\nMaybe we\u2019re aiming to tackle litter at the local shops, or prepare a town for floods, or help an agricultural system adapt to climate change, or tackle family violence or ice addiction in a community.
\nIn that case we need to design an intervention.
\nProbably the two most important qualities we need to call upon now are caution and curiosity. Recent history is full of catastrophic interventions that left wreckage in their wake, or achieved some goals but at great cost to the social fabric. Usually they lacked both caution and curiosity. Think: the 2003 invasion of Iraq<\/a>,\u00a0the 2007 Northern Territory Intervention<\/a>, and the 2009 Home Insulation (“Pink Batts”) Program<\/a>.
\nCaution and curiosity, however, have costs: they slow us down. They make us spend time engaging with communities. They force us to start small and learn as we go. We may lose those glorious opportunities for bravura, dash, and heroic poses that politicians and CEOs love.
\nSo, when designing an intervention, a critical first question is: how much caution and curiosity is appropriate? What qualities, indeed, should characterise the\u00a0overall approach?
\nDave Snowden is a systems thinker who champions a tool he calls Cynefin<\/a>. It\u2019s a simple 4-sector matrix that identifies four different classes of intervention design, depending on the complexity and turbulence of the situation. I\u2019ve long needed such a tool for my Changeology<\/a> training, so I thought I\u2019d adapt it, by combining it with another tool called The Public Participation Matrix<\/a>.
\nHere\u2019s the result. I\u2019ll be testing it out in my next round of public workshops in October<\/a>.
\nI hope you find it useful. This is just version 1.0, so feedback is very welcome.
\n
![\"Interventionists_First_Tool\"](\"https:\/\/changeologyblog.files.wordpress.com\/2015\/09\/interventionists_first_tool1.jpg\")
<\/a>\nHow to use it:<\/strong><\/span> Do some initial on-the-ground listening, then make a best guess about the scale of \u201crisk\u201d and \u201cunknowns\u201d inherent in the situation you wish to intervene in. This locates you in one of four classes, each with a different style of intervention.
\nWhich class does your problem\u00a0fall\u00a0into?
\nThe idea is to be very clear about which class you are in before you start. A mismatch between classes and situations practically guarantees the failure of your efforts (at the very least).
\nIt will be immediately obvious, for example, that the 2003 Iraq invasion,\u00a0the Northern Territory Intervention, and the Home Insulation (“Pink Batts”) Program mismatched their situations and responses.
\nThe four classes are:<\/p>\n
\n
1) Familiar = Off the shelf response<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\nThe situation:<\/strong>
\nCalm. Actors well known, not likely to resist\u00a0strongly.
\nYou are aware of models that have worked successfully in similar situations.
\nThe response:<\/strong>
\nApply best practice or business as usual.\u00a0Cut and paste successful ideas from comparable situations.\u00a0Apply\u00a0basic user engagement (for example, focus groups to pre-test ideas).
\nDave Snowden called this class \u201cObvious<\/strong>\u201d. The relationship between cause and effect is obvious to all and the ideal approach is to Sense – Categorise – Respond<\/em> and apply best<\/em> practice.*<\/p>\n
\n2) Unfamiliar = Bespoke response<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\nThe situation:<\/strong>
\nUnfamiliar, with significant unknowns. The actors are numerous and diverse, and some may resist\u00a0strongly. Unclear which of several possible solutions is appropriate. \u201cSomewhat wicked\u201d.
\nThe response:<\/strong>
\nMobilise a multi-disciplinary \u201cbrains trust\u201d that includes users; craft a customised solution by mixing and matching from a wide palette of possibilities. Strategies\u00a0should\u00a0be multi-dimensional, working in\u00a0more than one domain and mobilise more than one kind of expertise\u00a0(e.g. mixing infrastructure, service design,\u00a0communication, skill-building, leadership), and able to rapidly adapt (because some reactions will be unpredictable). Proceed by pilots, and gradually scale up. User engagement via social research and \u201cconsult\/involve\u201d level community engagement (for example, via an advisory workshop).
\nDave Snowden called this class \u201cComplicated<\/strong>\u201d. The relationship between cause and effect requires analysis or some other form of investigation and\/or the application of expert knowledge. The ideal approach is to Sense – Analyze – Respond<\/em> and we can apply good<\/em> practice.*<\/p>\n
\n3) Reactive = Experimental response<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\nThe situation:<\/strong>
\nUnfamiliar and \u201cstormy\u201d. Dominated by unknowns, highly charged, rapidly changing, or politicised. High potential for strong resistance. Actors are numerous, diverse, sensitive, with likelihood of strong, unpredictable responses. Unclear if any existing solution is appropriate. \u201cVery wicked\u201d.
\nThe response:<\/strong>
\nProbe the problem with a range of modest experimental projects, selecting a sub-set of solutions to prototype and develop further. Again, be prepared to work in more than one\u00a0domain and mobilise more than one kind of expertise (e.g. mixing infrastructure, service design, communication, skill-building, leadership). User engagement via social research, multi-disciplinary \u201cBrains Trust\u201d including users, and community engagement at the \u201cCollaborate\u201d level (e.g. program developed and delivered in partnership with trusted local organisations, and outsourcing to the affected community).
\nAustralia\u2019s effective response to the HIV epidemic is a good example of this class of intervention.
\nDave Snowden called this class \u201cComplex<\/strong>\u201d. The relationship between cause and effect can only be perceived in retrospect, but not in advance. The ideal approach is to Probe – Sense – Respond<\/em> so we can sense emergent<\/em> practice.*<\/p>\n
\n4) Chaotic = Emergency response<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\nThe situation:<\/strong>
\nNatural or human disaster requiring urgent action; highly charged; politicised. Actors are numerous, diverse, reactive, with likelihood of strong, unpredictable responses. There are a range of possible solutions but there\u2019s no way to tell, from a distance, which might\u00a0make the situation better and which might\u00a0make it worse.
\nThe response:<\/strong>
\nAttack the problem with urgency but enable local improvisation with high tolerance for imperfection. Invest heavily in intelligence and communications, with tight feedback loops. Train and support agile, well-equipped, local agents and actors. User engagement at the \u201cempower\u201d level (e.g. outsource local responses to autonomous local actors – Community Fire Guard is an example).
\nDisaster response, bushfire management, and military action are examples of this class of intervention.
\nDave Snowden called this class \u201cChaotic\u201d<\/strong>. There is no relationship between cause and effect at the systems level. The ideal approach is to Act – Sense – Respond<\/em> and we can discover novel<\/em> practice.*<\/p>\n
\n
\nCalm. Actors well known, not likely to resist\u00a0strongly.
\nYou are aware of models that have worked successfully in similar situations.
\nThe response:<\/strong>
\nApply best practice or business as usual.\u00a0Cut and paste successful ideas from comparable situations.\u00a0Apply\u00a0basic user engagement (for example, focus groups to pre-test ideas).
\nDave Snowden called this class \u201cObvious<\/strong>\u201d. The relationship between cause and effect is obvious to all and the ideal approach is to Sense – Categorise – Respond<\/em> and apply best<\/em> practice.*<\/p>\n
\n
2) Unfamiliar = Bespoke response<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\nThe situation:<\/strong>
\nUnfamiliar, with significant unknowns. The actors are numerous and diverse, and some may resist\u00a0strongly. Unclear which of several possible solutions is appropriate. \u201cSomewhat wicked\u201d.
\nThe response:<\/strong>
\nMobilise a multi-disciplinary \u201cbrains trust\u201d that includes users; craft a customised solution by mixing and matching from a wide palette of possibilities. Strategies\u00a0should\u00a0be multi-dimensional, working in\u00a0more than one domain and mobilise more than one kind of expertise\u00a0(e.g. mixing infrastructure, service design,\u00a0communication, skill-building, leadership), and able to rapidly adapt (because some reactions will be unpredictable). Proceed by pilots, and gradually scale up. User engagement via social research and \u201cconsult\/involve\u201d level community engagement (for example, via an advisory workshop).
\nDave Snowden called this class \u201cComplicated<\/strong>\u201d. The relationship between cause and effect requires analysis or some other form of investigation and\/or the application of expert knowledge. The ideal approach is to Sense – Analyze – Respond<\/em> and we can apply good<\/em> practice.*<\/p>\n
\n3) Reactive = Experimental response<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\nThe situation:<\/strong>
\nUnfamiliar and \u201cstormy\u201d. Dominated by unknowns, highly charged, rapidly changing, or politicised. High potential for strong resistance. Actors are numerous, diverse, sensitive, with likelihood of strong, unpredictable responses. Unclear if any existing solution is appropriate. \u201cVery wicked\u201d.
\nThe response:<\/strong>
\nProbe the problem with a range of modest experimental projects, selecting a sub-set of solutions to prototype and develop further. Again, be prepared to work in more than one\u00a0domain and mobilise more than one kind of expertise (e.g. mixing infrastructure, service design, communication, skill-building, leadership). User engagement via social research, multi-disciplinary \u201cBrains Trust\u201d including users, and community engagement at the \u201cCollaborate\u201d level (e.g. program developed and delivered in partnership with trusted local organisations, and outsourcing to the affected community).
\nAustralia\u2019s effective response to the HIV epidemic is a good example of this class of intervention.
\nDave Snowden called this class \u201cComplex<\/strong>\u201d. The relationship between cause and effect can only be perceived in retrospect, but not in advance. The ideal approach is to Probe – Sense – Respond<\/em> so we can sense emergent<\/em> practice.*<\/p>\n
\n4) Chaotic = Emergency response<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\nThe situation:<\/strong>
\nNatural or human disaster requiring urgent action; highly charged; politicised. Actors are numerous, diverse, reactive, with likelihood of strong, unpredictable responses. There are a range of possible solutions but there\u2019s no way to tell, from a distance, which might\u00a0make the situation better and which might\u00a0make it worse.
\nThe response:<\/strong>
\nAttack the problem with urgency but enable local improvisation with high tolerance for imperfection. Invest heavily in intelligence and communications, with tight feedback loops. Train and support agile, well-equipped, local agents and actors. User engagement at the \u201cempower\u201d level (e.g. outsource local responses to autonomous local actors – Community Fire Guard is an example).
\nDisaster response, bushfire management, and military action are examples of this class of intervention.
\nDave Snowden called this class \u201cChaotic\u201d<\/strong>. There is no relationship between cause and effect at the systems level. The ideal approach is to Act – Sense – Respond<\/em> and we can discover novel<\/em> practice.*<\/p>\n
\n
\nUnfamiliar, with significant unknowns. The actors are numerous and diverse, and some may resist\u00a0strongly. Unclear which of several possible solutions is appropriate. \u201cSomewhat wicked\u201d.
\nThe response:<\/strong>
\nMobilise a multi-disciplinary \u201cbrains trust\u201d that includes users; craft a customised solution by mixing and matching from a wide palette of possibilities. Strategies\u00a0should\u00a0be multi-dimensional, working in\u00a0more than one domain and mobilise more than one kind of expertise\u00a0(e.g. mixing infrastructure, service design,\u00a0communication, skill-building, leadership), and able to rapidly adapt (because some reactions will be unpredictable). Proceed by pilots, and gradually scale up. User engagement via social research and \u201cconsult\/involve\u201d level community engagement (for example, via an advisory workshop).
\nDave Snowden called this class \u201cComplicated<\/strong>\u201d. The relationship between cause and effect requires analysis or some other form of investigation and\/or the application of expert knowledge. The ideal approach is to Sense – Analyze – Respond<\/em> and we can apply good<\/em> practice.*<\/p>\n
\n
3) Reactive = Experimental response<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\nThe situation:<\/strong>
\nUnfamiliar and \u201cstormy\u201d. Dominated by unknowns, highly charged, rapidly changing, or politicised. High potential for strong resistance. Actors are numerous, diverse, sensitive, with likelihood of strong, unpredictable responses. Unclear if any existing solution is appropriate. \u201cVery wicked\u201d.
\nThe response:<\/strong>
\nProbe the problem with a range of modest experimental projects, selecting a sub-set of solutions to prototype and develop further. Again, be prepared to work in more than one\u00a0domain and mobilise more than one kind of expertise (e.g. mixing infrastructure, service design, communication, skill-building, leadership). User engagement via social research, multi-disciplinary \u201cBrains Trust\u201d including users, and community engagement at the \u201cCollaborate\u201d level (e.g. program developed and delivered in partnership with trusted local organisations, and outsourcing to the affected community).
\nAustralia\u2019s effective response to the HIV epidemic is a good example of this class of intervention.
\nDave Snowden called this class \u201cComplex<\/strong>\u201d. The relationship between cause and effect can only be perceived in retrospect, but not in advance. The ideal approach is to Probe – Sense – Respond<\/em> so we can sense emergent<\/em> practice.*<\/p>\n
\n4) Chaotic = Emergency response<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\nThe situation:<\/strong>
\nNatural or human disaster requiring urgent action; highly charged; politicised. Actors are numerous, diverse, reactive, with likelihood of strong, unpredictable responses. There are a range of possible solutions but there\u2019s no way to tell, from a distance, which might\u00a0make the situation better and which might\u00a0make it worse.
\nThe response:<\/strong>
\nAttack the problem with urgency but enable local improvisation with high tolerance for imperfection. Invest heavily in intelligence and communications, with tight feedback loops. Train and support agile, well-equipped, local agents and actors. User engagement at the \u201cempower\u201d level (e.g. outsource local responses to autonomous local actors – Community Fire Guard is an example).
\nDisaster response, bushfire management, and military action are examples of this class of intervention.
\nDave Snowden called this class \u201cChaotic\u201d<\/strong>. There is no relationship between cause and effect at the systems level. The ideal approach is to Act – Sense – Respond<\/em> and we can discover novel<\/em> practice.*<\/p>\n
\n
\nUnfamiliar and \u201cstormy\u201d. Dominated by unknowns, highly charged, rapidly changing, or politicised. High potential for strong resistance. Actors are numerous, diverse, sensitive, with likelihood of strong, unpredictable responses. Unclear if any existing solution is appropriate. \u201cVery wicked\u201d.
\nThe response:<\/strong>
\nProbe the problem with a range of modest experimental projects, selecting a sub-set of solutions to prototype and develop further. Again, be prepared to work in more than one\u00a0domain and mobilise more than one kind of expertise (e.g. mixing infrastructure, service design, communication, skill-building, leadership). User engagement via social research, multi-disciplinary \u201cBrains Trust\u201d including users, and community engagement at the \u201cCollaborate\u201d level (e.g. program developed and delivered in partnership with trusted local organisations, and outsourcing to the affected community).
\nAustralia\u2019s effective response to the HIV epidemic is a good example of this class of intervention.
\nDave Snowden called this class \u201cComplex<\/strong>\u201d. The relationship between cause and effect can only be perceived in retrospect, but not in advance. The ideal approach is to Probe – Sense – Respond<\/em> so we can sense emergent<\/em> practice.*<\/p>\n
\n
4) Chaotic = Emergency response<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\nThe situation:<\/strong>
\nNatural or human disaster requiring urgent action; highly charged; politicised. Actors are numerous, diverse, reactive, with likelihood of strong, unpredictable responses. There are a range of possible solutions but there\u2019s no way to tell, from a distance, which might\u00a0make the situation better and which might\u00a0make it worse.
\nThe response:<\/strong>
\nAttack the problem with urgency but enable local improvisation with high tolerance for imperfection. Invest heavily in intelligence and communications, with tight feedback loops. Train and support agile, well-equipped, local agents and actors. User engagement at the \u201cempower\u201d level (e.g. outsource local responses to autonomous local actors – Community Fire Guard is an example).
\nDisaster response, bushfire management, and military action are examples of this class of intervention.
\nDave Snowden called this class \u201cChaotic\u201d<\/strong>. There is no relationship between cause and effect at the systems level. The ideal approach is to Act – Sense – Respond<\/em> and we can discover novel<\/em> practice.*<\/p>\n
\n
\nNatural or human disaster requiring urgent action; highly charged; politicised. Actors are numerous, diverse, reactive, with likelihood of strong, unpredictable responses. There are a range of possible solutions but there\u2019s no way to tell, from a distance, which might\u00a0make the situation better and which might\u00a0make it worse.
\nThe response:<\/strong>
\nAttack the problem with urgency but enable local improvisation with high tolerance for imperfection. Invest heavily in intelligence and communications, with tight feedback loops. Train and support agile, well-equipped, local agents and actors. User engagement at the \u201cempower\u201d level (e.g. outsource local responses to autonomous local actors – Community Fire Guard is an example).
\nDisaster response, bushfire management, and military action are examples of this class of intervention.
\nDave Snowden called this class \u201cChaotic\u201d<\/strong>. There is no relationship between cause and effect at the systems level. The ideal approach is to Act – Sense – Respond<\/em> and we can discover novel<\/em> practice.*<\/p>\n
\n