We tend to believe that systems regardless of the complexity can be “managed” and ordered into perfect little categories. Categories have been recorded in western philosophy as early as Plato’s work.[1]
As I examined policies in our organization and the external job ecosystem in Lebanon and USA, I found out that people are classified by gender, nationality, creed, job description and everything in between.
We, as human beings, break down complex systems into sequential steps and align individuals along processes such as Factory Systems[2] and Waterfall Model[3], with the intent to break down a complex problem into smaller ones that we can manage. If you are one of the lucky ones, you quickly realize that optimizing the parts did not solve the initial problem we started with.
Nevertheless, we spend a lot of time trying to order them, group them, and spend substantial energy optimizing them, because we started with a false hypothesis that in optimizing smaller segments, we optimize and solve the original problem.
When I inspected our operations at Ayna, I found that we were guilty of these practices. I would also observe the same in most, if not all, of the companies I have consulted for in the Middle East and the United States.
Our company was segmented into several Information Technology (IT) departments and several Business Units (BU), each BU was specialized in one or more of the business areas and the communication between them was centralized through their management. Each had their own budget, business goal, managers and staff. When I poked a little into the operational goals of these units, I found that the one things that they all had in common, was the name of the company. The BUs had managed to optimize each segment to serve their business goals, which were inferred from the overall goals for the business, but they were not aligned, nor they were complementary.
To understand how we got to where we were, it is important to understand that organizations are made of groups that solve problems, and by solving these problems, they create value to the organization in form of revenue in one way or another.
Our choice of the tool to solve a problem important. Abraham Maslow wrote[4] “I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.” The goal hence is to know what group, should use what approach and at which stage. Where the preferable choice would be the least complex and has the lowest total cost of operation.
Complexity Matrix
Complexity Matrix was developed by Ralph Stacey (see figure 1) and highlights the relationship between technology, features and individuals and how they contribute to the complexity of a system. I have used this tool many times within our organization and with perspective clients to understand if agility would benefit them and in what area.
This matrix is extremely helpful when used in concert with Cynefin Framework which describes the evolutionary nature of complex systems, including their inherent uncertainty.
Figure 1: Stacey Matrix Complexity. Complexity increases from Obvious to Chaotic as technology changes, product features are unknown and number of individuals introduced to the solution increases.
Stacey’s Matrix when used for agile software development is divided into four regions that mirror Cynefin. It considers the range of certainty for the technology to be used and the features to be built. A variation of Stacey’s matrix includes a third axis and is the number of people involved to solve a problem.
During a conversation with executives in one of the top two mobile telecommunication firms in Lebanon, I found out that the company had increasing uncertainty about the technology and product to build “Things change on a daily basis.” Their SDLC approach is to “manage” the development by dividing the products between developers. Each product was developed by one person, who had their own app, development environment and made their own rules on how to develop and test. In essence they had figured out how to squeeze a complicated problem into a simple one within Stacey’s matrix, by keeping the solution with one person so work can be micro-managed. What was interesting enough is that they ignored all the risks associated with development being owned by one person. When I asked what happens if the person leaves, or if business wanted more features. They acknowledged that they had those problems, and had to struggle to get back on track when that happened, but their focus was not aligned with the overall business operations and understand the value of mitigating operational risks through agile practices. To be fair, this practice is not a Lebanese phenomena, but it is wide spread practice in the software industry and IT.
Cynefin
Cynefin draws on research into complex adaptive systems theory, cognitive science, anthropology, and narrative patterns, as well as evolutionary psychology, to describe problems, situations, and systems. It "explores the relationship between man, experience, and context" and proposes new approaches to communication, decision-making, policy-making, and knowledge management in complex social environments.
Cynefin[5] is divided into five complexity domains that directly correlate to Stacey’s complexity matrix, and are presented in a model shown in figure 2. Cynefin domains are:
Obvious - in which the relationship between cause and effect is obvious to all, the approach to address complexity is to Sense - Categorize - Respond, and we can apply best practice to this type of problem. In other words, do not over complicate your approach, a to-do list and a couple of meetings may suffice, use best practices when available.
Complicated - in which the relationship between cause and effect requires analysis or some other form of investigation and/or the application of expert knowledge, the approach is to Sense - Analyze - Respond and in this we can have multiple solutions and apply good practices.
Complex - in which the relationship between cause and effect can only be perceived in retrospect, but not in advance, the approach is to Probe - Sense - Respond and we can sense emergent practice. This is the area where Scrum and other agile frameworks will bring great value, given they have built-in retrospective, inspect and adapt breakpoints and sprints that allow the teams to respond to what is being observed.
Chaotic - in which there is no relationship between cause and effect at systems level, the approach is to Act - Sense - Respond and we can discover novel practice. In this area, using hypothesis with predetermined goals set, can help the sense and respond approach. This is the area where Agile Stream Framework, Lean Startup and SAFe will bring value through experiments, metrics and breakpoints to allow sensing and responding to the system.
Disorder is the fifth domain, which is the state of not knowing what type of causality exists. It is the state where people revert to their own comfort zone in making a decision.
Figure 2: Five domains of the Cynefin Framework. The graph is read starting from Obvious at the lower right corner and travels counter clockwise passing through Complicated, Complex and Chaotic. The intersection of the four domains is Disorder.
[1] Categorization, Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorization
[2] Factory System. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved December 14, 2015, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factory_system
[3] Waterfall Model. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved December 14, 2015, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_model
[4] Maslow, Abraham H. Toward a Psychology of Being. 1962.
[5] Cynefin. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved December 14, 2015, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin
About the Author
Adonis ElFakih, is an entrepreneur, software executive, consultant and author with 15 years experience in software industry.
Mr. Elfakih (/al-fa-Qee-h/, Arabic: الفقيه) is founder and former CEO and CTO of several technology companies. His most notable startup is ayna.com, an Arabic search engine that maintained a competitive edge against Yahoo and Google between (1997-2011) by constantly reinventing itself. In 2011 and after the rise of the “Arab Spring” movement which swept through the middle east and north africa, Ayna pivoted to provide omni-channel marketing for small and medium retail businesses.
Mr. Elfakih oversaw the agile transformation of Ayna, starting as an organization that deployed software every six to twelve months and ended up deploying production quality and sales-ready services every two weeks. Mr. Elfakih rallied every individual in the organization through a transparent enterprise backlog and provided middle management with tools and practices focused on agile delivery, which are the basis for Agile Stream Framework.
Mr. Elfakih’s experience encompasses a spectrum of engineering and management practices in enterprise and startup organizations which form the cornerstone of his empirical management approach.
Mr. Elfakih has a Bachelors in Aerospace engineering with a concentration in Psychology form New York University, Brooklyn NY and a Master’s degree in Business Administration from Daniel Webster College in Nashua NH. He trains and consults on agile management techniques and has served as technical and business advisor for multiple private organizations throughout his career.