In his 2010 video, Dave Snowden described the
Cynefin Framework model. In his description, Snowden (2010) stated that Cynefin
Framework differs from other decision-making models because it is a sense-making
model and not a categorization model (1:07). In other words, in most models,
the model guides the decision but in the Cynefin Framework model, the data
guides the model. The data itself points you to where to be in the frame, which
can seem a bit complex. Snowden (2010) stated that the model is complex in
nature because it is “rooted in many different paths which profoundly influence
what you are but of which you can only be partially aware” (0:47).
The model consists of four quadrants or frames which
are simple, complicated, complex, and chaotic. Each of these frames warrant
different actions or decisions. Each frame can be used to simplify decision
making based on the situation or data that is presented.
The ‘simple’ quadrant can ease or facilitate
decision-making because it is an ordered system in which the relationship
between cause and effect is anticipated in advance. In other words, in the
simple context the relationship between cause and effect should be evident to
any rational person. The relationship between cause and effect in the simple
quadrant is a benefit because individuals are taught to use best practices in
these scenarios.
Snowden and Boone (2007) gave an example of a simple
decision occurring when a borrower pays less money than is required. After I
graduated college, I took a position as an account receivable clerk at a local
law firm. My duties included reviewing the bills, billing the clients, and
collecting and depositing the funds. The processes were straightforward and
simple including what to do when a client did not pay their full bill. In these
situations, our ‘best practice’ was to apply what was paid and bill the
remainder as an unpaid balance with the next month’s bill. Each employee in the
department knew the procedure to follow if a bill was not paid in full.
The ‘complicated’ quadrant of the Cynefin Framework
can also be utilized to ease the decision-making process. One way the
complicated frame is helpful in successful decisions is that it allows an
individual to analyze the data because the relationship between cause and effect
exists but is not self-evident. In a
complicated situation, there could be multiple correct answers but it all
depends on your level of expertise, so this quadrant could be used as a
learning experience. The third way that this quadrant can ease decision-making
is that it utilizes the help of experts.
I used my experience as an accounts receivable clerk
as an example of a ‘simple’ quadrant, but there were also instances where the
situation put me in the ‘complicated’ quadrant or frame. For example, what is the ‘best’ practice to
handle a client that has not paid their bill for several months? In this
situation, there is not a best practice as there are several options that could
be utilized. First, we could send them to a collection agency which was frowned
upon by the shareholders. The second option was to get a shareholder to include
a letter with the next bill. This avenue was taken if the shareholder did not
know the client terribly well. The third option was for the shareholder to call
the client. Finally, the shareholder could simply ‘write off’ the debt. Snowden
and Boone (2007) stated that complicated contexts sometimes require the use of
experts. When a client had not paid their bill in several months I would seek
the expertise of my supervisor or the shareholder in charge of the case. In
this situation, they would choose a ‘good practice’ based on the data at hand
(Snowden, 2010).
The third quadrant in the Cynefin Framework is the
‘complex’ context. This frame is different from the two previous frames because
it is a system without causality (cause and effect do not share a link).
Snowden and Boone (2007) stated that individuals in this frame should probe, sense,
and then respond. This category could be beneficial in decision-making because
it creates a learning experience that allows individuals to experiment with
systems. The final product is a new way of dealing with things or ‘emergent
practices’ (Snowden, 2010).
Not long after I was hired for my current position,
it was evident that the procedure for entering lengthy journal entries needed
to be altered. The previous procedure consisted of hand keying each entry which
took a considerable amount of time. With the consistency of the extensive journal
entries beginning to speed up, a new process it was dire to develop a new
process.
Snowden (2010) stated that the complex quadrant
involves experiments to see what works best. To develop a new system to upload
journal entries, my coworker and I experimented with many different methods.
Some methods were failures so we would go away from that line of thinking where
other methods were more successful so we would continue on that route. In the
end, my coworker and I were able to develop a new and more successful way of
doing things in relation to lengthy journal entries.
The final quadrant is the chaotic frame or context.
Most individuals, leaders included, would not vote to be in this frame, but it
is a part of life and business so it will happen on occasion. The Cynefin
Framework can be utilized to make more successful decisions when chaos shows
up. This model allows decision makers or leaders to quickly stabilize the
situation. The actions that are encouraged in the chaotic context are to act,
sense, and respond which is different from the other frames. The frame
encourages individuals to act quickly in an effort to correct the situation and
then move on from there which could lead to growth if the situation is handled.
When I was in college, my apartment complex was hit
by straight line winds in excess of over 100 mph. We were told multiple times
that it was not a tornado but it could have fooled me. My roommate and I
happened to be home when this occurred and we utilized the chaotic quadrant of
the Cynefin Framework in this instance. We did not have time to analyze what we
should do but immediately took action. We grabbed a mattress off of the bed and
got into the bathtub in an effort to stabilize the situation (Snowden, 2010).
After the initial weather was over we then analyzed the situation and plotted
our next move. After assessing the damage, we knew that we could not stay there
so we went to a friend’s house until the damage could be repaired. If we would
have incorrectly believed we were in a different frame and began to probe or
analyze before taking action then the situation may have ended differently.
One piece of interesting advice offered by Snowden
(2010) was that chaos can be chosen intentionally and in this instance,
renovation occurs. I am reminded of a situation at work involving project
numbers where we knowingly entered chaos at an attempt of renovation. The
Foundation has approximately 450 active projects and several years ago we
decided to renumber all of the projects to better align with the college and accounting
manual. The previous system of numbers was efficient, but a choice was made to
update the numbers. The following three or four months was filled with chaos
and frustration but the final product resulted in renovated project numbers
that were more in line with the state accounting manual. I always pictured
chaos as a bad thing but in this instance, chaos led to a better product.
References
Snowden, D. J. & Boone, M.E., (2007). A
leader’s framework for decision making. Harvard Business Review,
85(11), Retrieved from: https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making%20
Snowden, D. (2010). The Cynefin Framework. Cognitive
Edge Video. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7oz366X0-8&feature=youtu.be
No comments:
Post a Comment