Dave Snowden’s Cynefin framework

A system theorist may say our behaviour is shaped by our internal state, which is in turn shaped by external events.

A social systems thinker may say our behaviour is influenced by our place, our experience, culture etc..

Cynefin is a Welsh word covering habitat, place, experience, culture etc.

http://cognitive-edge.com/uploads/articles/Origins_of_Cynefin.pdf

http://mandenews.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/test3.html#comment-form

The Cynefin framework

The Cynefin framework is commonly shown as below with Disorder in the middle.

Complex

Probe - Sense – Respond

emergent practice.

--------------------------------Dis

Chaotic

Act - Sense – Respond

novel practice.

Complicated

Sense - Analyze – Respond

good practice.

order-------------------------------

Simple

Sense - Categorise – Respond

best practice.

Dave Snowden says the framework not a categorisation of systems (see below for that).

It lies at the problem analysis end of “systems thinking”, rather than the system theory end.

It is a “sense-making framework”.

It is a self-organising tool, a guide to choosing between processes or methods for systems analysis.

Snowden says when first placed in a situation, start in the central Disorder domain and then decide which kind of behaviour to adopt.

You may move from any domain to an adjacent domain, but not from simple to chaotic

Mistakenly behaving in the simple way is dangerous; it can lead you over the cliff from simple into chaos and failure.

The framework is a tool for working out how to solve a human problem, which approach or method to use

Given a task, a problem to solve, or transformation to make, we can use the framework to decide how we or other people best behave.

The problem domain is	The path from cause to effect (event to result, input to output)	Our behaviour pattern should be	We should
Simple (ordered)	Obvious	Sense - Categorise - Respond	apply established best practice.
Complicated (ordered)	Requires analysis, investigation or the application of expert knowledge	Sense - Analyze - Respond	apply a good/expert practice (any of several)
Complex	Can be recognised after testing, but not determined in advance,	Probe - Sense - Respond	experiment and test what practice emerges
Chaotic	None, there appears to be no relationship	Act - Sense - Respond	act fast using a novel practice to reach order
Disorder	Unknown, we don’t know which of the above 4 domains we are in		work out what domain we are in!

The framework could be used to justify the choice of design/development method to managers.

The Cynefin system classification

If Conrad Taylor has it right, Dave Snowden speaks of three kinds of system: ordered, complex and chaotic.

He distinguishes them as shown in the table below; I have added notes in [square brackets].

Cynefin terms	Agents [their roles and rules]	Activities	Snowden says
Ordered systems	Constrained	are predictable [meaning deterministic]	Most management theory is predicated on this view.
Complex systems	Lightly constrained	Agents interact with each other and external entities, and co-evolve [their roles and rules]	A better model for understanding human societies, organisations and markets.
Chaotic systems	Unconstrained	Agents act independently of each other	Some assume markets are chaotic; but agent behavior is analysable using statistical analysis and probability.

The difficulty with this is that it confuses social entities and social systems.

The actors in a human social entity are somewhat constrained not by one set of roles and rules, but by many.

They have to choose not only how to act in one system, but also which system’s roles and rules take precedence.

As Ashby would have said, one social entity may realise infinite social systems.

Conclusions and remarks

The Cynefin framework is a tool for situation thinking rather than systems thinking.

It is the kind of mental model loved by management consultants.

It is a sense-making framework for those wanting to make a “management intervention”.

It is a tool for problem domain analysis – for choosing how to approach a business problem.

The four-way classification of situations or problem domains may be useful.

But in an exposition of system theory, there some difficulties to address.

To call every problem, situation or social network “a system” is unhelpful.

The big issue in social systems thinking is the confusion between:

· A social network in which people communicate

· A social system in which people realise role and rules.

Ackoff was inconsistent; he started off distinguishing abstract systems from concrete systems.

Later, he spoke of a human organisation as being a system regardless of any abstract system description.

This confusion of a human network with a system runs through much systems thinking discussion.

This table is an attempt to separate three concepts that have become entangled.

Abstract social system	A set of roles and rules (the logic or laws actors follow)
Concrete social system	Actors playing the roles and acting according to the rules
Social network	Actors who inter-communicate and act as they choose

With respect to a system, social networks might be classified into three kinds.

· In a formal social network, actors are wholly constrained by the roles and rules of the system.

· In an informal social network, actors are somewhat constrained by the roles and rules.

· In a chaotic social network, actors completely ignore the roles and rules.

Read Social networks versus social systems for further discussion.

Footnote: Mapping the Cynefin framework to system classifications

Dave Snowden says The Cynefin framework is not a categorisation of systems.

However it does tend to be regarded that way.

For just for fun, let us try to map it to a system classification.

Mapped to Ackoff’s system classification

One might try to map the Cynefin framework to Ackoff’s scheme as below.

Cynefin problem domain	Ackoff’s system class
Simple	Mechanistic
Complicated	Animate
Complex	Social
Chaotic	Ecological

But actually, the two schemes are unrelated

The Cynefin framework is looser, more generic, and used differently.

Mapped to Avancier’s system classification

Avancier suggests classifying an operational system by scoring it on nine dichotomies or scales on which systems might compared.

This table selects four of Avancier’s nine scales that can be related the Cynefin framework.

Bear in mind that deterministic means predictable in theory, predictable means predictable in practice.

Facile	Easy transformations / services	Difficult transformations / services	Complex
Predictable	Inputs have predictable effects	Inputs have unpredictable effects	Unpredictable
Rigid	Fixed components & processes	Refactorable components & processes	Malleable
Static	Constrained, rule bound	Adaptable, self-directing, evolving	Changing

I propose a rough mapping between the two schemes as follows.

Cynefin problem domain	Avancier’s system scales, applied to a human problem domain
Simple	Predictable	Facile	Rigid	Static
Complicated	Predictable	Complex	Malleable	Static
Complex	Unpredictable	Complex	Malleable	Changing
Chaotic	Unpredictable	Complex	Malleable	Changing

The tools are different. So the mapping here is done for fun.

Mapping Ackoff’s system classification to Avancier’s

Ackoff’s system class	Avancier’s system scales
Mechanistic	Predictable	Facile	Rigid	Static
Animate	Unpredictable	Complex	Malleable	Static
Social	Unpredictable	Complex	Malleable	Changing
Ecological	Unpredictable	Complex	Malleable	Changing