Category: Liberating Structures

Liberating Structures Immersion in ATL September 18-19

Tired of unproductive meetings, stifling hierarchy, exclusion, mistrust and disengaged people? It’s time to jump into Liberating Structures for your life and work. To instigate more of this fun,  I’m heading South! Nadine Doyle and Robin Muretisch and I (and who knows, maybe some special practitioner guests if they can be convinced!) are hosting a two day Liberating Structures Immersion Workshop in Atlanta, September 18-19. You can find all the details here.   

What are you TALKING about?

Liberating Structures are simple shifts in the methods we use to bring people together to talk, think and solve problems together. With a click you will see I’ve been practicing and writing about them for some time now! Game changer? YES! Spreadable? YES! That means YOU can do them. 

What to Expect?

You’ll gain hands-on experience of Liberating Structures, a field-tested, results-focused collection of engagement structures which include everyone in shaping the future.  

Who is this for?

Anyone who is in or host meetings, teams, groups, even engaging and unleashing positive energy in your own family. Robin and Nadine have a special interest in Lean and Design Thinking so will connect some dots in that domain. Here is what they offer:

Are you a Lead or Design Thinking practitioner? Learn how integrating Liberating Structures (LS) into your work can take you to the next level! Lean practitioners see LS as relational coordination that complements more technical process improvement and value-stream mapping activities. Design Thinking gurus find that LS helps non-designers participate more fully in ethnographic observations and prototyping efforts.  

From me, expect the unexpected. I’m always interested in a twist! And, of course, chocolate! I’m really looking forward to hanging out in the ATL!

Moving Offline Liberating Structures Practices Online

Image by Tracy Kelly of the BC User Group

My lovely Liberating Structures (LS) community of practice has a monthly newsletter. December’s will be around LS online and as I started marking up their draft, I realized it would be a good idea to get my thinking/practices more clearly outlined rather than trying to “think out loud” and potentially make a mess of their draft! 

What I’m laying out here could be extrapolated to other group processes, not just Liberating Structures. My goal is to describe how I think, talk and practice in online facilitation. I’m going to use the LS “Purpose to Practice” as the scaffold. The beauty of a scaffold is that it holds up an ever-evolving understanding of the practice, versus a static set of “best practices” or the like. This first version will stay at a pretty high level, and then it might be interesting to do some future posts digging deeper into each area.

Purpose

Why is this work important to me and the wider community?
Purpose exists on a couple of different levels here. At the highest, the
purpose of this post is to share learnings about how we transfer facilitation of offline group processes into an online space. In this particular instance, I’m focusing on LS and primarily synchronous online interactions using group meeting tools. My ultimate purpose is to use LS online so that people are easily and delightfully engaged and liberated to achieve their own purpose(s).

Purpose from an LS perspective – the integrity of an LS used online or offline – should be consistent with the structure and theoretically is not informed by the environment. 

Purpose informs what structures people use, regardless of environment. 
In practice, people use each LS in different ways. For example, the stated
purpose on the LS site guides us, but our ability to riff and improvise may surface other, unique purposes.

When thinking about the online environment, there may be more than one LS to choose in terms of what that structure enables (its purpose), but one of those options may be more suited to the online environment.  For example, when the harvest of a process is important, an online  environment makes it easy for everyone to type in and capture their input, faster and easier than a wall of sticky notes. The harvest is done by all, not by the facilitator. The data can be quickly organized, parsed and we can bring forth the best of what was produced.

People’s individual experience and practices using LS also vary. Some of us have favorites that we go to over and over. This may bias towards or away from using LS online because of our comfort of using a particular LS and how easy it is to transfer its use online. 

Principles and Minimum Specifications

What rules must we obey to achieve our purpose? What are the minimum specifications, things we must absolutely do/not do?
Again, principles exists on different levels. There are my personal principles as a facilitator/participant which drive my practices. There are  the principles that sit beneath Liberating Structures . (Or whatever processes you use.) There are the principles of the individuals and group involved.  I am excluding my personal principles/generic facilitator principles and will mostly focus on principles that arise from the online environment and which inform minimum specifications and practices. The other levels are very rich areas for future exploration!

Here are my general principles for using LS online:

Practice with others. The online environment can be unkind to multitasking… (Min Spec: Find a co-facilitating friend)

Use the power of alternating individual, small and large group interaction. Don’t fall trap to top-down online meetings, especially since most technologies favor top-down. (Min spec: unless the group is very small, don’t stay in a large group the whole time – a.k.a “goat rodeo”)

When in doubt, keep things simple. From technology, to process – simplicity gives room for experimentation and emergence. For example, while we might rapidly restring our structures F2F, we may not always be as prepared to do that as quickly online without a deeper practice.  From a tech perspective, we might keep our technology set simple. (Min spec: never introduce more than two new tools to a group. One is ever better!)

Be prepared to be surprised (and innovate, use plan b, etc!) Technology (and the supporting infrastructure like bandwidth and even electricity) are rarely under your control. (Min spec: stay cool! Have a backup plan. Set reasonable expectations.)

Position everything as an experiment and a chance to learn, even while focused on real and urgent purposes. Let go of thinking everything can and should be perfect. (Min spec: let go of the identity of an expert.)

People/Participants

Who must be included to achieve our purpose? 
This one is much easier because there is little distinction between online and offline. The main benefit may be that online we might possibly include MORE people than we could if we were limited to a face to face interaction. In general, my overall facilitation principles drive me to include everyone who is engaged/impacted by the purpose to participate. Even if they are spread all across the globe. That is one of the driving strengths of doing things online, despite the challenges.

Structure

How will we organize to distribute control?
Traditional design and use of online meeting tools have centralized control to the person who has administrative control of the meeting software. Sometimes additional people can be given these “host” or “admin” roles, partially or fully. But the central design of these tools has prioritized control over emergence, theoretically to offer a more consistent experience. Liberating Structures, on the other hand, is designed to engage and unleash everyone. So it is super important to figure out how to hack these tools to distribute control. Here are three potential vectors for distributing control. I’m sure there are more. Ideas?

  • Control can be distributed by handing off control of the software. I start by sharing my screen, now you can share yours. Here, why don’t you work on setting up the breakout groups while I review the process?
  • Control can be explicitly shared by identifying and  distributing /switching roles. I’ll facilitate the process, you work on the technology support. Everyone can take notes in the chat. Invite people into those roles early and often. 
  • Control can be distributed by facilitators being quiet for a while. Some of us facilitators have this urge to fill every second of air time. Silence can give others a chance to breathe, think, and then participate in a way that is easier for them. Facilitators, IT IS NOT ABOUT US!! This is also a practice. 

Practices

What are we going to do? 
This is where it gets practical. It is also where it may be more useful to
describe practices through examples of how to use specific LS online. So I’ll start general, then we can dive into specifics in future posts.

For me there are two intersecting sets of practices: the process facilitation and the technology stewardship. I (along with John D. Smith and Etienne Wenger) have written extensively about technology stewardship. You can get the book (free!) on the Digital Habitats book site, and I will  focus only on LS related facilitation and tech stewardship issues. You will also note how these are related to principles stated above!

  • Don’t do this alone. Have one person focus on the technology stewardship issues while the other facilitates process. It can be devilishly hard to do both at one time. For example, individuals with tech problems need one on one private “back channel” assistance that doesn’t suck up the time and attention of the whole group. Setting up breakout rooms is best done with attention, not while multitasking with process instructions.
  • Select and use technology to facilitate the large group/small group/individual levels of participation that are found in LS. For me the profound difference of using LS online and more traditional “web meetings” or “webinars” is that they enable peer to peer, multi-directional interaction versus being the object of a stream of content from one or few people.  
  • Use multiple modalities beyond voice. We humans pay less attention to verbal interactions when we aren’t facing each other. Video can help – a bit – but not resolve our lackadaisical listening skills. So important instructions (how to do a LS, the invitation, etc.) should also appear visually on a slide, whiteboard or chat room. Don’t underestimate adult’s ability to quickly forget the instructions as well, so make sure they are visible in breakouts. Use images, drawing tools – whatever it takes to create a closer cycle of information exchange and UNDERSTANDING.
  • Keep technology choices as simple as possible. For example, if you pair the web meeting tool Zoom with Google Docs, it may seem really easy if you already have a Google Doc practice. For someone totally new to both, it may be enough to learn one tool at a time. For experts, pile it on! Just because we can use a ton of tools doesn’t mean we always SHOULD. A subset of this is “always keep an eye out for new tech” – the landscape is constantly evolving. 
  • Beware of the heaven/hell of harvesting online. Online tools make it easy for everyone to write/draw/contribute. When it comes to
    sensemaking and harvesting, be careful of creating too much useless/never used content. Ask people to ruthlessly evaluate and harvest the best of what is created. 
  • Don’t restrict yourself. Think through how you will use an LS online based on your purpose instead of slavishly following the instructions in a literal manner. Use your imagination and the strengths of the technology you are using rather than fighting the limitations. This is a great place to expand your LS repertoire.  (Again, there should be a whole post on using the LS Matchmaker with an online perspective. Some of us have been trying to capture our current state of understanding of this.)
  • Give most LS a bit more time online, especially when learning how to do them online. Don’t over-pack your sequence or “string” of structures. While I might do 3-5 in 90 minutes F2F, I’d say 3  online! To date, almost all the LS I’ve used online take more time the first time (sometimes a LOT more time). We get better over time, but if you are always working with new people, build in learning time. And in a perfect world, get the chance to do these together more than once. It gets richer and richer. Another perspective is spreading out a string over multiple, shorter online meetings. Most of us burn out after 90 minutes of full on attention online.
  • Reflect on the similarities and differences of a structure/string online and offline. Chances are this will deepen your overall understanding and facilitation practice, and expand possibilities each time you reflect, learn, apply, and repeat! Better yet, reflect with your peers. Use What, So What, Now What? to debrief at every chance. Share your learnings with the Liberating Structures community
    of practice on Slack.

Resources

Building an Online Liberating Structures Practice 90 Minutes at a Time

Liberating Structures has become central to my practice over the years. I have dabble with using LS online, but the call to do more online is getting stronger, particularly in introducing people to LS and getting immediately to hands on use. I wanted to share some 90 minute “studios” that I have been facilitating in different contexts to introduce LS in the domain context of the participants. In other words, the examples here may be in education, the approach can work with any domain simply by changing the invitations used with the structures. Also, I’ve used the studio approach face to face and it really works well. I’ll write that up another time!

Why 90 minute studios?

First, the term “studio” comes from the UdGAgora, work a team of us, led by Tanis Morgan of JIBC, with the University of Guadalajara on increasing learner engagement. It was structured as a participatory, hands on online and offline learning experience around the idea of a studio where content is only introduced, and the learning is focused on execution or use of the content. (More of our work with UdG here.)  A studio also conjures up the space of an artist, and in many ways, the use of Liberating Structures is a form of social artistry. And yes, I like the term.

Second, the experience shared here recaps what we did at the e/Merge Africa Festival of Learning online event in July, hosted by, among others, the amazing Tony Carr from University of Capetown.

90 minutes is a useful length of time online. It is just on the edge of “too much time” in terms of participant attention, and it is long enough to get an introduction to the content and use 2-3 structures applied to that group’s real domain/needs. Face to face, you can get 3 or even 4 structures in a 90 minute segment, but our experience is that things take longer online due to acclimatization to technology (in our case, Zoom) and the subtleties of converting a process to online.

Multiple 90 minute studios can be scheduled over time. Right now 3 rounds of studios seems to build enough traction for people to begin experimenting with and adopting LS into their practice, but I have not done a rigorous follow up. That would be a wonderful experiment. AND, you can do a stand alone studio – absolutely!

Studio “Strings”

Liberating Structures are often used in a sequence called a “string.” What follows are some different strings for studios, options and my rationale behind each string.

Studio 1 – What is Liberating Structures and Why Should I Care?

Purpose: Provide just enough experience with and information about LS so that participants want to try it and/or learn more. It’s like that yummy food sample in the market that draws you in.

  1. Impromptu Networking in pairs or 1-2-4-All to immediately demonstrate how distribution of power (in this case to everyone in pairs) can change interaction, particularly online where we have been “presented to” to death! Debrief by showing the LS microstructures underneath Impromptu Networking/1-2-4-All and transition into…
  2. Brief introduction to LS (slides and chat) to get the fundamentals visible. (An example here of slides for three studios in the education domain.)
  3. Users Experience Fishbowl to hear from real practitioners in the domain share the good, the bad and the ugly of using LS in their work. What is great about doing this online is you can tap into practitioners anywhere which is super powerful.
  4. 15% Solutions to get participants to think about something they can do with what they learned NOW.
  5. Point to resources and, if appropriate, future studio opportunities.

Studio 2: Real Application of Liberating Structures

Purpose: Use LS to do something real in the domain of the participants that gets results in 90 minutes.

In the application studio, we find someone in the organization/group/network domain who has a real need or challenge and we design a string of LS for them to use in addressing that need. The practitioner(s) are in the center and the other participants are essentially watching a coached design session. Note: this session always seems too short, but I hesitate to go to 2 hours!

  1. Something to “lift off from where we left off” from the first studio. A fun way is to get the practitioners to briefly share their challenge, then have the whole group do some creative destruction to make way for innovation with TRIZ .
  2. Next we get to the issues. The team shares their challenge  with options like Celebrity Interview using Purpose to Practice and Matchmaker for draft string. I notice that we blur the boundary between structures as we get intensely into design. The other participants are in “watching mode” but also able to contribute via chat. We have everyone NOT on the design team turn off their cameras in this phase.
  3. What, So What, Now What with everyone to debrief, re-point to resources, microstructures, LS values and invite for session #3 as appropriate. Sometimes if we need to close rapidly and lost our debrief time, I close with “Just Three Words” (10 mins)

String 3: Diving Deeper into Liberating Structures

Purpose: Peel back enough layers to reveal the basic structure of LS, some related complexity theory and show that there are many layers of value in using LS.

The intention behind this studio was for people who attended #1 and #2. What often happens is we get new folks, so you need to be attentive to give at least a little context at the front end. The string should be very flexible and often I use the beginning of this studio to find out what people want to try and do, and then wrap the explanation and theory around it.

  1. Reset Context/Liftoff with Impromptu Networking around burning questions, or  What, So What, Now What? This can be very rich in pairs or triads. From the results, we choose what structure to do next.
  2. Discuss user groups, the LS Slack, immersion workshops, website, book, app and other resources.
  3. Do an Ecocycle on our LS practices (or other domain related topic) to expose people to one of the richer but (in my opinion) harder to initially grasp LS.
  4. And complete with 15% Solutions to stimulate follow up, action and behavior change. For example, if this was with a team working on learning and diffusion, we would explore the next opportunity they needed to unleash and engage people in the work, and what LS they might try.  If we skip Ecocycle, I love doing 15% Solutions and then Troika Consulting to use peer input to deepen and refine  an idea.

Implications of LS online

All of the Liberating Structures mentioned above have been successfully and repeatedly done online. We are still experimenting with other LS. They do require the type of break out room capability that Zoom has. The use of video cameras really enhances the process – and sometimes people don’t have cameras, or even microphones, so make sure that is addressed in your preparations. There are certainly some particular tips about doing these structures online, but that will have to wait for a later post!

Resources and Examples

Recordings and artifacts from the e/Merge series on LS for Increasing Online Learning Engagement in July, 2018.

Adaptive Strategy Development

Introduction

Designing in complex and emergent contexts challenges the traditional log frame approach. With a set of Liberating Structures we can create a more adaptive and  actionable strategy  for project design and development that contextualizes the plan into a fuller picture of the landscape within which it operates. This is a very belated follow up on the application of the process with the good folks at the University of Illinois for the INGENEAS project where we used this approach in April. 

Liberating Structures are easy-to-learn microstructures that enhance relational coordination and trust. They quickly foster lively participation in groups of any size, making it possible to truly include and unleash everyone. Liberating Structures are a disruptive innovation that can replace more controlling or constraining approaches. They are engaging, easily learned and replicated and “complexity friendly.” To learn more about Liberating Structures, please visit http://www.liberatingstructures.com.

With a fully engaged and flexible approach, challenges such as complex international development projects can work with emerging contexts, rather than struggle against them.  Business with rapidly changing markets can develop a portfolio of approaches to respond quickly and accurately. 

As a process, participants in all parts of a system can engage, probe and sense on the ground, and loop the learning back into the strategy e for iterative improvements. Monitoring and evaluation approaches that require flexibility to work in complex contexts are designed as part of the landscape, not afterwards.

Framing the strategic planning as an adaptive landscape versus a document situates the work in its complex setting. By complex, we mean we may not be able to predict outcomes, even with extensive expertise, and only understand causality after the fact. For example, most international development work operates partially and sometimes mostly in complex settings. So the use of complexity-based approaches helps us work more productively and adaptively in these contexts.

The Six Essential Questions of the Adaptive Strategy Landscape

The strategy landscape, or “knotworking” as it is increasingly called,  is framed around six essential questions and held together through the Ecocycle. These questions frame, drive and help us evaluate our strategy.

  1. PURPOSE: Why, why, why is this work important to us and the wider community?  How do we justify our work to others?
  2. CONTEXT: What is happening around us that demands a fresh/new/novel approach (creative adaptation and change)?
  3. BASELINE: Where are we starting, really?
  4. CHALLENGE: What paradoxical challenges must we face to make progress?
  5. AMBITION: Given our purpose, what seems possible now?
  6. ACTION & EVALUATION: How are we moving/breaking away from the present and moving toward the future? How do we know?

The questions, particularly the focus on purpose and ambition pull a group into possibilities as they make choices and identify next steps.  While they seem linear, there are feedback loops. As the group discovers new things, they may come back and modify earlier “answers.” 

The Ecocycle

The Ecocycle provides the glue across the six questions and helps us recognize that we are always working in emerging contexts. To fully exploit knowledge and practice that has been vetted and ready for scale (maturity), we also have to pay attention to what is no longer adding value (creative destruction), what is needing to be birthed (networking) and then iteratively developing those ideas (birth) until they reach their own maturity. The Ecocycle illuminates the pulling from gestation to birth to maturity to creative destruction where strategy-and-tactics are combined.  A new mindset pops into view. It can also help assess current state of activities, assets, relationships and resources, as well as identify future possible actions. 

Strings for Each Question

Liberating Structures are most often used in a combination. The six questions are engagingly answered through a series, or “string” of Liberating Structures. There are a range of structures that can be used for each question. Here are some examples:

PURPOSE: Why, why, why is this work important to us and the wider community?  How do we justify our work to others?

  • 9 Whys   – Make the Purpose of Your Work Together Clear. When we dig into our assumptions, our true purpose may reveal itself – and surprise us!
  • 1-2-4-All – Engage Everyone Simultaneously in Generating Questions, Ideas, and Suggestions. Thinking alone, clarifying in pairs then building a sense of ideas across larger groups help us step beyond the “usual” ideas and observations and facilitate input from all – even the quiet folks.
  • Drawing Together – Reveal Insights and Paths Forward Through Nonverbal Expression. We tap into different parts of our brain, may reveal new insights and prevent jumping to premature judgement or closure.

CONTEXT: What is happening around us that demands a fresh/new/novel approach (creative adaptation and change)?

  • Mad Tea – Connecting with others to reveal surprising truths and action steps. Using rapidly rotating paired conversations, we also provide a smaller, safer space to reveal initial ideas, fears, and issues.
  • Discovery and Action Dialog – Discover, Invent, and Unleash Local Solutions to Chronic Problems. We build on our strengths, even the ones we didn’t know we had!
  • Users Experience Fishbowl – Share Know-How Gained from Experience with a Larger Community. 

BASELINE: Where are we starting, really?

  • What, So What, Now What? – Together, Look Back on Progress to Date and Decide What Adjustments Are Needed.
  • TRIZ – Stop Counterproductive Activities and Behaviors to Make Space for Innovation.
  • Critical Uncertainties – Develop Strategies for Operating in a Range of Plausible Yet Unpredictable Futures. We get out of our “thinking ruts.”
  • Note: The baseline also gives us a starting point for monitoring and evaluation design at the start, not the end of our work!

CHALLENGE: What paradoxical challenges must we face to make progress?

  • TRIZ – Stop Counterproductive Activities and Behaviors to Make Space for Innovation. It is amazing how liberating it is to STOP something. We do too much adding…
  • Wicked Questions – Articulate the Paradoxical Challenges That a Group Must Confront to Succeed. Finding the AND instead of the EITHER/OR.

AMBITION: Given our purpose, what seems possible now?

  • 25/10 Crowd Sourcing – Rapidly Generate and Sift a Group’s Most Powerful Actionable Ideas. Get some initial ideas on the table rather than trying to design the perfect solution. Especially by committee!
  • 15% Solutions – Discover and Focus on What Each Person Has the Freedom and Resources to Do Now.  Empower immediate action, results and iterative improvement.
  • Troika Consulting – Get Practical and Imaginative Help from Colleagues Immediately. Sharpen ideas for launch.

ACTION & EVALUATION: How are we moving/breaking away from the present and moving toward the future? How do we know?

  • What, So What, Now What? – Together, Look Back on Progress to Date and Decide What Adjustments Are Needed. At the micro or macro level, for process and for the actual work or practice.
  • Ecocycle – Analyze the Full Portfolio of Activities and Relationships to Identify Obstacles and Opportunities for Progress. Situate the work.
  • WINFY – Surface Essential Needs Across Functions and Accept or Reject Requests for Support. Identify how we work together practically and honestly.
  • Purpose to Practice – Design the Five Essential Elements for a Resilient and Enduring Initiative. Get the work GOING!

The Visual Canvas

When working in complex contexts, there is often a lot to track and wrap one’s head around. Some of these things are simple next steps, clear data, and identified issues. Others are less certain. We have developed a visual canvas with Ecocycle at the center, surrounded by the six questions for capturing and making sense of the most important findings of the group as they work through the process. Keeping both the questions and the Ecocycle visible throughout the process helps ground and reground as the group progresses. Often post it notes are used so that as new data, insights, and challenges are surfaced, the canvas can be updated. At the end, there is a “story spine” that can support the telling of the strategy story to others.

The visual can be on a large piece of paper on the wall for face to face groups, or a digital artifact online with movable digital notes.

Examples from Other Groups

I have used this approach with a number of groups over the past three years. The results have been:

  • From the Fire Adaptive Communities retreat

    Surprising – One group not only entirely rethought their approach, but the use of Liberating Structures also reshaped their process.

  • Fast – Quick, iterative interactions revealed far more than traditional SWOT approaches. People are usually amazed at how much they can get done in a day in developing their strategy and implementation.
  • Possibly threatening – If one or more people come in to the process thinking they know the outcome and their agenda will prevail, this approach can destabilize them and stimulate sabotaging. It is important that everyone knows that Liberating Structures engage and unleash everyone and if you open that Pandora’s box, you need to be ready to listen to and respond to that engagement.
  • New questions –  Some of the things that have surfaced in this work include: how to mine the past without falling into thinking traps in complex contexts where the past may not help us understand our path towards the future; understand how this approach supports and makes visible the decision making processes and finally, how to weave it into developmental evaluation.

Inspirations/Resources

This was developed off of the initial inspiration from Keith McCandless, co-founder of Liberating Structures, and conversations with Fisher Qua and Eva Schiffer. The first draft was developed to support a strategic planning workshop at the University of Illinois for the INGENEAS project. 

Criticisms & Cures for Facilitating in Complexity

My friend and colleague Eva Schiffer asked the most delightful question after I wrote about Facilitating in Complex Contexts.  “How do you dive into and acknowledge complexity and then get s*&% done?”

I love that Eva framed this as a classic Wicked Question focusing on the AND versus either/or! I’m finally circling back to share what I learned. (Back in the writing saddle again!)

I enjoyed this article in Learning Solutions by Connie Malamed addressing  push back on Design Thinking. When I’m using Liberating Structures to enable design, planning, group process in complex contexts, there is this pervasive energy that shows up around the idea that “everything is complex,” and therefore there is nothing concrete we can do.” Another type of push back.

While I could blithely respond that they are missing the point, that’s not very helpful. Connie’s article broke down some of the resistance she has experienced with Design Thinking, so borrowed her approach and see if it works when trying to bring complexity friendly approaches to facilitation. Let me know…

Criticism: If everything is always complex and changing, how do you plan?

Cure: Discern what is complex, what isn’t and what can be “nudged” to a point of greater certainty or predictability. Using Agreement-Certainty matrix, the Cynefin Framework help in that discernment. If you think of your work portfolio in the context of an Ecocycle, there are things that are predictable (in the “Manage” quadrant”) AND there are things that must be destroyed to make room for innovation, innovation itself and the process of bringing that innovation into the Managed domain through iterative experimentation. If you can identify where each of your work processes fit in that ecocycle, you can breath a little easier because it is all connected… eventually!

Criticism: If I can’t predict outcomes, how will I know how to focus our work?

Cure: Utilize methods that help you discover possibilities in unexpected places such as Discovery and Action Dialog, those that allow you to iteratively move towards your goal or refine your goal. Consider Improv Prototyping or even Simple Ethnography. These can help us leap over our own cognitive biases — sometimes that alone is the problem, not complexity!

Cilliers wrote (again, via Chris Corrigan): “The elements interact dynamically by exchanging energy or information. These interactions are rich. Even if specific elements only interact with a few others, the effects of these interactions are propagated throughout the system. The interactions are nonlinear. ” This reminds us that our work is often non linear, even if our planning infers that it is. 😉

Criticism: If things are always changing, how do we make make ongoing decisions?

Cure: First, discern what kind of decisions you are making. Again, via Chris Corrigan / Paul Cilliers and complexity informed values: “Complex systems consist of a large number of elements that in themselves can be simple.”  Understand which decisions are the simple or complicated ones and make them. For the complex elements, use methods such as Critical Uncertainties to build a portfolio of options so you are ready to make decisions to shift if the conditions change. Finally, are you even conscious about HOW you make decisions? Look at that for a few surprises!

Criticism: And now Eva’s : How do you dive into and acknowledge complexity and then get s*&% done?

Cure: Acknowledge that this is the Wicked Question and then plan your next step. The beauty of  15% Solutions and similar approaches are that you can find the AND between complexity and your next move.  Use the Wenger-Trayner Value Creation framework to surface immediate value of your short term experiments rather than waiting for the “final evaluation!” You can use What, So What, Now What? to elicit the narrative fragments that can help you see the value created, even in uncertain or experimental moves.marbled swirs

One more from Cilliers/Chris: Complex systems are adaptive. They can (re)organize their internal structure without the intervention of an external agent. Chris notes that we must adapt – our plans, our actions, our strategies. So the bottom line is we have to move away from our adulation of certainty and just get on with it!

 

 

See also:

  •  http://www.hsdinstitute.org/resources/plan-in-uncertainty-strategic-adaptive-action.html