1

This question has vexed me for some time, now measured in decades. I started working it out using Snowden’s Cynefin; that research (1) lead me back to Boisot’s work “Explorations in Information Space” (2) (1) http://cognitive-edge.com/blog/narrative-as-mediator/ (2) Boisot, M., MacMillan, I. and Han, K. (2007). Explorations in Information Space:

Knowledge, Actor, and Firms

2

Our scenario for knowledge work: A Program Manager submits his/her proposal, which runs the gauntlet of the corporate vetting process. Points A, D, E and H represent explicit knowledge documented for the project, following the types of knowledge from Boisot, et.al. (2) as enumerated in the Social Learning Cycle (SLC). (2) Boisot, M., MacMillan, I. and Han, K. (2007). Explorations in Information Space: Knowledge, Actor, and Firms

3

The SLC is a complex adaptive system, a pattern commonly described in terms of the organizational forms – Markets, Clans, Fiefs, Bureaucracies – which tend to amplify certain forms of knowledge and social relationships. For the corporate vetting cycle, I have defined the organization’s activity according to an organizational distribution of power model defined by Art Kleiner (3) in his Core Group Theory. This sequence, from Manager to Core Group to Executive to Shadow Core Group is a pattern I call the Process Learning Cycle (PLC). (3) Kleiner, A. (2003). Who Really Matters: The Core Group Theory of Power, Privilege and Success

4

Kleiner proposes there exists a Shadow Core structure that complements the obvious and formal Core Groups (the ranking committee in our example here) From a Cynefin framework perspective, the Decision Maker (CEO) presents a dissipative effect; what Snowden describes in his Cynefin Dynamics framework (4) as a “shallow dive through chaos” There may be many reasons for this effect (5), such as: a. Leaders assign, then expect others to do… b. Leaders approve then don’t (visibly) support… c. Leaders are viewed in terms of appearance vs. substance d. Leaders are slow to pay attention --- many competing priorities; little time e. Leaders are slow to react positively (help them by having communications ready) (4) http://cognitive-edge.com/blog/cynefin-dynamics (5) www.enclaria.com/2016/05/04/three-keys-to-getting-leaders-to-lead-change-rather-than.html

5

Dynamics are comprised of cadence or rhythm and the changes that are observed in shifting between domains (6). At the trigger points we have shifts in constraints, for example from enabling to governing in the Grazing Dynamic (purple). A characteristic of the Chaotic domain is dissipation. A little dissipation is good – it tests resolve, it changes course (like tacking upwind). A stronger dose may not be – structure is lost, sometimes catastrophically (illustrated by the hook). (6) https://cognitive-edge.com/blog/triggering-attention-in-cynefin/

6

The Process Learning Cycle (PLC) is a complex adaptive system (CAS) that is equivalent to the SLC. I have found a sense-making aspect in PLC that corresponds to the sense-making procedures modeled by Boisot, et.al. in their detailed simulations of knowledge exchanges (7). (7) Boisot, M., Canales, A., and MacMillan, I. (2004). “Simulating I-Space (SIS): An Agent-based Approach to Modeling Knowledge Flows”

7

A comparison of the sense-making phases. These steps impose some sequence and direction from which coherent structure emerges over time.

8

Here the PLC is oriented in i-Space in accordance with the defined dimensions (vectors) that Boisot established (8). Observe that the PLC fills in the remaining “unclaimed” territory in Boisot’s framework. (8) Boisot, M. (1998). Knowledge Assets: Securing Competitive Advantage in the Information Economy

9

This picture tells a story – there is only a narrow band of contact between the 2 complex adaptive systems. Also, it occurs in the middle of the space, where it is difficult to differentiate between 2 of the dimensions (^a). The intersection of these two slices is a complex shape – a manifold – perhaps looking like “Whitney’s Umbrella” (9); A simplifying framework to use is the concept of an “interstitial space” (9). (9) See Wikipedia for explanations (^a) [abstract & concrete], [codified & uncodified]

10

To use this framework for knowledge work we instantiate an hypothesis. This hypothesis is the Stasis Plane (or ground plane). It provides a reference to examine a scenario. Here I illustrate Power relationships from Core Group Theory and constraints derived from an analysis of Boisot’s epistemology. Aspects of power – who is privileged - matter greatly here as privilege can preempt the power status of subordinates. It is easy to see (on the left) how bad behavior overwhelms principles and how quickly we can loose our way here. It is less clear on the (right hand) group think side; it might be understood when you consider the characteristics of the Complicated domain. Complicated is in Order, not Unorder, and consequently our knowledge is highly structured. So it might be that the structures of habit lead us quickly astray, or towards old practices (yesterday’s business) at the expense of exploration and innovation.

11

Having established a hypothesis, here we turn to look at the other dimensions of i-Space. As we move through (more and less) codification and diffusion we will find a familiar pattern, that of Nonaka & Takeuchi’s SECI model (10) – Socialization, Externalization, Combination, Internalization. a) With codification we increase order – the tacit to explicit transition of

Externalization. b) Through change, diffusion, ideas are aligned to structures (tropes vice memes) in

Combination. c) Internalization is the reconciliation of different knowledge fragments. d) And in Socialization we construct new expressions (narratives) to pass ideas along

(as tacit knowledge) to our listeners. (10) Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., Konno, N. (2000). “SECI, Ba and Leadership: A Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation.”

12

These are the components of my framework for knowledge work. An organization contains one, and frequently many overlapping, Communities of Practice (COP) (11). (11) Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity

13

Here we examine Boisot’s epistemology and frictions. Entropy Max and Min is from “Knowledge Assets” (page 79). Maximum value (MV) is from the Simulation article; it represents the scenario where exchange of knowledge is maximized. The Simulation article concludes that Schumpeterian Learning is the outcome of the SLC. The Trust vector is drawn from a common sense interpretation of the core group, where formal procedures are well known and more valuable than informal decision procedures. Note that Shadow Core is NOT Bureaucracy, even though it is positionally similar. We need to appreciate the subtleties of Bureaucracy, not just it’s coarse and ugly surface appearances. The conflation of the two – Shadow Core and Bureaucracy - leads to faulty assessments of what bureaucracy is. I suspect many conspiracy theories are rooted in the inability to distinguish between the patterns. Politics can be thought of as an edge case, residing just outside the boundary of this organizational interstitial space. We may be able to analyze it with the approach I describe by using a different hypothesis for our grounding stasis plane. Somewhere on the other side of the cube we will find a nexus of open source and consensus standards (i.e. Markets, Manager, Core Group). And last, we must consider the inherent tension between these positions. In my next

14

slide I propose a typology of information as a way of understanding the dynamics of knowledge that are captured here.

14

Relative to interstitial space we can decrease or increase coherence, which is to say we can lose and gain information. From this perspective let’s consider how information is exchanged in Cynefin contexts and domain shifts. I propose here a typology for knowledge managers (and all) to consider. • A Type 1C change may be simple, as simple as changing a governing constraint to

an enabling one. Delegating in a substantive way, as opposed to the trite “empowerment” slogan that was all the rage.

• Type 2 are long running conversations, anecdotes and stories. Knowledge flows (e.g. is exchanged) through narratives.

• Type 3B are meaningful conversations; we look to the people guiding these conversations as leaders. I believe this is the desired state of Brown & Hagel’s “leading from the edge” (12)

• Type 3C is elusive. These may sit right on the boundary of interstitial space. It is unclear what conditions apply, and even if there are a sufficient number of conditions that can establish this form of information exchange. It may be that this exists only when there is a radical simplification of context in the discussion space - a collapse across the Cynefin tail.

Information Type 1 is entropy and Type 3 is extropy. With loss and gains we can not have the passive accumulation of knowledge that is the Data-Information-Knowledge-Wisdom pyramid.

15

(12) Brown, J. S., Hagel, J. (2005); The Only Sustainable Edge: Why Business Strategy Depends On Productive Friction And Dynamic Specialization

15

My information typology covers knowledge flows by conversations - as well as it’s gains & losses (extropy & entropy). This provides a basis for thinking of knowledge as energy. By way of an example, consider Snowden’s “Evolutionary Potential of the Present.” (13) The Present has us operating at a lower energy state of being “within the rules,” aka governing constraints. Consider the weaknesses and opportunities at the edge of interstitial space as enabling constraints, where we need attention (energy) to make a shift. Our narratives are always partial and incomplete; this is the nature of tacit knowledge. Assembling a collection of narrative fragments unavoidably creates structure. There is no better teller of that story than Cynthia Kurtz; see her blog (14) and the Participatory Narrative Inquiry (PNI). Culture governs tacit knowledge. There is a cultural background operating behind managing (as a process) and the PLC. There are patterns at play – various intermediating influences (biases and preferences) that we classify as culture. More on that in Slide 18. (13) http://cognitive-edge.com/blog/the-evolutionary-potential-of-the-present/ (14) http://www.storycoloredglasses.com/

16

PLC addresses some of the shortcomings of SLC. With SLC alone it is hard to distinguish bureaucracy from markets, and even harder to distinguish fiefs and clans. With PLC I have found a way to frame the distinctive characteristics of the organizational forms (and their corresponding types of knowledge). Organizational identity solidifies in interstitial space, illustrated by the inward spiral of SECI. Outside of the interstitial space it dissipates, either slowly in breakdowns or quickly in catastrophic collapse. Think of common rules as governing constraints in the Obvious domain. Consider rituals as enabling constraints, where effective rituals are anchored in the Complex domain. In this way my organizational knowledge framework is aligned with Snowden’s (15) considerations of “Dispositions and Propensities”:

“Now I am loosely (and I mean loosely) using propensities in a way that is derivative of Popper’s idea that a common set of generative conditions can have a propensity to produce a predictable result. I’m not fully buying into Popper’s overall philosophy here, but it is a useful idea within human complex systems. In common language you can say that propensities are currently stable aspects of the system about which statements as to their future state, or more properly their capacity to generate future states, can be made with high degrees of confidence.”

17

(15) http://cognitive-edge.com/blog/propensities-2/

17

Organizations skew consistently towards the “Cultures of Yes, No and Maybe,” coined by Michael Roberto (16). These cultures align to the corners of the PLC. I have added the “Culture of Self,” incorporating individual strengths and determination, as a fourth style to round out the framework. Even sub-organizations hew to their favored cultures - think of IT, engineering and finance. This is often apparent in conversations in the board room or study groups, when the conflicts are apparent and we struggle to reach a common understanding. These conflicts are rich sources for knowledge managers, new managers, and others thrust suddenly into ongoing conversations. A leader needs to be fluent with all these styles and decide which way to move in important decisions. For we can nudge the conversation from one style to another if we have an understanding of the patterns that influence us. (Nudging is information type 3B). Roberto concludes that the best style of leadership is “Leading with Restraint” to balance Solution Oriented and Process Oriented assertive leaderships. I propose his Solutions are found in/through the SLC and his Process Oriented leadership follows the PLC. Remove the Core and Shadow patterns and you have a bipolar pattern of Self vrs. Yes. This occurs when knowledge flows freely and feedback is immediate and responsive. This direct and intimate relationship is the elusive Self-Organizing Team.

18

Adding time, distance, people and even technology increases complexity. Scaling up involves communications loss. Scaling out is more desirable, however we don’t understand complex social systems well enough to understand how. Intermediation has characteristics of inertia. If we consider inertia as a marker of Argyris’s skilled incompetence, then we may see intermediation is actually an unconscious resistance to Cynefin domain change. We can see how hard it is to move an organization from an entrained pattern of Yes/No/Maybe to the open and reactive management framework of Self that is Holocracy. (16) Roberto, M. (2013). Why Great Leaders Don’t Take Yes For An Answer

18

Tackling culture change is a higher order of complexity than our propensity for obvious rules. Except, that is, when confronting a crisis. When organizations are under intense pressure we can see sudden shifts in culture. This is particularly apparent in the military, public and other service organizations. These frequently run cold with short bursts of “heat.” We can see for example that esprit-de-corps is a retrospectively coherent culture change - consider our experience with 9/11. Service organizations have hot flashes and cold spells. Organizations running hot & cold explains abductive social learning – the scaffolds that are left behind. In DOD these days there is a creeping ritualization of cyber security. We have anointed a priesthood by virtue of their having completed their indoctrination (NICE training) into the mystical rites of “cyber defense.” Why, we must ask, when seeking consensus on Best Practice – that is the Obvious domain - is a much simpler path? Do we scale rituals or find consensus? Can we even scale rituals or are they emergent from shared learning? This form of emergence is what Gabriel calls “bricolage”. (17) At the center of the framework we have a dive through disorder that is necessary ambiguity. Snowden has proposed this is an essential characteristic of complex adaptive systems, and provides an example of how this is relevant to knowledge work (18):

“…in a complex adaptive system we can understand the dispositions and

19

propensities of the system but there is no meaningful (linear material) causality. The main consequence of this is that analysis will not reveal any answer and instead we shift to parallel safe-to-fail experiments. The purpose of those experiments is to allow resilience and sustainable practice to emerge. It is not to prove that one was right and another wrong but rather to allow a portfolio of experimental probes to mutate and combine as needed. As such portfolio management rules include the introduction of informed naiveté (someone with deep expertise who has never used that expertise on the problem area) and obliquity as well as the need for contradiction within the portfolio; if some succeed others must fail otherwise you are not looking wide enough.”

(17) http://www.yiannisgabriel.com/2012/08/on-paragrammes-theory-of-organizations.html (18) http://cognitive-edge.com/blog/the-hound-calls/

19

Wisdom is found in exploring the shape of our interstitial space. Remember that the intersection is a manifold, and not the simple boxed abstraction illustrated in this talk. To nudge is to change the direction of the conversation, and that is an intentional activity as Juarrero described in (19). This is noted as dialectical thinking in Nonaka, et. al. (20) In VUCA rhythm & cadence break down and other instincts take over. Order can be swept aside and we can take a different path through Cynefin dynamics as we shift from cold to hot. See Snowden discussion of VUCA (21) for further ideas. Snowden’s “3Is” are Identity, Intelligence & Intention. See his discussion on capturing observations in “Leadership and Using Cynefin” (22). (19) Juarrero, A., (2002). Dynamics in Action, Intentional Behavior as a Complex System (20) Nonaka, I., Toyama, R., Konno, N. (2000). “SECI, Ba and Leadership: A Unified Model of Dynamic Knowledge Creation” (21) http://www.infoq.com/articles/dave-snowden-leadership-cynefin-requirements (22) http://cognitive-edge.com/blog/change-through-small-actions-in-the-present/ (23) Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity (24) http://wiki.hsdinstitute.org/cde

20

We can draw a straight line from talent and culture to networking success. Starting with a wonderful post by HRBartender on how “Corporate Culture Must Enable Organizational Success” (25), we can see how servant leadership flips the dynamics of power, changing the behavior, values and goals through the relationships depicted here. A change to purpose (box 3) is not clear without the context of the dialogues ongoing in the business process. In our analyses we only have fragments of the dialogues, as every participant in the network has a different story. Allowing these stories to flow throughout the network, without a guiding hand we end up with Jon Husband’s (26): Wirearchy – “a dynamic two-way flow of power and authority based on knowledge, trust, credibility and a focus on results, enabled by interconnected people and technology.” (25) http://www.hrbartender.com/2015/recruiting/corporate-culture-must-enable-organizational-success/ (26) http://wirearchy.com/what-is-wirearchy/

21

I have provided here a conceptualization of interstitial space as the container of organizational knowledge. I’ve shown how explicit and tacit knowledge is oriented within i-Space and how Nonaka & Takeuchi’s theory of KM relates to Snowden’s theory of complexity. With a complexity informed information typology I’ve shown a new way of looking at data-information-knowledge-wisdom that is more nuanced than the DIKW pyramid. With the frameworks presented here I have shown how i-Space can thought of as an expansive ecosystem that extends well beyond the bounds of organizational knowledge work. And a final conclusion: Our budget is a ritual (a process) that we can learn to improve.

22

23