Complexity in Organisations and the Cynefin Framework
From Regional Knowledge Resource Kit
What do you mean by ‘complexity’?
The Cynefin framework was originally developed by Dave Snowden, partly based on the work of Max Boisot. It was enhanced by Snowden and Cynthia Kurtz while working at IBM’s Institute of Knowledge Management and then later in IBM’s Cynefin Centre. It is still a work in progress, and some of the terms have changed. This description of the framework uses the terminology adopted in their 2003 publication of the framework.
I find this framework very useful is explaining to executives why stories are useful by highlighting that organisations are complex and managing in complex environments require you to sense that patterns in action. Stories are very good in helping people see the broad patterns in action. Here are the five domains described in the Cynefin framework. The known domain represents those issues that the group perceives as highly predictable. For example, if an employee turns up to work and conducts himself properly, it is reasonable to expect the employee will be paid. The cause and effect relationship between performing work and being paid is ‘known’.
The knowable domain represents issues that require some effort—usually in the form of analysis—to determine the relationship between the causes and the eventual outcome. Once this relationship is established, a solution designer can set to work to solve the problem. Engineering solutions typically reside in the knowable domain.
The known and knowable domains are said to be ‘ordered’ views of the world. Issues in these domains are amenable to a reductionist approach to developing a solution. We believe that the majority of organisations view most issues as if they were ‘ordered’.
Contrasting with the ordered perspective is what Kurtz and Snowden (2003) call the ‘un-ordered’—phenomena in which order exists without a ‘director or designer … in control but which emerges through the interaction of many entities.’ While this description seems to apply primarily to the complex domain (below), Kurtz and Snowden include both the complex and chaos domains in un-order.
The complex domain represents issues where the cause and effect relationships are intertwined and outcomes only make sense in hindsight.
The horrendous bushfires that hit Canberra in 2003 provide a good example of a complex phenomenon, taking into account all those affected and those who responded to the disaster (the fire itself might be better understood as chaotic). Before the fire hit Canberra, there were very few warnings that such an event might occur. In fact, in one scenario undertaken by the fire service just before the blaze, they envisioned what might happen if seven high-power electricity towers were destroyed; in fact, they were faced with over 70 ruined towers in the inferno. The very day after the fire, residents were presented with a string of ‘talking heads’ on television accusing organisations of not doing enough—insufficient available fire trucks, poor coordination, lack of back-burning in the forests, etc. Of course, there had been no way of predicting how the fire was going to unfold—there were just too many factors to consider.
A complex system appears—in retrospect—just like one that is knowable. This sets a trap for unsuspecting solution designers: they think the system is knowable and so set about tackling the next similar event, expecting it to behave like the first, only to find that the system morphs slightly but significantly into something similar but not the same. For this reason, we call these complex issues ‘intractable’. It is difficult to gain traction using ordered techniques.
The chaos domain is where humans are unable to perceive any relationship between cause and effect. Patterns are indiscernible. True chaos is encountered in organisations when an entirely novel and potentially catastrophic circumstance is presented. In recent corporate history, this would include the National Australia Bank traders scandal and Enron’s rapid demise. Of course, chaos can occur on any scale in an organisation.
It is important to note that the term ‘chaos’ is not used here as we use it in the vernacular, meaning things are a real mess. Rather, it means that it is impossible to discern patterns and the only choice is to do something, in the hope that the action will create new patterns that will help the organisation move toward a solution.
Disorder represents situations where the group is undecided about the nature of the issue before them. This is a dangerous place to be because an appropriate response is difficult to discern without understanding the nature of the issue.
This is a helpful video clip that explains complexity using a children's birthday party as a metaphor. Click here to watch this clip.
