Making Sense of Challenges with Cynefin

On a recent coaching call, my client shared her gratitude for the methods and frameworks we’ve been using that help her and her team navigate complexity with confidence. One, in particular, has become a touchstone for her, providing language and an orientation that she routinely brings into her work. It’s called the Cynefin® framework (1). 

Cynefin is “a framework for understanding what kind of problem space you are in to guide decisions-making and action. It was created by David Snowden and takes its name from the Welsh word meaning ‘the place of your multiple belongings.’” (1) The word captures the concept that there are multiple factors in our environment and our experience that influence us in ways we know and also in ways we can only ever be partially aware of. He calls it sense-making framework or a decision-making framework. It helps us consider questions like “What kind of situation are we in?” and “How do we make sense of the world so we can act in it?"

The right side of the framework describes contexts where things are relatively predictable and knowable. If we understand the context well enough, linear solutions with well-managed resources and defined outcomes will likely produce the effects we want. We can evaluate our results and address gaps.

This side is divided into two domains: Clear and Complicated.

If a challenge is CLEAR, it’s solvable by doing things that we know how to do. There is stability, the way forward is clear, and it’s clear to everyone. These are our Known Knowns and it’s the domain of BEST PRACTICE. Examples may include routine administrative tasks, basic technical troubleshooting, and standardized processes for meeting regulations for specific contexts. 

If a challenge is COMPLICATED, it’s solvable, but it needs analysis by trusted experts who can sort through what’s needed. These are our Known Unknowns. Different experts may have different approaches. So, this is the domain of GOOD PRACTICE. For example, the tax code is confusing to me, but my CPA knows what he’s doing. He’s an expert in it and it makes sense to him.

The left side of the framework describes contexts where things are fundamentally unpredictable and unknowable. When we try to describe something, we’ll only be able to describe parts of it. And we can’t be certain the things we try will work. This side is divided into two domains as well: Chaotic and Complex.

If a challenge is CHAOTIC, it’s essentially a crisis in which it’s impossible to discern cause and effect or see any patterns. These are the unknowable unknowns. Chaotic challenges call for swift and decisive action to re-establish some order until things are stable enough to transition into another domain. This is the domain of NOVEL PRACTICE. 

If a challenge is COMPLEX, our standard or default models of linear problem-solving don’t work. The reason for this is that the nature of things are non-linear. These are our unknown unknowns. Solutions that worked before or in other situations aren’t repeatable here because the context is different. It reminds me of that saying that “No person ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and it’s not the same person.” Also, the phrase “Hindsight is 20/20” applies here.

In complexity we aren’t solving challenges as much as we are shifting patterns. This is the domain of EMERGENT PRACTICE. To make change in a complex system, we are looking to shift interactions between people and parts of a system to try and create beneficial shifts that we can then amplify. We establish a sense of direction and then stay open to change, novelty, and quickly adapt. 

There is a fifth domain, in the middle of the framework. It’s called CONFUSION and, if we can’t make sense of the kind of situation we’re in yet, we can place it here. And it’s a legitimate place for something to be. We may need to try and learn more about something before taking any kind of action.

Cynefin in Practice

The client I mentioned at the start of this article works with a group of networked organizations that coordinate services together. One challenge they had was figuring out a way to complete follow-up actions with clients. They needed to do this in order to facilitate the consistent data capture and evaluation needed to secure continued funding and better serve their clients. But they weren’t making the progress they wanted to be making. 

In a meeting, we did a Cynefin Contextualization Exercise (2). I started by asking each person independently list 5 aspects of this challenge and then code them in a way that would eventually map to the Cynefin Framework. They generated a long list, but I’m going to focus on one aspect that showed up on everyone’s list and ended up being the lever that helped them get unstuck. And that was the organizations’ capacities to complete important follow-up actions.

While all members had written down a version of this aspect, they’d coded it differently. Some coded it as belonging in the complicated domain. Some coded it as belonging in the complex domain. When this happens, we don’t leave it straddling the boundary. Instead, we get more granular, or specific, about the named aspect until the group agrees on domain coding.

This did this. They got more specific and ended up naming three different kinds of capacity: Funding, Technology, and Staffing. 

• They moved “Funding capacity” to the Clear domain because the funding source was known and well-defined in a specific contract.

• They moved “Technology capacity” to the Complicated domain because they knew how to make the technical adjustments needed and also who to ask for help in exploring different options.

• They moved “Staffing capacity” to the Complex domain. This included differences in how the organizations decided which work got prioritized by the staff they have. There are multiple ways to do this amongst the organizations involved and depended on things like their other programs and staffing challenges.

When they more clearly identified the predictable aspects of Technology and Funding capacity, a new possibility emerged. They saw how they could move forward with a narrower framing of their goal to create a shared follow-up tool. And then, this progress could be used as a safe-to-fail experiment that they could learn from as they move in the direction of using shared follow-up tools more broadly.

They left that meeting with a shared understanding of the issue, next steps, and a ton of energy. Something that was stuck is now well in motion.

References

1. https://cynefin.io/wiki/ - The Cynefin Wiki

2. List of methods - Cynefin.io - This is a list of different Cynefin Methods, including the 4-points method