What’s the Cynefin framework?
The word “Cynefin” comes from Welsh and means “habitat, haunt, acquainted, familiar”. It’s a framework used to support leaders in making decisions and acting properly in a given situation. David Snowden, the creator of the theory, lays it down in his article in Harvard Business Review. I recommend reading it. Every time I read it I learn something new. According to the Cynefin framework, making decision should be done depending on the context we’re in. Snowden differentiates four contexts: simple, complicated, complex, and chaotic. All of these four can be found in our home or workplace. By context Snowden means the circumstances we face at a given moment. He claims it’s changing circumstances that make some approaches work and some others fall short. He divided the contexts on the basis of the type of cause-and-effect relationship.
The simple context: if you do x, you get y
Snowden reckons it’s the environment in which everyone knows how to respond when the problem emerges. We worked out the right answer to it because we’d had experienced it before. There is a clear relationship between cause and effect here. This is a stable environment where very few change take place. Moreover, this is the realm of known knowns. If a problem should arise, the leader knows what what problem it might arise and has a ready remedy for it. The making-decision procedure goes as follows: first we sense the facts (establish them), then categorize them and finally respond accordingly. Sense-categorize-respond. We learn by experience, so over here we use past best practices.
Entrained thinking
Some leaders might oversimplify matters. Which might lead to wrong categorization. Another threat is that this approach somewhat hampers product development. We don’t look for new solutions, but rather make a mechanic classification. Furthermore, Snowden argues that some leaders might fall in the trap of entrained thinking. What does it mean? Entrained thinking is the way we learnt to respond to shaped through past experience. In other words, we subconsciously assume that something will always happen the same way it did before. It’s natural we learn by experience. The problem is we stick with the only perspective we experienced before.
Complacency
Another problem that might appear in a simple environment is that leaders tend to become complacent when everything goes according to plan. Snowden says if the context of the situation changes, leaders sometimes react too late. This is the effect of overconfidence that leaders are susceptible to in this domain.
The complicated context: expertise needed!
Just as in the simple environment, there is a clear cause-and-effect relationship here. There is more than just one right answer to the problem, yet it requires some mental effort and expertise in a given area to reach it. For this reason, this is the domain of experts. For those knowing their onions. An example? Purchasing a computer. It requires some technical knowledge to make a good purchase. That’s why we take a buying action with the assistance of someone who knows what’s what. For instance, you notice there’s something wrong with the engine of your car. You hear the engine knocking. Nonetheless, without a technical knowledge, you aren’t be able to diagnose the problem, so you pick a mechanic’s brains.
Sense-analyze-respond
As opposed to the simple environment where you categorize, here you analyze in order to reach a solution. Snowden maintains entrained thinking is also a danger here, but it concerns experts rather than leaders. As a result of entrained thinking or their ego, a board of experts might arrive at different conclusions, which Snowden calls “analysis paralysis”. Reaching the right decision might take a long time in this domain, as we collect data to be analyzed. From a business viewpoint, there must be some compromises between finding the right solution and making a decision. It’s called a trade-off.
The complex context: agile to the rescue!
The domain of unknown unknowns. We simply don’t know what obstacles we might encounter, and hence don’t have a ready solution to it. The environment of change and flux. That’s a project with unclear, changing requirements. You need to adapt to the situation or else you’II die. There is no universal solution to the problem here. This is where Agile comes in. It’s about early and continuous delivery. Quality goes first and not productivity. It’s not about how much work we do, but rather how much quality we provide. We deliver less but more often.
Trial-and-error mode
The procedure here is: probe-sense-respond. Since the relationship between cause-and-effect is unclear here, we work under a testing mode all way along. For a traditional command-and-control management style change is a blocker, which mostly works in a simple environment. We probe to learn new things through experience. Probing entails taking action and letting new patterns emerge. This requires tolerance to failure that is challenged by the inspect-and-adapt cycle mechanism.
The chaotic context: area of novelty
There’s lots of happening there. It is an emergency like a car accident that we experience the first time. During the emergency, the first thing we do is act, as there is no time to think. Finding the relationship between cause and effect is impossible to determine here because of a constant shift in crisis management. This is the area of novelty and innovation. If we don’t come up with something, we’II not manage. We simply have to find a solution because we’re forced to do so by the circumstances.
Act-sense-respond: seeking order
The problem is, however, most of the knowledge we have gained so far won’t be useful here. Snowden provides one strategy of handling chaos. He recommends managing chaos and innovation in parallel. That is to say, during a crisis we appoint a person to deal with it and at the same time select a separate team which focuses on doing the things differently. Hence, this domain requires the top-down communication. We we act we aim to establish order and need to deal with the most pressing issues first. Then we sense: we try to find some patterns and stability. Finally, we respond, which is an attempt to shift from chaos to complexity.
The Cynefin framework: summary
No matter how great a solution we implement is. it won’t be successful or useful unless used in the correct context. The framework puts emphasis on the necessity of applying different approaches to different situations. The solution, albeit great, can be even harmful if applied in the wrong context. This framework makes it possible to not only classify the nature of the problem you face, but also provide you with the procedure to follow. In order words, it helps project managers to determine if a problem can be solved with best practice (obvious), good practice (complicated), or whether you have to probe and experiment a little (complex, chaotic). What domain does Agile fit in best? Complex environments in which you need to provide a product, but you’re not 100% sure what it’s going to be like, and neither is your client.
The Cynefin framework: useful sites
A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making (hbr.org)
A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making (hbr.org)
The Origins of Cynefin – Part 2 – The Cynefin Co
