Good video. It nicely explains why we might need to innovate, and why we might not.The provocation is: the people and approach used to address one set of problems will not work for a different set of problems.
Jennifer - That was the most straightforward and useful interpretation I've heard. Thank you so much. I'm interested in the other work you do...I'll google you and see the book...
Cynefin is a Welsh word that roughly translated means your own neighbourhood or where your roots belong. Interested to know it's derivation in this context.
The problem with this map is that it references the current state. She mentions that things can move across it. This would be much more useful for classifying things which were always in that state by definition. The reason this breaks the model is that everybody has different information
According to Snowden himself, Covid is an example of the chaotic domain. In terms of the first step of "act", PM Arden instituted a lockdown immediately (which he says was the right thing to do) as it allowed the govt to figure out options later. So in this domain, one should "act" (as part of act-sense-respond) to introduce a starting point (or as he calls it, "draconian constraint") for problem solving.
Very clear explanations, but I am very unsure that the last part of what Jennifer is saying is true. While it is possible to move a situation from chaotic to something else, just by acting (example: you come to a car accident with people lying all over the place, some dead some not dead, chaotic situation that will move to a non chaotic a while afterwards (sorry for the macabre example)), it is not possible to move from complex to complicated or simple. A complex system, for example a football team, will never be complicated, it will always be complex. Any other opinions about that?
What about this example of bringing something from complex to complicated: 10-15 years ago when blogging was emerging on the Internet, building a blogging platform was in the complex space. We didn't really understand what user wanted, we didn't even know what blogging was, we didn't know if people would read blogs and how often. There were a lot of unknown unknowns and we had to run experiments and learn from successes and failures of other blogging platforms. These days creating a blogging platform is in the complicated space. We understand what blogging means, we know what are the basic features of the blogging platforms, we understand how users behave. And now we don't even need to build a blogging platform, we can simply get one of the shelf, expert might disagree which platform is the best for us, but most of them would de a good enough job. What do you think Francois?
Great explanation. However, I do not like that you changed "complex" for "complicated." I do not see them as interchangeable; one could say my neighbor's son/daughter is complex, but my neighbor's ex-spouse is complicated. "Simple" switched with "obvious" is also, IMO, not interchangeable. Mechanisms inside a mechanical key lock are simple, but may not be obvious. Also, simple and complex are to each other as yin and yang. Obvious and complex do not share that kind of dynamic relationship. Your explanation was really good. I preferred Dave Snowden's words "complex" and "simple" instead of "complicated" and "obvious."
Thanks for the question! There is no other/y axis. Cynefin isn’t a 2x2. Dave Snowden talks about thresholds between domains. There isn’t a threshold between Obvious and Complicated-it is a continuum. There is one between Complicated and Complex, and between Complex and Chaotic, and Chaotic and Obvious (a cliff you can fall of from Obvious to Chaotic).
(More thoughts from us!) This is a common misunderstanding, as people are so used to seeing 2X2 matrices. And the Cynefin framework isn’t one of those - so the two axes aren’t defined like that. While there’s some truth in the x-axis being predictability (it’s not 100% that, but it’s a really helpful starting point), there is no y-axis as such. This is one of the reasons that we use organic lines rather than straight ones - because the framework is a way of seeing how different systems and approaches are near each other. So Obvious and Chaotic are close together because if we’re operating in the world of Obvious systems, there is a risk of tipping into Chaotic when the world changes.
Let's take the example of a brick and morter local Pizza shop. Now i don't know if anyone else noticed this or not but let's say one of these local pizza shops has been in business for 20yrs or so. There's always some framed newspaper clipping on the wall, or a plaque from a local resturaunt review , maybe a few- but nearly always from their first couple years they were in business. These kinds of places have their best recipes, dish's they are known for- they know how many cooks they need in the kitchen, how many servers they need working the busy shifts, etc. etc. They've been grossing 25k-30K a week for a couple of decades with the formula they have figured out for best practices..... Then along comes a pandemic out of nowhere. Our leaders at the local pizza shop now find themselves in a situation where there are government regulators saying they can't open their doors to the public, a work force that no longer is available to work the job, and trouble even getting the ingredients to make the pizza. I think this is a real world example of "The Cliff"- and the dangers of being stuck in the domain of best practices when there's a unexpectic shift into a chaotic scenario. 110,000 small restaraunts closed their doors forever during the pandemic
I could not find any real third party studies showing that it is effective empirically. I would prefer a framework that does not drip with odd sounding jargon. In short it sounds like someone has used pompous nonsense to describe basic management decision making. Remove the jargon, give quality third party sources, and you might have something.
Thank you for the insight. What evidence-based alternatives are there to this framework? Related, what resources would you recommend on this alternative framework? I'm interested in incorporating complexity management into my instructional design practices.
+Mackenzie Moyer There are frameworks based on CBT and DBT which are similar to Cynefin, but with less of the woo jargon. If you want something that was popular in the 80s and worked relatively well you could go with NLP(also has woo-jargon). All of the above aside you might want to consider what types of complexity will be encountered. Queue and Game Theory are well suited for some complex situations in business management and competition. The Caveat is that these, while evidence based, are complex themselves and require thought to use. Generally the standard in management is to use systems theory and procedure. When standard procedure is not able to handle a complex situation a person meets with the other department team members to help make a better decision. Simple stuff can be handled really well by conditional procedures: if event then do statements. In the future smart contracts and block chain will make things easier for businesses and managers, especially in complexity management.
I could not find any third party studies showing the concept of "basic management decision making" has an empirical referent, or evidence of consistent utility within the cause-effect framework posited by cynefin. The cynefin framework is a sensemaking (phenomenological) framework. It asks the user to conceptualize particular sense data as simple (obvious), complex, complicated, or chaotic, and then to act accordingly in a way that increases one's effectiveness. What does "basic management decision making" say about how to be effective within chaos or complexity? And what is the evidence to support those assertions? In my experience - and in the experience of hundreds of people I know who have added cynefin to the set of management tools they use - the best way to understand cynefin is to use the ideas, and to test for yourself (internal empiricism, if you will) the value of the framework as opposed to competing alternatives. The cynefin language is not that difficult for someone who writes as clearly as you do.
Nice, simple explanation of the Cynefin. thanks
Best, simplest explanation of how to apply Cynefin that I've come across. Thank you Jennifer!
Good video. It nicely explains why we might need to innovate, and why we might not.The provocation is: the people and approach used to address one set of problems will not work for a different set of problems.
Thanks for explaining it in simplistic terms. I just bought your books.
Excellent video clearly explaining Cynefin. Very helpful indeed!
Fascinating. Thank you very much!
Wonderful video! This truly helped me to understand the content much easier.
Jennifer - That was the most straightforward and useful interpretation I've heard. Thank you so much. I'm interested in the other work you do...I'll google you and see the book...
So well explained. Thank you!
Fantastic Video, thank you Jennifer
Thank you! Well explained!
Very good explanation! Thanks!!
Thank you very much for your very compelling while concise introduction. I appreciate that and go to share your video in my office
great explanation and easy to understand - thank you
Thank you so much for the easy explanation
Perfect! So easy to understand....
Excellent explanation. Thanks!
Well done!!
Great Video!!! Very useful to understand
Excellent introduction! Simple but not dumbed-down.
Great video. Thanks for sharing
Thank you Jannifer!
Thank you. Simple explanation, easy to follow. Very useful.
Nice job of putting this into plain language. Thank you! This is useful as part of the kit for introducing Cynefin to students.
What resources might you recommend (articles, books, videos) for someone autodidactically learning Cynefin?
@@mackenziemoyer8437 See the following for some background and links - www.infoq.com/minibooks/cynefin-mini-book
@@gregbrougham6903 Cheers :)
Great explanation, Thank you Jennifer
great explanation, thank you!
clear bit to bit explained thank you
Clear explanation.
wow such a lovely easy explanation
Super helpful thnx
super simple explanation! (:
I like this explaination best.
Makes this material very accessible.
Cynefin is a Welsh word that roughly translated means your own neighbourhood or where your roots belong. Interested to know it's derivation in this context.
The problem with this map is that it references the current state. She mentions that things can move across it. This would be much more useful for classifying things which were always in that state by definition. The reason this breaks the model is that everybody has different information
What are some of examples of situations which fit in "chaotic" domain ?
Jennifer is emergent practice not the one used in complex systems? And novel practice in chaotic systems?!?
Great explanation 👌.
What's a good example of a chaotic domain?
According to Snowden himself, Covid is an example of the chaotic domain. In terms of the first step of "act", PM Arden instituted a lockdown immediately (which he says was the right thing to do) as it allowed the govt to figure out options later. So in this domain, one should "act" (as part of act-sense-respond) to introduce a starting point (or as he calls it, "draconian constraint") for problem solving.
Very clear explanations, but I am very unsure that the last part of what Jennifer is saying is true. While it is possible to move a situation from chaotic to something else, just by acting (example: you come to a car accident with people lying all over the place, some dead some not dead, chaotic situation that will move to a non chaotic a while afterwards (sorry for the macabre example)), it is not possible to move from complex to complicated or simple. A complex system, for example a football team, will never be complicated, it will always be complex.
Any other opinions about that?
What about this example of bringing something from complex to complicated: 10-15 years ago when blogging was emerging on the Internet, building a blogging platform was in the complex space. We didn't really understand what user wanted, we didn't even know what blogging was, we didn't know if people would read blogs and how often. There were a lot of unknown unknowns and we had to run experiments and learn from successes and failures of other blogging platforms. These days creating a blogging platform is in the complicated space. We understand what blogging means, we know what are the basic features of the blogging platforms, we understand how users behave. And now we don't even need to build a blogging platform, we can simply get one of the shelf, expert might disagree which platform is the best for us, but most of them would de a good enough job.
What do you think Francois?
Great explanation.
However, I do not like that you changed "complex" for "complicated." I do not see them as interchangeable; one could say my neighbor's son/daughter is complex, but my neighbor's ex-spouse is complicated. "Simple" switched with "obvious" is also, IMO, not interchangeable. Mechanisms inside a mechanical key lock are simple, but may not be obvious. Also, simple and complex are to each other as yin and yang. Obvious and complex do not share that kind of dynamic relationship.
Your explanation was really good. I preferred Dave Snowden's words "complex" and "simple" instead of "complicated" and "obvious."
aha- moment
The x-axis is the predictability, but what about the y-axis? Why Chaotic si near Obvious and Complex, but far from Complicated?
Thanks for the question!
There is no other/y axis. Cynefin isn’t a 2x2. Dave Snowden talks about thresholds between domains. There isn’t a threshold between Obvious and Complicated-it is a continuum. There is one between Complicated and Complex, and between Complex and Chaotic, and Chaotic and Obvious (a cliff you can fall of from Obvious to Chaotic).
(More thoughts from us!)
This is a common misunderstanding, as people are so used to seeing 2X2 matrices. And the Cynefin framework isn’t one of those - so the two axes aren’t defined like that. While there’s some truth in the x-axis being predictability (it’s not 100% that, but it’s a really helpful starting point), there is no y-axis as such.
This is one of the reasons that we use organic lines rather than straight ones - because the framework is a way of seeing how different systems and approaches are near each other. So Obvious and Chaotic are close together because if we’re operating in the world of Obvious systems, there is a risk of tipping into Chaotic when the world changes.
Let's take the example of a brick and morter local Pizza shop. Now i don't know if anyone else noticed this or not but let's say one of these local pizza shops has been in business for 20yrs or so. There's always some framed newspaper clipping on the wall, or a plaque from a local resturaunt review , maybe a few- but nearly always from their first couple years they were in business.
These kinds of places have their best recipes, dish's they are known for- they know how many cooks they need in the kitchen, how many servers they need working the busy shifts, etc. etc. They've been grossing 25k-30K a week for a couple of decades with the formula they have figured out for best practices.....
Then along comes a pandemic out of nowhere. Our leaders at the local pizza shop now find themselves in a situation where there are government regulators saying they can't open their doors to the public, a work force that no longer is available to work the job, and trouble even getting the ingredients to make the pizza.
I think this is a real world example of "The Cliff"- and the dangers of being stuck in the domain of best practices when there's a unexpectic shift into a chaotic scenario. 110,000 small restaraunts closed their doors forever during the pandemic
I could not find any real third party studies showing that it is effective empirically. I would prefer a framework that does not drip with odd sounding jargon. In short it sounds like someone has used pompous nonsense to describe basic management decision making.
Remove the jargon, give quality third party sources, and you might have something.
Thank you for the insight. What evidence-based alternatives are there to this framework? Related, what resources would you recommend on this alternative framework? I'm interested in incorporating complexity management into my instructional design practices.
+Mackenzie Moyer
There are frameworks based on CBT and DBT which are similar to Cynefin, but with less of the woo jargon. If you want something that was popular in the 80s and worked relatively well you could go with NLP(also has woo-jargon).
All of the above aside you might want to consider what types of complexity will be encountered. Queue and Game Theory are well suited for some complex situations in business management and competition. The Caveat is that these, while evidence based, are complex themselves and require thought to use.
Generally the standard in management is to use systems theory and procedure. When standard procedure is not able to handle a complex situation a person meets with the other department team members to help make a better decision. Simple stuff can be handled really well by conditional procedures: if event then do statements.
In the future smart contracts and block chain will make things easier for businesses and managers, especially in complexity management.
QQ: Cheers mate, I'll check these out.
I could not find any third party studies showing the concept of "basic management decision making" has an empirical referent, or evidence of consistent utility within the cause-effect framework posited by cynefin.
The cynefin framework is a sensemaking (phenomenological) framework. It asks the user to conceptualize particular sense data as simple (obvious), complex, complicated, or chaotic, and then to act accordingly in a way that increases one's effectiveness. What does "basic management decision making" say about how to be effective within chaos or complexity? And what is the evidence to support those assertions?
In my experience - and in the experience of hundreds of people I know who have added cynefin to the set of management tools they use - the best way to understand cynefin is to use the ideas, and to test for yourself (internal empiricism, if you will) the value of the framework as opposed to competing alternatives.
The cynefin language is not that difficult for someone who writes as clearly as you do.