Safe Fail Probes
One of the main (if not the main) strategies for dealing with a complex system is to create a range of '''safe-fail probes''' or experiments that will allow the nature of emergent possibilities to become more visible. In an unordered system safe-fail design is not only possible but is probably mandatory, the only issue is who does the design with what validation processes. A complex system has no repeating relationships between cause and effect, is highly sensitive to small interventions and cannot be determined by outcome based targets, hence the need for experimentation.
Safe-fail probes are usually designed to follow Cynefin Contextualisation .
There are four stages for designing safe-fail probes:
| Task | Comments | |
|---|---|---|
| Before opinions harden you create a very simple decision rule. Everyone with an idea that has even the remotest possibility of being true or useful creates a safe fail experiment based on the idea. | Critically this does not have to be one that would prove the issue, just consistent with the position adopted. | |
| Next each proposal is fleshed out, costed and subject to challenge and review, but nothing is ruled out unless rationing of resource is required. | This is rarely the case by the way as you keep the experiments small, designed for fast feedback/evolution. | |
| For each experiment to be valid its outcome must be observable, not to measure necessarily but to allow the simple rule of amplification or dampening of good or bad patterns to be put into operation. | There is no point in an experiment where you can not observe what is happening. | |
| The experiments are then reviewed for common elements and resourced along with set up of monitoring and review processes | ||
There are two criteria for an experiment to be run:
- Firstly, apply a test of coherence. Is the idea for the experiment coherent with a perspective on the systems past and future possibilities? To quote Thagard: ''A belief is justified not because it is indubitable or is derived from some other indubitable beliefs, but because it coheres with other beliefs that jointly support each other.'' Note that in validating an experiment it is not necessary to prove that it will work, but ''it is'' necessary to show that it is consistent with a view of what has happened and what could happen in the future.
- Secondly, if the experiment through failure or success would supply useful knowledge about the system at an acceptable cost then it is worth running. Of course it must be able to reverse quickly (safe-fail again) and it is necessary to monitor the impact as the experiment runs. Otherwise, knowledge is a valid or coherence goal of itself.
CITATIONS
If you would like to leave a citation about this method you may do so here.
COMMENTS
If you would like to leave a comment about this method you may do so here.