little sayin’
And learn the words by heart the way you should
I don’t say I’m no better than anybody else,
But I’ll be damned if I ain’t jist as good!

So at the #womeninagile booth at Agile 2010, I had the great fortune to start a conversation with @carologic of Ask a User.  Carol is a UX expert and works through a variety of methods to incorporate actual user research and experience into the design of her client’s products.  While as an Agile coach and empiricism fanatic, I’m always espousing the “ready-fire-aim” and “fail fast” schools of adaptive outcome development.  Cage-match waiting to happen, right?

Wrong.  In 20 minutes of conversation at the booth, we were able to express our respective concerns with each others’ practices and how they are misapplied, and brainstorm at least three harmonious solutions integrating the best of Agile/Scrum and UX, in very specific ways.  Not to tease, but over the next few months, Carol and I will share those ideas with you in our respective blogs.  We will explore:

• why we shouldn’t call the end-of-iteration demonstration of incremental functionality a “demo”
• where to integrate user research into the Agile iteration cycle
• the use of Boundary Objects as discussed in Israel Gat’s Agile 2010 talk

and more.  How did we come to this resolution so quickly?  Simple:  we both approached each others’ domains from a perspective of curiosity and interest — rather than from one of defensiveness.

And when this territory is a state
An’ joins the Union jus’ like all the others
The farmer, and cowman and the merchant
Mus’ all behave theirselves and act like brothers!

I believe that diversity does not mean “tolerance of differences.”  Rather, diversity means “our differences make us collectively stronger.”  This isn’t compromise, this is learning from each other’s talents.  As Karl Weick said, ”fight as if you are right and listen as if you are wrong.”

Let’s us UX and Agilista people listen to one another.  We’re not truly in competition, we both want the same things.  We just have different ideas of how to go about it.  And it’s in the union of the two that true value will be created.

As Oklahoma‘s Aunt Eller says, “ain’t nobody gonna slug out anything – this here’s a party.“

(cue laugh track)

In all seriousness, it depends on what you mean by “work.”  I personally have very high standards for “working” Agile.  Agile isn’t a way of doing, it’s a way of being.  So do I believe Agile can work in the spirit of its greatest potential, as a means to enable the shift from an deterministic organization to a learning organization (a la Senge), in a culture of single point accountability?

Can a possum stop a car?

Accountability When Agile is a Process

Sure, Agile can work as a process for incrementally creating quality software product when we insist on maintaining single-point accountability, exactly as Rebecca successfully implemented in her project.  You can “wrap” the Delivery Team in Agile and use the Product Owner and ScrumMaster as the “interfaces” for the team.  You can even promote individual accountability in such a scenario:

• Product Owner (PO) — on the hook for the health of the (software) product
• Team Coach/ScrumMaster (SM) — on the hook for the health of the Team and their adoption/adaptation of the process
• Delivery Team — on the hook for demonstrating a working product increment at the end of each iteration

“Hey Derek, not too fast! That last one is team accountability!  So there isn’t individual accountability at the team level!”

Uh, no.  There certainly is.  In the context of the entire Agile Team (e.g. a Scrum Team consisting of a SM, PO, and Folks Who Make the Software Product Exist) the Delivery Team is accountable only so far as they collectively build working product.  Individually, however:

• Delivery Team Member — on the hook to the rest of their Team for whatever commitments they make each day at standup; for asking for help when needed; and for swarming and providing help as needed.

See ?  If we are talking about a culture of accountability, then accountability depends in what context you view it.  Each person both has individual accountability and also is part of a Team that has team accountability.  In the context of the Delivery Team, Brian the Developer is accountable for the tasks he signs up for and tells his team “by tomorrow I will complete…”  In the context of accountability to the rest of the organization, however, there is no individual accountability at the Team level lest we promote siloed work and blame-shifting and all the other joys of WaterGile.  But in the same context of the rest of the organization, Geri the PO is the single-point of accountability for the “health of the (software) product (that the team delivers every increment).”

But can Geri truly be single-point accountable for the R-O-I of the product?  Because she is also part of the larger team of Product Management, which is team-accountable for making that R-O-I manifest and be something the organization can use.  In the context of the total utility of the software product, one must also consider the teams of marketing, sales, support, training, etc. to extract and deliver full value on the potential of the software product.

So it’s both.  In a single-point accountability culture, the successful Agilist who wishes to use Agile as a process for creating potentially useful software products needs to promote team accountability and individual accountability as appropriate for the context.  Asking which is more important is like asking whether “3″ or “blind mice” is more important.

Lowest Common Denominator

Now, this will work for churning out product at a reasonable rate, and Fred Winslow Taylor and members of his Fan Club can clap and sing that Agile will work in a culture of single-point responsibility.  Assuming that your organization has little commitment to the change necessary to achieve the hyper-productivity promises of Agile, assuming you don’t mind flat or near-flat velocity gains, flat team morale, and assuming you are okay with the criminal waste of human potential of churning out product with no real Awesomeness in it — please, be my guest.  Don’t look back, some other companies might be gaining on you.

But if this doesn’t seem to align with your organization’s values, if you actually want people to work better together, to develop their full potential as a team, to realize the power of their diversity and make some truly creative and useful things… you may wish to be cautious with single-point accountability and Agile.

Because you’re robbing people of responsibility.

Responsibility — being a source or cause for results — depends on having the opportunity to be the source for those results.  When you make one person (e.g. the PO, or the SM) on the hook for delivery of the product, people who don’t have the ability to deliver that product, you steal that opportunity away from the Delivery Team.  And that’s the greatest paradox of how I so often see Agile being implemented.

Trying to realize these kinds of gains while preserving single-point accountability for delivery will be about as successful as the possum trying to stop the car.

No, I explained, I just noticed he was being visible and wanted to encourage him to keep it up.  ”Consider that email a round of applause,” I said.  Brian (another developer on the team) overheard this and then told us of his “Praises and Curses” email folder.

Pardon?

As it turns out, Brian collects emails from people when they thank him for doing a good job, or when they are upset and wish he had done something differently.

But he doesn’t just collect them — he reviews them.  At least once a year prior to performance reviews.  And sometimes more frequently.

Now, just to put this in context, Brian also uses the Pomodoro Technique in his daily work.  So what we have here is an individual — a so-called “technical” person, no less – who:

1. works in discrete intervals, identifying interruptions and tracking velocity
2. inspects the feedback received as a result of his work

I gaped.  What an incredibly good idea: building in the means for self-improvement that just sort of “happens.”  No need to depend on the performance review as the only means of formal retrospection, simply collect the information as it comes in, and review at your leisure.

How many of us set up these kinds of mechanisms in our lives — feedback mechanisms which help provide awareness?  What would life be like if more of us did this?

I have a bubbling head full of ideas to share there, and as a collaboration junkie, I’m making them visible for comment.  Suggestions? Criticisms?  Want to join me in Phoenix and collaborate?  Leave a comment!

Topic 1 — Science: A Framework to Aid Scientific Research Teams

Scrum is, at its heart, a simple empirical framework for learning and discovery.  Often it’s used to “discover” the unbuilt-but-needed features of a software product, and so people confuse it with a product development methodology.  But it’s more than that — Scrum is also useful for process improvement or organizational change.  Scrum is even self-modifying: it can be used to “discover” the best way to shape the framework itself to help make the team using it more effective.

When you generalize Scrum this way, it seems pretty obvious to try to apply it to how teams “do science”:

• backlogs as analogs of hypotheses
• swarming as part of research
• team-synchronization via standups and lo-fi tools rather than long publishing processes
• scrum of scrums to synchronize multiple teams
• demos and retrospectives as analogs of findings and conclusions

These are fairly naive mappings; I hope to make richer ones in Phoenix.

Topic 2 — Healthcare: A Framework for Training Medical Teams

I first mentioned this in a Twitter post inspired by discussion at the 2010 Conference of the International Association of Medical Education.

It seems to me that much of the thought in medical education views education as a rather linear, deterministic process, using what Bob Marshall calls “analytical models,” as contrasted to empirical, stochastic or even chaordic models.  Example:  a “learning process” depends on:

• a set of initial “learning outcomes”
• guided “deliberate practice” where students work either on medical tasks, or simulated scenarios (as a team, no less!)
• “reflective learning” where students debrief and self-assess.

To a Scrummer like me, this just screams “backlog, whole-team execution/delivery, retrospection, REPEAT” and also embracing student/team learning as a chaordic rather than deterministic process.  Unfortunately I see some of the literature and discussion in the medical education world take a rather “one-shot” approach to training:  Students come in, execute, and now they are “trained.”

Some topics and questions I’d like to raise in Phoenix:

• How might we frame learning in the context of Scrum?  By individual lesson (sprint), and as an entire curriculum (release)?
• Comments from people in the medical training/simulation field? How have you used something similar to Scrum?
• What are the problems with taking an approach driven by feedback loops rather than a stepwise process?

Topic 3 — Healthcare: Patient-Centered Treatment

Inspired by Compassion as a Golden Rule for Healthcare and Real Participatory Healthcare Starts With Assigning the Patient to Your Team (same author)

I need to give more thought on this — or ideally jam with another collaboration junkie — but the nebulous ideas here are:

• Linda Rising’s talk at Agile 2009 about how people who solve problems together, despite their backgrounds or knowledge, feel more empathy and understanding for each other
• How this effect brings diverse skillsets on an expert team together, despite egos and fears, and makes the team more effective at problem-solving
• Mapping the patient, and patient’s family into the role of “user”; mapping the medical staff into the role of “team”, and then:
• Using the Scrum framework as a structure in which to allow these roles to interact.
• How this is very different from the standard model of “lead physician interacts with patient/family, and specialists mostly  interact with lead physician”
• Who should be the ScrumMaster and Product Owner?

• Who:         Panel Discussion
• What:        “Will Any Letters Get Me The Job?”
• When:       Thursday, April 22, 2010 at 6 PM CST
• Where:      Omicron-USA, 8725 W. Higgins, Suite 450   Chicago, IL (near O’Hare) (map)

Featured Topic:

What is true certification?  *  The difference between certifications and certificates  *  How does the IT world perceive certification?  *  What certifications you should be pursuing  *  How experience comes into play  *  Can you advance your career without certification acceptance from your peers?

Lead-in Activity:

As always, the first half-hour of the event is reserved for networking and food. Pizza and pop will be provided, so come hungry, grab a couple slices of pizza, and get to know the other attendees who are making Agile Leadership happen in Chicago.

Follow-Up Activity:

Following the talk, attendees will take part in an OpenSpace discussion forum. An OpenSpace session is a high-energy experience: if you’ve never participated, be prepared to be surprised! For more about Open Space, see the original definition at AgileOpen.net. At least one topic will focus on the theme, but attendees are free to propose any topic for discussion. We always post the results of OpenSpace sessions.

Event Registration:

Please register at www.aplnchicago.org for this event, and to receive email updates and more details about this and other events as they become available.