#12 - Exploring Cynefin a Framework for Decision Making with Dave Snowden

About the guest

Dave Snowden, Founder, Cognitive Edge

Founder, Cognitive Edge - Rejuvenating management practices * Addressing intractable problems * Seizing new opportunities in complex situations. Professor David Snowden is said to have pioneered a science-based approach to organizations drawing on anthropology, neuroscience, and complex adaptive systems theory.

Notes

We are drawn to patterns and recipes to help us solve problems in our work, but in reality, what works for one case does not always work for another. Many times when leaders apply their recipes to new environments, unexpected consequences emerge. Humans habitually leverage patterns almost exclusively, blinding us by our own intellectual biases.

Developing a mindset that welcomes complexity science into our minds will unlock our ability to apply leadership skills to many types of situations. We believe there is something here to uncover.

Dave Snowden, Founder of Cognitive Edge and inventor of the Cynefin Framework, joins us to discuss complexity and human nature. In this episode, we still explore the high-level nuances of complexity thinking and some of the language around Cynefin and Complexity. By the end of this episode, we hope you find enough value to explore Cynefin and Complexity Science independently.

Related articles

A leader's framework for decision making.

Resources

Cognitive Edge

Cynefin on Google Scholar

The Sense Maker Application

Transcript

Dave Snowden

Because it's new, it's not what you're expecting to hear.

John

People don't see things because they don't expect to see them.

Welcome to the pragmatically podcast your hosts are Alex Bachuk and John Masse. We have conversations with folks throughout the tech industry to get real world perspective on how people make things happen for their careers and businesses check out pragmatically comm for more content, just like this.

So with us today is Professor Dave Snowden. He's the founder of cognitive edge, known for rejuvenating management practices addressing intractable problems, seizing new opportunities and complex situations. Professor Snowden is said to have pioneered a science based approach to organizations drawing on anthropology, neuroscience, and complex adaptive systems theory. So welcome on. Thanks very much for spending time with us today. Professor Snowden. Alright, so I'd like to talk about cognitive edge a little bit, if you don't mind. So when was cognitive edge founded? So I've come across blog posts, as far back as 2010, they felt wimzie in nature, they felt a little more personal and less specific. Like I felt like storytelling a little bit, which I find very fascinating. So can you tell us a little bit about cognitive edge and what it's here to do for us?

Dave Snowden

Okay, so I left IBM 16 years ago, I think I'd been there for about seven years, they bought the company I worked for when I was in strategy. And I got one of those interests in jobs, which is do interesting things and will pay you a salary but not held you to account so that that worked quite well. But seven years was about the maximum. And life is getting difficult. And I don't a lot of work with DARPA, on this is before and after 911 in the context of intelligence and weak signal detection and counterterrorism. And that had picked up on both the Canadian framework, National Security Adviser famously said, when he first looked at it that explains 50 years of failure in American foreign policy. I retreat, everything is complicated when it's complex. And that work then got picked up by the Singapore government, who tend to monitor DARPA programs. And I already had a relationship there. So basically, we got a big contract to build their risk assessment and horizon scanning system. And that was the contract, I need you to set up cognitive edge. So we're still a Singapore based company.

John

Oh, interesting. So we already I mentioned before, like, I want to skip ahead. So Alex, and I actually recorded a session or another podcast earlier, where we did our best to destroy scribed. Kevin, as a framework and for sensemaking. So I'd like to talk about the value proposition and from the position like to, and the motivation is to actually motivate interest. So what do people stand to gain by subscribing to complexity theory and frameworks like in heaven?

Dave Snowden

If you look at the history of ideas, all right, scientific management sort of dominated from the 1920s to the 1980s. And is actually much demonized by the IT community, which is stupid, really, there was a lot of value in scientific management. If you ever done in and people like that. Well then happens is systems thinking comes in particularly systems dynamics and cybernetics. And that gets heavily popularized in things like business process reengineering learning organization. Yeah, that's the hard and soft end. And virtually every one of the management movements over the last couple of decades has come from that theoretical background. And that went from wild academic idea to dominant way of doing things in three years, that this is what happens, old ideas start to run out, then you get this phase shift complexities in a similar position at the moment. So we're now starting to see this convexity thing, it is not the same thing as systems thinking it's completely wrong to make it a subset. Because complexity deals with non causal systems, and is sometimes known as the science of inherent uncertainty. And so if you look what's happening now, so the European Union Field Guide to managing a crisis has been written from a Canadian perspective. And that's a deeply probiotic, it's available, right? We're doing a huge amount of work in the health sector at the moment around COVID in terms of managing real time, lessons learned, and mental resilience. So it's kind of like it's the same sort of phase shift. So if you want to be around kind of like if you want to be involved in the next wave or Right complexity is now the next wave Some of us have been knocking around for 20 years. And that's about the right time for an idea to gain enough currency, that it then flips in and becomes dominant. So I would expect, I mean, the field guide, for example, is really designed as a complexity alternative to Porter's five forces from which most strategy in the modern age derives. But portrait assumes causality. So I've done the field book before I do the theory, but it's the same sort of principle. The agile community makes extensive use of can avin. And the next big movement there is can Naveen ism as a multi method framing? So how do you use methods from different ideas and different concepts and different backgrounds? And how do you get them to interact? So rather than the sort of bog like a simulation that you see with the safe nonsense is starting to look at something which allows for multi method approach and a multi concept approach.

Alex Bachuk

So with frameworks like agile people, I know people like to think about stand ups and Scrum ceremonies, so they don't may not necessarily think about like complexity and Cynefin

Dave Snowden

if you go back to Ken stuff on Scrum, you will find complexity is front and center. He uses Stacy's model originally, and just to be mildly controversial, but this is kind of like people should use English properly. Scrum is not a framework. It's a collection of methods. Right? I mean, that's what it is. In Cynefin terms. The huge power of Scrum is it's a liminal technique between the complex and complicated, but it's not a true complex technique. And actually, you can't have techniques which work in different domains, because they require different assumptions. So for example, we're working on pre Scrum tools at the moment, we got three or four of those be going out at the moment I think you do before you even think about running a sprint. Yeah. And we're also looking at decomposition and recombination and bringing back some of the old dsdm stuff. When I was one of the three guys who set up dsdm, many years ago, he said, we did it in a capping shelter over dinner rather than a ski resort over a week. But we were British, and they were American. So we're bringing back some of the rajgad stuff as a sort of alternative to agile, where you've got a degree of stability, right? And I think near the Agile movement has become problematic, because it's it's searched, around proprietary tools. is actually I mean, the whole reason it's scaled. And there's a paradox here. I mean, XP is really the heart of our job. Yeah, if you look at that, I mean, you know, Kent Beck and people like that. If you look at the Agile Manifesto, you can see XP written all the way through it. But it doesn't scale until Scrum comes along. And remember, Scrum was there before the manifesto meeting. And the reason is, Scrum is highly Kody FIDE, highly structured so it can scale, whereas XP isn't. And I was saying this at a conference in Scotland, and as people are still trying to work out who I was insulting, because I said, you know, agile would not scale. Yeah, agile should have scaled around XP, because it will that's authentic to agile, but it's scaled around Scrum. So all the scrum, people got irritated in the XP people got excited. Most likely never, it could have never scale there, and XP, because none of you are understandable to ordinary mortals. And they're still trying to work out whether they like that or not, right, which tells you everything you need to know about xv. And that's just reality, right. And then, of course, it was fairly inevitable that something like safe would come along. I mean, Dean got it wrong the first time around. But the second time around, he was built off a pyramid selling scheme. You know, if you attend and pay this course, I will allow you to run the course even though you've got no experience. And it was just thrown together and cobbled together and now you pay money every year to updated and it keeps it directors happy because they can say they're agile will take in what is a for such a structured technique is our priority can't be. And that's what happens. I mean, it's one of the ways you know you to change things. So the same as the day we started to codify and certify people in design thinking, the minute you get to that stage, something is reaching the end of its lifecycle. Because it's lost its ability to dynamically change. So I'd say that's, that's one of the areas where Kevin is used a lot. And he's talked about a lot. I mean, you got code fn, you've got this Chios work, all of which is a really good adaptation, or development of the framework to take a much more I think, pragmatic, multi methods approach rather than a single structure.

John

Are you worried at all that your work with Cynefin could kind of I don't I don't know if victim is the right word, but I think I saw there was like with, with the Agile methodology and with Scrum I, I looked at it more as tools or a toolset for how to organize around how we do work. And I remember I don't know if, in some of your talks, you seem to, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but there was like this position that the system was sending The over and and it's it was no longer performing the job it was intended to do broadly based on how it was marketed and these certifications and all that. Do you think that? Do you worry at all that your work with Cynefin could eventually be, you know, codified in that way? And

Dave Snowden

it might it might be, I'd have to be dead first, right? I mean, I mean, we do a few things to prevent I'm, you know, I'm 67 and a couple of months time, so I'm thinking about inheritance here. Right. And I mean, it's two or three things going on. One is now I have a large group of research assistants working with me, who really are taking the idea forward. And they're sort of coherence, the concept. Yeah, but they're working around it. So they're working in areas like government and health and abuse and climate change. Right. So that's part of the inheritances to build a tight enough community. And what we're launching next week, which is already in alpha, is we're moving all the methods and tools into an open source wiki. Oh, nice. Because if I open source it, then that prevents that type of behavior. And I think one of the big things we from what went wrong with agile is people developed a method is a proprietary methods now Scrum actually did it quite right, they published the scrum method, and anybody could use it. So they didn't try and hold it on, which I think is the way I'm going. And it's not without some internal opposition, because people still think you don't make money at the moment, the way you monetize things is you go open space. And then you make money out of access and artifacts. And you accept that other people may do both of those as well, because that's something spreads. So I may can have an open space. When I was in IBM, still the best decision I made, I got a senior fifth backup for it. Because then it's grown and people have used it and nobody feels they have to ask my permission first. And we we trademarked it last year, but not to contain it but to stop anybody else. trademarking. Yeah, so to preserve his community.

Alex Bachuk

So you're saying there's going to be no certification and get even?

Dave Snowden

If there is it will be? I mean, there's some interesting stuff, if you look at the flow consortium stuff, right, they use canavalia is one of the three pillars. But that certification is coming through the University of North Texas with all the university disciplines about qualifications. Yeah. And I'm working with them on that. And in parallel with a master's program. Yeah. One of the things we're doing with the wiki, to be honest, is it allows us to measure whether people understand it. So if you can, if you don't contribute to the wiki, then you're obviously not interested. If every time you contribute, I revert you, then it's obvious you don't understand it. So we can actually start to create empirical measures. So we look at accreditation from time to time, but the one thing we will never do is allow you to put letters after your name after attending a two day course, and filling out a multi choice question from an open book exam over the next four weeks. All right. So if we do do it, and we are thinking about it, right, it will be based on participation in the wiki improving ability to be peer referenced, it will have links with the University and University certification. Yeah, of the material, it won't be cobbled together with some slide sets. And under no circumstances will you have to pay me money every year, to read a slide set to keep your safe certification today.

Alex Bachuk

And that's one of the problems with agile is got really commercialized all the certifications and education and people tried to do it by the book really rigid. Marty was

Dave Snowden

talking about recipes, right? We make a fundamental metaphor between a recipe book user and a chef. So nothing wrong with recipe book user, I was one when I left home and went to university, but you're lost if you don't have the right ingredients. And the right equipment. The chef can do whatever they you know, whatever you got in the kitchen, they can make a wonderful meal, because they've got practice, and they've got theory. And I think this is the thing. The anti intellectual trend, right within management is really dangerous. Because if you don't understand the theory, you can't scale. And you've got this complete misuse of the word empiricism, which in Agile actually means what I think I did on my last two clients that I think I can send us a certification scheme. That's what the empirical means. yet nobody has to research nobody does testing nobody test is the core theory. So my overall field of study is not convexity. It's called naturalizing sense making. Alright, and anthro complexity is a part of that along with narrative and other things. And we start recognizing the literature one of five schools of sensemaking. But the key feature of it is that it uses natural science as a constraint in it doesn't use cases. So basically says case studies are a waste of inductive thinking is a waste of time in anything involving humans. Because you can never capture enough data. This is my physics background, my degrees physics and philosophy. And from a physicist point of view, no social scientist has ever had enough data to form any valid conclusion. And it doesn't overcome the bias in the perception. So we take a different approach, we say, What does natural science tell us about cognition about systems. And, you know, that's been subject to third party review and repeated experiments, so we can rely on that. And then we construct methods and tools which are coherent with that theory. And then we refine them in practice, and that that's actually a radically new approach. and conditions of a crisis. It's imperative, because in a crisis, everything would work before isn't going to work again, anyway. Yeah, so again, that's kind of like a different approach. So that's the real field and I defined sensemaking is how do you make sense of the world so that you can act in it? So that carries with it an idea of sufficiency of knowing when you know enough to do something, because you can never fully know things?

John

It's, it can be tricky, because sometimes the the core foundation of an idea gets buried in, like the marketing and codification provided by others or other organizations. And sometimes when we're first introduced to something, we think that is the source of truth, when in reality, it's inspired by something further down the road. And I'm not sure why.

Dave Snowden

I think one of the strengths of can Cynefin is his evolve. He's 21 years old. Now that we published a book on that earlier on this year. That was 21 years old. It's February. Yeah. That's January. All right, the first the first ever use of it in a publication. And the community got together and produced a book, which I didn't know about until it arrived at my window once one One morning, right, which is nice. You can get on Amazon, you can get a signed version if you want one. And I think if you look at the history of canavese, and I wrote the history up for that book, they come into writing the history, they didn't tell me they were going to build a book around it. You'll see that can avenues change continuously, and it's more or less stable now that the last and resolvable things are there. But it's not a one time model produced or released under version control. And I now working on what on the factious curves model, which is a lifecycle framing. And also, the big one at the moment is in tangled trios, which is how do you actually design informal networks? Yeah, as a large part of the formal system. Because if you actually have a designed informal network performance system, can be much lighter and much simpler. Now, and that's a big piece of work at the moment.

John

So in an article in, you wrote with Mary Boone in 2007, this is going back a little bit a leader member, you remember that one

Dave Snowden

kavaratti, when I still remember where I was when I got the note, so it's been selected as a cover article. Speak apple in Liverpool, it was a very cheerful email.

John

So it was titled A leaders framework for decision making, I highly recommend it, it was an article Actually, I felt was very approachable from a naive perspective, or someone who's just trying to get their mind into it. And that article, it was said that leaders who want to apply principles of complexity science to their organizations, learning to think and act differently than they have in the past, this may not be easy, but as essential and complex contexts. So the question is what is so hard about transitioning to thinking in complexity?

Dave Snowden

Okay, that's actually derived from a quote from Lincoln, which is front and center in the European view Fieldbook, by the way, this is a speech he made to Congress where he said, as the times are new, we must think anew and we will act anew. And the key thing is think differently and act differently. So I think one of the issues people have got with complexity. And what's interesting is, we have no problem in our day to day lives. It's why the children's party story is probably the best teaching story I've ever created. Because everybody can relate to it. And everybody can understand convexity. But the minute we go into work, we switch into this hobby order highly structured, recipe driven world in which we assume that we can predict the future. So it's not that we don't know about convexity is that we don't seek to apply it. So I when I was at a board of a company the other day, well, actually more than a year ago now because I haven't, what's the client visit is it's just one of these strange things that I vaguely remember from the past, all right. And it was coming, you know, you're in here because you're the expert in uncertainty and bang, bang, bang, bang. So we go through this and we talk about process and he said, Can you give us three examples of what we'll get out of this process and where you've done it before, and I'm sitting there saying that this is you can't produce the determined outcome you get. It's all about a process. All right. And it is fascinating on that. And I think it used to be an adage, when I was in it, right? Nobody gets fired for buying IBM, because they were the apex predator. And they have the best kit, I mean, that Vax was a damn sight better than the ACE 400 if you want my view, and the digital alpha was a damn sight better than the IBM PC and God help us on their software. But if you bought IBM because they were so dominant, nobody was going to say that you got it wrong. Whereas if you bought better technology from a small supplier, you will get fired. And that's actually people forget this is a big motivational factor. Once you've now got it is nobody gets fired for implementing a McKinsey report is people are displacing onto the big management consultancies, their own personal risk. And the big management consultancies are all working on industrial model, there is a ratio between partner and consultant goes above one to seven, you're into a manufacturing framework, not an apprenticeship framework. And so the only way you survive in big consultancies is very large projects with lots of utilization. Yeah, because that's what the framework one, so you want lots of people in there. And I mean, after my great privilege, I actually taught leadership with Peter Drucker for a few years while he was alive. And that was after I'd been ritually humiliated, because I criticize Frederick Taylor on the stage when he was behind me. And if you've ever been taken apart by a 93 year old genius, I said of a puddle of humiliation on the floor, but he decided to rescue me right. And I've since got quite protective. He's actually right. I wasn't wasn't criticizing Frederick Taylor. I was criticizing systems thinking. Because that's when the rigidity came into the system, they were able to your Taylor was actually quite flexible in terms of weight work. And I remember once mischievously, asking him I knew what the answer was. So we were doing these high level executive seminars. And by the way that kept me going and IBM because there were some people don't have Wi Fi. And Lou Gerstner just got this sort of brochure with me and Peter Drucker on the front of it as a personal invitation to come to a seminar. And he'd written on it, who is this person, he works for me. And two minutes later, the next meeting was, this is a bastard, we got to fire him. So it kind of like played against him that but it was it was quite lucky, right? I remember asking him once I said, so what do you think the role of consultancies is any Grindle over his face? And he said to be a butterfly, you're there to fertilize but not do the work. And that's the mistake the big consultancies have done, and to be honest, is the big mistake of Agile coaches. They're sort of going in to do the work for people rather than creating the capability for people to do the work for themselves. And we've always taken that in cognitive edge is an absolute paradigm. Yeah, our role is to mentor and train but not to do.

John

Now is there I'm hearing I'm, I'm jumping ahead a little bit, because I was hoping we could talk about I think it's a another framework called scaffold or scaffolding. Yeah. And the way I heard you describe it was you determine the type of scaffolding that's possible, which I think is a very important way to phrase it. Because that to me, sounds like there's a feasibility check. And then you allow or you create events or interactions within the scaffolding. Is there is that like, the parallel of what you mean, like if if I was because my next question was, yeah, what is the future for management consultation?

Dave Snowden

That's part of what the work we did on design thinking. So there were three big things which came out of that. One is mapping unarticulated needs, and the others. The second was distributed ideation. So what he does is expert ideation expert ethnography. So we added to that unarticulated needs non expert ethnography, and then you've got combinations. And the third component was the idea of scaffolding. So what you do is you create scaffolding and we have a whole typology of these. Yeah. And then you define interactions around the scaffolding and you see what emerges. Now to me, that's the future of it architecture. Because at the moment, you know, the users don't know what to ask for in it because it is moving faster than users will create demand. And also the speed of changes sign can have in a lot of it development never leaves the complex space.

John

Oh, would you also agree that the technology is also moving faster than the engineering staff that's employing it can can understand

Dave Snowden

But I think to some extent, but I think I mean, software is also becoming a religious term inoperable. So you don't know the implications for something you I mean, nobody could understand the implications of Twitter, for example, or a hashtag. Alright, so what it becomes important to do is to create a system which can evolve rather than a system, which is engineered. And if I was, I mean, I wrote a paper for the, the prince two guys. Yeah. The other day for their latest book. Yeah. And it actually said, No engineers should be allowed out without a full training in ethics. And I was talking to a bunch of students yesterday and saying the same thing, you should not be allowed at designing systems unless you understand ethics, because the implications of what you're doing a huge. So for example, some of the work I did when I was in DARPA was to find a way to create epidemically, just in appropriate training datasets. Because AI is only only as good as its training data, and the training and Google have finally admitted this, right? The training data sets all come from 30 year old misogynist males on the west coast of the states who take and run seriously after puberty, which is a sign of mental derangement. And I've been a bit extreme there, but you get the point, right, the bias is huge, right? So I and that's where scaffolding comes in. So dependent on the level of certainty, you might have an external or an internal scaffolding. The work I do in unentangled, trios, he's actually an example of using scaffolding. So we use formal roles, and we put them together in threes in overlapping threes. So that we create a dense informal network, but it's linked into the formal system through the role. So the formal system can react to the informal. Now, that's an example of a scaffold in and the metaphor for that is microcars, your finger was kind of like Connect trees and provide nutrients. Now, then you've got sort of resilient and robust scaffolding, you've got fixed scaffold, and effective as a topology of this. And the principle is choose a scaffold in and then define interactions, this is going back to the good old days of object orientation. Now remember, when I was sitting on corporate committees back in the 80s, I remember arguing people are objects to we need to define organizational units as objects with input output, inheritance and polymorphism. And allow them to interact with the technology objects. Yeah, and then then that's how we can architect our companies. Yeah. And that, to me, that's, that's the big thing still coming through. And you can see it being people are starting to understand it. And it has consequences. So for example, you start talking about individual leaders, and you have crews. And the military have known about that for years. You know, there's always a pilot between the policies can change. Yeah, so people are trained in roles and role based definition. So I think there's, there's some massive changes coming on there. So I think the COVID stuff will accelerate it. Particularly being as this is COVID isn't the worst plague we're gonna see in my lifetime, as I sound coming up to 67, that's going to be worse coming. And that's before we get on to climate change. And, you know, the the concept that neoliberal market, capitalism can cope with something like COVID has just gone out of the window over the last year, you need to state actors on massive scale. Yeah. So I think there's a hell of a lot is going to change over the next two to three years. And basically, complexity gives us a theoretical framing for conditions of extreme uncertainty. Whereas systems thinking actually assumes you can determine certain you can take us, you can assume you can know the system, right? Yeah, we're actually convexity deals with systems, which are a priori, unknowable, until you act in them.

Alex Bachuk

I want to go back a little bit to decision making. So I think it's been I'm part of it. So I'm gonna use myself as an example. So I use what works for me in the past. And I usually it becomes part of my intuition to make decisions in the future. And this framework goes a little bit against that. So how do you change people mindset

Dave Snowden

Actually is worse than that, because you're not even remembering it perfectly. If you succeed, you'll remember things differently than if you fail. So the way you actually make decisions given your ethnic background is your scan about at most 5% of the available data, and then that will trigger a series of memories and you'll blend them together and do a first fit pattern match. And in evolutionary terms, most of the times that will work yeah, make decisions very quickly privilege on your most recent experiences. I mean, that's the hand to pray type thing. The trouble is that means you miss stuff. So when I always go to conferences is if you give radiologists a set of X rays as To look for anomalies, and the final X ray is a picture of a gorilla, which is 48 times the size of a cancer nodule 83%. Don't see it. And 17% who do come to believe they were wrong when they talk with the 83%. So often start off with that. And I say, you know, you're a senior leader. Sorry, guys, what are you missing? Yeah. And it's interesting. I mean, one of the key heuristics in the European Union Field Guide is if you're a leader in a crisis, distributed decision making centralized coordination, because actually, you can't afford to make a bad decision. Because people will lose confidence. And you're not in a position to make a decision anyway, because this is too much data. But your job is to coordinate and present. And some of the stuff we do there, for example, this is software is well present the situation to say your entire workforce, say 20,000. People, they all interpret that into what's called high obstruction metadata, which is engageable, you can't have gain double input on metadata. And then you get a picture, which shows you the 17 percents, and that's all done within 10 minutes. So that's distributed situational assessment. Yeah. And what you then start to do is say, Okay, you guys look at it, you guys look at this, you got an objective basis, then you coordinate and link and connect. And if you're really good at this, you actually never make a decision because you're steering the ship. Now, and I think I think that's important to understand. And I think it is quite interesting. It's, it's something I mean, it was a job I was given by john Poindexter when I went to work for him in DARPA, when I was in IBM, and this is an ex national security adviser. And he said, What I need is the problem of abduction. So abductive logic is sometimes the logic of hunches. You know, so before a major terrorist outbreak, somebody will always spot what was happening, but nobody pays attention to them. And after the event, everybody celebrates and we should have listened to this person. Now, the reality is, I mean, this is joining the dots, right? If I have four dots, and I joined them up, there are 64 possible patterns. If I go to 10 dots that are 3.6 trillion pounds. So you know, the benefit of hindsight, I can always join the dots, but I can't do it in advance. So the problem I got given and spent six, seven years of my life working on is how do you actually objectify abductive leaps of intuition. And that's what we do with this mass sensing capability. So you get a culturally diverse group without connection to assess something in ways that they can't gain at a high level of abstraction. Because if you go up a high level of abstraction, you get more objectivity. It's a bit of a paradox. And then as a leader, you can see the dominant views, the minority views, yeah. And you can start to delegate within that and then see what happens. So it's a different way of thinking.

Alex Bachuk

Interesting. And so this framework scales really well on the large scale on education and politics and COVID coordination. How does it scale on this, like small scale on that, like, team of like, let's say 10 people, and there is a manager leader that tries to make decisions and coordinate this decision making

Dave Snowden

It is the same principle I mean, can aven is used in Scrum teams in retrospectives. It's also used in personal one to one coaching. I mean, the essence of Cynefin, there are three ontologies. In Cynefin, there's, there's order complex and chaotic. And those are pretty fundamental. And they have a phase shift between them. So is is around like solid, liquid and gas. There's facias, between them. And there is a triple point where something could go in any directions, if you look at curve, and that's what it is. The central zone is a triple point, we just happen to break order into two, clear and complicated because that's based on perception. So that can work at any level. Yeah, it's kind of like where is it? What do we do? Where are we trying to get to is a question you can ask about yourself about your team about the problem you've got, you can ask about the whole of society. And the reason it is natural science, right that those three and you know, plasma doesn't occur human systems. But those three are fundamental properties, order complexity, chaos is not a social construct. It's reality. And by the way, I'm a realist and the materialist in philosophical terms. Most people in complexity. I said, social constructivism and critical realism kind of like deserves each other. There's a special place in heaven, whether there'll be put to continue a meaningless argument for the rest of their lives. Sorry.

John

Going back to that article, another another part from that was leaders who understand that the world is often irrational and unpredictable. We'll find the Cynefin framework particularly useful question, could you elaborate more on what is meant by understanding the world is irrational and unpredictable and And what has happened that this is otherwise not our default position

Dave Snowden

Is actually quite a good phrase on this. JOHN Seely Brown is a good friend. Yeah, he wrote a blurb in introduction to the Cynefin Framework and the Cynefin book. And he said, we've moved from enlightenment to entanglement, which is a really good phrase. Because what you actually seen for most of the last two or three centuries is enlightenment assumptions of human rationality. And the car is something we if we only train people properly, or only explain things people did properly, they would all make the right decision. Peter sanghi, and Otto Sharma are particularly prone to this. And it's a modern form of Neo colonialism. It's kind of like, you know, we think our culture is supreme, this is the way we do it. So everybody should do it like us. And the reality is, that's not how people make decisions, they do a first fit pattern match with half remembered experiences, they get sucked into what are called assemblages, or attract the wells and micro narratives, this will happen to Trump supporters, and also happened to liberals by which they can't escape from that dominant pattern. So everything gets perceived through it. Which is why, you know, people like me basically say, for God's sake, please stop talking about mental models. It's just specious nonsense. All right, and it gives you the wrong framing for the problem in the first place. So fundamentally, we are pattern based intelligences, we evolved to make decisions in clans, not as individuals, the sort of dominant atomistic assumptions of Northern Europe and North America, which come from Protestantism in the Reformation and the rise of capitalism are flawed. Yeah, our identity is derived from our interactions, not from what we are. So that is just reality. It's and as soon as you read, the sooner you get, you recognize reality, the better your decision making is going to be. And that's key. So if you want to influence a population, don't just go and keep telling them what they should think. Yeah, change the way in which they are interacts with the dispositional. state changes. I mean, we're currently waiting to hear on what will be a huge contract for us, we get it, which is post election, peace and reconciliation in the States, these things hardly ever come off. But if they do, they're big. If that's the case, we'll be looking at micro narratives on a micro community basis. And then looking at what are the common patterns in the micro narratives between red and blue in order to initiate this different discussions, but we won't talk about the main problem. So and this is actually down to scalability and problem solving in complex adaptive systems. You scale by decomposition and recombination. So you never state the surface level you never try right? You decompose the lowest level of coherence, then you recombine. Again, once you understand this, I am Pendleton Julian is another good friend wrote a brilliant book on design again with john Seely Brown. She says we live in a whitewater world right? If you're a whitewater kayaker, you're completely comfortable, if you if you don't know what you're doing you you die. Alright. So it's not you know, we've got lots of patterns on this and my hobbies a long distance road cycling, so I you know, I don't get the bike out for less than 50 kilometers, right. And normally, I'm doing 100. And if I go walking in the hills, I really like this the door walks and that includes summer. So I'm insurance, right. And I'm comfortable doing that. I've got the right equipment that was upheld that in the other day before lockdown. I've got crampons. I've got an ice axe. I'm fine. All right. And I can handle the uncertainty because I've trained for it. I've got the experience. I've got the right equipment. And I think that's where we need to go on this. And that means the experience element is also key. I mean that that's why the trivialization of training courses at the moment and agile is appalling. Yeah, I mean, human knowledge actually takes two to two and a half years to internalize itself. That's the science. Now, all you can assimilate in a two day course, is some information. And that's not the same thing.

John

Right? So for someone listening to this conversation, and wanted to better understand Cynefin, and complexity, where could they start or where it's a good starting place?

Dave Snowden

Yeah, several ways. I mean, first of all, read the articles. I mean, the vast majority of people use Cynefin have enough never been trained by us. And I'm actually very proud of that. If you look on Google Scholar, it was simply enough for people to pick it up. And they may not use it perfectly, but it's got back to the utility. So most people can do that. Yeah.

John

And I'm sorry, and that's from the cognitive edge website or

Dave Snowden

now you've got the Harvard article. You know, you've got several areas of a major book chapter for naturalizing decision making.

All right. And that's that's what we're doing, for example, on the pre screening technique is putting people together from different backgrounds. In tangled trails. This is being worked through in Florida in some detail on a major test at the moment of the community intervention level. So we've defined 20 roles like police chief teacher, social worker, so those are parts of the formal system. Then we design a primary coupling, so a teacher with a social worker, and they can choose who their third is from the other list. So we have a series of primaries, they choose a tertiary, and then we give them software to do daily journal, keeping them lessons learn, which creates an obligation creates a narrative database, which sits across all the trios. And this is what we mean by entangled triggers. So now we're building peer to peer interaction between roles, which is task based. So we're not just relying on who you meet, and you decided to get on with there's a task focus here. But then the formal roles are interfaces with a formal system. So if something starts to go wrong, the formal system can respond at a micro level, before it becomes a macro problem. Now we're looking at that in Britain at the moment to deal with the mental health disaster, which is about to hit. Because if the formal system cannot cope with volume anymore, so if we can increase peer to peer interaction, we can reduce volume, and we can increase the number of micro interventions rather than macro interventions. And that that's this is kind of like deeply pragmatic approaches to complexity, right? So when we have three competing experts, what we do is the first expert presents, yeah, and then the other two respond. That's it. So you're not allowed to be interrupted, and you can't interrupt or respond. Yeah, sitting around them, basically, a whole bunch of people who are less expert than the three main guys, but know the field. And they go away in small groups of three and discuss it. And then one from each group sits in a circle and discuss what they discussed with the experts. This is not now repeat twice, second time around second expert presents. And so everybody at some stage sits and have a conversation. And then you recombine the groups across the trios to come up with solutions. Right now, it's extremely successful, because it actually is a conflict reduction device as well. But it forces people into listening as well as speaking and arguing. Yeah, so if I'm one of the main experts after I presented, I've got two days, but I'm not allowed to say anything, just listen to what people are doing with my ideas is that would you call it an enabling constraint or governing constraint? It's an enabling constraint. Alright, let's time might be governing. And that's called try opticon. If you search on the website, you'll find that and again, I've got to get that Doc, I've got to, I tend to develop my ideas on the blog in open source so everybody can see them. My colleagues occasionally, maybe I do, but they sort of given up because they realize that famous phrases are it's just a being Dave, which I've decided I can live with, even though it irritates the hell out of me. So basically, that stuff has been cut and pasted, because put across into the blog. So there's actually sorry, into the wiki. So there's actually a nice job for people who want to learn this stuff. We really need some people who go on to the wiki and take the stuff which experts have put in and format it and structure it and make it intelligible. That's a really good way of learning something, and also paying back to the community.

John

Oh, absolutely. And he said, Triothicon.

Dave Snowden

Triothicon is that method if you search on my blog, you can find that the entangle trios is fully defined in the second of two articles, which are micro cansia. The fungal there that's in the name, sorry, I tend to get carried away with names. It's okay. So we have a phrase in whales, all right, English is too good for the English. I mean, all of them, all of their poets and playwrights are either Welsh or Scottish or Irish. And if you didn't know Shakespeare are the world's grandmothers. So we're claiming him as well. And the English language is far too rich not to use it. And so you'll find on the blog I deliberately throwing words from different fields and that they're designed as cognitive triggers. Hmm. So you can't you can't just relax and carry on and assume you know, you go What the hell is he said this time? And as far as I can see, this blog post sends people scary enough to the internet to find out what the hell I'm talking about, then they're going to listen better. My baby My latest when I leadership, I've gone back to 18th century theology in the language just to make another point.

So you mentioned contribution and folks giving back is that through the wiki platform that's yet to.

That wiki is gonna remain the main way that happens now. I'd say it's been a few years but without putting that up. All the methods are on it. There's some controversy about whether the course content should be up on it. I think we've put all our courses on it as well. Because I think peer review, you can't protect IP anymore. Yeah, I mean, I've just spent a ridiculous amount of money on lawyers in the state. So I just had enough of it. And we finally won damages last week, and that that's a huge relief. But one of things it taught me is just throw everything in the open domain, make sure everybody knows you created it. If you put it behind firewalls, people can be returned, they co invented it, and move faster. And that means moving in community. And to be family can have in that work has been hugely loyal. Over the last two or three years. You know, as we went through a lot of different dm people basically stole from us. And that works, be loyal and stay with us while we did it. And I think that's what you build. If you build a community and you build up and you don't want to commodity relationship with your market. And that's a big mistake agile have made most of their relationships are commodity relationships.

Alex Bachuk

Sounds like enabling constraint. Just enable people to know who you are, and then follow that.

Dave Snowden

Yeah, and I think it's also you, what you also do is catalyzing your, I mean, I've got a lot of stuff swirling around in my head. And when I launch it is based on when the dispositional state is ready to receive it. And sometimes, I mean, there's some stuff I'm blogging now, I first blogged eight years ago, it didn't take off. So I didn't develop it. And now coming back to it, including interest, the some of the original knowledge management, so I'm bringing back two or three of those frameworks because they're more relevant now than they were 30 years ago.

John

Actually, I'm very grateful for I mean, at least the the content from 2010 I started I'm actually trying to see how maybe you've maybe adjusted language or introduced concepts or maybe what's inspired you along the way to help shape the conversations in that style of terminology that you you

Dave Snowden

listen papers on that attend that they give a lecture at Auckland University on on complexity Cynefin and this ever the entire class, it just spent the last two years studying complexity and Cynefin and I were sat there and there was ever and of course you basis on so and so. And I think one that I've ever read that could you tell me favor is having to look it up?

Alex Bachuk

What do you think about the the adoption rate of this framework is this way of thinking just in general?

Dave Snowden

It's it's been bigger than I thought it would be. I had no idea Cynefin ever would get I mean, it's now used. If you if you want to get to Colonel level in any of the US Armed Forces, you have to learn Cynefin. Oh, yeah, it's on this course. I teach at Quantico, I've taught at West Point. Alright, if you look at team of teams McChrystal, US Cynefin in Afghanistan and can avenues all over the second book. Yeah, do a search on Google Scholar. You'll find a huge amount of applications and pickup.

John

So something's wrong, I think because, like management style of command and control, and some folks, like are leaders that I've met, or at least along my journey seem to be they use the term militant. But the way you described like Cynefin is a part of military

Dave Snowden

ministry that the marriage, I mean, the ministry on command and control mandatory are very flexible. Right, exactly. So you don't get this right. They've done some more flexible in industry. I mean, a weapon Sergeant can outrank a general in respect to their weapon. You'd never see that in industry. Hmm. Yeah. I mean, I took just war theory at West Point, right? Because the only people know about just war theory, those of us who are Catholic Marxist back in the 70s, because we have to justify shooting the bastards. Can the revolutions that we went back to Aquinas, so this was the 70s, right? So I told it with Marxist textbooks, and they're the brightest students I've ever had. And I love the guys because they genuinely worry about killing people because they're going to have to do it. Here they think about ethics a downside more than the people who send them into the field. And they worry about it more you can talk to the Marines at Quantico, right. I mean, I know a couple of sergeants there half their pay is still going to people they met when they were on duty in Philippines because they created a relationship with a family because they were ordinary Joe's like them. Do people get this wrong? Yeah.

John

Yeah. There's a couple other things I wanted to just get some foundation on. So the sense maker application, so it's the application called sense maker it's paired with the Cynefin framework is described as an application that enables organizations to better to understand the environment in which they work. And accomplishes this by gathering micro narratives of day to day conversations along with answers to questions about shared micro narratives. I've seen you use data from sense maker in your talk from one year ago dealing with unanticipated needs. How are people typically introduced to sent the sense maker application, and how do you expect people to adopt it in the sense making process.

Dave Snowden

It's several features on it. It's actually a different way of doing lessons learned, for example, when deployed with medical staff at the moment, because you want to get lessons learned in the field and the fire, you don't want retrospectives about retrospectives, by the way, a really bad cognitive neuroscience, you should capture the lessons learned as they happen, you shouldn't be allowed to wait a bit, and then go into a meeting and present them. Alright. And basically, so people can take a picture, record a voice or type or any combination, and then just slam it into four triangles, and we got the data. It's also an academic justice issues. So if I look at the work we've done is it allows people to interpret their own narratives. Right now, that's actually key, because power comes from interpretation, not from the original narrative. And I wrote a blog post on this, which is called Big second rich. And I couldn't resist that, because that I picked up this article about big data and thick data, which was ethnography trying to justify why they had a role in the future. So big data is big and doesn't has low meaning. Yeah, we produce sick data, which is time and low volume that has high meaning, you need both. And I remember looking at this and saying, well, we do rich data, and I suddenly, you know, I was reading Trump's tweets that morning. So big, thick and rich kind of like came together quite well. And so that was a book, right. And basically, rich data is large volumes of human interpreted not algorithm, interview data, which means we can take photographs as well as text. And what you can write down is 10%, of what you know. And that's actually also creates training datasets. So that's used to map culture to map lessons learned to map response, we use it operationally in Afghanistan, to replace company commanders patrol reports, they could just keep their observations in the field as they went through. That gave us real time data over multiple observers, which increased our ability to spot IDs and things like that. It's also the software under where I talked about of distributed decision support, present the same data to 1000 people, they place it into six triangles, which have equally positive labels. So they don't know what the right answer is that creates a cognitive load, they think deeper, you can trust the results. So that's what sounds make sense. Maybe there's a few other things as well. But that's what it's fundamentally about.

John

Is there a Do you have a product roadmap do? Are there any updates? Or features? Or is it?

Dave Snowden

Yeah, two by 2.4 is going to be released next week, which is a major release. Yeah. We got project driven on the on the skates at the moment, which is our major rewrite. And I decided if Steve Jobs name software after cats, I could name it after Welsh mountains where I've had near fatal accident. So yeah, as project trivia director on treveon was the best tweet I've ever thought of or I mean, I was thinking about that all the way down, before I had eight stitches. So and that that's a major change that I can't really talk about, except one day, but I've been working on that for about five, six years. So SenseMaker is linked in with Cynefin isn't dependent on sense maker or vice versa. But they come from the same theoretical base.

John

And I can people we can I saw a sense maker on the App Store. Is that is that the intended consumption and use of it?

Dave Snowden

Yeah, that's it. And then Chevron will be the more so right. So remember what we're doing lessons learned. And we're about to launch this for the health sector worldwide, right, which is taking the work we've already done. And creating a version of the app that people can use to capture lessons learned in hospitals during COVID. Yeah, because it's critical, we capture those lessons learned now. And what's interesting is we can use the way they signify it to identify mental health issues. So you don't do wellbeing surveys. You basically see the pattern is something which people see as having utility, ie lessons learn. Got one on climate change. On the website, we're actually just launched a new project called numinous, which is looking at the varieties of spiritual experience. So we're doing some quite interesting things. At the same time, as we're looking at climate change. were deployed with a Lutheran Church in the USA, and we're about to launch a fascinating public project. And that will present a different parable every month and ask people to tell a story about what they think it means for their environment. So we're starting off with the parable of the Good Samaritan. And then we're moving on to a Sufi story from Islam, which is the story of a wise fool the month after de and onto an indigenous parable from Australia and we're moving through those so every month, a different parable from a different religion in narrative form for people to gather stories about what it means and interpret. So we're having fun And doing lots of interesting things like that the stuff we did on micro narratives about climate change is also critical, because you can tell people can see a small difference they can make in their own life. Yeah, no amount of Paris accords will make any difference so that of course, you shouldn't put the people of Paris before the people of the USA. I'm still giggling about that one.

Alex Bachuk

Did you hear that funny? Yeah,

Dave Snowden

I was 10. Ted Cruz, he obviously heard Paris Accord and he decided that you know, the people. I mean, the people who have paid is like, you know, you know, that about the Geneva agreement and prisoners of war. Right. So.

John

So I'm hoping we could talk a little bit about complexity. I mean, we've been talking a lot about complexity. But would you agree that thinking complexity is a discipline?

Dave Snowden

Yeah, I think all thinking is a discipline. That's fair. I think part of the problem we got the moment is we lack generalists. People become overly specialized too early. And the story I always tell when I went up to grammar school as it was then, in Britain, when I was growing up, you basically didn't exam at 11. And you either went into an academic school or online academic school, which had positives and negatives. So I'm in the academic school at the age of 11. I'm now allowed to wear long trousers, we weren't allowed to wear long trousers until we reach the age of 11. Which, if you ever saw the British winter of 1964, and you had to walk three miles to school in shorts, you would know just how to miss this, this bread, bread stuff, as I say, right. And I got given either had to walk to the runt of the class and was given the record card and it said you support capital punishment. And I had to speak for seven minutes without preparation on something I profoundly disagree with. And we did that every week from 11 to 18. Right now that was that's, to me a really important thing, because what the process did is it made us hypercritical. I also made us generalists, because you know what you're going to get hit with. So you read everything you could write, we didn't get taught to be critical. We had a educational process through which we became critical. Yeah, you mentioned discipline. And that's really important. If you look at the way that professionals develop, they have disciplines of practice from which people learn things. And the educational system has got to express it. And also people now do things inside there. So my kids did module, get past the module move on to the next module. We did a exams in everything in one nightmarish two weeks at the age of 1680. But it meant you had to retain all of the knowledge and you could then do the synthesis, right. So there isn't a generalist left in Britain under the age of 55. And that's a real problem in a crisis. Because in a crisis, God, you need the generalist. And generalists aren't t shaped that's the near generalist are going to complete the art t shaped. Because if you know one subject in depth, you will privilege that a generalist knows a little bit about a lot of things, and not much about any of them. And that's actually a fairly important skill. You don't want too many of them, but they're absolutely critical. And there's very few of us left who can do it. Right, we have to be I mean, I they're also partly dyslexic, right. And it goes with dyslexia, because I just can't understand why people haven't seen the connection between things. So sometimes when I'm writing the blog, I'll miss out hell sentences, because I've just made the leap. And if the spell checker doesn't pick it up, well, I didn't pick it up, because I just don't see it. Yeah, but then I can't see why people didn't combine cognitive anthropology with complexity before I was the first person to do it. I mean, it's just Well, this is obvious, you know, what's the issue?

John

You Um, there's a couple of networks or terms that involve networks that I was hoping we could maybe clarify just a little bit, and I'm just going to jump right into them. So you mentioned the informal network. You've also associated that with nutrients in the soil to allow for growth. Can you describe like the informal network and it's,

Dave Snowden

yeah, it sounds to mention nutrients if you actually look in the soil, I mean, that's the problem. People thought they could replace it with nitrogen fertilizers. The reality is you've got fungus which which whose plants spread through the soil, connect tree roots and have a symbiotic relationship. So the tree gives them Sacra as they give it nutrients Alright, so to my mind in an organization the informal network is like that fungus it's beneath the surface is deeply entangled is not explicit, but it keeps the system together. And interesting. The first really big article on Canadian the first articles on Canadian run innovation, but the first major one first prize winning one was about The balance between informal and formal networks in IBM. And that's that's called complex active knowing, which is the ninth most cited paper of all time in knowledge management, which I'm quite proud of. knobbies is a really good paper because his first use complexity. So everybody references if they want talk about complexity, that identified the ratio between formal and informal in IBM was 164. And that was only people use technology. I still remember going to the IBM Chief Knowledge Officer from doing that. And she said, Well, how do we make them formal? And it was you're missing the point. In informal communities take very little energy. The issue is you have to create points in which they can communicate with the formal system. Yeah. And that's what I've been designing ever since. So social network stimulation was a first on that, in tangled trails is another, you know, because if you just allow them to happen naturally, you get old boys clubs. Yeah. And that's what you're trying to break. So a lot of our work and this is actually complexity, we design the ecosystem we don't. And I'm the blogs, I'm writing the big blog about leadership at the moment, which I'll go back to after this. Yeah. So two days ago, I wrote all the things you shouldn't do in leadership, which is upset all the right people. And now I'm writing what you do do. And one of the things is, and this is Stan McChrystal, his point, right, you're there to make decisions, you're there to create an ecosystem in which the right decisions will be made for you. And if you've got a dense informal network you can connect with as a radical risk reduction measure. But it doesn't have to be, sometimes use the phrase, the tyranny of the explicit. And you see this with the whole. I mean, psychotherapists are really bad at this. And I'm, I'm very dubious about any therapeutic technique being bought sideways into organizational coaching. Because it kind of like implies you need therapy, and it privileges a therapist. Yeah. And, you know, they're always talking about hidden motivations and authority and power and stuff like that. The reality is, if you change people's interactions, everything changes now, and it's moral to change how things people interact, but it's not moral to tell people what sort of person they should be.

John

Right? Well, man, we only have like five minutes left here. And I wanted to talk about distributed human sensory network. But maybe I'll have to

Dave Snowden

have talked about that a bit. That's the way use the whole of your workforce. All the stuff we've done in Wales in Malmo, where you use children's ethnography is to their community from schools every week. And that that actually is that's key, because the problem we got with the internet is is number for feedback loop. And the problem with embedded feedback loops is they always become perverted. So what we're doing with things like children in schools and sports clubs is to put human buffering into the primary data capture now, and that you can't gain them, you can't generate it, like you can use tweet farms and stuff like that. So again, that's, that's a government level human sensor network. So I wrote about because I put a paper in on we were trying to get somebody to fund it with only a few million, which was you wanted every school in the world to send every 16 year old to capture stories every month. And we already proved we could do it in Egypt, in Afghanistan, in Britain, in Colombia, or in Malmo. So we proved the concept, right. And I said, if we ever get a major play, we'll need it. Because you need to communicate through is now the principal in the field that you communicate by engagement. Yeah, everybody's trying to communicate more effectively is push. If you engage people in a situational assessment, and the ideas generation and the communication is more effective, and that's the human sensor network. But you have to build networks for ordinary purpose that you can then activate for extraordinary need. Yeah, and that you don't assemble them in the crisis they need to be operating for some is called radical repurpose a user network, which is already in place which you can activate. At the present level. I've done that in companies where we needed to get cross silo working. So I still remember doing this with this is a huge company, we got everybody. So we Football Club, they support it, and we put them into teams based on that. Because they have that in common. So if somebody supports and covers you, you tend to trust them. And they it was a way of getting a coherent group across silos. That that's theory informed practice, you know, the theory. So you ask yourself the question, and then you can discover the practice, you're not looking to what somebody else has done to copy. You're saying what does the theory say about this that you can do and not do right? Okay, now What can I do consistent with that? And that really is scientific management.

John

You mentioned, there's an intelligence that can be baked into human sensory networks. Like, it used to be a story about Napoleon and heuristics and how like, you can have people that are

Dave Snowden

the march to sound of the guns, yeah. Or the American Marines, if in doubt, capture the high ground, stay in touch, keep moving,

John

right. And as we're wrapping up here, it just feels very far away from being something like, I could not leverage but like, like thinking as someone like if you have the opportunity to develop or identify that as a strategy to help move a system in a general direction,

Dave Snowden

you haven't helped you on that. Because if it's complex, you know, you can't control it any other way. And what we do is we look at the existing heuristics in micro narratives, we cluster codify and attach them petitioners stories. And then you propagate it very quickly. You say, you know, if the plan breaks down, and you follow these heuristics, you won't get punished, if it fails. Follow the heuristics you will be because we do a lot of this and safety. So we have a rule about when you can break the rules. And then you have to follow heuristics. Because we've done a lot of work, which has shown the main cause of mental breakdown in emergency services is the safety regulations, not the job. Because the safety regulations have been developed on the assumption that incidents are at the center of a normal distribution. Whereas in practice, people are in the tail of the greater distribution. So the rules actually create nonsensical constraints. And you basically say, yeah, if this happens, then you break it. But then here are the heuristics, you follow busy. I did this when I reverse diabetes. I mean, I didn't eat biomedicine, if you want it. I created 10 heuristics. And I could remember, I mean, all the stuff about it was just too hard to remember. So I made it really simple, you know, nothing more than 5% sugar, only only sweet potatoes, you end up with these very simple rules, and you can just remember them, apply them and then you can handle uncertainty. And that is a natural human tendency. We I mean, we tend to find that find things which work worked out why they work from the science and scale. But if you don't understand the why you can't scale it, what?

Alex Bachuk

Yes, that's a really good advice.

John

And I think great way to wrap up our time this this afternoon and morning. So thank you so much. Professor Snowden is really very generous of you to spend some time with us. Is there anything you'd like our listeners to know about this going on? Anything that's very important means to contact you back keep

Dave Snowden

it on the blog, I say the Wii U field book is probably the biggest thing in our history because that is European Union. It's entirely written around Cynefin and sensemaking and things like that. So keep an eye out next week become social media on the blog, because that will be announced and things are working on later on tonight and over the weekend is the take on program for people who want to take that field book and use it in companies

John

and you'll make that available on the blog and through

Dave Snowden

Yeah, we will and you know for the Agile coaching community that's potentially a big new market for

Alex Bachuk

now. Thank you so much All right.

John

Professor Snowden Thank you really so much. Spend tremendous having an opportunity to chat with you today. Okay.

Dave Snowden

Let me know when it's out.

John

Yeah, we will definitely.

John Masse

Cheers.

John

Thanks for tuning into the pragmatically podcast. If you found this conversation interesting or helpful. We would appreciate your feedback. If you want even more content like what you just heard. Check out pragmatic lead comm if you have a storyteller, send an email to pragmatic lead@gmail.com and someone will be in touch. Thanks again.