Feature Injection, The Meme Lifecycle and Serendipity

For me, Serendipity is a beautiful happenstance. A series of events that lead to a beautiful and astounding coincidence. Yesterday I stood in the Carl Larsson exhibition in Helsinki and shed a tear at the beauty of what I beheld.

“Break the Model” in Feature Injection is a process for learning. It is effectively David A. Kolb’s experential learning circle. “Break the Model” has four steps. First, spot an example. Second, reflect on whether the example is relevant and/or if it is actually a new example. Third, create a test by detailing out an example (and store the example). Fourth, create a “model” which is used to help you identify other examples (step one) that will break your model. On Thursday Olaf Lewitz helped me present on Feature Injection at ScanAgile. Olaf had realised that we are not creating a model which is a simplification of reality. Instead we are creating an “Olaf”** which is a summary of examples.

As well as using an “Olaf” to spot new examples, it can also be used to spot more examples of the same kind. A few years ago I created just such an “Olaf”. Julian Everett’s Meme Lifecycle helped me understand certain forces at work in the creative world. The example I gave in the comic strip is “Flowers on Windows”, a meme that existed in the work of Charles Rennie Mactintosh and Frank Lloyd Wright. In actual fact, the meme should have been called “Flowers on Light”. Yesterday I saw the meme in the fabrics designed by Carl Larsson’s wife Karin Larsson. I immediately saw the similarity with the works of Charles Rennie Mactintosh and Margaret Macdonald (Mackintosh’s wife).

Why is the meme significant?

Agile is based on the patterns group which evolved from the work of Christopher Alexander. At Agile2009, Kent MacDonald and I visited the home of Frank Lloyd Wright in Oak Park. It was like stepping into Christopher Alexander’s Pattern’s Book. The similarities to Mackintosh’s work were obvious, especially the “Flower on Windows” meme. If Alexander was Agile’s granfather, Wright was it’s great grandfather. But where did Wright get his inspiration? I now had a meme I could use to trace the influences.

If I could spot it, I might find a another clue to the orgins of Agile. Yesterday I spotted the meme in the textiles of Carl Larsson’s wife Karin. A massive smile appeared on my face. I walked around the corner of the exhibition and was stunned by what I saw? A board covered in post it notes. Now that’s what I call Serendipity.

In the next room of the exhibition, the organisers had blown up Carl Larsson’s pictures to create a massive Wendy House maze where children were dressing up and creating pictures.

“Flowers in Light” is a meme that responded to the inhumanity of the industrial revolution. It was a way to bring nature (flowers) and light into the cities. The parallel’s to agile are obvious. Carl Larsson is a new example. I now need to reflect and research to discover whether he was an influence on Wright and Mackintosh or whether he was simply responding to the “Flowers in Light” meme. Was he the great great grandfather of Agile or just an earlier incarnation?

** Known as an Olaf until we can find a better name.

Intent and Behaviour

A couple of year ago Ola Ellnestam invited me to visit Agical in Stockholm for the day. One of Ola’s colleagues came up with an amazing insight. When considering whether someone is in conflict or collaboration with an idea, you need to consider both “behaviour” and “intent”.

All snake oil purveying consultants have a two by two grid. This is mine…

Intent forms one axis whilst behaviour forms another.

“Intent” indicates the allignment of the individual or sub-group’s goals with the goals of the larger group.

“Behaviour” indicates how the individual or sub-group behaves towards the larger group.

An individual’s behaviour is not necessarily a true indication of their intent.

Last week, Dave Snowden said that organisations should seek out cynics because they care, whereas those who agree are simply corporate survivors. This gave me the name for one of the quadrants. When an individual’s intent is to collaborate but their behaviour appears to conflict, they are a cynic. They are one of the staunchiest allies of the group and are prepared to incur personal (social) loss for the benefit of the wider group.

I quickly made up titles for the other three quadrants (until someone comes up with a better name).

“True Collaborator” and “True Opponent” are individuals whose intent and behaviour are alligned. They can be considered to have integrity.

Cynics do not have integrity but they suffer for the common good by raising unpopular objections. Cynics prevent us from the falling into the Abalene Paradox and other similar types of group think by challenging the group’s thinking. Cynics often sport a fetching black number from De Bono’s milliners.

The most damaging quadrant are the “Snakes in the grass” . These are those individuals who behave as if they are collaborating with the group but have their own interest as their primary concern. They will collaborate while it suits them but are allways following their own agenda.

For the Agile Community, the manifesto is a call to arms to create an experiential learning community. A community that learns by doing, that test new theories in the work place.

The True Collaborator and True Opponent are fairly easy to identify. The Cynic can easily be confused with a True Opponent but a closer observation will indicate otherwise. The cynic will often have outspoken views against the group whilst at the same time maintaining strong social ties.

The hardest to spot is the “Snake in the grass”. The snake in the grass will have strong social ties with the group and will engage in collaborative behaviour with the group. When they act against the group, they will do so in secret to prevent damaging their social standing in the group from which they derive benefit. The interesting thing about the snake in the grass is that self interest will drive them in all our their social groups. If they engage in secret behaviour in one group, it is likely they will do the same in other groups. ( Liz Keogh introduced me to a great book called “Snakes in Suits” that talks about this. )

The reality is that we rarely look for enemies in our own group. Especially when we are already aware of other competitors.

So how do we spot the snakes in the grass?

1. They espouse different values to privately to those they espouse publicly.
2. They espouse one set of values publically, but then act in a different way privately.
3. They espouse integrity but then insist on hiding unfavourable information or engage in nepotism or other self interested practices.
4. They promote their own ideas when they know that others have better material.

Can you suggest other ways to spot people like that? ( People like me )

To summarise.

• You best allies may actually appear to be opponents.
• Your worst opponent may actually appear to be a collaborator.

It is important to understand the difference between behaviour and intent.

I will now don a mask, turn my back and crawl under the table as the ritual dissent begins. (Of course the great thing about ritual dissent is it gives everyone a vioce, even those with negative intent.)

Ritual Dissent

Willem has written up the CALMalpha event. This morning we did an exercise called “Ritual Dissent” whereby someone presented an idea and everyone at the table ripped into it as viscously as they could.( In real options, we call this “break the model” but do it in a nicer way. ) I intend to do just that to the CALMalpha event in the hope that future events will be better.

I did not learn anthing at the CALMalpha event. Which means for me it was a bust. A total failure. So bad in fact that I decided to leave early to pick up my kids.

The Cynefin model seems to have two major components… complexity and narrative. I named my company “Emergent Behaviour” six years ago which should tell you I had my head turned by complexity some time before that. The conversation became interesting whenever it moved in the direction of narrative. Everytime the conversation started to mention narrative, we were reminded that the material was patented and it stopped dead. Whenever someone asked about running an exercise, we were reminded this was not a training course. I was there to learn but no one was providing options to learn. I was asked to ask for sessions but the thing is, I needed an expert to guide me and present me with the learning options. There were no options. (I think this may have changed after I left)

Cynefin reminds me of DSDM before it realised it had to open source its best bits. I wondered whether the Cynefin business model was copied from the Scientologists… or whether they helped the Scientologists develop their ontologists.

I envy Willem in that he found someone who was using Cynefin. I met quite a few who had done lots of training but no one who had used it in anger.

I was looking forward to enjoying a new kind of conference organised by the expert party organisers. I deliberately maintained a relatively low key prescence. Like Willem I did not want to guide the event. The reality was I felt like a passenger in Simon’s car when he first went on the skidpan. Years ago my short story teacher told me “the reader can be confused, but the writer must never be confused. The writer should allways be in control.” I did not have a sense that the organisers were in control. We had discussions about Cynefin and Agile/Lean before some of the participants knew what they were about.I still don’t feel I know what it is about.

It was clear the organiser had an intent. They just did not want to share it. Next time, they should.

There was a mono-culture at the event that it was hard to challenge. The idea was that Agile and Lean could be improved by Cynefin. No one dared to suggest that Cynefin could be improved by Agile or Lean. Even Agile20xx has a tutorial day to bring everyone up to a base level of conversation before conference starts.

Cynefin should use fewer syllables and more common sense.

I enjoyed the event much more on twitter after I left than I did when I was attending.

Until the Cynefin team decide to share their best stuff, this CALM stuff is simply marketing to benefit cognitive-edge but marketing paid for by the attendees.

I would like to thank Simon and Karl and Joseph and Dave and Saffron and the guy in the orange jumper for attempting this. For trying something different.

A wise man once said “I’ll say that this Cynefin Lean Agile Mashup is never going to amount to a hill of beans. Please move along. Nothing to see here.” I’m gonna take his advise.

#CALMalpha…. What should I learn?

Next week is the #CALMalpha event. This will be a great opportunity to see how the experts in complexity organise a “Kids birthday party” for adult using attractors and boundaries. (As opposed to the command and control agenda that we typically see at IT conferences where all of the commitments are made before the event starts. ) It will be great to see how the faculty facilitates self-organisation and then hopefully we can incorporate some of these ideas into XP Day this year.

I hope it is a “pull” based event based on learning rather than a “push” based event where the faculty teach us what they think we need to know. I hope its about…

• What the Complexity Commnuity wants to learn from the Lean/Agile Community.
• What the Lean/Agile Commnity wants to learn from the Complexity Community.
• New stuff that comes out of the combined Community.

That is, each community presents the options that people can pull from it. People then pull in a self organising way. I’m expecting lots of “corridor” discussion from the get go rather than formal chalk and talk sessions.

I know a little bit about complexity but not that much. What should I look to learn from the Complexity and Lean/Agile experts? I would love to know what people use in the Complexity toolkit that I should learn. (Please leave comment)

This is my wish list for the event.

1. Sensemaking. I have heard a lot about the sense making tool and how the Singapore Government are using it to spot terrorists. I would love a hands-on tutorial and case study on the tool showing how it be used for this kind of thing. (Obviously it wont be possible to show the Singapore approach but something similar would be good).

2. Stuff I’m not expecting. Serendipitous learning. Hoping for lots and lots of stuff here.

3. WIFI that works! I am fed up of going to hotel based conferences where the WIFI only works in the lobby.

How to spot an expert.

The chap that sits next to me is pretty shrewd. “How do you spot an expert?” he said. The conversation lasted several days but he had known the answer all along. “Experts ask questions. They don’t give direct answers”.

Experts tend to have a model or framework of the domain for their understanding. They will ask questions to allign their model of understanding with the environment they find themselves in. They are adaptable so they will adopt the language of the environment for their model. They will ask questions to compare their domain model with the environment they find themselves in. They will be looking for subtle differences to help them learn new things rather than assume they are right. When they find differences they know that they could be due to an issue with environment or an issue with their model. They will not assume either is right, even if faced with an environment that appears to be undisciplined or uneducated. This constant search for flaws in their own way of thinking will mean that their knowledge will continue to deepen and be enriched.

A novice by comparison will have the answer. They will be rigid in their use of their own terminology, even though it causes confusion or misunderstanding. The novice may have many many years of exposure to the subject but it might be limited to academic study rather than practical experience, or it may be limited to a narrow range of experiences where they have imposed their own model on reality. Knowing that they are right will mean they will have missed many may opportunities to learn. Their knowledge will remain shallow and limited to the “language of the educated” rather than finding the language of the context. Sometimes the behaviour of the novice “Expert” resembles that of a teenager who has started the journey of learning and assumes certainty in their opinions. The novice will scoff at the un-initiated rather than support them and help them learn.

A novice may appear confident, like Colonel Kilgore in Apocalypse Now! “Charlie don’t surf!”. A man who risks lives for his own amusement.

The expert is confident enough to appear humble, like Andy Dufresne in Shawshank Redemption. “Do you trust your wife Sir?”. An expert in life who dug his way out of prison.

Novice may look like experts but following their advice may kill your project. An expert may seem unassuming but they may dig you out of a tight spot.

Take a look around you. Are people telling each other what to do, or are they asking each other questions?

Learning and Teaching

I have been interested in learning for many many years. Over that time I have studied pedagogy, androgogy and synergogy. Looked at learning styles like Kolb, Gartner and Bloom. My favourite is approach is “Situated Learning” or “Legitimate Peripheral Participation” as Lave and Wenger call it. Everyone else calls it apprenticeship.

I consider that the roles of business analyst and project manager are primarily roles where I help people learn. I provide training in the domain ( business analysis ) and training in the process of risk management ( project management ). Others can then do my job for me which reduces any key man dependency on myself. It also frees me up to do the most important thing of all…. Learn new things myself.

Over the years as I’ve studied learning, I’ve learned a few things and developed a few tricks. Here are a couple of them…

• Teaching is a commitment on the student and an option to the teacher. The teacher decides what the student needs to know and controls the agenda and the timetable. There is no real discussion with the student.
• Helping someone learn is an option to the student and a commitment by the “teacher”. They pull you in when they need to learn something.
• Too little emphasis is placed on holding the attention of the student. Too much emphasis is placed on delivering content. It is up to the student to stay engaged. Several years ago I decided to study Al Murray and Eddie Izzard as models for knowledge delivery. Both use real option based delivery (as most comedians do these days). As a result my primary focus is attention and engagement, Content delivery is a secondary consideration and option based. As a result I can run a session on financial maths for an hour.

I like to help people learn. I hate the idea of teaching.

I wish there was a word for someone who helps others learner. A learnee? Can anyone help? Perhaps there is a non English word we could appropriate. ( hopefully something Arabic like Caravan or Assassin ).

Real Options and the Cynefin Framework.

Next month I might join Karl Scotland, Simon Bennett, Steve Freeman, Jospeh Pelrine, Dave Snowden and others at the Complexity, Agile and Lean Mashup Alpha or “CALM” event. The event intends is to discover where Complexity Science can be applied to plug gaps that exist in Agile and Lean. I suspect the real reason for the event is to start developing material for a “Cynefin” course as applied to Agile and Lean. Anyway, I have purchased an option to attend the event but will wait to see how the Agenda (which is already written but not public) unfolds and evolves.

I first read the Cynefin white paper in 2003 and have been following it from afar ever since. It caused a big stir at XP Day when Dave Snowden delivered the keynote several years back. Cynefin contains some really cool ideas. The problem has allways been. “What do we use the Cynefin tools for”.

Yesterday Steve Freeman and I discussed the event and Cynefin.  Steve said the ability to classify things as “Simple”, “Complicated”, “Complex” and “Chaotic” with the associated rules for how you handle them is useful. One of the warnings in the Cynefin model is that things often tip from “simple” into “chaos”.

Now consider the Real Option “model” -

“Never commit early unless you know why.” – This guides me to avoid making commitments. Whenever I start a new role I always spend time sussing out the environment. From my experience, any environment that involves other people is never “simple” or “complicated”, they are always “complex” and/or “chaotic”. Once I think I have a handle on what is going on I start testing the environment in small ways. Based on the results of the small tests, I then try bigger and bigger tests. At any point I am conscious as to whether a test is reversible (upsetting someone who is forgiving) or not (upsetting someone who is NOT forgiving) . If it is reversible, I am aware of how long it would take to reverse the test if something goes wrong. At no point do I make the decision that this environment is “complex” or “chaotic” as I am aware it can easily and speedily transition between the two. As such I see little value in the ability to classify contexts.

At CALM I a hoping to learn more about Cynefin. How does it handle transitions? Even more exciting is the prospect of getting hands on end to end experience of the “Sense making” tool.

I hope that CALM will help me understand how to turn my theoretical understanding of Cynefin into something practical I can use and promote.