Bounded applicability : Boundaries gives meaning. They Matter
My first introduction to complexity science was sometime in 2015 when I remember reading about it in a blog. I was a new agile coach at that time and the topic keenly interested me as I could correlate my experience on the field driving a large-scale transformation with the characteristics that any large complex adaptive systems demonstrate.
Having already consulted several clients by that time, I had discovered that several factors are at play for an agile transformation to succeed. While agile values, principles, and many practices have great merit, a goldilocks zone is needed to experience true agility or deliver business value — agile works when done right. While I had got a glimpse of the “Cynefin framework,” only years later, I dived deeper into and especially the last few weeks with the book Cynefin — Weaving Sense-Making into the Fabric of Our World.
One of the fundamental principles of the Cynefin framework is “bounded applicabiility.” In simple words, context often influences the meaning or relevance to a value, principle, or practice. For example, I often wonder regarding the heavy criticism meted out to Taylorism and the scientific management approach. It happened in a day and time that was different than today. It was an age when industrial labor was getting organized.
While, in hindsight, it may seem problematic, and the Tayloristic approach is undoubtedly inappropriate for today’s knowledge workers, it probably was needed at that time.
Understanding context and the boundaries of applicability for whatever values or practices we promote are crucial to ensuring they succeed. The agile framework wars are a classic example of a lack of understanding of this fundamental concept around complexity. Each group is trying to prove how “their approach” is better suited to address an inherently complex world. If indeed the world is so complex, we need a more “sense-and-respond” approach that evolves empirically and these cookie-cutter solutions.
The bounded applicability principle is essential to remember, also when we start to paint everything in the world as complex as agile coaches. There are many things in the complex domain for sure, but we cannot leave them there forever, and the whole idea is to evolve with good practices to bring stuff from complex domain to complicated or simple eventually. Also, not all the scenarios and situations are really “complex,” and best practices will help us improve our business outcomes and be more efficient and effective.
It does not make sense that every team will figure out their way of how to use Jira. A “best practice” template helps, and beyond that, if they need minor configurations, they are free to adapt. Such a template is also not taking away from the team their independence or decision-making. I once experienced a heated debate with an agile coach who took it wrongly that their team was “forced” to use templates and wanted to start with a blank Jira configuration. Decision-making and independence are great, and it makes perfect sense to decide what work team will pull, but to stretch it for trivial stuff that lowers the overall effectiveness is essentially forgetting the critical concept of bounded applicability.
Any concept, principle, or practice starts to lose its meaning and relevance once we think of it as absolute and apply out of context — out of the boundaries that give them meaning. That helps no one. Boundaries matter.
