A632.8.3.RB - Reflections on the Cynefin

“No two snowflakes are alike”, a common facet that’s often used as an analogy, also applies to the multitude of decision making environments. The process of decision-making varies greatly with each and every person. Another influence to this process is the setting where a decision must be made; the Cynefin Framework is a tool that may be used to improve the decision making process in various situations categorized as simple, complicated, complex, chaotic, and disorder (Snowden & Boone 2007).  

Making decisions in a simple context may be the easiest to identify. Characteristics of the simple context include repeating patterns, predictable consequences of decisions, and factual based management. In the simple context, a manager should ensure policies are in place to accomplish goals; little management involvement should took place. If too much time is spent in this context, time will be used inefficiently. Of course, on the opposite extreme, if no time is spent at all  on decisions in this context, outdated procedures that are being used may also lack in efficiency. It is important to continue to monitor these simple decisions and devote some analysis periodically.

The complicated context decisions may fall in are also relatively easy to identify. These decisions, based on the past, have certain factors that are not known. One example I have participated in this context, involves changing a part on an aircraft during an inspection that requires special expertise like NDT certified personnel. Although, a person may judge a part to be unserviceable due to its aesthetics, an NDT inspector may produce a different conclusion based on their qualified judgment. In complicated context decisions, a leader must question all advice and encourage multiple opinions in the process. I could have further used the Cynefin framework to question the NDT inspector result and hired a second inspector to compare conclusions.

The decisions made in complex contexts are more difficult to approach; these environments include unpredictable results and shifting variables. I have made many decisions in this type of environment at work. The shifting variables, at work, involve a changing aircraft fleet. As the types of aircraft fleet changes, I have to adjust the man-power that is allocated to certain operations and urge other departments to do the same. In this example, having a large fleet of turboprops caused a large focus of our cargo operations. Now that the fleet is growing in a number of jets, it is important to shift the focus from cargo to passenger items, such as, comfort items or aesthetic interior items. This decision enforces the study which finds the Cynefin framework has the ability to act as a “qualitative data analysis tool and also as a collaborative qualitative data collection tool  (Mcleod & Childs, 2013)”.The danger in this context, may be a temptation to go back to focusing on cargo items without enough time to see results.

Decisions , also mentioned in the Cynefin Framework, includes those made in the chaotic context. This context is characterized by no time for the decision making process, no clear consequences of possible actions, and high tensions. The most optimal decision may be found by an experimental trial. A leader must be able to test what works for the situation and adjust accordingly. It is important to note that “the emphasis in this domain is not on investigation, but on action that allows some sense to be made of the chaos which in turn creates just enough stability to allow the next action” (Elford 2012); multiple decisions will be required to solve issues in this context. Making quick decisions are critical in this context, as well as, using clear and direct communication.

The Cynefin Framework organizes decisions into five different contexts including chaotic, complex, simple, complicated and disorder. Both the chaotic and complex contexts may be further categorized as unordered context that do not have predictable consequences; while the complicated and simple contexts, may be classified as the ordered type because they do have predictable results. This framework first improves the decision making process as it guides the leader’s initial response including acting (chaotic), probing (complex), or sensing (either simple or complex). The framework’s divisions of order also encourage the decisions maker in what is the likely outcome. For example, a person making decisions in complex or chaotic environments should not be discouraged if they’re intended outcome was not achieved, as these contexts are unordered.

Elford, W. (2012). A multi-ontology view of ergonomics: Applying the cynefin framework to improve theory and practice. Work (Reading, Mass.), 41 Suppl 1, 812. Mcleod, J., & Childs, S. (2013). The Cynefin framework: A tool for analyzing qualitative data in information science? Library & Information Science Research, 35(4), 299-309. doi:10.1016/j.lisr.2013.05.004 Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007, November). A Leader’s Framework for Decision Making. Harvard Business Review, 69-76.