I think that is a pity as there would be an interesting debate to be had, but its your call.

You have continued to make a false assertion despite the error being pointed out (including reference to published material). I have not made endless comments, I left it a week to give you time to sort yourself out.

You have failed to follow through on an earlier undertaking to provide a different name, and follow normal professional standards in the use of other people’s material.

Given that I withdrew comments about you behaviour based on those assurances, consider them now reinstated. Many other people have taken the Cynefin framework and produced different interpretations, modifications and developments. Its a pity that you are unable or unwilling to follow normal standards.

I will as requested make no further comment here.

To be frank, I would greatly appreciate if you stopped ‘responding’ here.

I asked for constructive feedback on what I freely admitted was experimental work. Yet to date I haven’t seen you once actually engage with anything I’ve said, other than to accuse me of being a liar, a thief and guilty of gross professional misconduct (an actionable libel in each case, by the way), and to assert, loudly and repeatedly, that what I am describing, _explicitly separate from the Cynefin-proper context_, is ‘wrong’, without ever giving any evidence as to why.

@Dave – “I see no sign of you making any attempt to distinguish your work.”

I am sorry, but that assertion is blatantly absurd, as would be obvious if you actually read the header which I placed with some care at the start of each post, or for that matter read any part of the text. As you do in fact know, my work in this field long pre-dates Cynefin. The _only_ aspect of Cynefin that I have used in these posts since you first complained has been the layout of the original Cynefin diagram, because it is a useful base-map _which you have explicitly placed in the public-domain_: _everything_ else has been my own work, in terms of building cross-references to others’ work, which in every case has been formally acknowledged.

@Dave – “If you had any confidence you would announce a model, describe its origins and inspiration and allow you ideas to stand or fall on their own merits. As it is you are trying to piggy back on other people’s reputation and work.”

I cannot “announce” a model when it is in the relatively early stages of development, in full view for everyone to see. As for “piggy back on other people’s work”, that has been so in every science, technology and other discipline since long before Newton’s phrase about ‘standing on the shoulders of giants’, and explicitly applies to your own work as much as it does to mine. You appear not to have noticed that I have quoted the sources for every cross-map described here, and distinguished those in each case from my interpretation of how they fit together – which interpretation has _not_ been done before, and therefore in that sense is ‘my’ work (if such a possessive term could ever be said to be meaningful in a collective, collaborative context). You may also not have noticed that I have in fact presented a conceptual framework around the concept of ‘problem-space’ and ‘solution-space’, which various other people have been kind enough to critique. That does still have a long way to go before it is fully usable, but it is beginning to take definite shape as a model in its own right. Its _only_ connection to Cynefin is that many of the cross-maps use the background-part of the public-domain Cynefin diagram as a base-map, fully credited in each case.

This conversation originally started some years ago with various colleagues who were discussing ‘Cynefin’ in the terms described here – incorrectly, as it turns out, as you’ve vociferously indicated here. Simply because many people _are_ using the ‘Cynefin’ term in that incorrect sense, I’ve used the label ‘beyond-Cynefin’ to make it clear that is _not_ about Cynefin, and that we _do_ need to make clear that separation of concerns. I took some care to _not_ use ‘post-Cynefin’, for example, as that would imply a pejorative, which it certainly should not: as I’ve said repeatedly in these posts, Cynefin-proper is entirely distinct, with a fundamentally different role from that which I’ve been trying to describe here.

Distinct from that, I believe I am entitled to a professional opinion about what Cynefin-proper in its present form will cover. My opinion is this: In the sense of the terms ‘Chaotic’ and ‘Complex’ that I have described in considerable detail here – in essence, centred around repeatability – I have indeed seen impressive evidence that Cynefin-proper provides valuable techniques and tactics within the Complex domain, and on the Complex/Chaotic border; but I have not yet seen evidence that Cynefin-proper provides techniques and tactics which operate _within_ ‘Chaotic’ space. That is my opinion, _based on the information that I have available to me at present_; the only information I have to the contrary is your assertion that I am ‘wrong’, but referring to materials to which I do not have access, and under the circumstances I would be unwise to do so. My opinion may be incorrect or invalid in your terms, but it makes no sense to describe it as a “falsehood”, and I see no reason as to why it so important to you to describe it as such.

@Dave – “When I ignore you then you will know I have lost all respect for you.”

I will have to say that I have not yet experienced anything in any response from you that I could describe as ‘respect’, so the point seems somewhat moot?

If you _do_ have anything _constructive_ to say, that would help us to fully separate these two very different concerns that have become unfortunately intertwined though historical accident, please do so. But beyond that I do have to accept the advice from the old movie ‘War Games’, that “the only way to win is to not play”: I cannot and will not accept these endless, pointless, and for the most part utterly irrational attacks from you any further.

Thank you.

Plenty of people use terms like Simple, Complex etc and I make no claim to them. In your case you not just using that language, you are also are taking the model representation and name. I see no sign of you making any attempt to distinguish your work. Sorry Tom, you dissemble. If you had any confidence you would announce a model, describe its origins and inspiration and allow you ideas to stand or fall on their own merits. As it is you are trying to piggy back on other people’s reputation and work. Your final sentence is even more absurd that normal.

As long as I am responding here I hold out some hope that you will honour your previous undertaking. When I ignore you then you will know I have lost all respect for you.

One of the points that I made – evidently not clearly enough – is that there is a timescale factor involved here. As time for response is compressed towards real-time or the scale is expanded towards the ‘cosmology’ level, the options to move towards the complex (experimentation etc) or complicated (analysis etc) become less available. I did note the important work you’ve been doing in extending the complex-domain closer towards real-time, yet almost by definition it cannot _be_ real-time. This compression forces us towards an increasingly limited range of options across the chaotic-simple axis – in the terms that I have been using, which may not the same as yours.

I accept your valid complaint on the last point, but as several people have pointed out, it is unfortunately still too early to allocate a distinct name. I had hoped to use ‘solution-space’, but there are clear objections to that, as you’ll see in the comments. I assure that I am doing as much as I can to resolve this, as I’m well aware that it is a continuing point of annoyance for you. It does, however, result from your use of a generic set of terms to describe a single fairly narrow context.

Aside from noting a continued obstinacy on your part to listen when a falsehood is pointed out if it doesn’t fit your vision, I still await you finding a name for your theories that would remove the need for the absurd opening sentence you have placed in each of these posts.