Tom Graves

Several people have asked me for more information about the book I’m writing at present, ‘The Business Anarchist‘, so here’s a quick summary of the themes and structure.

Who or what is a ‘business-anarchist‘? Anyone who works with inherent uncertainty in business in an intentional, disciplined way – working with the uncertainty rather than trying to ‘control’ it. Often it’s not so much a person as part of a business-role – a necessary part of that business-role. (Most of the examples in the book will come from my own field of whole-of- enterprise architecture, but the same principles apply in just about every other type of business-role.)

Why ‘anarchist’? Anarchy is about working without rules, working ‘outside the box’. When ‘business as usual’ breaks down, a disciplined form of anarchy is probably the only way through to something new that works well in the new business context.

‘Kiddies-anarchy’ and real anarchy: Anarchy has had a very bad press in the past, mainly because of what I describe as ‘kiddies-anarchy’ – an overdose of presumed ‘rights’ without responsibilities, especially in terms of causing disruption and destruction without any awareness or respect of the consequences for anyone else. Real anarchy is very different – arguably the most difficult of all political forms, because there are no easy rules to fall back on or to blame. Some entire organisations have been run on anarchic lines – the Quakers have done so for centuries – and even some businesses – such as Ricardo Semler’s Semco Group – but here we’re mainly focussing on an often-unnoticed yet everyday set of roles and responsibilities within an ordinary, everyday type of business.

What kind of business? Any business, and any type of business – for-profit, not-for-profit, government or social – from a huge global conglomerate right down to the local bridge-club or the school parent/teacher association.

Business-analyst and business-anarchist: Business-analysts deal with certainty and predictability: they refine the figures, crunch the numbers, track the trends. When your business world is reasonably stable, you need your analysts to help you optimise efficiency and maximise returns. But when your business world is not certain, not predictable, that’s when you’ll need your anarchists. And you’ll need your anarchists then, too. Your analysts can only tell you how to do more of the same, better – which is good, of course, in its own context, but it doesn’t help when what you really need to do is something different.

What’s different about how business-anarchists work? The quickest one-line answer is that analysts rely on rules and algorithms; anarchists rely on guidelines and principles.

What principles should business-anarchists rely on? Obviously this varies from one context to another, but from my work in whole-of-enterprise architecture the three most important design-principles seem to be these:

• There are no rules;
• There are no rights; and
• Money doesn’t matter.

These three principles, and a fourth follow-on principle, Always enhance adaptability, provide the overall structure for the book.

There are no rules: Rules provide a spurious sense of certainty that can let us down badly when our business-world changes around us. The real world is much messier and more complex than any system of rules that we could devise. Hence at times it’s necessary to start off from the assumption and expectation that there are no rules: instead, we have to rewrite the rule-book, by working back to the core-principles from which the rules originally arose. A simple everyday business-example of this is embedded in the ISO-9000 standard on quality-systems:  work-instructions provide ‘the rules’ that we need for real-time practice and process, but when the world changes, we need to rewrite the work-instructions by working upward to procedure, policy and, if necessary, overall vision.

There are no rights: ‘Rights’ are an important social fiction, but as with rules, they don’t actually exist in the real world, and in themselves they tell us almost nothing about how to create the conditions that such ‘rights’ would require. In practice, apparent ‘rights’ arise from mutual, interlocking responsibilities – so it’s those responsibilities, and not the purported ‘rights’, that are where we need to start. This has important implications for business-architecture and enterprise-architecture that will be explored in some depth in the book – for example, we need to ask serious questions about “What do shareholders own?” if they possess all the ‘rights’ for the business but without any real responsibilities.

Money doesn’t matter: Money is important for every business, of course, especially in a commercial context – but as with rules or ‘rights’, it’s not the place where we need to start. Money is also only one small part of the overall economy in which the business operates: reputation, trust, attention and respect all need to exist before any money will be placed on the table. And if we state – or show – that we’re only interested in ‘making money’ from our customers and community, why would anyone want to engage with us? As with other ‘rights’, money is solely a social fiction, and profit is an outcome of being ‘on purpose’ to values: to achieve the profits that we may desire, we first need to start from values, with a values-architecture that describes how we engage with everyone within the extended-enterprise of the business.

Always enhance adaptability: Change is the only certainty: we therefore need to design for that fact. Mistaken notions about rules, rights and money often serve only to slow us down, placing the business at risk as the world changes around us. This sections of the book explores how to embed the ‘business-anarchist’ principles into everyday business-practice, especially in business-architecture and enterprise-architecture.

—

More details to follow over the next few days, including book-cover, cover-blurb, ISBN numbers and so on. Publication-date is fixed as late-April, so I need to keep moving!

(This series of posts explores a concept of ‘problem-space’ versus ’solution-space’ which in part demonstrates alternative uses and interpretations of the Simple / Complicated / Complex / Chaotic categorisation originally described in the Cynefin diagram. It must be emphasised that this is not about the Cynefin Framework; for details on Cynefin, please contact Cognitive Edge.)

This post represents yet another attempt to describe certain fundamental differences in approach from twf (aka ‘That Welsh Framework‘ – so-called because we’re no longer allowed to use its official name at all) and to find an alternative term that might reduce the ongoing friction in that quarter.

To do this, we need to go right back to first-principles: the core concept of context-space, which eventually leads us to context-space mapping.

(Another long-ish post: more after the ‘Read more…’ link.)

Read more…

As can be seen from the comments to the previous post, the demands that we find another name for this framework-that-has-no-name have become increasingly strident.

Various urgent online and in-person conversations have ensued. The only directly-meaningful name we came up with was ‘solution-space mapping‘, but several people have disagreed with that, and in any case there is already a well-established usage of the acronym ‘SSM’ in this context, namely Checkland et al’s Soft Systems Methodology.

There’s a long-standing software tradition of assigning arbitrary names as working-titles for projects. Someone suggested ‘Eric’, which was a name they’d used when developing an IT system for an airline, and which reminded me of a nonsense-phrase I’ve often used, that “anything unknown is called Fred”.

But even an arbitrary proper-name seems too concrete for something that is necessarily abstract and, as a name, necessarily temporary. We couldn’t think of any meaningful acronym, so we played with sounds for a while, until someone came up with this:

tinc

It’s the sound of the penny dropping, as someone ‘gets it’; the small bright sound that the imaginary light-bulb makes at the ‘Aha!’ moment in solution-space. A quick, recursive echo of a sound. And it’s also a contraction of what this name really is: a temporary inconvenience.

Since it’s clear we’re not even allowed to use the name of the framework that this isn’t in order to describe what it isn’t, we would have to apply the same process to give us a temporary name for that. So we might note that in Welsh the plosive sound ‘toof!’ would be spelt as twf, which should give us a relatively-safe acronym for That Welsh Framework. (’Twf‘ is also the name of the Welsh Language Board website, by the way – “Cymraeg o’r Crud, Two Languages from Day One”.)

So there we have it: tinc, for the framework, and twf, for the-framework-that-it-isn’t. A temporary inconvenience, but it’ll have to do for now.

(This series of posts explores alternate uses of the Simple/ Complicated / Complex / Chaotic categorisation originally described in the Cynefin diagram. This discussion is not about the formal Cynefin Framework; for details on the Cynefin framework proper, please contact Cognitive Edge. The term ‘beyond-Cynefin’ is solely a placeholder to indicate this separation of concerns.)

Back to theory again – apologies… – following on from comments on the previous posts, especially ‘On meta-methodology‘.

The aim of this post is to try to create a bit more clarity around the notion of ‘problem-space’ versus ’solution-space’. To do this, I’ll draw on a variety of sources, ranging from dowsing to enterprise-architecture, Sigurd Rinde’s work on ‘barely-repeatable processes’, activity/response-models such as OODA and PDCA, and much more besides.

Will again be long, hence more after the ‘Read more…’ link.

Read more…

(This is part of an ongoing series that explores alternate uses of a generic conceptual categorisation originally described in the well-known Cynefin diagram. This discussion is not about the formal Cynefin Framework; for details on the definition and use of the Cynefin framework proper, please contact Dave Snowden at Cognitive Edge. The term ‘beyond-Cynefin’ is here used solely as a placeholder to indicate this separation of interests.)

Here’s another collection of ‘Cynefin-like’ cross-maps that I’ve found useful for sensemaking in enterprise-architecture and related work:

• ISO-9000 quality-model
• Skill-levels
• Automated versus manual processes
• Asset-types
• Data, information, knowledge, wisdom

More details after the ‘Read more…’ link.

Read more…

(This is part of an ongoing series that explores alternate uses of a generic conceptual categorisation originally described in the well-known Cynefin diagram. This discussion is not about the formal Cynefin Framework; for details on the definition and use of the Cynefin framework proper, please contact Dave Snowden at Cognitive Edge. The term ‘beyond-Cynefin’ is here used solely as a placeholder to indicate this separation of interests.)

Another collection of ‘Cynefin-like’ cross-maps that I’ve found useful in various aspects of my enterprise-architecture work:

• Repeatability and ‘truth’
• Marketing versus sales
• The ‘Plan / Do / Check / Act’ cycle

More details after the ‘Read more…’ link.

Read more…

(This is part of an ongoing series that explores alternate uses of a generic conceptual categorisation originally described in the well-known Cynefin diagram. It should be emphasised that this discussion is not about the Cynefin Framework, which is a distinct body of practices based on scientific research. For details on the definition and use of the Cynefin framework proper, please contact Dave Snowden at Cognitive Edge. As this broader usage of the categorisation does not yet have a specific name, the term ‘beyond-Cynefin’ is here used solely as a temporary placeholder to indicate this separation of interests.)

‘Cynefin-like’ cross-maps

I first started using what we could describe as ‘Cynefin-like’ models several decades ago, such as in my book Inventing Reality (first published 1986, current print-edition available here). I’ve found them immensely valuable in a very wide range of applications, especially in disciplines such as enterprise-architecture that necessarily cover the entire scope of a context. The key to its usefulness is that the model’s categorisation provides a consistent base-map for all manner of cross-maps, each of which provides new insights about the context.

Typical characteristics of a ‘Cynefin-style’ base-map include:

• universality: the model purports to cover the entire scope of a given context
• sensemaking: the purpose of the model is to guide sensemaking and decision-support, rather than (for example) design and implementation of a specific ’solution’
• simple partitioning: the model divides the context into a small number (typically 4-5) of regions or ‘domains’ (e.g. the Cynefin set of ‘Simple’, ‘Complicated’, ‘Complex’ and ‘Chaotic’), and often including a ‘none-of-the-above’ region (e.g. the Cynefin central region of ‘Disorder’)
• fluid boundaries: the boundaries between regions are not rigidly fixed (as they are in e.g. a two-axis matrix), and may be allowed to move, blur and/or be somewhat porous
• usage-dependent layout: the layout of the model may not be semantically significant (as it is in e.g. a two-axis matrix) – layouts are often two-dimensional, but may be single-dimension horizontal or vertical, or multi-dimensional such as the four-axis/three-dimension tetradian

(More after the ‘Read more…’ link.)

Read more…

(This is part of an ongoing series that attempts to resolve problems in (mis)interpretation of the Cynefin framework, and in particular the commonly-used Cynefin diagram. For the correct interpretation and use of the Cynefin framework and Cynefin techniques, please contact Dave Snowden at Cognitive Edge.)

The standard Cynefin diagram is as follows:

Diagram by Dave Snowden, Cognitive Edge (image: public domain)

As the Wikipedia article states, “The model provides a taxonomy that guides what sort of explanations and/or solutions may apply.” Unfortunately, this is a generic model that lends itself to multiple interpretations, only one of which is ‘correct’ Cynefin. There are also multiple uses of the concepts and conceptual space summarised in the model’s taxonomy and pathways, of which, again, only a specific subset may legitimately be described as Cynefin.

It is therefore important to state that what follows is not ‘Cynefin’, yet necessarily uses what is in essence much the same taxonomy (see ‘Framework role and purpose’ and ‘Similarities to Cynefin’ in the previous post ‘Solution-space: beyond Cynefin?‘).

The central theme in this ‘not-Cynefin’ framework is the concept of ‘problem-space’ and ’solution-space’.

Problem-space is the context of the problem. Part of this is repeatability, or perceived cause-effect relationships, which can usefully be mapped using the same ‘Cynefin’ taxonomy:

• Simple: very high perceived repeatability, in accordance with simple linear cause-effect rules
• Complicated: linear (repeatable) cause-effect relationships, but may involve multiple factors, delays and feedback-loops
• Complex: cause-effect relationships are context-dependent – for example, where the effect itself becomes the cause
• Chaotic: no perceived cause-effect relationships

(The central region of ‘Disorder‘ is always ‘chaotic’, by definition, because it is the starting-point before any cause-effect relationships can be determined; the Chaotic-domain of problem-space applies where some or all of the problem continues to show no perceivable cause-effect relationships.)

Solution-space is the context and characteristics of the solution – i.e. the methods used to resolve the perceived problem. This too can be usefully mapped using the same taxonomy:

• Simple: the solution uses rules based on linear cause-effect logic
• Complicated: the solution uses analytic algorithms allowing for feedback, delays, etc, but are ultimately based on linear cause-effect logic
• Complex: the solution uses context-sensitive heuristics, guidelines and iterative re-assessment, in which the problem is continually ‘re-solved’ rather than ’solved’
• Chaotic: the solution uses principles to guide creation of uniquely context-dependent results

(Note: these are only one-line summaries, not formal definitions!)

The process of finding an appropriate solution to a specified problem can be mapped as a pathway across solution-space. To succeed (i.e. to be effective), the ultimately-selected solution(s) must map appropriately to the context of the problem in problem-space. Note that although in some cases a problem may be situated in just one specific location in problem-space, it is more common for it to occupy a region or even to have components that spread out across multiple regions. For example, a context might be mostly resolved by a rules-based automated process (Simple) but also ’special cases’ that may need to be ‘escalated’ to an algorithmic system (Complicated), a manual review (Complex) or specialist expertise (Chaotic) for a ‘one-off’ incident. The overall solution must resolve all components in problem-space.

The core concept in the use of this framework is recursive meta-methodology. For example:

• a method in solution-space acts on the problem in problem-space
• a methodology selects an appropriate method
• a meta-methodology selects an appropriate methodology
• a meta-meta-methodology selects an appropriate meta-methodology

…and so on. A methodology is a path within solution-space; a meta-methodology is a path in another layer of solution-space; in effect, the layers may be nested indefinitely, but must ultimately all resolve to a set of methods that address the actual problem in problem-space.

The ultimate aim of all of this is to find methods that are appropriate and effective for any given problem, in any business context (such as my primary field of enterprise-architecture), or in any other field, as required.

I’ll stop here for now, but will give more explanation and illustrative examples in later posts in this series.

Previous posts in this series:

• ‘Complexity, chaos and enterprise-architecture‘
• ‘More on chaos and Cynefin‘
• ‘Alternatives to the ‘Cynefin’ term, please?‘
• ‘Solution-space: beyond Cynefin?‘

The previous posts on ‘chaos and Cynefin’ were intended to contribute to an ongoing debate about how to use concepts from the published Cynefin framework and the like, and particularly to underpin a systematic exploration of what many Cynefin aficionados would describe as the ‘Chaotic domain’. It’s evident that there’s a real perceived need there, because overall I’ve so far had several hundred reads, several dozen re-Tweets (particularly via knowledge-management thought-leader David Gurteen and management-consultant Paul Jansen, for which many thanks), and a lot of constructive comments and feedback – all of which have been very helpful.

Unfortunately, as can be seen from his comments to those posts, one person who was definitely not happy about such ideas was the originator of Cynefin, Dave Snowden. So there’s evidently a major problem for us there.

What is clear is that, whether Dave likes it or not, a substantial community already uses Cynefin concepts and Cynefin terminology to describe a kind of meta-methodological ’solution-space’ within which various methods, methodologies and tactics can be situated, and their respective appropriateness for specific contexts can be assessed. What’s also clear is that, as far as Dave is concerned, we are no longer permitted to use the term ‘Cynefin’ for this ‘framework-that-occupies-much-the-same-conceptual-space-as-Cynefin’: we do need to find an alternative term for this.

In short, to describe that ’solution-space’, it seems we now need to move beyond Cynefin.

To do that, we need to identify:

• the role and purpose of this ‘not-Cynefin framework’
• how it draws from the published Cynefin framework and/or common usages of that framework
• how it extends and/or differs from the published Cynefin framework
• summarise how this framework would be used in practice

Once we’ve done that, we can perhaps start looking for an appropriate alternative term to describe it.

This is again going to be long, so I’ll stop here for a moment with a ‘Read more…’ link.

Read more…

As may be seen from his comments to my previous posts on ‘Cynefin and chaos’, Dave Snowden has expressed extreme displeasure at my/our usage of the term ‘Cynefin’ to describe the solution-space nominally described by the Cynefin framework.

Anyone have any suggestions for an alternate term that could be used for this purpose, please?

Many thanks.