Complicated Is Not The Same As Complex

And Why It Matters

I am a great fan of Dave Snowden. He has offered some of the best novel thinking I have encountered in my business life. One of the most valuable tools he has been instrumental in developing is the Cynefin framework, which I regularly refer to both consciously and unconsciously as a point of reference and, as Dave would say, a decision-making tool.

For me, the primary insight of the framework is that how we behave, or the mode of inquiry we use,  in finding a path and making decisions in the circumstances in which we find ourselves will have a fundamental impact on the success or otherwise of the outcome. Choosing the right approach at the right time can be a lifesaver, and this sense-making tool can help us make sense of where we are and help us choose approaches that are properly aligned with that. 

The framework describes five different environments: Simple, Chaotic, Complicated, Complex, and a fifth liminal state of Disorder.

Each section describes some characteristics that prevail, describes a set of behaviours for navigating those environments and the types of practices we could reasonably apply. It was, I think, initially applied by people interested in knowledge management and helped hint at some ways of addressing the challenge of KM in a range of different circumstances. So, by way of example, it emphasised the highly iterative approach of “probe, sense, respond” in complex environments, which would lead to emergent practice models as opposed to simple environments where we can use the “sense, categorise, respond” approach and reasonably develop models of best practice.

A key learning is that using the wrong approach by misconstruing the environment can lead to catastrophic errors. That is particularly so on the boundary between the simple and chaotic domains. One of the most common was applying rules-based models in the wrong environment, where they would quickly come unstuck. 

One of Dave’s favourite illustrative examples was that of the work of Hans Monderman, who used interesting approaches to address complex traffic flow problems, particularly in the context of shared space. For Hans, being Dutch, these shared spaces commonly involved a range of users like pedestrians, bikes, cars, and trucks. One of his signature approaches was to remove much of the road marking and signage which, on the face of it, is apparently counter-intuitive. In a highly oversimplified explanation, I will suggest that part of the theory is that by removing these guides, you force the agents involved in the environment to consciously engage with their surroundings and avoid falling back on assumed safety implied by the road signage and so they will adopt a “probe, sense, respond” approach. Typically, they slow down and pay attention to all the other moving parts around them and so safer and better outcomes are achieved.

Whilst it is not a categorisation model (I can still hear Dave chiding me on that one)  it is possible to post-rationalise certain events as falling within a certain environment because they provide us with examples of where the sense-making qualities of the model were overlooked, the wrong approach adopted and disaster ensued. I used it a good deal in years gone by lecturing on the origins of the 2008 Financial Crisis. I contended that it could be reasonably be attributed to a knowledge management failure whereby banks misunderstood the fundamental nature of many of their decisions, which were inherently complex but they chose to consider them complicated and so systemised these transactions, for reasons of cost, in a way that was bound to fail.

But what has this to do with our project?

Well, I think that as we explore the novel approaches to problem-solving in India through viewing examples, we should be conscious that our own knowledge and awareness are limited, and there is a very wide range of factors at work. This, I would suggest, means there will be unknown unknowns, which leads me to think that the probe-sense-respond approach to developing our understanding is probably a good starting point. 

I am also inclined to think that most of the examples we will encounter, as they involve people and the idea of agency that we have touched on elsewhere, will probably mean that a good deal of what we experience will be complex adaptive systems. Rules are not typically good in this place, but we will, hopefully, over time, come to see through a glass darkly and learn some lessons that we can carry with us as implements in sour Swiss army knife of tools to come up with novel solutions.

If you are not already familiar with Cynefin, I heartily recommend it to you, and this video will explain it well; after all, it is Dave himself telling the tale.