Site Logo

STPrism

Example - Claude Shannon - Cynefin Pollution

6 min read

Based on the provided sources, particularly the texts on the Cynefin framework, systems theory, and information theory, here is a guide for conducting a “chaordic” investigation. This type of investigation applies to systems sitting between chaos and order, where cause-and-effect relationships may only be visible in hindsight or not at all.

Phase 1: Sensemaking vs. Categorization

Before asking specific questions, you must determine the nature of the system you are investigating to avoid applying the wrong management strategy. You should use a sensemaking approach rather than a categorization approach[1].

**The “Four Points” Mapping Exercise:**To visualize the situation, gather your team and use the following method:

1. Preparation: Do not draw lines or categories on a blank page initially. Instead, imagine the four corners of the page represent the extremes of the main domains: Simple/Complicated (Order) and Complex/Chaotic (Unorder)[2].

2. Placement: Write specific issues or data points on sticky notes. Place them on the page where they seem to fit best relative to the corners. Imagine each note has “rubber bands” attaching it to the corners; place it where the tension resolves[2].

3. Observation:

    ◦ Clumping: Look for where issues cluster.    ◦ Disagreement: If team members disagree on where a note belongs (e.g., one sees it as simple, another as complex), this difference is a valuable data point indicating the “Disorder” domain[3],[4]. 4. Boundary Drawing: Only after placing the issues should you draw the boundaries to define the domains[4].

Phase 2: Determining the Domain and Strategy

Your investigation strategy depends on where the issues land:

A. The Complex Domain (The “Chaordic” Zone)

• Characteristics: There are so many interactions that a “right” answer cannot be determined in advance[5]. Cause-and-effect is only coherent in hindsight (retrospective coherence)[6].

• **Investigative Strategy:**Probe-Sense-Respond. You must interact with the system using multiple small experiments to see what patterns emerge[5].

B. The Chaotic Domain

• Characteristics: Actions appear completely random at the local level. It is impossible to analyze or design coherent experiments[6].

• **Investigative Strategy:**Act-Sense-Respond. You must act to establish order first, then sense the reaction. Teams here should be small (5–7 people) for speed[7].

Phase 3: The Questions to Ask

Once the domain is established, use these lines of inquiry to deepen the investigation.

1. Questions for System State and Congruence

To understand the current architecture of the system, ask the following questions derived from systems management theory[8],[9]:

• Mission: What is our mission? Who is our customer? What does the customer value?[10].

• Completeness: Are all essential elements of the system represented?[9].

• Measurement: What are the metrics on the system? What is the status of the metrics on each element?[9].

• Congruence: Where is congruence (alignment) present horizontally, diagonally, and vertically?[9].

• Future State: Where is improvement needed regarding element metrics and system congruence?[9].

2. Questions for Reducing Uncertainty (Information Theoretic Approach)

In a chaordic environment, you are dealing with high entropy (uncertainty). Your goal is to reduce this entropy by acquiring information[11],[12].

• The “20 Questions” Strategy: Ask binary (Yes/No) questions that subdivide the possibilities into roughly equal groups. This is the most efficient way to isolate a specific cause or object from a large set of possibilities[13].

• Constraint Analysis: Information is defined by what is absent. Ask: What normally occurs that has failed to occur? (The absence of a reliable habit is often evidence of external interference)[14],[15].

• Likelihood: Is the current state of the system improbable? A reduction in entropy (order appearing where it shouldn’t) is evidence of an external influence doing “work” on the system[16],[17].

3. Questions for Validity and Evidence (The Detective Method)

When interpreting signs or data traces in a complex system:

• Causal History: Recognize that a physical trace (e.g., a log file, a footprint) limits but does not fully specify the cause. Ask: What different causal histories could have produced this same result?[18].

• Redundancy Check: Can we find independent sources of information that correlate? (e.g., matching a witness account with DNA evidence). Consistency across independent channels reduces the probability of interpretative error[19],[20].

• Hypothesis Testing: If we behave as if a certain interpretation is true, do the consequences remain consistent? (e.g., a “sting operation” to test a theory of corruption)[21],[22].

Phase 4: Constructing the Narrative

In complex systems, distinct perspectives are inevitable.

1. Have discipline experts independently map the problem landscape[23].

2. Discuss these maps collectively to highlight differences[23].

3. Construct a narrative that illustrates the similarities and differences between these perspectives rather than forcing a single technical solution[24].

Summary Checklist for the Investigator:

• [ ] Map the space: Is this Complex or Chaotic?

• [ ] Probe: Run small experiments rather than seeking a single “solution.”

• [ ] Measure: Identify current metrics and “absent” signals.

• [ ] Cross-check: Seek redundancy across independent information sources to verify reality.

Graph View

Backlinks