Cognitive Edge Methods

Models are a key aspect of sense making (and a major component of the SenseMaker™ software). The best way of understanding a model so that it can be reused is for the model, its domains, sub-domains and boundaries to be defined by fragments (such as stories) that create context. The Cynefin contextualisation: Four tables approach is illustrated here in respect of the Cynefin framework which is a primary sense-making model to understand the different types of system and associated decision models. It is recommended that Open space complex facilitation techniques are used in this process.

This workshop can be used to introduce people to the concept of contextual (or multi-ontology) decision making and is typically used for strategy sessions or for conflict resolution (where it has proved very useful). It can be run over an hour or a whole day depending on the number of subjects covered, or the depth of coverage of a subject.

The workshop includes one of the more structured approaches to the construction of the Cynefin Framework. In this case a minimum of sixteen participants are needed for the whole event at at least two hours, ideally half a day.

If there is not time for this, or if it is not desirable then complete the first two steps below and then leave out options below to adjust to the time available. Using four groups is desirable as you increase the contrast between views and you can combine and recombine groups to increase the number of perspectives that are taken into account. However in its simplest form this can be a one person process! Ideally a group of five to six is a working minimum though.

It is useful to pre-print action forms. These may include:

Action name
Person or group responsible
Description of action
Expected outcome (option to say not known)
Anticipated cost and resource
Completion date

These will be used for probes in the complex domain or complete actions in the case of un-order. Ideally print on four colours of paper. If you can print on post it notes of A5/Quarto size even better and if you can set up to print on the day you have more flexibility.

As a guide, here are the action forms used by Cognitive Edge in each domain of the Framework:

The first thing you need when creating a contextualised Cynefin framework is a diverse field of narrative fragments (fragments). A fragment is anything that can be used to make sense of a situation, anything that bears consideration with reference to the matter at hand.

There are several different ways to gather fragments:

just talk and write them down as they come up
tell anecdotes and write fragments down as they come up during the telling of stories
review already collected anecdotes and write down fragments found in them (or derive fragments from other things found in anecdotes - motivations from characters, for example)
use collected stories to create fables (see Story Construction) then consider things within those stories (characters, events, forces, turning points) as fragments
get fragments from a Future Backwards exercise (turning points, or any hexagons from that exercise)
use any diverse field of artifacts created by a divergent Cynefin process, or generate fragments from any rich set of constructs created by a convergent Cynefin process

No matter how they are collected, fragments should have these characteristics:

they should be concrete, that is, about real events and real people and real perspectives. One way of keeping fragments concrete is to gather them from narratives in one way or another.
fragments should be diverse, that is, they should show a wide variety of perspectives and viewpoints. This is something you have to see and react to in practice; it's hard to describe or predict in advance. If people are tending to all write or say the same things, use methods of complex facilitation to shake things up.
fragments should be coherent, that is not wildly diverse. They should be recognizably connected to one broad overarching theme or concern which relates to why you are doing the exercise in the first place. This theme often takes the form of a question, like "where is our customer relations philosophy going" or "why don't we see more innovation in our sales force".

The table below describes the various stages used in the method together with commentary where appropriate.

Task	Comments
The participants are introduced to the Cynefin framework with the emphasis on decision making. This can be supported by the example of the magic roundabout; against traffic lights, the children's party story etc.	They should then divided into four groups. It is important here to avoid examples (or they will be copied) unless they come from a completely different field. You don't want imitation without understanding. It can be easier to explain chaotic un-order in terms of two of its boundary movements: the collapse from order, the emergence of patters, chaos to complex, rather than the space itself.
The group are then asked to find cases of where the organisation they have worked for has treated a complex problem as if it was ordered. This can be repeated and ritual dissent can also be used to test and gain group understanding.	This is the most critical point to allow learning to emerge from the group even if painful. Stepping in to help them or suggest solutions means that you will get worse confusion downstream.
OPTION: use future backwards with each group (or with the group as a whole if small numbers) to identify major decisions and use that output (leave it in place) as input to the next stage.	--
Each group (or the group as a whole for smaller groups) now identifies all the major decisions or problem spaces by domain without argument. If there is a dispute about where something sits, then it should be defined as two separate decisions from different perspectives. The principle here is to avoid conflict or dispute at this stage.	--
OPTION: if you have multiple groups then you now merge the various data points. You ask each of the four groups to split evenly between simple, complicated, complex and chaotic and then combine the "simple" people from each group into a new one, bringing the simple items from each of their groups work at the previous stage. Similarly for each of the other three domains.	It's very important not to indicate that one domain is more important than another as you don't want the power seekers going for a domain for reasons of power. This form of separation allows members of the group who are uncomfortable with un-order to avoid those domains and do something they are more comfortable with. Do not be tempted to intervene to use your expertise to determine who should be in each group
You now focus the group on working through the domains, or if you have multiple groups each works on one. The rules are easy but need enforcement (which can be through ritual challenge or you may need to get involved by asking questions - not suggesting answers). You are also now becoming structured and you drive the groups to use the forms prepared before the workshop (see above under Preparation). SIMPLE: determine who should do what and by when with measurable outcome COMPLICATED: which group of experts should be allocated these issues and/or what research should be commissioned. COMPLEX: All actions here should be probes and based on small, short and safe-fail, i.e. we expect failure. Probes should be meaningful and not seen as time wasting and should aim at testing what is possible CHAOTIC: It is unlikely that there will be current chaotic events. Ideally this group does three things: In past crises what examples can we find of stabilisation to complexity or to simple What conditions would lead current complex situations to become chaotic What conditions would leave to a catastrophic collapse into chaos from simple order	If you have a group with strong opinions as to "the solution" then advise each advocate to determine a probe that would prove or disprove their hypothesis. Ideally both as this forces them to think. You can only test your idea only if you also construct a probe that would prove it is negative.
OPTION: Boundary movements. Here each group is split into two termed the vertical and horizontal boundary sub-groups. These then combine with their adjacent subgroups to create four groups overall working on defining the boundary conditions.	--
All the actions are then taken from the group and displayed. They can be reviewed by senior execs, prioritised etc.	--

Task

Comments

The participants are introduced to the Cynefin framework with the emphasis on decision making. This can be supported by the example of the magic roundabout; against traffic lights, the children's party story etc.

They should then divided into four groups. It is important here to avoid examples (or they will be copied) unless they come from a completely different field. You don't want imitation without understanding. It can be easier to explain chaotic un-order in terms of two of its boundary movements: the collapse from order, the emergence of patters, chaos to complex, rather than the space itself.

The group are then asked to find cases of where the organisation they have worked for has treated a complex problem as if it was ordered. This can be repeated and ritual dissent can also be used to test and gain group understanding.

This is the most critical point to allow learning to emerge from the group even if painful. Stepping in to help them or suggest solutions means that you will get worse confusion downstream.

OPTION: use future backwards with each group (or with the group as a whole if small numbers) to identify major decisions and use that output (leave it in place) as input to the next stage.

--

Each group (or the group as a whole for smaller groups) now identifies all the major decisions or problem spaces by domain without argument. If there is a dispute about where something sits, then it should be defined as two separate decisions from different perspectives. The principle here is to avoid conflict or dispute at this stage.

--

OPTION: if you have multiple groups then you now merge the various data points. You ask each of the four groups to split evenly between simple, complicated, complex and chaotic and then combine the "simple" people from each group into a new one, bringing the simple items from each of their groups work at the previous stage. Similarly for each of the other three domains.

It's very important not to indicate that one domain is more important than another as you don't want the power seekers going for a domain for reasons of power. This form of separation allows members of the group who are uncomfortable with un-order to avoid those domains and do something they are more comfortable with. Do not be tempted to intervene to use your expertise to determine who should be in each group

You now focus the group on working through the domains, or if you have multiple groups each works on one. The rules are easy but need enforcement (which can be through ritual challenge or you may need to get involved by asking questions - not suggesting answers). You are also now becoming structured and you drive the groups to use the forms prepared before the workshop (see above under Preparation).

SIMPLE: determine who should do what and by when with measurable outcome

COMPLICATED: which group of experts should be allocated these issues and/or what research should be commissioned.

COMPLEX: All actions here should be probes and based on small, short and safe-fail, i.e. we expect failure. Probes should be meaningful and not seen as time wasting and should aim at testing what is possible

CHAOTIC: It is unlikely that there will be current chaotic events. Ideally this group does three things:

In past crises what examples can we find of stabilisation to complexity or to simple
What conditions would lead current complex situations to become chaotic
What conditions would leave to a catastrophic collapse into chaos from simple order

If you have a group with strong opinions as to "the solution" then advise each advocate to determine a probe that would prove or disprove their hypothesis. Ideally both as this forces them to think. You can only test your idea only if you also construct a probe that would prove it is negative.

OPTION: Boundary movements. Here each group is split into two termed the vertical and horizontal boundary sub-groups. These then combine with their adjacent subgroups to create four groups overall working on defining the boundary conditions.

--

All the actions are then taken from the group and displayed. They can be reviewed by senior execs, prioritised etc.

--

Useful tips

Project stories on walls using digital projectors while participants are working in groups, to provide inspiration and examples
Ensure that you have participants split across four (or a multiple of four) tables. It provides for easier combinations of participants into subsequent groups (domains, boundaries)
Social construction is a high energy session and the facilitator should plan on time off afterwards

Challenging the Framework

It is sometimes useful to have different groups "visit" each other's frameworks after they are complete and challenge the groups to describe the domains and boundaries they have created in order to help them understand them better. For example, you might have one person from each group meet together in a "complex" group which discusses the nature of the complex domain in their respective frameworks, talks about similarities and differences, and perhaps sees ways they might each improve their frameworks in the light of the perspectives of the other groups. Ritual Dissent can also be used for this purpose.

In general there is quite a bit of sense-making that can go on after the basic framework has been generated, which may or may not be useful or necessary to refine the framework.

A Note About Timing and Groups

You will notice that there were no discussions of how long it should take people to do any of these things. That is because this method can vary widely in the amount of time it takes. This depends on the group of people (how large, how knowledgeable, if they've done this before), the purpose of the exercise, the scope of the context covered (e.g., this month's news vs. the history of our country), the types and numbers of fragments gathered or used, how much discussion takes place, and so on. In general you should go by the heuristics of complex facilitation to keep things moving and based your timing on what seems required for the circumstance rather than a plan set in advance.

During the collection of fragments it is often useful to mix up groups quite a bit in order to provide diversity. However, after groups start to place SMIs in space you should keep them together until they have created their frameworks.

Moving Forward

There are many things people can do with a completed contexualised Cynefin framework (which is what they now have), including:

They can summarize the items in the different domains with "exemplar" fragments, narratives and heuristics.
They can explore sub-domains within each domain (extreme, typical, and the two boundaries with other domains), clustering items in those areas, and then optionally also identifying some exemplar fragments, narratives and heuristics for the sub-domains.
They can talk about Cynefin dynamics and come up with narratives in which situations move from one domain to another, using the fragments they have already placed on their contextualised Cynefin framework. Descriptions of dynamics can be based on things like: events in the past, present or possible future; different perspectives on situations or forces; different aspects of situations or forces.
They can use the contextualised framework to indoctrinate new people into a common culture; and they can use the terms of the framework (exemplar fragments, for example) to create a meaningful shared language for situational assessment ("this is like the Battle of Harudin extreme-visible-order fiasco").
They can use the contextualised framework to negotiate meaning with other groups who have created their own contextualised frameworks, possibly using some of the same fragments.
They can use the framework to generate action plans to tackle the issues under consideration. The facilitator can provide pre-printed action forms to all groups after the development of the framework (use different forms for each domain - for example, forms for the Complex domain should focus on safe-fail initiatives). After each group has 10-12 action papers, ask them to bring them together - possibly use dotmocracy to finalise prioritisation of initiatives.

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.