The Cynefin framework is either flexible (good) or ambiguous (bad), but either way it goes through changes. The logic of its changes is an issue in itself. Maybe it is a problem...

1. Evolving Cynefin

2. Cynefin is NOT… A structure of evolution
The goal of using a framework is to identify why to
apply attention and action, and where to apply it.
Focusing on the Why must precede taking the action.
The usage is about observation, then decision,
then response to the decision.
Recurring patterns of that use
can become models (preferred practices).
Following a model generates experience that
suggests promoting the framework, or, if the
model didn’t work, changing it.
Changing the framework because of the model
may be an evolutionary improvement to reflect
knowledge gained from using the model.
But likewise the framework is vulnerable to
flaws in the way the model was formed or used.
This means that the framework, in order to protect
itself, must not be difficult to interpret consistently.
And it means that the motive for using a given
model must not be taken lightly.
… a philosophy of consciousness
… a system of problem resolution
… a model
… a system
Cynefin IS…
… a taxonomy
… a framework of intelligence
… a decision-making tool
Cynefin itself evolves. The changes
reflect notions of what currently needs
to be explained by using Cynefin.

3. What is “Disorder” ?
The idea of Disorder is literally central to Cynefin. But we think of disorder in two
different ways: informally and formally.
Informally, “disorder” is an interpretation we apply most often when a situation
does not conform to an expectation we brought with us about its arrangement. We
often refer to something, or even someone, as being “out of” order.
Formally, disorder comes in two flavors.
One is the lack of an identified logic of the relationships between co-existing
elements. This creates the possibility that apparent disorder may occur simply due
to our own insufficient ability to identify what is there.
But another flavor of disorder is a clear identification of relationships that logically
prevent a grouping of co-existing elements from being coherent. This allows that
evident disorder indicates either poor planning (design) of the circumstances, or
significant degradation of a prior rational arrangement.

4. Point of View X Point of View Y
Perspective X
Field of View
Perspective Y
Field of View
Perspective constrains what is detected in observation.
Different points of view (POV) generate different perspectives.
One perspective may “know” things that another does not.
©2019 Malcolm Ryder / Archestra Research

5. How Cynefin works
Cynefin itself is considered to be important as an instrument for determining
effective reaction to a state of conditions.
States such as Complex or Complicated are actually not essentially
disordered nor disorderly, yet in Cynefin they are cast in the light of
observable disorder.
Regarding disorder overall, there is an implied but intuitive (informal)
spectrum of manageability -- with the least manageability being versus
Chaos, then improving to Complicated, then Complex, then Simple.
However, in formal use, the desired impact of the Cynefin presentation is to
recommend a type of practice, of management seen as a “solving” exercise.
For example, with Chaos one archetype of practice (a solution pattern) is
associated as a “best” response; a different archetype of practice is
associated with Complication.

6. Why Cynefin, again?
More than anything, those practice
archetypes reflect a range of confidence
levels that knowledge-based response will be
adequate to restore order.
Knowledge-based response is a presumptive
fundamental of highly mature management.
But the important takeaway here is that
response archetypes are actually not about
expertise; instead, they are about
competency in problem solving.
Cynefin’s four archetypes of practice have
components in common (sense, respond) but
are each anchored by a single differentiator.
*
* Now known as “Obvious”. Why? That is a semantic
shift that shifts the logic of the framework from
characterizing the circumstances to characterizing the
experience of the circumstances.

7. Cynefin archetypes vs. Decision Support
Cynefin’s response requirements to remediate
“disorder” too easily conflate the current state’s
inherent characteristics with the effort to recognize
(sense) the type of disorder. For example, even
though “simple” does not mean “disorderly”, the
options to respond to the situation may be simple
to choose. But what it is doing is saying “If
experienced as this, then do that.”
Alternatively, this representation recommends
a cognitive approach (perspective) for each of
four types of evident coherence. This is always
about a state of affairs deemed to be the
“subject”. A point of view creates the “sense”,
immediately or eventually – and becomes the
basic support for decision-making. It does not
presume disorder but can find it.
©2019MalcolmRyder/ArchestraResearch

8. OBSERVABLE
CHAOS
Elements undecided
Influences unattributed
SIMPLICITY
Elements singular
Influences regular
COMPLICATED
Unreliably Explicit
COMPLEX
Discernably Explicit
MORE
PERSISTENT
LESS
APPARENT
SIMPLE
Reliably Explicit
CHAOTIC
Not discernably Explicit
Characteristics of the observed
state have two key features:
- Discernable/Inscrutable
- Explicit/Implicit
STATE OF AFFAIRS
There are only two “domains”, not
four:
- Observable
- Unobservable
There are four states within
the Observable domain:
- Simplicity
- Complexity
- Complication
- Chaos
Can Be Seen
©2019 Malcolm Ryder / Archestra Research

9. EFFECTIVE POVs
CHAOS
Elements undecided
Influences unattributed
SIMPLICITY
Elements singular
Influences regular
COMPLICATION
Analytic
COMPLEXITY
Navigational
Success factors of observation are:
- Point of View (POV)
- Perspective from POV
This corresponds highly to the
meaning of the word “cynefin”.
The effectiveness of observation is
relative to the character of the
subject. For example:
- Hypothesizing about the simple
is relatively unnecessary
- Navigating the chaotic is
relatively wasteful
- Categorizing the complicated is
relatively tenuous
- But analyzing complication is
relatively productive
MORE
DE FACTO
MORE
SPECULATIVE
SIMPLICITY
Categorical
CHAOS
Hypothetical
RECOGNITION Can Be Described
©2019 Malcolm Ryder / Archestra Research

10. OBSERVED STRUCTURE
CHAOS
Elements undecided
Influences unattributed
SIMPLICITY
Elements singular
Influences regular
COMPLICATION
Elements are decided
Influences are incidental
COMPLEXITY
Elements are compound
Influences are situational
The taxonomic basis of state
classification is about coherency:
- The logic of the subject’s
apparent “structure”
(includes static or dynamic)
- Element X influences Element Y
MORE
COHERENT
LESS
STABLE
SIMPLICITY
Elements are singular
Influences are regular
CHAOS
Elements are undecided
Influences are unattributed
CLASSIFICATION
Evident states are NOT mutually
exclusive and may even be
simultaneously true. This is
because the actual state may be
affecting different kinds of
stakeholders differently (thus
having varied criticality) .
Therefore, a response must
prioritize the stakeholders of the
current situation, before enacted.
Can Be Distinguished
©2019 Malcolm Ryder / Archestra Research

11. Six principles of the framework Update
1. The updated framework is three-dimensional, not two-dimensional:
a. Observable states of affairs
b. Effective points-of-view
c. Evident logic of coherency
2. The updated framework is diagnostic, not prescriptive
3. A given situation can be subject to multiple POVs; “disorder” is an
interpretation derived from a point of view (POV)
4. All response to all types of disorder follows the same pattern: mode of
recognition, prioritization of stakeholder, decision of response type
5. Response to disorder is associated to the type of the disorder and to the type
of stakeholder
6. All responses carry a presumption of authority, not a presumption of certainty.

12. Archestra notebooks compile and organize decades of in-the-field and ongoing empirical findings.
All presented findings are derived exclusively from original research.
Archestra notebooks carry no prescriptive warranty.
As ongoing research, all notebooks are subject to change at any time.
©2019 Malcolm Ryder / Archestra Research
www.archestra.com
mryder@archestra.com
Archestra research is done from the perspective of strategy and architecture.
With all subject matter and topics, the purpose of the notes is analytic, primarily to:
* explore, expose and model why things are
included, excluded, or can happen
in given ways and/or to certain effects.
* comment on, and navigate between,
motives and potentials that predetermine
decisions about, and shapings of, the observed activity.