tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719829.post2234597720524152199..comments2024-02-28T11:02:53.021+00:00Comments on Rick On the Road: Cynefin Framework versus Stacey Matrix versus network perspectivesRick Davieshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07028422984421301184noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719829.post-60034855309781598042020-06-04T13:06:26.550+00:002020-06-04T13:06:26.550+00:00Helpful comment recieved from Chris Rodgers
Hi Ri...Helpful comment recieved from Chris Rodgers<br /><br />Hi Rick,<br /><br />Thanks for your comment/query on the blog [his]. I’ve replied as follows but thought I’d copy it to you via email:<br /><br />Ralph included the diagram in the second edition of his textbook, Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics, published in 1996. This diagram remains widely referenced and is popular with ‘complexity-aware’ consultants and managers alike. However, he now argues strongly against its use, for the reasons set out in the post. The content of this edition of the book predated his and his colleagues shift towards and understanding of organizational dynamics that they refer to as the complex responsive process of human interaction.<br /><br />A used copy of this edition of the book is available at Abe Books: https://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=22396098658.<br /><br />I hope this helps.<br /><br />All the best,<br /><br />Chris<br /><br />Chris Rodgers MSc FCMI<br /><br />Director, Chris Rodgers Consulting Limited<br /><br />Honorary Senior Visiting Fellow in the Faculty of Management, Cass Business School<br /><br />Tel: +44 (0) 7711 262571<br /><br /> <br /><br />Website: chrisrodgers.com<br /><br />Blog: informalcoalitions.com<br /><br />Twitter: twitter.com/ChrisPRodgers<br /><br />LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/chrisrodgers<br />Rick Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07028422984421301184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719829.post-33587267039441590152020-06-04T12:47:04.254+00:002020-06-04T12:47:04.254+00:00In the Zimmerman paper mentioned above, the origin...In the Zimmerman paper mentioned above, the original source for the Staecy Matrix is: Ralph D. Stacey: "Complexity and Creativity in Organizations" published in 1996. I have not yet been able to search inside a copyRick Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07028422984421301184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719829.post-66974341279106517122020-03-16T17:11:23.061+00:002020-03-16T17:11:23.061+00:00Hi Andreas... thanks again.. I am now on the hunt ...Hi Andreas... thanks again.. I am now on the hunt for earliest version as well...Rick Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07028422984421301184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719829.post-67102674724747868352019-08-26T10:20:47.871+00:002019-08-26T10:20:47.871+00:00Thanks for the link Rick, unfortunately I can not ...Thanks for the link Rick, unfortunately I can not find the matrix (at least not as a graphic) in Stacey's book "Strategic management and organisational dynamics". ^Though assuming that the above mentioned (the one in your post) is the actual version by Stacey, what is the news in the Cynefin framework? Curios on some thoughts, comments etc.:) Andreashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17689250931498083036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719829.post-4542268791747058362019-08-26T09:40:43.961+00:002019-08-26T09:40:43.961+00:001. The grafic of the Stacey Matrix in your blog po...1. The grafic of the Stacey Matrix in your blog post is that the origin version of Stacey? I have trouble tracing it back, al the “well researched blog post” imo confuse Stacey / Cynefin. So I am trying to get Stacey real (first) version, curious how if evolved and finally was “merged” with the Cynefin framework<br /><br />2. Reading the Stacey matrix one could assume that there is actually now news in the Cynefin framework as all this was already said by Stacey. So I. am trying to figure out which there is such a “hype” around a framework that simply puts new words to a work which has already been done. Maybe I am a little short sighted here or do not understand what Stacey originally intended so express.<br /><br />I understand that both are a little concerned of the over simplification and usage of both ideas. However even if it might be a “bad” model, it helps people when they try to get her head around why agile makes sense but also when it doesn’t..:)Andreashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17689250931498083036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719829.post-75312749833061275582016-05-26T08:04:38.556+00:002016-05-26T08:04:38.556+00:00@Dave Snowden: Unfortunately links within your pos...@Dave Snowden: Unfortunately links within your post from are broken. Seems that there was a relaunch meanwhile. Is it possible to provide permalink or redirects? The whole story is of major interest to me and others too. Thanks :-).Tim Neugebauerhttp://www.dmk-innovations.denoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719829.post-35867219473974779672013-01-06T14:56:53.520+00:002013-01-06T14:56:53.520+00:00Hi, I think misunderstandings in this area lie in ...Hi, I think misunderstandings in this area lie in a) miss-assigning one's own concept to somebody else's term and b) trying to show everything in a two dimensional graph. <br /><br />Surely we need to separate these distinct dichotomies?<br />Deterministic v not<br />Predictable v not<br />Rigid v malleable<br />Stable v changing<br />Complicated v simple (internal view)<br />Complex transformation v facile transformation(external view)<br />Complex structure v complex behaviour<br />Self-aware v unconscious<br />(and some other dichotomies I've listed elsewhere.)<br /><br />etc.Peter Parkinsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13347162334774329045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719829.post-5562467463008748952010-10-22T15:59:09.771+00:002010-10-22T15:59:09.771+00:00I would agree with Stacey's latest views. To ...I would agree with Stacey's latest views. To help you appreciate where he is coming from, imagine areas 1-3 as domains of first-order cybernetics, area 5 of the second order, and area 4 as the third order. I would presume that Stacey operates comfortably within the 3rd order domain, as I do. To do so enables you to see the human narrative in its entirety from a first order perspective.<br /><br />ChadChad Greenhttp://www.linkedin.com/pub/chad-green-pmp/18/b03/b1bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719829.post-4211199507030566692010-08-25T06:12:19.758+00:002010-08-25T06:12:19.758+00:00Hi Rick - Some important insights here - thank you...Hi Rick - Some important insights here - thank you!<br /><br />I particularly note your comment that "Predictability might be primarily a function of connectedness, and therefore more problematic in larger networks where the number of possible connections is much higher." Agreed; and predictability is also not so much problematic as (by definition) impossible in 'Chaotic' contexts, or domains of inherent uniqueness. Complexity-science techniques can be very useful, but since every complex real-world context also contains at least some aspects of uniqueness, those same techniques can at times also be misleading.<br /><br />To practitioners, a real danger of complexity-science in all its forms is that by definition it's attempting to use a Simple concept of order to describe something that is inherently Complex and unordered. Hence it may be the limitations of the science itself that are the real cause of an apparent problem. In sensemaking it's essential to be able to switch between models so as to contrast and cross-compare, to allow new insights to arise from the cognitive dissonance between them, much as you've described above. Reliance on a single model such as Stacey or Cynefin or whatever could lead to unfortunate results, where the attempt to make things fit the model prevents us from seeing what's actually going on, and where the actions espoused by the model only make a wicked-problem worse, yet being unable to see how and why. As in your teachers' example above, assigning too much primacy to a single 'scientific' model creates a tendency to fall back to positions that owe more to religion than to science itself: "they disagreed intensely" etc. As you say, the only way out of that kind of impasse is a mixed-methods approach - which technically could not be described as 'scientific'.<br /><br />So from my own experience I would say that most of your doubts about Cynefin are spot-on. (Struggling with similar doubts led me to some alternate approaches that you may find useful for your own work - see my book 'Everyday Enterprise Architecture: sensemaking, strategy, structures and solutions', http://tetradianbooks.com/2010/05/everydayea/ .) <br /><br />But in practice Cynefin is merely one framework amongst many: it has its usefulness, but is also problematic in its own ways. I've found the 'official' Cynefin framework valuable in the past, in my own field of enterprise-architectures, but - much like Taylorism or hard-systems theory - it now perhaps carries too much baggage and too many assumptions to be usable outside of a fairly narrow set of constraints. The core categorisation (Simple, Complicated, Complex, Chaotic, and order versus unorder) remains useful, especially when used in a layered, recursive manner where the model may explore and reflect upon itself. (Note, though, that Snowden himself describes such tactics as 'illegitimate' - see http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/dave/2010/07/origins_of_cynefin_part_5.php - although he's never explained why.)<br /><br />The key point, though, is that you're doing important work here, in this kind of cross-comparison of models: please don't allow yourself to be distracted from that overall aim!Tom Graveshttp://weblog.tetradian.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719829.post-4542001522567431092010-08-24T03:03:46.901+00:002010-08-24T03:03:46.901+00:00This is a second part of my previous comment (whic...This is a second part of my previous comment (which should have waited for it really). In response to what you said about lots of measures of complexity being proposed, I'm not surprised, because I've also found lots of remarkably similar sensemaking frameworks that draw on complexity, not least the Native American medicine wheel, which goes back several thousand years. I call these frameworks and systems of thought "siblings" because they represent the lively diversity of thought created by many people thinking in their own ways about similar things. I agree with those who say that many approaches work in different areas, and I also think that many approaches work in different contexts and for different thinkers in the same areas. It's healthy to have lots of different ways of thinking about things, and it's healthy for each of us to find what works best for each of us. May we all find what we need.Cynthia Kurtzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16185088323080774635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719829.post-50727255298330843342010-08-23T23:12:35.966+00:002010-08-23T23:12:35.966+00:00Rick, nice to meet you and thanks for reading my b...Rick, nice to meet you and thanks for reading my blog post. When you say "these dimension[s] have the potential to be measurable" - that's somewhat true. But they also have the potential to be misunderstood and misrepresented. I do use stories and questions to map the space, but I consider this as measuring perception and experience rather than measuring reality per se. <br /><br />As to the category issue, in my view there isn't a huge difference between an explicitly categorical model and a model that just uses the same names over and over across many contexts. You don't have to SAY things are categories in order for people to use them as categories; in fact you can categorically deny it. But if you keep using the same names for well-defined states across many contexts, people will pigeonhole things into them whether you like it or not. Indeed, I've found that permanently named bounded areas lead many (but not all) people into simplistic thinking: the situation is "in" this area or "in" that area. I think it's more fruitful to think the other way round: areas are in situations, not situations in areas. Almost all of the situations I help people make sense of are spread across the landscape of hierarchical and meshworked connection, with aspects in many locations intermingling and interacting. That's why they require sensemaking.<br /><br />What I like to do is help people use the confluence framework to develop an emergent sense of the landscape of their context. This may include various features such as boundaries and bounded areas. Then I help them come up with their own names to describe the relevant features of their landscape, wherever they are located. Such context-specific names are more useful to context-specific goals than generic terms can ever be, and they don't carry the danger of categorization out of context. This is why I describe the entire confluence framework as negotiated space: because negotiation of the landscape produces something unique and uniquely useful to each group and goal and problem. The only generic terms I use are the terms that define the space itself, not bounded areas within it. I don't find comparing those across broad contexts to be very useful in practice.<br /><br />By the way, I have followed your work on Most Significant Change with interest. We have some things in common! Happy to connect off-line.<br /><br />CynthiaCynthia Kurtzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16185088323080774635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719829.post-44038577213220867902010-08-23T10:15:03.628+00:002010-08-23T10:15:03.628+00:00I'm pretty careful on the dissemination Rick, ...I'm pretty careful on the dissemination Rick, but I agree that others can interpret it too easily as a two by two (Shawn's video does that). I do my best to correct it when I find it. Oh and the typology is not given away other than in narrative descriptions of the extreme states. <br /><br />Cautions should never be prescriptions, but they should still be cautionary. Its linked back to the criticality of constraints which I introduced into the framework after leaving IBM to bring it closer to the literature, in particular the work of Brian Goodwin of Schumacher and others. For me categorisation models are highly appropriate in ordered systems (simple and complicated) and have utility there, but are dangerous elsewhere. Gradient models don't create boundaries and humans need boundaries to think differently. With a gradient people settle where they feel comfortable.<br /><br />Ditto reductionism (I am using it in the sense of its use within the complexity literature) which is OK for order where the whole is the sum of its parts and you can reduce a system to components. In a complex system this is impossible, and if attempted creates a reduced perspective.<br /><br />This is all part of a key Cynefin concept, namely that of bounded applicability. Different (and contradictory) approaches work in different domains.Dave Snowdennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719829.post-18843992114098933362010-08-23T09:52:41.497+00:002010-08-23T09:52:41.497+00:00I need to catch up with Dave’s initial comment on ...I need to catch up with Dave’s initial comment on this blog….<br /><br />1. The origins of the Cynefin Framework versus its current form and use. <br /><br />• Dave’s <a href="http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/dave/2010/07/origins_of_cynefin_part_5.php#more" rel="nofollow">first link</a> provides a useful background to how the Framework was developed. Its development is described as a process of of social construction. So perhaps any critique needs to be framed in terms of what can be expected from such a social process. That is not what I have tried to do in this blog, but would be interesting to explore. Caveat: Under “Social construction of the Cynefin framework” Dave seems to describe a social process of its <i>application</i>, but as far as I can see the basic typology is introduced to the participants. See Workshop Para 1.<br /><br />• However, the product of that process has taken on a life of its own (a meme no less), and its dissemination has been facilitated by Dave and many others (e.g. see Shawn Callaghan’s <a href="http://www.anecdote.com.au/archives/2009/04/a_simple_explan.html" rel="nofollow">explanation video</a>). It is this freestanding aspect of the Framework which I am addressing, the one which is most widely known and responded to. This product is important, because it is about a process of generalisation and wider application of knowledge, from those who originally constructed it, to many others. <br /><br />2. Categories versus continuums used in Frameworks and Matrices: I hear Dave saying two things: <br />• "I don't like 2by2 matrices because they create a categorisation approach in which the model precedes the data so people make things fit"<br />• "I also think the danger with gradient models is that don’t enable people to think differently"<br /><br />While I can sympathise with both views as cautions, if they are taken as prohibitions then we are left with no way of constructing a modeI that is usable by others.<br /><br />PS: In one of his posts Dave mentions the need to avoid “reductionism”. Like the word “linear” this word is taking on the automatic connotation of being “A BAD THING”, at least in some of the evaluation literature tying to address complexity issues. As this Google <a href="http://www.google.com/search?client=gmail&rls=gm&q=define%3A%20reductionism" rel="nofollow">define: reductionism</a> search result shows, there are many ways of defining reductionism. In my view the search for the simplest workable explanation of apparently complex phenomena is an intrinsic part of science.Rick Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07028422984421301184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719829.post-72576741951161949702010-08-23T08:32:29.678+00:002010-08-23T08:32:29.678+00:00Rick, in respect of your PS. Cynthia's post sa...Rick, in respect of your PS. Cynthia's post says when she encountered the Cynefin framework (which was pretty much formed at that time) she went away to think about the subject in general and came up with a model based on two axes which generated the idea of different network structures in the different domains. Those tetrahedrons from that (which she is further developing) were added to the Cynefin framework which added greatly to it. If you check <a href="http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/dave/2010/07/origins_of_cynefin_part_6.php#more" rel="nofollow">here</a> you will see the story of that. It was the penultimate leg of a long development. The final stage was to conform the language to avoid confusion between ontology and epistemology.<br /><br />As I identified in my earlier response the Cynefin framework is a sense-making one and is normally created as an emergent property of social interaction. One of the reasons for this is the need to root any sense-making model in peoples' own understanding of their past and possible futures. A system may in practice be complicated (ordered) but the nature of human knowledge means that for them it is complex or chaotic, and their interaction with meaning needs to reflect their understanding of the system. This is alignment between what is, what we know and how we perceived that I described in the final History of Cynefin post <a href="http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/dave/2010/07/origins_of_cynefin_part_7.php" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />If we are looking for measurement systems that allow us to determine where something sits within the framework then I think we have to create persuasive power with the "facts". In operational practice we do that with a wisdom of crowds variant namely the capture of large volumes of self-signified narrative. The combination of statistics with anecdotes in a single system seems to provide that. You'll see more of that on the site shortly and it relates to our various conversations about linking SenseMaker® with Most Significant Change and (I think) to complexity models.Dave Snowdennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719829.post-15514091651473761332010-08-20T18:30:21.304+00:002010-08-20T18:30:21.304+00:00Rick, in a recent couple of posts Cynthia Kurtz (a...Rick, in a recent couple of posts Cynthia Kurtz (a co-author of the IBM Systems Journal paper on Cynefin) recalled some of the early work around the framework and some other ways of thinking about it that may help address some of your questions. The diagrams are very thought-provoking and may be of use. <br /><br />Here's the first one (the comments are also very interesting): http://www.storycoloredglasses.com/2010/06/confluence.html<br /><br />regards, JohnAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09455469112645117394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719829.post-75216133432368460952010-08-20T16:51:04.360+00:002010-08-20T16:51:04.360+00:00In my attemtp to copy over Dave Snowden's comm...In my attemtp to copy over Dave Snowden's comments I lost two embedded links.<br /><br />Here they are:<br /><br />"Well for a start Rick Cynefin is not a matrix, its an emergent framework. If you read <a href="http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/dave/2010/07/origins_of_cynefin_part_5.php#more" rel="nofollow">this</a> you will see how it is created so it can't start with the intersection of two dimensions. Its a sense-making framework which is socially constructed from peoples experience of their past and also their anticipated futures.<br /><br />It is of course derived from the three fold classification of systems that are defined in terms of constraints (the bit you like) You might (if you merged the simple and complicated and call them order, prefer <a href="http://www.cognitive-edge.com/blogs/dave/2010/07/the_origins_of_cynefin_part_2.php#more" rel="nofollow">this</a> representation. The prime model is the three systems, Cynefin simply divides order into simple and complicated and adds disorder to recognize that human perception is also important."Rick Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07028422984421301184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719829.post-40467551650570794122010-08-20T16:38:57.358+00:002010-08-20T16:38:57.358+00:00And thanks to Dave Snowden for such a prompt respo...And thanks to Dave Snowden for such a prompt response, along with some useful links on the origins of the Cynefin framework.<br /><br />I will be especially interested in the "constrain based model to allow discrimination within the complex domain" that he mentions he is developingRick Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07028422984421301184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719829.post-45206092990732876442010-08-20T16:38:33.544+00:002010-08-20T16:38:33.544+00:00Oh, and a PS. I am currently working on a constrai...Oh, and a PS. I am currently working on a constrain based model to allow discrimination within the complex domain - my previous comment handled your first two concerns, hopefully this will help with the thirdDave Snowdenhttp://www.cognitive-edge.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719829.post-32156179812451292552010-08-20T16:37:41.967+00:002010-08-20T16:37:41.967+00:00Well for a start RIck Cynefin is not a matrix, its...Well for a start RIck Cynefin is not a matrix, its an emergent framework. If you read this you will see how it is created so it can't start with the intersection of two dimensions. Its a sense-making framework which is socially constructed from peoples experience of their past and also their anticipated futures.<br /><br /> It is of course derived from the three fold classification of systems that are defined in terms of constraints (the bit you like) You might (if you merged the simple and complicated and call them order, prefer this representation. The prime model is the three systems, Cynefin simply divides order into simple and complicated and adds disorder to recognize that human perception is also important.<br /><br /> I don't like 2by2 matrices because they create a categorisation approach in which the model precedes the data so people make things fit. As you can see from the first link the framework emerges from the data so its better for sense-making and is more likely to recognise a changed or changing context.<br /><br /> I know Stacy's model well, ad his latter rejection given that he now things everything is complex. I also think the danger with gradient models is that don;t enable people to think differently. They just settle where they are most comfortable (which is what Stacy has done). - a framework with boundaries (such as Cynefin) allows people to see that they need to behave differently in different contexts.Dave Snowdenhttp://www.cognitive-edge.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6719829.post-40209910897814259942010-08-20T16:36:27.990+00:002010-08-20T16:36:27.990+00:00This is a duplicate post of another made two days ...This is a duplicate post of another made two days ago. I have not been able to pen or edit that post, so I have had to re-create the post here. I will try to copy the 4 Comments across to this version as well.Rick Davieshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07028422984421301184noreply@blogger.com