User:IainPhillips/naturalising sense-making approach

[[Problems with a traditional approach to change]]

The approach towards forming strategy in the Europe and Northern America has, arguably since the time of Aristotle, been biased towards a Methodological Individualist stance. [Insert reference from Chia & Holt - Strategy without Design]

From this point of view, individuals are able to:

• perceive the world objectively as it is,
• can use this objective perception to create an accurate conceptual representation of the world,
• are then able to analyse the concept calmly and rationally,
• decide how to act and can then execute a strategy consisting of direct actions
• in doing so can achieve an anticipated and predictable result within a largely passive world which is waiting for us to act.

This stance has resulted in an approach in which a small group of strategists within a company, public body or institution can be tasked with creating, and believe they are able to create, valid strategies to execute and achieve the aims of the company, body or institution.

Where there is a stable relationship between cause and effect and actions have predictable results, such as in an engineering context, this is an appropriate and valid approach.

[1]

Problems with a direct approach

In performing some task, carrying out the business of business or developing policy to achieve some aim there is a purpose, an intent to act in order to produce a desired result, achieve an outcome or effect a change. Often these results or outcomes are instigated by the strategy drawn up by the central small group of strategists. In performing the role we are tasked with, to achieve some desired result, outcome or effect, we often encounter emergent phenomena that do not fit with our expectations.

These unexpected phenomena, if perceived, are evaluated to determine whether:

• they can be ignored as they are perceived as irrelevant to the action or job to be done,
• if they restrict or prevent our ability to achieve a desired result or
• if conversely if they are beneficial to our aims and assist in the completion of our job to be done.

If an unexpected phenomena restricts us in some way, it forces us to evaluate whether we can circumvent the phenomena, that is - if a new coping strategy is needed to ‘deal’ with the phenomena, or worse, whether the phenomena renders our job or policy aim unachievable.

[This point will be returned to in a ‘Boundaries’ section, for now, where an individual is unable to perform their job or policy aim, this can give rise to fractal patterns within wider social constructs depending on the level of threat. A phenomena representing a threat to a wider role, discipline, department or company - particularly where the nature of the threat is existential, will trigger wider coping strategies to ‘deal’ with the phenomena.]

Returning to the individual for now, as part of an analysis of what is perceived, if existing patterns of how to act become ineffective an individual is forced to re-evaluate what they are perceiving and synthesise new patterns of behaviour, new coping strategies. Conversely, if the unexpected phenomena is beneficial, it may cause the individual to take advantage of this new phenomena, which could be labelled as an affordance, something which increases the efficacy of achieving an aim. As one individual or wider social construct - that is, a company or institution, develops local coping strategies this change, causes an emergent or unexpected phenomena for another person, company, institution. Put simply the other person was not expecting the local coping strategy of the first person.

This emergence then, but also critically over time - the accumulation of emergent phenomena that are not perceived - causes mismatches with the expectations and understanding of the world and how we are predisposed or have predetermined we should act in the world.

Put another way, these mismatches results in entropy within a system, a detachment from the flux and flow of the world. These emerging strategies then are, variously, either facilitating, synergistic or antagonistic to other people, companies or institutions.

Problems with relying on individual perception

• Our ability to perceive is partial, we perceive a small proportion of what we believe we see. The majority of what we ‘see’ is actually created from memory. [Richard Gregory Brainy Mind, .. https://www.bmj.com/content/317/7174/1693]
• Our perception, what we physically perceive, is influenced by what we expect to see.

[2]

• Percept is filtered by our existing concepts and world view. This filtering also applies at various other levels of social construct including: departmental; organisational; roles; disciplines (for example, Pure science, accountant). All these are examples of influences and filters on what we are able to perceive.

[3]

• Path dependency - Our predisposition on how to act is based on our accumulated knowledge and previous experiences, these influence the likely path we will choose to take in a situation.
• [Insert reference from the The Knowledge Illusion?? i.e. knowledge and ability to respond to complex situations is does not exist at an individual level.]
• [Insert reference to Inattentional Blindness?]
• [Insert reference to all decisions are emotional ie. made using the emotional part of the brain, ergo, all decisions are emotional]
• [Insert reference to cognitive process of first fit pattern recognition, which privileges a persons most recent experience.]
• [Insert reference to homogeneity i.e. Birds of a Feather - Synchrony of Strategy office]

Approaches which rely upon the ability of individual actors or agents to perceive, analyse objectively and rationally and select how to respond work well in context with predictable outcomes. If there is a causal relationship, cause equals effect, such as in an engineering context or classical Physics and Chemistry more widely, this approach works well.

Anthro-complexity as an approach is an alternative approach, which acknowledges that individuals have, at best, a partial dataset are not detached rational actors and as a consequence, that an objective assessment and selection of response from a set of predetermined responses, can not follow. In complex systems, there is not a causal relationship, outcomes are not predictable over time.

Summary

• Strategic models are conceptual representations of reality and a predicted future destination of position.
• Majority of models are created by a small number of key actors whose perception is, at best partial, not objective and influenced by what they expect to see.
• The strategic models created by this approach are therefore also partial and of limited use.

An alternative is set out in [[Naturalising Sense-making Approach]]

[[Naturalising Sense-making Approach]]

In complex systems there really are only three things we can manage:

1. Connections - who or what is connected. [[Connections element of the Naturalising approach]]
2. Constraints - things that influence what is possible. [[Constraints element of the Naturalising approach i.e. below]], and
3. Energy allocation - allocation of energy, resources and more generally effort. [[Energy allocation element of the Naturalising approach inc. Vector Theory]]

Everything else is for the birds. [Insert reference to Complexity Theory which backs up this is what you can manage]

Steps

1. Identify which aspects of the system are complex
2. Identify what is in play, we want to know enough, in order to act.
3. From what’s in play, we consider what can be modified or modulated.
4. From what can be modified, what can be monitored.
5. From what can be monitored, what can be rapidly amplified or dampened.

Connections and Constraints mapping forms part of the first 3 points [Arguable it's only the first 2 points. Do we want to only map what we can change, or what is fixed and cannot be changed as well?].

Energy Allocation, in particular Vector Theory of Change including portfolio design then picks up and uses the output of the first 3 points. [Insert reference why we need to move quickly to amplify whilst the conditions exist or dampen (which is self-explanatory)]

[[Constraints element of the Naturalising approach]]

Steps to identify what constraints are in play, what is there that is useful to us:

1. Future Backwards - to identify the where we are and the key turning points along the way. A diverse group of perspectives is needed.
2. 3 or 4 points - held with multiple groups using the turning points as the context, to unpack the nature of the context and decisions forming part of the context.
3. using artefacts from Future Backwards and 3 or 4 points map the constraints, using the typology and the elements of ASHEN OR Cheat Sheet as prompts.
4. Mapping - using all the artefacts created, create a map of the landscape and add the constraints as the features of the terrain using the symbology.

[Removed point - Step 1 was previously to identify which parts of the system are complex, to only map constraints for this domain]

Prior knowledge [notes..]

List of concepts and necessary understanding to use the assembly (it is OK to say none. This includes any key principles that need emphasising in this context. General principles are set out in in the facilitation article.

• [[Naturalising Sense-making]]
• [[Naturalising Sense-making approach]]
• [[Inattentional Blindness]]
• [[Constraints]]
• [[Mapping]]
• [[Complex systems and why need to rapidly amplify or dampen]]

Do’s and Don’ts

• Do consider which constraints to modify or modulate.
• Do be careful not to break a constraint, or you may not be able to recover the situation if the impact is not helpful.
• Do assess the portfolio of interventions and ask, ‘What happened in the past?’ ‘How much of it can we account for, using the constraints identified?’ If can account for a majority then probably ok, if mostly unaccounted for or indirect then you may have an issue.

Some good reasons for mapping constraints

1. Constraints are things that we can modify or modulate in a complex system, and they are also things that we can know.
2. Mapping and modifying or modulating constraints avoid a direct connection between situational assessment and direct actions, which can lead to resistance. Humans always make a decision as to action based on a first-fit pattern match and post hoc use situational assessment to justify the position. S/he who describes the problem generally controls the solution. So by starting with constraints and then speculating as to the likely emergence that could result and how this emergence can be contained, to ensure interventions are safe-to-fail, creates a more objective decision process.
3. Once you map constraints delegation is easier as the focus is on modifying constraints monitoring what happens, but critically there are actions that can be taken to contain unexpected consequences.
4. Mapping is coupled with a risk assessment, which seeks to understand what is attributable to dark constraints which exert a force and we can see the effect, but not the cause or modulating influence. In doing so, the incidence of unexpected significant consequences can be reduced.
5. Another key change is to shift from reliance on major initiatives which shift focus to delivery in the future, of a strategy created in the past. This focus robs us of the incentive to manage in the present.
6. Instead we focus on a portfolio of minor initiatives that become major as change stabilises in a consistent direction for the better. This way we mitigate the impact of unintended consequences and the impact of large sunk-cost committed investments, which reduce the possibly of early admission of failure.

Examples of constraints?

Some types will be easily recognisable, the things which stop us doing things:

• Example of a Governing constraint - ‘The project status report must be submitted by 12pm Thursday.’

Other types of constraint we may associate more readily as ‘enablers’.

• Example of an Enabling constraint - 'There is an attractive incentive for solving this issue, but you have to work with new people to do it, not the people you usually would turn to.'

To be added

I have a large section to come about bringing the mapping concept to life. [General notes - Terraforming from components created in Step 2 above.

Workflow [general notes]

[To be expanded, following are just in notes form from dialogue with GregBro]

• Future backwards to identify the for key turning points, 'How did we get to where we are'. These being the major landmarks on the map. The more salient use of the turning points here being, to identify the influences on the major turning points (ie. constraints). A further point here being that these influences on the major turning points is a way to identify or prioritise 'important' constraints, the material ones from background noise.

A diverse group of perspectives is needed when mapping constraints. Distribute the cognition, ensure there is diversity of thought and broader representation over a small core of strategists. Increase understanding of a situation through descriptive input over evaluative input which . Ask ‘How are things around here’, not ‘What is going on around here’. If people are asked ‘Whats going on around here?’ This requires an evaluative process. statements), we ask where are we (descriptive - less bias)? [Significant re-framing needed… Use approaches which prevent .. people knowing what the outcome wanted is.. And resulting in gaming behaviour, premature convergence, facilitators biasing the outcomes. Indirect over direct which causes resistance, gaming, etc.]

A key element is linking movement over time to the context and having and understanding of how a system became situated where it is. What were the key turning points of this movement? What were the key influences or modulators on these turning points - in particular one key positive and one that was perceived as negative'. The constraints acting on these turning points is a method by which to separate our dominant influences, from weak signals, from background noise - even this separation is just a set of heuristics. In a narrative-based approach, without Sensemaker, anecdote circles is another method of performing this step. If using Sensemaker a narrative landscape is an alternative to identifying narratives which are dominant, minority or outliers.

• Do the 3 or 4 points exercise with multiple groups (that know Cynefin) using the turning points as the context of the exercise, to unpack the different aspects / influences on the turning points, using the constraint Typology as prompts. This will need to include Dark constraints. These influences (constraints) being the 'features' to map on the landscape.

• Wider landscape - I'm talking here about the influences outside of the boundary of the system being worked in. I think I could be missing a method step here, of how to unpack influences / constraints from external to the focus of the exercise. Unless.. the 4 points groups are split up in the exercise to represent different perspectives. i.e. Group 1 runs 4 points from an internal perspective. Group 2 runs it from an external perspective (the same as the Butterfly Stamped method says to concentrate / accentuate group think).

Links to Wardley mapping & Apex predator.. Market analysis..

• Map the landscape. This needs a mapping style, semiotics of constraints..

[Significant notes to bring in - building on and bringing the mapping concept to life, currently too draft to add] Understand the landscape we are situated in maps.. Sources of likely influences or dynamics at play in the market.

Gregbro we then need a cheat sheet to help quantify the type of constraints in play, going back to future backwards exercise. Cheat Sheet Examples like: 'Fixed looks like this [example]' Governing looks like this [example]. Cautionary point to avoid anchoring and resolving the tension in the exercise too soon and thereby collapsing the complex space or facilitation into complicated. Cheat sheet analogy is Exemplar sets - use them to identify similar terms in the current context. The fact that we are mapping implies an element of 'encoding' to a defined set of semiotics.

[[Energy allocation element of the Naturalising approach inc. Vector Theory]] [general notes]

• Design the portfolio of constraint interventions

Development of the existing approach - Dave did mention a new approach in passing Constraints design..?? I.e. fixed to permeable.. Etc. Temporal, Plastic, Ephemeral...

• Ritual dissent - to help shape and develop the initiatives in the portfolio, but also to include exposure of interventions to external Influences..

[Based on current Ritual Dissent page, will instructions and modification here and portfolio design doesn’t currently exist. Gregbro added there is this as a starter for 10 here - https://www.infoq.com/articles/cynefin-portofolio-management/

To be added

I have another section to come about boundaries. Iain_P (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)