A return to constraints

December 10, 2016

I’m getting increasingly excited about the work I am doing on constraints. I first posted on this with an initial taxonomy back in September. Since then I have been working the ideas into a series of keynote speeches and more recently workshop exercises. One of the reasons this is important is that we can manage constraints and a large part of doing something within a complex systems is understanding what you can manage and how. Given that you can’t reduce complexity by simply setting goals (the main error of popular forms of systems thinking) this is one of the most important questions. Complexity is all about making changes in the present with a sense of direction but not with a specific goal, other than in very limited circumstances.

So mapping the present is key in order to know what to change. This links to my long standing three simple and eliminative questions to get started in any complex intervention:

  1. What can we change?
  2. Out of the things we can change, where can we monitor the impact of change?
  3. Where we can monitor the impact, can we rapidly amplify success or recover from failure?

The first two have always seemed to be self-evident; just because you want to change something doesn’t mean that you will be able to; if you can’t see what is happening then you might be on a pathway of catastrophic failure. The third contains an important insight from complexity: when an opportunity presents itself you will have limited opportunities to take action.

Now all of that has worked to get people talking about the issue, but the next stage is to make it more tangible as a method, or series of methods that can be put into operation and scaled. Given that constraints are things that can be mapped, and where change is possible, a typology as much as a taxonomy. Now the way I work is the explore an idea through conversations and reading, then I start to play with the ideas in front of an audience, post here then repeat several times until I can teach it. So this is all still a work in progress. However I have been modifying my September thoughts somewhat and I’ve increasingly made a distinction between robust and resilient types of constraint. Then helps with the order-complex distinction in Cynefin and also (I think) helps people get the idea. More on what we do with these over the next week with some interruptions on other themes. Oh and I am keeping with the idea of Containment and Coupling as a master distinction. Each of the constraint types below apply to both.

Robust constraints can be …

  1. Rigid or fixed which means they are clearly defined, visible and can be enforced. If you want a metaphor think of a sea wall, or dykes. They have all the advantages of certainty, all the disadvantages of sudden catastrophic failure when their limits are reached.
  2. Elastic and thus have the benefit of adapting to a degree of change which is good, but they can still break and possibly give a false level of confidence.  An elastic waist band may give you the illusion of maintaining a healthy weight but only for a time.  The failure is more extreme.
  3. Tethers which provide a backstop, like a tow rope for example which has the slack taken up before it applies.  These can be fail safes, backups only coming into play in extremis.  The danger is damage when they snap into effect, both for the object being tethered and for the tether itself

Resilient constraints can be …

  1. Permeable (for containers) or conditional (for coupling), in both cases the constraint is contingent.  Some things can get through others can’t.  Think of a salt marsh to contrast with the sea wall if you want an example.  Or a system where rules can be broken in specific cases subject to heuristic control.
  2. Mutating which means they change over time, they don’t switch on and off, you can see the evolutionary pattern.  Case based legal systems on contrast with those based on the Napoleonic code would be good example of these.  In companies they are hardly even used, but could be valuable.
  3. Dark are like dark matter or dark energy, we can see their impact but we don’t know what they are.  Aspects of organisational culture fall into this category as do taboos, rituals and the like.  Far more prevalent in modern organisations than people realise they are almost a complex system in their own right, only knowable or changeable by interaction.

4 responses to “A return to constraints”

  1. Anders Dinsen says:

    Taleb distinguishes between the resilient and the anti-fragile, which I think you don’t? I think your definition of the resilient might be even more radical than Taleb’s understanding. But to me, the anti-fragile is interesting as a separate type of constraint which grows its strength by relating to its fragility (anti-), but keeping itself at a minimum. In that thinking, the anti-fragile constraint can break like a sea wall, but when subjected to an impact, a wave only a bit higher than the wall, the wall grows slowly to stop the wave, and keeps it’s new strength as long as this strong waves hit it. This growth is not not by mutation (complex?), but by more linear (complicated?) processes. Taleb points out that organic life is anti-fragile, and I see a lot of anti-fragility in the way humans grow (physically as well as intellectually) when subjected to small, incrementally growing challenges.

  2. Stephen Hinton says:

    I may be missing something here. You’ve used a base distinction of Fixed/Governing constraints for order and Enabling constraints for complex. How do the above 1-3 and 1-3 relate to this base. I guess Robust Rigid is Fixed. Is Elastic enabling? A blog on that would be helpful!

  3. jackvinson says:

    My brain is in a completely different place with typology of constraints. I think of constraints from college maths, which were some representation of a physical system boundaries.

    Or I think of “constraint” from the Goldratt Theory of Constraints perspective which is the thing that limits attaining more and more of the goal. In the ToC world, these are things like the capacity of a work center or some role on a project or market demand. ToC folks also get tied up in knots talking about “policy constraints” – policies (often unwritten) that prevent organizations achieving more.

    Yes, I know there are many ways to think about constraints. ToC doesn’t have the lock on that, of course.

    • Dave Snowden says:

      The link with Goldratt needs discussion, but otherwise complexity is a new field and is developing its own language

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Posts

About the Cynefin Company

The Cynefin Company (formerly known as Cognitive Edge) was founded in 2005 by Dave Snowden. We believe in praxis and focus on building methods, tools and capability that apply the wisdom from Complex Adaptive Systems theory and other scientific disciplines in social systems. We are the world leader in developing management approaches (in society, government and industry) that empower organisations to absorb uncertainty, detect weak signals to enable sense-making in complex systems, act on the rich data, create resilience and, ultimately, thrive in a complex world.

Cognitive Edge Ltd. & Cognitive Edge Pte. trading as The Cynefin Company and The Cynefin Centre.

© COPYRIGHT 2022. 

Social Links: The Cynefin Company
Social Links: The Cynefin Centre
< Prev

‘I’d have said anything in THERE

- 1 Comment

Picking up on my theme of yesterday I was reminded of a scene from The ...

More posts

Next >

Dark constraints

- No Comments

In my post of yesterday I identified Dark Constraints within my wider category of resilience. ...

More posts

linkedin facebook pinterest youtube rss twitter instagram facebook-blank rss-blank linkedin-blank pinterest youtube twitter instagram