Have you no more Welsh words at hand as all the new terms you suggest have far too much baggage in my opinion.

Un-ordered to me suggests true randomness as in 'an un-ordered list' which doesn't imply any order. I always felt the complex space lay between order and the total un-order of chaos.

Disorder gives me hints of disturbance,sometimes purposeful and the unfortunate parallel use of having a (bowel or stomach) disorder.

Inauthentic suggests 'intended to deceive' as in forgery which is not how I think the central domain.

Probably not much help, but they are my initial heuristics

Cheers, Ron

First of all, I would replace the name 'Cynefin' with something that's in English and makes sense. But that's just me.

As for the proposed changes here, the thing with 'ordered' is that it implies a designer, one who orders. Is that a connotation you intend in your nomenclature?

The thing with a term like 'ordered' is that it tells us about how something got to be the way it is, while remaining vague on what that current state actually is. 'Complex' and 'Complicated' tell us about the state, without implying agency.

Academics from different fields as well as managers and executives from different backgrounds associated different meanings with regard to terminology used. Each based on their specific historical and profesional background. I lecturure to electrical, mechanical, civil and industrial engineering students, as well as IT students and have noted the different meaning they attribute to very similar or same concepts based on their specific orientation. When I have discussed the Cynefin model framework with some students it has been imperative that the domains in question need to be defined so has to gain a common sense of reference. The ordered domains they have little difficulty with. The problem comes with the un-ordered domains as they are often for the first time being confronted with the relevant concepts of Complexity and chaos as relevant to the framework. Using Paul Cilliers characteristics of complexity and a number of papers on CAS helps with that aspect - but chaos tends to be associated with aspects such as disaster or other very extreme negative experiential associations - come to think about it it is rather unsettling when you are in such a context. We tend to talk through examples to co-discover meaning using alternative papers in litterature presenting different aspects of the subject. I would guess that Dave is relating the terms to some or other academic conceptualisation of the domains in terms of new research undertaken and am not clear on where he is heading with this. Will be watching with interest.

Regards

Richard

Mostly echoing Ron's comments, but of all the terms the one I like the least in inauthentic. It just doesn't seem to fit.

I've never really understood that central domain. Does it function like a plughole (as in "down the")? If so, maybe "sink" would work.

May I suggest:
> If you must replace complex, why not use "emergent", since that is the focus of our interest in that space, and the word has less baggage than many alternatives. I know you really like the concept of "un", but it is not a connotation that is immediately apparent to most - do you want to waste your elevator pitch explaining the difference between the negation prefixes of "un", "dis" "in" and "a" ?
> Since chaotic "lacks coherence" why not simply call it "incoherent"?
> Perhaps "uncategorized" for the central domain previously called disorder.

While you are rethinking the construct, please reconsider the diagram. I was trying to explain the framework to someone who pulled out the HBR article, and was horrified to see what you had done to it! You need lines separating the domains. Of course, you can then play with relative thickness of vertical and horizontal (as per "the new dynamics of strategy"), etc. While I can imagine the point you were trying to make by removing the lines, one could extend the principal by also removing the names, and then the entire diagram. In my opinion, the HBR diagram is far beyond the point of absurdum in your reducio.

i think your idea to distinguish between chaos and complexity as different domains (i.e.they both can't be unordered because they are quite different) is a move in the right direction - to me unordered means order emerges from the ground up (there is an order, but it is 'un')- that is the most succinct way i can describe it. In comparison - in chaos order does not emerge so it is not even unordered, or disordered, it is unrestrained (how is that for a word?) - i do think there are examples of authentic chaos so don't like the idea of inauthentic for chaos.

I think disorder in the middle makes sense - it is blockage - the opposite to order - no progress (which is different to the other domains) - you can have simple disorder - secretaries arguing about whether lotus notes is better than outlook and you can have complex disorder - snowden arguing against weick...but come to think of it can you have disorder in chaos? i think there are no constraints in which the disorder can happen...so the answer is no.

i think cynefin must stay - simply because it conveys the message that history is still running..not sure what english word can do that.

...i am hesitant to ask this, but really want to know why you have never cited Dee Hock and the chaordic organisation?

I think that there will be confusion with moving the disorder from the centre to the currently chaotic domain. Perhaps instead or disorder, you could call it non-order - which differentiates it from un-order (as in your description of the un-dead in one of your papers) and implies that there is actually no order in the chaos domain. You have to act to generate understanding to move the issue out of that domain.
As regards the middle, I am with Patrick - it always seemed to me that these were the items that could not be described as having characteristics pertaining to a particular domain and so were left over until more information came to light. Neither of your suggestions do it for me as yet - but I cannot come up with an alternative as yet.
Perhaps, as a contrarian, it does not need a name??? Are you trying to force something that does not fit? It is not a square or round shape!!!

Hi Dave,

I am looking at this question, not from a purely semantic angle, but rather from a "how do we make this crucially important Cynefin framework more accessible to the masses" angle..

I find the Simple/Complicated/Complex/Chaotic dimensions very easy to explain when I present the framework to a mixed audience of medical, management and IT people.

I would caution against a move towards Ordered/Unordered/Disorder etc, as I believe this will make the concepts harder for many laypeople to grasp.

If a move in this direction does get significant support, then please ensure we maintain the ability to describe the frameworks in the original (HBR oriented) dimensions.

Dare I say "The perfect is the enemy of the good"..?

Thanks

Tony, NHS

I'm not versed into complexity thinking. But I don't think human systems exist and I have wondered about the role of personal perception in analysing (aspects of) problems. The Cynefin model seems to assume objectivity, but for example: what is simple to some persons may be complex for others.

As to the current labels: I've not understood the middle domain, except as a place to store anything which can't be placed in the other 4 domains. Also I have some difficulty while explaining the three C's: complicated, complex and chaos. The three C's are not very handy as abbreviations, and while the term 'chaos' at once rings a bell with the audience, the difference between complicated and complex is harder to get across. Actually I quite like the known-known, known-unknown and unknown-unknown examples to explain simple, complicated and complex. Even while wondering about the role of subjectivity.

As to the new labels you are thinking about: I will not easily understand the difference between unordered and disordered. They sound very alike to me, even more than complicated and complex (never mind the domains they denote). And if you really want to use them, I would switch them. Disordered sounds like something which was ordered, but then interfered with. Unordered sounds like a beginning, like chaos actually. The middle domain still is a mistery to me, but terms like inauthentic or alienation sound like psychological problems so I wouldn't use them if I were you.

Goedel - mathematician - has proved that every system contains a paradox which only can be solved by a more encompassing system, and that every system necessarily contains a paradox. I think the snitch in your model may be somewhere in the realm of objectivity-subjectivity, and that the labels you use are unimportant except from a strictly theoretical and a strictly usability point of view.

At the same time, you have opened my eyes and will open the eyes of a lot more people about complexity. How to look at stuff, how to interprete what's happening. How to behave and manage (or refrain from managing). How to listen.

So whatever your vocabulary: thanks!

Dave,

I would advise against changing the names of the spaces. I understand there are theoretical issues, but there are those of us who are daily having your "elevator" (lift) conversation - and if you change this then nameless executives will turn to us and say "ha - he doesn't know what he's talking about".

I also think every good name has baggage - the reason the name would be "good" would be in part due to the subtle other meanings, "the baggage" if you see what I mean; the cleverness is in the richness, which damages your theoretical purity.

Cynefin is a beautiful name in that its baggage is both present and obscure to most of us. I agree with Ron - welsh words with eloquent backdrops would work well here.

Anyway assuming you make the shift - I'd argue for: "Explicitly constrained", "Implicitly constrained" and "Randomly constrained". Maybe I am mistaking symptoms for criteria here though. Not sure about "gently". I must admit the centre hole always presents a problem - "alienation" is bad and will never work, but I see where you are coming from - I have read my Lacan now. I admit I am more of the mechanical mind and I rather like "Sink" or "Plughole"... from Patrick's thinking. Though I may be missing the point.

regards

Rob

Lot of good comments, and I agree that change is bad and frightening. To be avoided at all costs. Seriously though, the arguments against change above are compelling - I'm of two minds. Couple of thoughts from these minds:

* If you are moving away from chaos because your focus is human systems, then consider using "anarchy" - which is how some understand chaos in human systems.

* I've not had trouble understanding the central domain - which may indicate I don't understand it. As we are describing habitat or environment (I still like terroir!), the central domain reflects our comprehension of the environment. This was reinforced for me by a national security council staffer who immediately grasped the concept - "I see it now, we didn't have any idea what new data meant. We always assumed it indicated chaos and immediately sought ways to restore order. Never really considered complex nature of things." I don't understand how inauthentic conveys this, but that may indicate I've missed something. What's wrong with "unknown?" I've described the role of KM in national security, in part, as seeking to shrink this 'unknown' domain as we better understand the environment and challenges.

* I think I'm talking myself into advising against overhauling this. The link between cause and effect in Shawn C's excellent video is compelling, and helps reinforce links to Stacey's invocation of Kant's teleology frameworks.

* The difference between unorder and disorder is going to be difficult - for me at least - to convey.

-- Cheers,

jb

in the book "Complexity" by M. Mitchell Waldrop there is a lot of agreement among scientists at the Santa Fe Institute that the most difficult part of the emergence of Complexity Science has been that of semantics. A whole new language had to evolve to even be able to discuss Complexity. I really would caution you not to go off and develop an entirely new language to communicate about the same issues. That would casue even more confusion. I think your task is to help educate people about what the existing terms mean rather than change the terms. Finally, I refer you to the work of Chris Langton at Sante Fe which went a long way toward helping sort out the confusion between the terms Complexity and Chaos.

What about replacing Complex by Disorder and Chaotic by Anti-order?