While Snowden and others introduced Cynefin in 2007, they have continued to work on it in incredible amounts of detail. Far more than is useful to recite here. But I would suggest that you visit http://www.cognitive-edge.com to track the further development of this framework.
We could get sidetracked into a whole thread on this, but what is interesting to note from a technical perspective is that the Cynefin framework is actually an ontology - meaning that it describes ways of being rather than ways of knowing - and it helps people to understand what to do when confronted by certain situations. I find it a really really useful framework, but in my 6 or more years of exploring it have come to realize that it needs careful and appropriate application. At a base level however, the distinction between the minds of problems that require emergent solutions and those requiring technical solutions has been a useful distinction when working with clients who are struggling with a variety of responses to the kinds of situations they face in their work. It has been the most useful way. If you can stand it, there is a 55 minute recording of me giving a teleseminar online on the use of Cynefin to understand complexity especially in respect to using participatory processes like Open Space: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRn3BM56W74 Chris On Jul 24, 2014, at 7:58 AM, Daniel Mezick <[email protected]> wrote: > Harold, > > Yes, and more and more work is actually tipping into the complex/chaotic > state as depicted on the Cynefin diagram. I suspect this trend is being > powered by increases in the rate of change in the society, driven primarily > by technology. > > Every day, more and more work is complex and chaotic. Loads of change, all > day, every day. > > Maybe the Cynefin diagram needs to allocate more space to complex and chaotic > work, to depict it more accurately: > > Diagram: > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Cynefin_framework_Feb_2011.jpeg > > > > Fewer and fewer projects are qualifying for the traditional ABC management > approach. More and more complex & chaotic work tends to favor empirical > approaches and may explain the popularity of Agile. It also might explain the > rise of Open Space as a legitimate tool for manifesting high performance in > business. "Management" as important as ever, is a function of the > self-organizing system. It is not a role. > > This link explains how Microsoft is laying off 18000 people and beginning > what appears to be a forced march to Agile: > http://www.tgdaily.com/enterprise/120066-is-microsoft-adopting-a-more-agile-approach > > ...this, from what was once a very, very successful software vendor. > > Ouch. > > Are we all being swept along by a tide of relentless change? I see some > crazy-looking folks way out there, in the water, wearing wet suits, on > surfboards. They appear to be greatly enjoying themselves. > > Daniel > > On 7/24/14 6:15 AM, Harold Shinsato wrote: >> Chris, >> >> Thank you for bringing in the Cynefin framework! After hearing about >> Snowden's framework at an agile software conference, it quickly spread >> through the Agile community. Agile is even referenced in the wikipedia >> article about Cynefin. I'd recommend that folks take a look at the article >> at least for the simple graphic that helps understand the >> model:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin >> >> It's interesting that although Snowden's article was published in 2007 in >> HBR, a good chunk of the useful ideas had been worked on by Brenda Zimmerman >> and others starting in 1998 after being inspired by the study of chaos >> theory. >> >> Simple (or obvious) is like baking a cake. (Maybe things don't always go to >> plan, but following a simple recipe at sea level with good tools and >> ingredients will usually work). >> >> Complicated is like sending a rocket to the moon. Yes, many moving parts in >> mission control. Many things can go wrong. But working the plan does most of >> the work. >> >> Complex is like parenting a child. What you learn raising a child from birth >> to age six does not give the answers for the next six years, let alone for >> raising the next one. >> >> Snowden also adds a Chaotic and Disorder domain, and interesting boundaries >> and relationships between the five domains. What's also interesting about >> Cynefin is that the focus is on our knowledge or understanding of a system - >> not really a description of the Universe or piece thereof. >> >> It's a mistake to dismiss the utility of Cynefin as a lens simply by stating >> that the universe is self-organizing. If anything, this model's utility is >> mostly in showing how traditional management processes (i.e. command and >> control) are mostly inadequate for most issues especially in today's >> environment. Cynefin has been used a great deal to help promote agile >> practices in organizations, and surely can also be used to promote OST. >> >> Harold >> >> >> >> On 7/22/14 12:57 PM, [email protected] wrote: >>> I seek simplicity in trying to describe where and how Open Space does it’s >>> magic. >>> >>> One of the ways I have had excellent success over the years in describing >>> this work is derived from David Snowden’s work on the Cynefin framework. >>> >>> The short story is this: >>> >>> We are faced all the time with problems that are basically knowable, and >>> problems that aren’t. Knowable problems mean that with the right knowledge >>> and expertise, they can be fixed. A technical team can come together and >>> analyse the causes, work with what’s available and craft a solution. Then >>> they can get an implementation plan in place and go ahead and do it. These >>> kinds of problems have a start line and a finish line. When you are done, >>> you are done. Building a bridge is one of those kinds of problems. You >>> build it and there is no tolerance for failure. It needs to be failsafe. >>> >>> Open Space doesn’t work well for those kinds of problems because the >>> solution is basically already known, or at least knowable. >>> >>> Then there are problems for which no know solution exists, and even if you >>> did get a solution, you can’t really “solve” the problem because the >>> problem is due to a myriad of causes and is itself emergent. For example, >>> racism. Look around and you will find very few people that identify >>> themselves as racists, but look at the stats for Canadian society for >>> example and you see that non-white people are trailing in every indicator >>> of societal success. Essentially you are seeing the results of a racist >>> society but no racists anywhere. This is an emergent problem. Racism >>> itself is a self-organizing phenomenon, notwithstanding the few people that >>> actively engineer racist environments. Such a problem didn’t really start >>> anywhere and it can’t really end either. What is needed is a way of >>> addressing it, moving the system away from the negative indicators and >>> towards something else. >>> >>> In other words, this is a complex problem. >>> >>> The way to solve complex problems is to create many “strange attractors” >>> around which the system can organize itself differently. Open Space nis >>> the best method I know of for creating such strange attractors, as they are >>> born from the passion and responsibility of those that want to create >>> change, and they are amplified by people coming together to work on these >>> things. >>> >>> It’s “post and host” rather than “command and control.” >>> >>> And because you can’t be sure if things are going to work out, you have to >>> adopt a particular mindset to your initiative: one that is “safe to fail.” >>> In other words, if it doesn’t work, you stop doing it. If it does work, >>> you do more of it. And all the way along you build in learning, so that >>> the system can see how change is made and be drawn towards those >>> initiatives that are currently making a difference. Certainly this kind of >>> problem solving is not useful for building a bridge, as you cannot afford a >>> failure there. But for problems with no known solutions, it is brilliant. >>> >>> Harrison has spent decades outlining this simplicity in even less words >>> than I have now and his writing and thinking is, and continues to be far >>> ahead of it’s time and maybe a little under appreciated because it is >>> delivered in simple terms like “don’t work so hard.” But ultimately this >>> is the best and most important advice for working in complex systems. >>> >>> Open Space. Do it. Learn. Do it again. Don’t work so hard. >>> >>> More than that really starts to build in the delusion that people can >>> possibly know what to do. From that place solutions will be deluded. That >>> they may work is pure luck. Open Space offers us a disciplined approach to >>> addressing complexity in an ongoing way. Don’t be fooled by its simplicity. >>> >>> Chris >>> >> >> >> -- >> Harold Shinsato >> [email protected] >> http://shinsato.com >> twitter: @hajush >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> OSList mailing list >> To post send emails to [email protected] >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: >> http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org > > -- > Daniel Mezick, President > New Technology Solutions Inc. > (203) 915 7248 (cell) > Bio. Blog. Twitter. > Examine my new book: The Culture Game : Tools for the Agile Manager. > Explore Agile Team Training and Coaching. > Explore the Agile Boston Community. > _______________________________________________ > OSList mailing list > To post send emails to [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: > http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
_______________________________________________ OSList mailing list To post send emails to [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] To subscribe or manage your subscription click below: http://lists.openspacetech.org/listinfo.cgi/oslist-openspacetech.org
