ONE: Giving Complexity a Home
There are several aspects to creating and utilising frameworks to give complex topics structure and meaning, and to help in choosing the best responses to challenges and opportunities
1.Determining the actual architecture of the Framework — what is the logic and tension that will force the right thinking?
The primary input to the design of a framework is the Exam Question so the more considered that is the better start we get. Even subtle phrasing will have a bearing on the configuration of the framework. At its base level a framework is a collection of interconnected information modules that, when viewed as a whole give you a complete context within which you can consider the best way to respond to that exam question. They perform a number of roles:
- They provide the primary questions that need to be considered
- They organise the information that will be gathered in response to the questions
- They force a ‘tension’ — like an equation — that makes sure there is a final context that can be explained logically and that provides a rationale for any ultimate conclusions
- They take the ‘users’ on a journey from discovery to execution — creating a line of sight that stays true to the intention
- They allow users to explore the implications of new information on that line of sight
Each module performs one or more of these roles. Not all modules are equal.
2. Understanding the best way to apply the framework — and the limitations that may be imposed
From a purist perspective the framework should not make any compromises in the design of its architecture. Its number one job is to help users to address their exam question and to force the best possible thinking — whatever that takes and however unwelcome some of the conclusions may appear.
Reality however has a nasty habit of placing quite a few constraints on just how much a framework can be leveraged and how valuable the outcome is. They make great conversational tools but quality conclusions and sustainable changes do not come out of conversation alone, that is a catalyst that we hope triggers new appreciation and presents a better way of thinking but they need to live beyond that point.
There is a delicate balance for every framework — just how sophisticated can and should it be when it is (for example) being applied in a workshop? There is no standard answer to that but there are some variables that need to be considered:
- What do you most want to achieve through the process? — a better quality and more engaging conversation (for example) needs a less sophisticated architecture than (say) digging deep into an issue in a way that leads to a sustainable strategy / solution.
- How much investment in the framework can be expected? — will it simply serve its purpose in a workshop to create engagement or does it need to play a bigger role in the organisation?
3. Being willing to dive head first into (potentially) a mass of unstructured data
There is a good reason why people have an adverse reaction to complexity — complex topics can be very overwhelming and time consuming. They are multi dimensional, riddled with variables and ambiguities and incredibly hard to communicate — especially in a traditional linear (think powerpoint!) fashion.
Even those who love complexity (scientists, researchers for example) find it very hard to get their discoveries shared in a way that the average audience feels able to consume and process — assuming there is such a think as an average audience!
It’s rare to find a well structured landscape readily accessible to framework architect — but context is vital.
Without context you have a great template at best. You risk a number of critical points that will compromise the role the framework is playing:
- Undermining any existing work — the aim is not to ignore the good thinking that will be there somewhere or to force a new approach on organisations where it’s not needed.
- Repeating past mistakes — ignore the past at your peril, while it is critical that the focus is on the future you still need to understand the journey an organisation has been on and the experiences that are (most likely) strong in peoples memories.
- Forcing unworkable solutions — while there are common challenges and themes across organisations there is no one size fits all handing solution out there. Every organisation has its own dynamics, its own culture and maturity. This will be an important factor in helping them evolve in the best way and translating their landscape in a way that will resonate with them
That unstructured mass of information sitting in decks and documents, hosted on web sites and in formal (and informal) communication will hold clues and insights that rarely present themselves on a first parse through the material. The reality is that any detailed information will need to be reviewed through multiple lenses and multiple times before its content can be treated with the respect it deserves.
4. Choosing the information that is important and then deciding how to use it
Not all information is going to be relevant, some will be downright pointless. Somehow you need to weed through the assortment of opinion, explanation, assumption, fact, myth and perspective and make decisions on what you are going to use.
How it will be used is the next question. It’s common for a single piece of information to have different potential uses and this offers a subtle but valuable way to bring frameworks to life and shift the conversation in different ways.
Content can be used to set the bar for ambition, to expose gaps, to honour existing work, to set boundaries and to force greater clarity and structure. It’s well worth the time to think about the impact it will have when others engage with it.
I think of this as a little bit like trying to put together pieces of a puzzle. In most cases the pieces have to first be found and there are multiple pieces that could fit together, so you have to know which ones to pick and how best to connect them
5. Distinguishing between structure and content — what goes where?
My early fascination with information and meaning came through learning about data modelling in the days before the internet and apps and there are some fundamental principles that I suspect are still as true in todays tech / digital world. The language will have changed in many ways but there is still a basic and critical difference between the way information is used to create structure — by understanding what the information represents and how it connects with other information, and the actual data itself. Metadata by any other name In suspect as opposed to the content that brings our world to life.
For me it shows up as a distinction between themes, categories, groupings and framework sub structure and the content that puts them in the context of an organisation. Put simply, it avoids us mixing up apples and pears and while that may not sound significant it can have a massive effect on making complex information suddenly make a whole lot more sense.
Knowing if you are talking about an objective or a principle (for example) will change the way that information is used — and phrased. Appreciating that issues all flow back to certain dynamics helps get to the bottom of challenges — and so on.
That requires decisions to be made. Most times the distinctions are blurred at best. That is why there is confusion and ambiguity when it comes to the vision and intentions of an organisation — or what an organisation stands for. There are no shortage of charts and themes but not real clarity of what they actually mean to those who are expected to deliver the right outcomes.
6. Deciding how much to populate to stimulate discussion — without leading the witness.
In most cases this is a tactic applied to a conversational framework to enrich the conversation in some way/s. It can be very tempting to go to town on content — especially when there is plenty of it available. The motivations for that will vary — it may feel safer (and easier) to just get everything in there, there may be a concern that the customer needs to see everything they have provided covered, it just may feel smart to build a comprehensive picture of their world.
Whatever the motivation, that time spent thinking about its use and what information should feature in a framework will pay off. More is definitely not better in all cases.
The ultimate aim is for the framework to be owned by the organisation themselves. One of the reasons the traditional consulting templates and best practices do not work as well as they should is because they are generic tools in the 3rd party’s language. They make sense when there is someone there who can speak convincingly about them but the minute they land on someone’s desk in the organisation it will be a different matter. The same can happen to frameworks so having content that speaks to the intended owners of the framework creates a much stronger foundation.
7. Turning the Framework from a conversational device to a valuable tool — making it sustainable so that the thinking and structure helps to manage complexity
A great result for us is when the initial framework evolves and becomes integral to the way the organisation thinks and works. That can happen in different ways and to different levels of sophistication. What is critical to remember is that the device as created and populated represents a snapshot in time, it will very quickly become out of date from the content perspective and also possibly from an architectural perspective.
What worked to stimulate thinking won’t necessarily be the right structure to perform the next task. So if a framework approach — which is what we are really talking about — is going to be adopted it must be possible to evolve in whatever way necessary while keeping to some fundamental principles of framework ‘science’:
- There must always be at least one logic ‘equation’ that creates the necessary tension in the framework
- The framework (though its module configuration) must always link back to the current exam question
- The progression through frameworks as they evolve should be traceable so that it’s always possible to get back to the original intent
- A framework should have a clear purpose / application so that the modules and content can be used consistently
Tools and platforms are the main enablers to bring frameworks to life and to sustain their value. At the simplest level simply having a spreadsheet that mirrors the structure is better than nothing. In an ideal environment we’d see a vibrant, multi faceted collaboration platform that allows those with a part to play to engage meaningfully.
And then you have to let it go
If you have invested time and energy in creating the best framework possible it’s likely that you have become deeply immersed in the context and have a strong connection to the architecture and its value.
No one else is going to feel quite so deeply about this creation as you do. The chances are that it will not be used in quite the way you intended. That can be immensely frustrating, to see your hard work appear to fall apart in front of you.
Sometimes that is exactly what is happening — a sign that the organisation doesn’t have the appreciation and / or the capability / capacity to bring a new way of thinking (and working) back into the organisation.
The best you can expect in that case is that it at least forced better quality thinking.
Hopefully though there will be a few ambassadors who see more value and want to take the work further. That may still require compromise and pragmatism however. Its highly unlikely that this is going to be a swift and seamless transition.
Ultimately the future needs to remain in the hands of those tasked with its realisation. What they do and how they adopt the framework will as a minimum provide useful insight into developing better tools for others to utilise. There is always more to learn and explore when it comes to applying structure to complexity.
