Strap in for a wild ride as Ian and Ash tackle the dystopian world of employee monitoring software! Marvel at the horrors on sale as our hosts ponder whether these digital taskmasters are the future of work or just really creepy ways to watch people type.
But wait, there's more! Venture into the mind-bending realm of the Cynefin framework, where our intrepid duo attempt to make sense of not a model, but a framework. It's also not a quadrant (although it kinda looks like one).
From mouse jigglers to Welsh castles, this episode has it all. Will Ian and Ash successfully navigate the complex waters of these topics, or will they end up in the "confused" domain? Tune in to find out, and remember - in the chaotic world of What A Lot Of Things, sometimes you just have to act first and think later!
Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em, And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum, And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on; While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on.
Chapters
Standing Room Only
The cure for “What did I come in here for?”
Ian goes to Cropredy
Never explain how the sausages are made
Thing 1 – Employee Monitoring Software
Instructional Interlude
Thing 2 – The Cynefin Framework
Email us!
The Damned
Strap in for a wild ride as Ian and Ash tackle the dystopian world of employee monitoring software! Marvel at the horrors on sale as our hosts ponder whether these digital taskmasters are the future of work or just really creepy ways to watch people type.
But wait, there's more! Venture into the mind-bending realm of the Cynefin framework, where our intrepid duo attempt to make sense of not a model, but a framework. It's also not a quadrant (although it kinda looks like one).
From mouse jigglers to Welsh castles, this episode has it all. Will Ian and Ash successfully navigate the complex waters of these topics, or will they end up in the "confused" domain? Tune in to find out, and remember - in the chaotic world of What A Lot Of Things, sometimes you just have to act first and think later!
Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em, And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum, And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on; While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on.
Creators & Guests
Host
Ash Winter
Tester and international speaker, loves to talk about testability. Along with a number of other community minded souls, one of the co-organisers of the Leeds Testing Atelier. Also co-author of the Team Guide to Software Testability.
Host
Ian Smith
Happiest when making stuff or making people laugh. Tech, and Design Thinking. Works as a fractional CTO, Innovation leader and occasionally an AI or web developer through my company, craftscale. I'm a FRSA.
What is What A Lot Of Things: Tech talk from a human perspective?
Ash and Ian talk about interesting Things from the tech industry that are on their minds.
Ian:
Hello, Ash.
Ash:
Hello, Ian.
Ian:
I've got an announcement.
Ash:
What's your announcement, Ian?
Ian:
It's a lot clearer than the... the previous announcement.
Ash:
Oh, yeah. The, the worst announcement ever.
Ian:
The post time pre time.
Ash:
Pre
Ian:
The one that we recorded before I went on holiday, but it was released afterwards.
Ash:
Yes.
Ian:
Therefore, it proved impossible to talk about anything in between in an appropriate tense.
Ash:
It was both my favorite and least favorite announcement ever since Yes. At the at the same time in parallel.
Ian:
So I've got actually 2 announcements.
Ash:
Okay.
Ian:
Let's get them out of the way before they multiply further. The first one is I'm getting a new desk. Very excited.
Ash:
Yes. It has standing capabilities, doesn't it?
Ian:
It does have standing capabilities. Excellent. It's got a little electric motor in it that makes it go between the two...
Ash:
Nice.
Ian:
...states.
Ash:
So are you gonna how are you gonna remind yourself to stand?
Ian:
Well, my watch reminds me to stand all the time.
Ash:
Right. Okay.
Ian:
So I've become pretty immune to reminders to stand.
Ash:
Like all like all monitoring, eventually, you become... monitoring and alerting, eventually, you become immune to it.
Ian:
Yes. Exactly.
Ash:
Just like things going off again. Oh, don't don't worry about it.
Ian:
Oh, I just do that and it goes away, so I
Ash:
don't have
Ian:
to do anything else. Yeah.
Ash:
So I used to work in an office in Saint John's Center in Leeds where the fire alarm would go off maybe 5 or 6 times a day sometimes because it was, like, in a shopping center, especially in school holidays because the kids would just set the fire alarms off all the time. So everyone would pile out, you know, multiple times a day.
Ian:
Scroll out.
Ash:
Yeah. After about 10 minutes of trying to ignore it.
Ian:
With no urgency.
Ash:
Yeah. Exactly. So, you know, that's those are those are a very impactful lesson in the quality of alerting there.
Ian:
Yes. Yes. Potentially. Yep. So, I will remember to I think what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna start off by standing.
Ian:
Right. So I'll start the afternoon and the morning by standing. Mhmm. And then then, I mean, this is a very loose idea at the moment, but I'll see what works. But my plan is start off the morning by standing, and then when I really, really need to sit down, I'll sit down, and then I'll start off the afternoon in the same way.
Ian:
Yeah. Okay. And and, you know, hopefully, that will, that will alternate a bit because at my advanced age that I'm now rapidly, actually, I can't say approaching. It's kind of It's
Ash:
it's rough.
Ian:
That's already happened. In my I'm almost forced to say late fifties, but I think I can get away with mid fifties for another year. But in my fifties, I've realized that if I don't do something, I'm just going to slowly descend into aches and pains. And a good thing to do, I think, is to not sit all day.
Ash:
Yeah. Agreed. Agreed. It is a bit of a it's like a sitting pandemic, isn't there, across a lot of the world where a lot of people spend too much time seated.
Ian:
They do. So who knows? Maybe it'll just be in seated position all the time along with me. But I'm hoping that I will, at least you know, I don't expect I'm gonna try and stand up all day because that's just nuts. I don't think I'll manage that at all, but No.
Ian:
You know, more.
Ash:
I think you should write a bot. A bot. A Mac OS app, which will remind you to stand up.
Ian:
I've got this great app called Dew. Have I told you about Dew? So it's like a reminders app, but it's got this amazing quality that you can configure where it just reminds you every 2 minutes or something until you do it. So it's like the cure for what did I come in here for because you're you're it it reminds you to do a thing and then you get distracted and then a minute later or whatever it reminds you again and it just keeps relentlessly reminding you until you say you've done it. And of course, you can say you've done it even if you haven't.
Ian:
Yeah. But you know in your heart of hearts that the reason why you've subjected yourself to this tirade of reminders is so that you actually do the thing that you want to do.
Ash:
Yeah. Rather than getting distracted on the way up or down the stairs by something else.
Ian:
Exactly. Now Dew is very, very good for that. You know, repeating every week, take the bins out, you know Yeah. Every minute until you take the bins out. It's very effective.
Ian:
So, I've got due for Mac OS and due for iOS.
Ash:
Okay.
Ian:
And I will duly use it
Ash:
Duly use it.
Ian:
Potentially as a, a bot to remind me. Cool.
Ash:
I suppose you don't have to write your own all the time, do you?
Ian:
You don't have to write your own all the time. No. No. I did see an app that basically on the Mac fills up your whole screen with calendar reminders. So so when you get a calendar reminder, basically, there's no subtly ignoring it.
Ian:
It basically prevents you from doing any other work until you acknowledge it.
Ash:
Alright. Okay.
Ian:
Sometimes think that would be useful as well. Yeah. But I refuse to have any more calendar tools.
Ash:
So you can't just leave it in the corner and just just slide your eyes to somewhere else and then
Ian:
Horrifiedly notice it 20 minutes into the meeting that you're meant to be at. Yes. Exactly that.
Ash:
Yeah.
Ian:
Yeah. So a bit rambly, but I think we did alright. That was my my announcement is I'm getting a sitting and standing desk.
Ash:
New desk, new Ian?
Ian:
New Ian. Yes.
Ash:
You said you had 2 announcements.
Ian:
I did. I'm going to a music festival tomorrow.
Ash:
Oh, nice.
Ian:
It's like a holiday, only only shorter. And and it's Cropardy Festival in Oxfordshire, which is a Fairport Convention Festival.
Ash:
Right. It just always sounds like the chiropody festival.
Ian:
It might if you said it not very well, which is why I always say it as distinctly as possible. Yeah.
Ash:
Sure. But
Ian:
Cropredy. Cropredy. Which is the name of the village where it where it is. I don't know if there's a chiropodist in the village.
Ash:
Oh, they're all chiropodists.
Ian:
Maybe
Ash:
they're. Best feet in Western Europe.
Ian:
Yes. Or at least in North Oxfordshire.
Ash:
So what kind of festival is it? What kind of music?
Ian:
Well, Fairport Convention are a sort of folk rock band. Yep. And there are plenty of folk things there. But there's Rick Wakeman is gonna play there. Oh.
Ian:
Who some of us may remember from the olden days. And, actually, Trevor Horn was going to, to play as well, but he's unfortunately ill. So he's gonna be replaced by the distinguished Richard Thompson. Right. So it's gonna be, should be pretty good.
Ian:
And I'm taking George and Tom, my 2 sons. Oh, cool. And I've got an inflatable tent. So, you know, all ready to carry.
Ash:
Do you just have to pull a card and it inflates?
Ian:
That would be awesome.
Ash:
But no.
Ian:
You have to pump a little pump Alright. Okay. In various different locations up and down the tent. Yeah. But then it instead of fighting with poles I I mean, tent poles rather than Polish people Yeah.
Ian:
Yeah. Yeah. I don't fight with anybody, really. You you just use this pump and it's about halfway through halfway down the tent when you've been inflating it, it suddenly springs up, and then, you have to make sure you've secured it properly, or else that's the time when the wind will blow it away for you. It's very exciting.
Ash:
It'll be like, dad, the tent's blowing away. Can you go and get it?
Ian:
Yes. It will be like that. That is exactly what it will be like.
Ash:
Well, that sounds excellent. Have you been before?
Ian:
I have been before a lot in the 19 nineties. I went every pretty much every year Oh, cool. 19 nineties, and then, life happened. And so it's
Ash:
quite nice to
Ian:
to sort of go again. I went in 2022 as well with George, and now we're going again. So it should be should be fun. Looking forward to it.
Ash:
Nice. Yeah. Because I was reading a review of the WOMAD Festival
Ian:
Oh, yes.
Ash:
Which is a very sort of diverse set of musical tastes.
Ian:
Oh, yeah.
Ash:
And it it it sounded amazing.
Ian:
Yeah. I think it I think it is. I actually loved going to this festival when I went to it, and I do is there something great about that kind of event? Because it's generally quite a happy thing. So, yes, I'm I'm I'm all I'm all go at the moment and maybe a bit of comeback.
Ian:
Excellent. Well, aren't we on fire for coherent announcement? Co
Ash:
I'm sure we could cope with an incoherent announcement.
Ian:
Well, yeah. I was gonna say it's not a not a trend that's gonna last, really, is it?
Ash:
No. No. Cool. Cool. Are you prepared for things?
Ash:
Kind of.
Ian:
Well, so we have a very good system for things where we've got a notion database. Yeah. And we fill it up every time we have an idea for a thing, we we put it in there. And then when we've got an idea to record an episode, which does occasionally happen, we create it in notion, and then we attach 2 things to it for us to talk about. And and that's how it works in theory.
Ian:
But in practice? In practice, it's quite unusual for me to have a thing sorted out before the day. And, this time I did have one sorted out before the day, but I forgot to do the attaching it to the episode bit. So while I had a perfectly fine thing, Ash I couldn't see it. Was unaware of it.
Ian:
Yeah. So, yeah, I've, everything that Ash says will be just off the top of his head. He'll be very surprised by my thing, which he's only just discovered.
Ash:
So, Ian, can you deploy the furnace algorithm, please? And tell me who's gonna go first.
Ian:
Yes. I'm just gonna, just gonna submit the request to the API. Oh, it's me. Ian goes first. Yes.
Ian:
And to be fair, which is, of course, the whole point of this whole exercise Absolutely. You went first last time.
Ash:
Yeah. Yeah. So I'm glad to see that we've we've disbanded the the thoughts of, having a a weighted fairness algorithm, because then it becomes unfair.
Ian:
I see that you're, summarizing the meeting in a way that, is perhaps not entirely and fully accepting of all the views expressed therein.
Ash:
Yes. Exactly. This is not a democracy. Lots of people say
Ian:
that kind of is. Lots of people say that
Ash:
to me about their jobs. It's like, about their workplaces. The this place isn't a democracy. It's like, well, it kind of is, really, isn't it? Yes.
Ash:
Because, you know, people will vote to either stay or not stay.
Ian:
Yeah. But it's a fairly dramatic vote. It's not just a cross on a bit of paper. Yeah. Exactly.
Ian:
There's a whole lot more paperwork involved.
Ash:
Yeah. So so there you go. News everyone. It is a democracy.
Ian:
And what's a lot of things is a is is more like a separation of powers. Because Ash does the big listen and this and says get rid of that bit and keep that bit. And then I do the actual editing where I
Ash:
Either ignore or
Ian:
Either do what he says or or not.
Ash:
Or do something completely different.
Ian:
Yes. Which I think works quite quite well, doesn't it?
Ash:
But the main thing is trust.
Ian:
Trust. Yes.
Ash:
Yes. Absolutely.
Ian:
Not not Liz's trust?
Ash:
No. No. Definitely not.
Ian:
That's alright. She doesn't exist. And this this I'm just giving you something to say when you're doing your big listen. Delete Liz's trust.
Ash:
Delete Liz's trust bit. Keep Liz Trusted. So, Ian, please may you introduce your thing.
Ian:
So I suspect that the main emphasis of this thing is just going to be us being horrified together about it and then moving on. But, you know, maybe
Ash:
Well, maybe I could, like, play it play it completely agreeing with it and see where we go.
Ian:
I think you could try and do that, Ash, but I think
Ash:
Do you do you think I'll be able to maintain it?
Ian:
It would strain either your our credulity or your ability to say things that you completely disagree with. The title I gave it was employee monitoring software, and this this happened because somehow I found an article in PC World called the best employee monitoring software for 2024. And then it had this kind of tagline of, in the era of remote work, managers need insight into their team's hours and productivity more than ever. As if it's some, like, you know, challenge for the ages
Ash:
that needs to be solved.
Ian:
Yeah. Yes. Perfect. And, what that seems to mean is that you have software installed on your computer that tells your manager some things about your activities on your onset computer. Yeah.
Ian:
And then your manager gets graphs ranking employees by...
Ash:
Oooh.
Ian:
...who was the most productive according to whatever metric of your mouse moving around.
Ash:
Keystrokes.
Ian:
Been selected. And what I find so there's so much about this that's kind of terrifying. So one of them is the names of the software. And I know
Ash:
as soon as you looked
Ian:
at this article, Ash, you came up with the the what is our joint favorite? Would you like to say it? Couldn't say it in the form of a spell?
Ash:
Yeah. With a with a with a wand flourish.
Ian:
Yes. I think you should. That's the only way to say it. Controllo. Oh, dear.
Ian:
I mean, there there's some other gems in the naming.
Ash:
So what's good about Controllio? Let's take Controllio as an example.
Ian:
Best for small and medium businesses Okay. Seeking a cloud based monitoring and productivity.
Ash:
Okay. So you don't wanna host it yourself. That's fine.
Ian:
I don't think we should be doing it. I think it's nuts. I think it's just it's just nuts.
Ash:
Yeah. So I think so management and managers have obviously they've gone through, like, a a fairly rough transition. Right?
Ian:
Sorry. There's another there's another one called staff cop. Staff cop. Yeah. Sorry.
Ash:
Go on. Which that I mean, that has, like, terrible conversations, doesn't it? So controlo sounds like a a spell from Harry Potter where you want to make people do your evil bidding, and staff cop suggests that your staff need to be policed at all times because they're always doing something wrong. They're always stealing a living from you, which is a phrase that I've heard from various company, executives and bosses in my time. Yeah.
Ash:
So this so the the two things you always hear is you should be grateful to have a job here, and our employees are always trying to steal a living from us. I wish I could say that that kind of attitude is was really uncommon, but it's not quite my experience of it.
Ian:
The more I scroll down this, it it just gets it's just worse and worse. I mean, steal. I'm not picking, by the way, on any individual piece of this software. Yeah. Although I do wonder what kind of psychopath wakes up in the morning and says, hi.
Ian:
I know. Why don't I write software that spies on employees? But because it's a cloud service Yeah. Controleo's employee monitoring solution is well priced and scalable. It's capable with the ability to track every aspect of an employee's activity with an eye towards productivity and potential threats.
Ian:
And the pros are incisive employee monitoring focused on productivity, tracks productive and distracting activities. Uh-huh. Does that mean meetings? Well Probably doesn't, does it?
Ash:
No.
Ian:
Productivity scoring for users and departments, video snapshots from multiple displays, syncs key logging with video recordings.
Ash:
That sounds
Ian:
How much do you have to not trust your employees Yeah. Before you deploy this to them?
Ash:
Yeah. Well, I I would suggest that you don't trust or value them at all. And this is very industrial revolution mindset, isn't it? It's like, the employee is a cog in the machine. When it breaks, we'll just get another cog and insert it into the machine.
Ash:
And then we shall track that cog and how it does. And if it looks like it's going to break again or isn't quite as efficient as we want it to
Ian:
be We'll merge it out.
Ash:
We shall replace it with another cog based on the ranking that we get from control. Io.
Ian:
Cons, video capture has no AI or OCR function. Oh. I'm imagining yet.
Ash:
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Ian:
It's kind of horrifying. And I suppose in the end, this is deployed against using the word against in a in a particular Yeah. Intentional way. Yeah. Yeah.
Ian:
I imagine it's deployed against employees of call centers or
Ash:
Yeah. Yeah. I suppose there is, like, it mentions it in the article as well, doesn't it? That though that that sort of context is is is, like, high on the list for a lot of these tools for, you know, having several 100 people in a call center and being able to track them.
Ian:
And say things like, you spent 73.2% of your day on Facebook. Yeah. I mean, anyone who does that.
Ash:
I would say you're doomed if
Ian:
that's your day. Anyway, I I wonder if having that degree of mistrust drives unreliable behavior. Yeah. You're so surveilled that you're always trying to find ways to get around it.
Ash:
Yeah. Yeah. Well, I I suppose it'll probably, like, lead to a lack of respect for your employer because they don't respect you. So why should you respect them? Culture of fear, probably, where you might just do the tasks that make you look productive rather than the things that make you actually productive.
Ian:
That's interesting. Yeah. So the definition of productivity.
Ash:
Yeah. Yeah. Because we talk about productivity a lot in the in the UK because we've been told that it's been really bad for years years years years. And I think it's really bad because we don't invest in people, and we don't invest in tools and equipment. And, you know, this stuff actually drives productivity.
Ash:
We generally invest in shareholder dividends, which don't drive productivity.
Ian:
Is is there a place for this, Ash? Is this ever okay? Is it is it ever or maybe it's not okay. Maybe it's about, is it ever really required? I imagine it there are probably contexts.
Ian:
Mhmm. It's difficult because, I mean, you if you're a company and you have a and you your your business is outsourced call centers or something like that, then maybe there's plenty of evidence that using this type of software improves the experience of your customers. It just I I feel very viscerally horrified by it. Yeah. But I I I'm trying to give it a bit of a break.
Ash:
Yeah. Yeah. I don't know. I I've never worked in a in a in a call center or that kind of environment. I've never worked with anywhere that I've that I'm aware of that has actively surveilled my work.
Ash:
But whether or not well, I say to my knowledge, so I'm I'm not certain.
Ian:
I surveil my work to an extent. So I do time tracking, for example. So I have timers that I switch on and off that mark how much time I've put into different things. Yeah. And that's for me, and I suppose I work for myself.
Ian:
So Yeah. That's for craft scale, if you like. It helps to me to know where my time is going, and, also, it helps me to build accurately.
Ash:
Yeah. Especially if you have multiple context that you need to switch between, then then yes. I guess that'll probably be that'll probably be, like, really useful, won't it? But there are loads of places that I've worked where I've had to fill in a time sheet, but they are some of the most abused systems that you will see because it's either just, like, not valued by either employer or employee, your time sheet, because it's just like this is just a means. This is something that we have to do.
Ash:
Yeah. Someone somewhere has said that we must do this to measure, in a very vague sense, capital expenditure or operational expenditure, for example. So it's not very, it's it's never deployed for your for the for the employee's benefit to actively see where they're putting their time. It's more of a generic organizational thing.
Ian:
Yeah. I mean, sometimes it's accounting. So if you're doing software development, often that's seen as r and d for which there's a tax benefit. Yeah. Well, interestingly, I read a thing recently about how abused that is.
Ian:
But,
Ash:
Yes. I have written a
Ian:
No one an
Ash:
API that returns JSON over HTTP. That surely that's research and development.
Ian:
Yes. Well I mean, all it says is Ian goes first. But nobody needs to know that the calculation itself is quite Yeah. Small. There's lots of infrastructure.
Ash:
So I guess there might be. Say if you're working with personally sensitive data, I don't know, like a hospital records department, or you're working in a a traffic control center where, obviously, mistakes or missteps or not people not paying attention might have quite high consequences. So maybe in those contexts, but I'm being I I feel like I'm being generous.
Ian:
But that's to help the people do their job better Yeah. That want to do their job better. Yeah. This is to stop people deliberately underperforming. Or is it?
Ash:
I don't know. Do you think this is gonna detect all the quiet quitters out there who are well, you can argue that they're not underperforming anyway because they're just literally doing what their job description says.
Ian:
Well, another thing I discovered while I was looking into this was there's a category of product called mouse jiggler. Oh. And what you can do is you can get you can go on Amazon, literally on Amazon, and search for mouse jiggler. And then after a while, you realize that your Mac is auto correcting that to mouse juggler, which is a whole different thing. But if you look for mouse jigglers, there's literally an Amazon's choice of mouse jiggler, and it's a little USB thing.
Ian:
You plug it into your computer, and it just jiggles the mouse around to make it look like you're working.
Ash:
Yeah. I mean, I guess that shows how ridiculous the the idea is of these of these tools and how the lengths that people will go to, there's a there's like a line of products which will, you know, help you to work your way around them.
Ian:
We're about to one of the best Simpsons episodes ever.
Ash:
Yeah. Yeah. Exactly.
Ian:
The Simpsons episode where Homer decides to deliberately gain weight in order to be allowed to work at home. And, there's these immortal lines like, he's eating a banana split and and Bart's coaching him. You know, don't eat the banana, dad. It's just empty vitamins. And then, eventually, he gets to £300 or whatever it is it has to be to not and then working at home, all he has to do is press the y key.
Ian:
Every time, the computer says, is the power plant safe? He finds a little nodding bird that presses the y key automatically, then the power plant is blown up. But, you know
Ash:
So there you go. Simpsons foreshadowing.
Ian:
Foreshadowing.
Ash:
Yet again.
Ian:
Mouse jigglers.
Ash:
Yeah. Yeah. So when I think about surveillance in my career so when I was a tester in my first tester job, I was measured on the bugs that I raised and the test cases that I wrote, And they all went into a cent everybody's everything on on those two things, anyway, went into a centralized tool called Quality Center, which, you know, the irony was ridiculous. But
Ian:
Oh, blimey. I remember Quality Center.
Ash:
Yeah. Yeah. It was it was HP?
Ian:
It was HP. Mhmm. Bloody hell. Yeah. Quality Center.
Ian:
I'd forgotten that. I don't miss it. Go on.
Ash:
So it all went into this this centralized tool, and then you could then generate a report to say who's raised the most bugs, who's written the most test cases. And then, you know, you would literally get, we would literally go through this report, and whoever raised the most bugs, wrote the most test cases would get, like, a pat on the back.
Ian:
Did that lead to a lot of pointless bug reports and test cases?
Ash:
Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. So it'd be like so say if, like, one thing if there was a bug, and people would raise it against every test environment.
Ian:
But, honestly, this is the sort
Ash:
of thing that went on. And then, also, in in quality center, you could parameterize your test. So you could say, you in a step, you could have, like, a little dollar curly brackets, this word, and then you could then run it multiple times. But that didn't get you to the top of the charts now, though, did it, if you parameterize the test? So you just used to copy each test and then change the thing that needed to be changed, and then you could get to the top of the charts.
Ash:
Yeah. But the great thing about this whole system was is that the the software that came out of the other end was utter rubbish and barely worked, and no one ever got what they wanted out of it. And the and the poor old business people who were paying for it and then the poor old operations people who were using it absolutely hated this stuff.
Ian:
Because no one was incentivized Yeah. To make good software. No. They were just incentivized to make bug reports and test bad cases.
Ash:
Pretty much. Pretty much. And so all this surveillance and all this competition and all all and everything that came through it just ended up being gamed. And then the actual outcomes for the software were were pretty much ignored.
Ian:
Yeah. Yeah. Can't really measure that very well, so let's just measure input.
Ash:
Yeah. Yeah. Pretty much. Pretty much. So that is kind of, like, my my experience of surveillance.
Ash:
I will add that I was, like, a willing participant in this Oh. Because I was
Ian:
Culturally, you're expected to be.
Ash:
Yeah. And I was generally nearer the top of the the charts than the bottom.
Ian:
You you came up with that wheeze about the parameterized task.
Ash:
Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. And raising the bug in every environment. Yeah.
Ash:
With 5 environments.
Ian:
Oh, dear. Did you even write a parameterized script to create all the individual
Ash:
No. There was absolutely no automation.
Ian:
Oh, no. That would be,
Ash:
Everything was done manually. You
Ian:
don't want people cheating.
Ash:
All the repetition.
Ian:
More efficient by Yeah.
Ash:
Yeah. Exactly. That that that is not the name of the game. The name of the game was to reach the top of the chart. Yes.
Ash:
Not to be productive, which is probably, like, the point, isn't it, of all this?
Ian:
But, yeah, you see, the thing is, like, even that terrible low it was in terms of its ability to deliver good outcomes for the money that was being invested, even that was a positive thing. It wasn't, it was do this thing, and we'll reward you Yeah. Rather than we're gonna we're gonna spy on you.
Ash:
Yeah. Yeah. And Yeah.
Ian:
And judge you if you spend too long talking to this person Yeah. While you're helping them a bit more. But any metrics based on observing the computer that you're working on, it's gonna be hard for them to
Ash:
Well, yeah. Because they're gonna be quite shallow, aren't they? So it's just like keystrokes, mouse movements. If it has OCR, possibly that, you know, you've got this application open, that type of thing. So they're all quite sort of shallow, aren't they?
Ash:
So easily gamed, basically. Mouse jigglers have Microsoft Teams or whatever it is open and focused on the screen for the majority of the time, and you'd probably be okay. Yeah. So all these things are very, very shallow, and anyone with a reasonable amount of imagination, you could probably gain them quite easily.
Ian:
I want there to be a world where we trust people and people do the right thing. Yeah. But I recognize that however much I would like it to be so, you can't trust everybody. Yeah. Not everybody will try and do the right thing.
Ash:
Yeah. But this is part of the madness, isn't it? Because you we create these systems for the exceptions and then apply them to everybody. Yes. So that's part of, like, the delusion of the world of work, isn't it?
Ash:
The so we create, processes, procedures, systems to track because someone somewhere either made a mistake or maybe we hired someone who was a bit like of a bad apple and did some bad things and was a bit lazy and just
Ian:
Or even we're hiring so many people that some of them are bound to be bad apples.
Ash:
Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. To assume that everyone's the same in terms of, like, effort, output, whatever it is, productivity is is is a lot of old cobblers, isn't it?
Ian:
So there is a bunch of stuff in here about whether the things are being measured are actually the the things that drive the performance that's needed. Yeah. And there's the things that people do to try and evade. Yeah. There's so this I thought this thing would be quite short, but it's been a bit more there's a bit more to it than I I expected.
Ash:
Yeah. Again, it's like it's a classic what a lot of things think, where you have this symptom sat on top, which is really interesting. It's like it's like, this is a a listicle of what 10 10 bits of software that do this, but there's not 10. There's there's a lot more than 10, isn't there?
Ian:
Yes.
Ash:
You know? So for these for these 10, apparently, PC World thinks these ones are decent, but there'll be even worse ones, which do, like, worse things. As a slight aside, at the test, I tell you, we took sponsorship from a company, which their sort of role in this is to they help to gather evidence against employees in employee relations industrial dispute
Ian:
Oh, wow.
Ash:
From, you know, the different tools, Slack, Wikis, document stores, you know, all the different places. We didn't know this, and we should have looked a lot harder at what they actually did. But, we knew the person who the person who'd who offered the sponsorship had sponsored before from a different company.
Ian:
Right.
Ash:
And this this particular company, they packaged it as a security thing rather than a surveillance thing. Mhmm. And I feel like there's a bit of a pattern there. It's like, we're just making sure that your employees don't double click on that exe they've been sent in their it's got in their junk mail or, you know, they don't go onto the onto the dark web or whatever it is. But I think there's a there's a, like, a there's, like, a PR exercise there as well to package these things in a more acceptable light.
Ian:
The thing is, it doesn't seem possible to say the world doesn't need these things, but it's just sad that it does. Yeah. And, of course, one of the things that you pointed out when we were talking about this before was the fact, actually, we all benefit from it, don't we?
Ash:
Yeah. But I think it's like 2 sides of the 2 sides of the same coin, isn't it? The thing, like, we're talking about with with delivery drivers. And we all sit there obsessively and say, where's my delivery? Yeah.
Ash:
And then, like, you can literally see which road they're on. But then on the flip side of that, their managers will be able to see the same data as well, and that will be used to judge on their effectiveness. Yeah. So it's like, that's useful for us because that means we can be in when the delivery arrives.
Ian:
And it has.
Ash:
And it has. Yeah. Exactly. So Ian has a standing desk. In in cardboard boxes.
Ash:
In cardboard boxes. So well, anything could have been delivered, to be fair.
Ian:
It's got the right kind of words on the outside. That's good.
Ash:
But so it's like the flip side of that is that that same data will be used for the purposes that we're talking about here to surveil them and to say, well, you know, you need to make 50 drops a day, and, you know, you came back you came back with 5. That's not good enough or whatever it is. Yeah. So and then the same goes for food delivery apps and ride sharing, taxi stuff. It's basically like surveillance.
Ash:
They're all surveillance applications, aren't they? Yeah. As well as consumer ones.
Ian:
Well, Uber famously had godmother.
Ash:
Oh, yeah. Of course. Which is like the ultimate surveillance tool.
Ian:
Because that could that wasn't just drivers. That was passengers as well.
Ash:
Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. So yeah.
Ian:
Oh, she's attractive. I wonder where she's going.
Ash:
Yeah. Yeah. So the the, like, the the more widespread use of tooling like that has serious implications because for every employee that might be cheating the system a bit, having an extra half an hour on their lunch because they just turn the mouse jiggler on and then, you know, go for a bit of an extra run or an extra, or sit outside in the sunshine for half an extra half an hour. Then there's someone possibly using it for nefarious purposes as well. So these companies bring these things into existence that can be used in both ways.
Ian:
Yes.
Ash:
So I feel like a lot of companies who bring these things these types of systems into existence, they've they fail the moral and ethical test for themselves to as as to what products you you build and for what reasons. Yes. Yeah. They they don't even I don't know if they even asked that question, which is, to me, that's the really sad thing. It's like, should I be building this?
Ash:
How far does this go? Because certain organizations will always ask for it to go a little bit further as well, won't they?
Ian:
Yeah. And when you've got a when you've got a an objective, like, I don't know, prevent employees from slacking or something, then you tend to then everyone in that team or who that has that objective is focused on optimizing for that. Yeah. And then they don't there's no there's often not so much stepping back and saying what's right and wrong here. It's just like, oh, we're gonna optimize the, you know, the the thing Yeah.
Ian:
And make it very effective.
Ash:
Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely.
Ian:
So in the end, I don't know. I'm sad that these things exist. I'm sad that I suspect they need to exist Mhmm. At least at some level. And I wish there was some way of of it being clear, you know, when when that's overkill, which I suspect is a lot of the time.
Ash:
Yeah. Yeah. And you can
Ian:
imagine the sales are just Yeah. Well, I was just walking through your call centre on the way here, and I saw 13 people doing something which is not economically directly connected to something.
Ash:
Yeah. But it's you've got, like, the the the madness of, like, the stop. Is it was what was it? Not the stop motion studies because that's like stop motion in animation, isn't it? It's time
Ian:
and motion. Time and motion studies.
Ash:
I wish it was stop motion studies. Yeah. There's lots of people made out of clay.
Ian:
It's the opposite of stop.
Ash:
It's continuous motion. Yeah. So it's one thing to look at, like, the work that you're doing and saying, are we doing this at the most effective way Mhmm. Possible? But I feel like these these sorts of tools are not about effectiveness.
Ian:
Well, given that they probably don't measure Yeah. The actual I mean, they're measuring the input activity into a computer. Yeah. I mean, the idea of them OCR ing the screens just to make sure that it's something to do with I mean, uh-huh. Yeah.
Ian:
I don't know.
Ash:
Yeah. So I think if an employer wanted to do that with with me, I think with the best will in the world, I would tell them, I don't accept your job because I probably will slack off at some point.
Ian:
Is this a way of just not swearing? Yeah. I don't accept your job.
Ash:
Yeah. Well, I I guess it speaks to the values of the company as well, doesn't it?
Ian:
You might just boil your bottom.
Ash:
Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. So I'm also appalled by this type of tooling. Yeah.
Ash:
Because I think it erodes, like, basic human decency as well, where, like, say, come do we have trust for each other? Do we value each other's time? Do we peep think people are smart enough just to get on with it and do the job themselves and and hit the outcomes that we want? And all these tools erode that.
Ian:
Yeah. You see, I agree with that. But then, you know, at the weekend, we've been hearing all these stories about far right rioters. They're across the country. Yeah.
Ian:
And these people, probably some of them have got jobs.
Ash:
Yeah. I would imagine some of them. Yeah.
Ian:
I don't know because I just think
Ash:
But isn't it
Ian:
realize I'm inconsistent. I I because I kind of accept that some the things that some people do are not so acceptable. Yeah. But the idea of spying on everyone just in case they're that person Yeah. Yeah.
Ian:
I don't know. Mhmm. I'm a bit conflicted about it more than I expected to be.
Ash:
Yeah. Yeah. Well, I said, I I can see some context where it might be useful, but my examples are probably more for the benefit of the the employee. Yeah. I think that's employer.
Ian:
That's a key Yeah. A key thing. Are you trying to help the employee, or are you trying to spy on them?
Ash:
Yeah. Are you trying to find out the ones that need to go to the bottom of the pile, bottom of the bell curve Yeah. And then be shunted out with the bottom 10%.
Ian:
Grim.
Ash:
Grim. Yeah. It is. It is. It's not a I don't think it's a positive trait of the world of technology.
Ian:
Well, I'm very glad to have come up with such a cheerful thing. Yeah. But, you know, we can what we can take away from this is that when I'm going off on on some tangent, you can get a pen or something and flourish it towards me and say, control your head.
Ash:
Imagine if that would.
Ian:
It probably wouldn't work.
Ash:
Control your head.
Ian:
Oh. Oh, I suddenly feel that I must conform to something, but I don't know what, which is probably unhelpful.
Ash:
Yeah. See, your thing that you said was a small thing is not a small thing, Ian. So I blame Ian.
Ian:
So my estimating is wrong as well. Yeah. Exactly.
Ash:
Hashtag no estimates. Got me Ian.
Ian:
Ash will be surveilling my inputs into our Notion databases to make sure I'm sufficiently productive of things.
Ash:
Yeah. I did look this morning, and there wasn't a thing.
Ian:
There there was. There was. I just hadn't put it in the episode. It was there, technically. I hadn't finished it, but it was, you know, it was very much a work in progress.
Ash:
Look. Did you see the mouse jiggling?
Ian:
Yeah. Yes. My mouse jiggling finished it off for me. Dear Lord.
Ash:
Okay. Interlude.
Ian:
Interlude. I haven't got an interlude in mind. So what was interlude, we could unpack and build my desk.
Ash:
And so what's your strategy for for for building the desk?
Ian:
I guess, unpack enough things so that instructions are revealed.
Ash:
So you go with the instructions. I see.
Ian:
I did. What did I do the other day where I said I don't need to look at the instructions for this? And then and then what was it? Paula was mocking me the entire way along with those. I can't remember.
Ash:
So this time you'll go find the instructions.
Ian:
Step 1, unpack this box first. Don't. Don't unpack the the box with these instructions in it.
Ash:
See, I I'm quite, I'm very particular about these things. Particular. So read the instructions, unpack the boxes, put them into piles of the same type.
Ian:
Yeah. But that if you if you read the instructions properly, you may find that that's not a good idea because then you'll never be able to sort them back out into the according to the very small differences that there are. Like like right hand things and left hand things that look the same. But
Ash:
Oh, I try and be as particular as possible. Particular. But I I accept that there might be, some drawbacks to this this this approach.
Ian:
It was fine if you read the instructions for that's the that is the thing. Reading the instructions all the way through
Ash:
Yeah.
Ian:
And then knowing that you're gonna have to do x and y Yeah. After you've done a and b, and therefore do a and b in such a ways to make them easier.
Ash:
Yeah. So we have a a a cat tower, which is sisal rope around it for for claw sharpening. Oh. And we I bought some sisal rope, and refilled the tower, but then had to put it back together. But from only from my oh, we don't have the instructions anymore.
Ash:
It's years old.
Ian:
Oh, yeah.
Ash:
So but only from my memory of what the tower looked like.
Ian:
So take a picture of the tower.
Ash:
Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. Yeah.
Ash:
So it took a little while. There was a few false starts, let's say.
Ian:
So what's your thing then? Tell us your thing.
Ash:
So my thing is the Cynefin framework, which I do feel is enhanced
Ian:
by the use of
Ash:
slightly satanic vice. Slight linger at the end there as well.
Ian:
I've stopped now.
Ash:
I was gonna start again, but I was like, he's gonna do it again. So No. I'm not.
Ian:
Oh, dear. Timpot despot.
Ash:
Timpot despot. I have none of these powers.
Ian:
No.
Ash:
No. No.
Ian:
Please continue before I do anything else.
Ash:
So what is Cadevan? Should we start there?
Ian:
I think we should because, may maybe even with how to spell it. I mean, we probably don't need to say how to spell it because it'll be in the title of the episode.
Ash:
Yeah. Yeah.
Ian:
So Sounds a bit Welsh.
Ash:
It does. It does. So the Cynefin framework was developed to help leaders understand their challenges and make decisions in context.
Ian:
I sense you're reading that.
Ash:
I am reading that, And we shall link to the basic documentation. There's a Kanafin Wiki, which we can link to.
Ian:
Excellent.
Ash:
So by distinguishing different domains, the subsystems in which we operate, it recognizes that our actions need to match the reality we find ourselves in through a process of sense making.
Ian:
So the we in this is is that leaders or or everybody? Well, I
Ash:
think it's for everybody. I don't think it has a particular I think it's probably been adopted and pushed towards the leadership space a bit more, but I think it's it's kind of for everybody. So this helps leaders cultivate an awareness of what's really complex and what is not and respond accordingly so that no energy is wasted in overthinking the routine. But they also never tried to make the complex fit into standard solutions. And I feel like that and that last bit is the important bit of the Cynefin framework.
Ian:
Recognizing that things aren't as simple as we'd like them to be. Yeah. And liking them to be simple and assuming that behaving as though they're simple when they're not.
Ash:
Yeah. Yeah. Exactly.
Ian:
Always leads to difficulties. Yeah.
Ash:
So I think examples are good here of the different domains that they talk about. So you have one domain called it's called clear. So it's like the checklist of items that are not allowed in your hand luggage when boarding a plane. Some nuance, but relatively clear. They say, here's all the things that you're not allowed to bring onto a plane.
Ash:
And then you've got complicated, which is the engineering process of building a bridge.
Ian:
So clear and complicate so complicated means it might have lots of very small steps Yeah. That need to be done in a in an educated. Yeah. In a knowledgeable way. Yeah.
Ian:
Domain knowledgeable
Ash:
Yeah. Way. But you've got a set of well established bridge building principles, and the mathematics has generally been worked out about tension and weight and all those things Yeah. That you can then there's some com there's some complication in terms of situating it, but a lot of the the thinking in terms of the the basics basic principles of of that task have been done before.
Ian:
Right. Okay.
Ash:
And then you've got complex, and the example given in the Cynefin rookie is a children's party. So there's lots of
Ian:
Moving parts.
Ash:
Lots of moving parts. And when you look at it, you're like, I have no idea why the things that are happening are happening. So my niece showed me a WhatsApp chat that that her and her friends have. It was like, I have no idea what's going on there. There was lots of memes, lots of stickers.
Ash:
But apparently, they all knew what was happening. And this chat meant something to them, but it meant absolutely nothing to me. But children's party is the, is the example given. So there's lots of complex interactions going on. Friendships, probably non friendships, people sharing things with each other and not with others.
Ash:
Just lots of stuff that makes very little sense from the from the outside, but there's a system there. There's something going on in there.
Ian:
It's not random.
Ash:
Yeah. Yeah. Exactly. There's there's rules to it. You just don't know what they are.
Ash:
Then you've got chaos. Chaos.
Ian:
All all podcasts are on special effects of voices.
Ash:
So, carnival is an example. I don't think it means, like, a carnival with waltzes. I think it means, like, carnival in Rio de Janeiro or in
Ian:
With an e on the end.
Ash:
Yeah. Or the Notting Hill carnival, where there's just lots of chaotic things happening.
Ian:
But is that I mean, sorry. I maybe I'm being pedantic. But
Ash:
Well, these are the examples they give.
Ian:
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I I guess chaos but it's still not entirely random, is it? Because people with intents to do things, doing them and Yeah.
Ash:
I suppose it's like
Ian:
modified by other people's intents that make them flip.
Ash:
Yeah. So I suppose it's like, say, the the carnival with the e on the end is probably the better example. So it's just like there's a day in the calendar, and people just start doing carnival
Ian:
then. Yes.
Ash:
You know?
Ian:
And then they stop at the end.
Ash:
Yeah. In, like, a 1000000 different ways.
Ian:
What did you do? Well, carnival, obviously.
Ash:
Yeah. Exactly. It's like, well, you know, I dressed up as a, I don't know, a skeleton and danced around. Why'd you do that? Carnival.
Ash:
So it's like, absolutely no idea. So it's like, maybe not the the the carnivals which are like processions.
Ian:
No. You
Ash:
know? Or in fixed places. It's just like the city is now in carnival. And what does that mean?
Ian:
Entering carnival.
Ash:
Yeah. Exactly.
Ian:
I'm sorry. Hang on. Entering carnival mode. It's the gift that keeps on giving that.
Ash:
So that that that's like four examples of the different domains.
Ian:
So how does it help you get a handle? So does it have a set of things you ought to do when you're you you so first of all, you have to decide what domain is this, and the second thing is then here's a set of things you can do if you're
Ash:
in a way. It's more about, like, how to react. Oh, there's also the disorder confused domain, which is, like, in the center of the model. So you use that when you're not sure about if it applies to the other 4 domains.
Ian:
So you you don't know which domain you're in, so you say I'm confused dotcom at the moment.
Ash:
Yeah. Yeah. Because in theory, it's like, well, if you go and intervene, you're probably gonna do it wrong, aren't you? If it's in the disorder domain.
Ian:
This was invented from IBM, wasn't it? Did A chap called Dave Snowden.
Ash:
Yeah. Dave Snowden. Yeah.
Ian:
I think I met him once when I was when we were both at the same time at IBM.
Ash:
Oh, right. Okay.
Ian:
Sorry. I'm just suddenly making a It's okay. A connection in my brain. I sort of knew about this.
Ash:
Yeah. Yeah.
Ian:
So Evidently, not very much from the questions I've asked.
Ash:
So it's important to say what it's not as well. So it is not this is a framework and not a model. Oh. It distinguishes itself by saying it doesn't try and predict the structure or function of anything because it's more for making sense of things rather than categorizing things.
Ian:
That's interesting. So how can we distinguish between a framework and a model?
Ash:
So the So
Ian:
a model is a simplified version of something in the real world. Is that what a model is?
Ash:
Yeah. Yeah. And then So
Ian:
a model is a model of a a landscape.
Ash:
Yeah. Yeah. But then when you actually see the landscape, you're like, holy crap. That's higher than I thought. It's more complicated.
Ash:
So I need to make sense of this. I don't have a rope, therefore, I'm not gonna try and climb that.
Ian:
So what's a framework in that context, or is there a does that analogy even work?
Ash:
What's a framework? I guess in this We
Ian:
say these things, don't we? All the time, models and frameworks and stuff. And, actually, it's quite interesting sometimes to take these things and go back to, okay, so how do we know it's that? What what why is it what does that actually mean?
Ash:
I don't know.
Ian:
He said googling, actually. Yeah. An essential supporting structure of a building vehicle or object.
Ash:
Mhmm.
Ian:
Framework versus model.
Ash:
So I take it as a bit of a a framework is there for guidance, whereas the model is there to try and sort of simplify, categorize, that kind of thing. That's kind of how I take it. But it's it's a fair question because in, they call it out specifically in the documentation for to say it's not a model. It's a framework.
Ian:
A framework provides a structure for research while a model represents a simplified version of reality.
Ash:
Okay. I think that probably fits with the fits in the framework of the Cinevian framework.
Ian:
Yeah. And that comes from CICE space, whoever that is.
Ash:
Cool name. And then it's not quadrants. Oh. So well, first, it says there are 5 states. So how could it be quadrants?
Ian:
Okay. Quindrant.
Ash:
So it's not a quadrant because there are 5 states, and it's more about the transitions between states than saying that is complicated.
Ian:
So zooming out of it, how is it meant to help? I mean, you kind of said that at the start, didn't you, or what you read out?
Ash:
Yeah. So I guess the the key thing was the main purpose is to help you identify what really is complex and what isn't, and then apply the right techniques.
Ian:
Yeah. So you might see something with a lot of flailing around like your children's party. Yeah. Or you might see something with a lot of bits that have to be assembled like your your bridge. Yeah.
Ian:
But there's a difference between those two types of complexity. Yeah. Yeah. So not a model.
Ash:
Yeah. Not a quadrant. And it's and it's more about the transitions between the quadrants than it is about saying it's definitely in that quadrant.
Ian:
So is it even though it's not a quadrant. But
Ash:
Yeah.
Ian:
Is the idea for example, you've got something that's chaos, and to improve it, you could make it complex. Yes. And then to improve that, you could make it complicated. Yeah. See, I can see chaos to complex where you've really moved some of the randomness, I suppose.
Ian:
Yeah. So what I'm trying to get my head around is when I've got a problem, how do I know that is the thing I need to do to solve it. I'm gonna say it again. What what without the city? Sound like what what I'm trying to get my head around is when I'm in a particular situation Yeah.
Ian:
How do I identify? Oh, actually, can Evan would help me here.
Ash:
Yeah. So so if something appears complex, so it's hard to determine, like, the right answer, like, upfront for, like, what to do. So you need to use, like, emergent practices.
Ian:
Mhmm.
Ash:
So it says in so so basically, that's what it go it kinda goes on to the next stage of the framework. We're saying, well, what should I do? So each domain within the framework suggests a different type of response. So if it's simple, it's like sense, categorize, and then respond. So it's like, I guess, sense is like, find out what's going on, put it in a particular category because it's simpler.
Ash:
Mhmm. It's a checklist or whatever it is, and then you can start to use it. Whereas if it's it's in the complex domain, so the method is probe, sense, and respond. So you wouldn't necessarily, like, act if you like. You'd probably just go and find out a bit more about what's going on, send in a probe, send in, you know, to the kid's party, you might go and, I don't know, ask a couple of questions or go and Sit
Ian:
down in the middle of it.
Ash:
Sit down in the middle and and try and find out what's going on and try and detect what's going on. And then you can start to respond and get involved with the system. But in the chaotic domain, it says the action is to act, sense, and respond because it's chaotic. You you can't if you send it a probe, you won't get any, like, decent information from it. Mhmm.
Ash:
So you need to go in and try and sort of change and and act with within that domain.
Ian:
So you you classify the situation that you're trying to deal with into to to discover which of the 4 Yeah. Areas it belongs in?
Ash:
See, this is where I think, like
Ian:
Am might try to make it into a model or
Ash:
something like doing this. But I think that's quite natural, though, because I think that's the way that I when I have used it in the past, I've kind of said, well, what is this? And tried to put it in a box, which is not how you're supposed to use it apparently, but my brain wants to use it that way. You know? And then say, right.
Ash:
Well, okay. So I think this is complex, so I need to probe sense and response. So then I'd if it if it was complex and it was just like I needed to use emergent practices in order to understand what was going on, I'd probably go and, you know, find out some more information about whatever was happening before sensing what was going on and then being able to respond to the situation.
Ian:
So I suppose you always start in the middle. You always start in the confusion.
Ash:
Yeah. I think so.
Ian:
And then effectively, you're trying to get to the point where you know Yeah. It's one of the 4 things it is. Yeah. Then when you've gone from confusion to this is complex, then, you know, you can start your, probing and
Ash:
So, yeah, probe, sense, and respond.
Ian:
And it gives you then a methodology to deal with.
Ash:
Yeah. Yeah. And then you can start making decisions about whatever's going on that you think is in the complex domain because then you might wanna transition that from the complex to the complicated domain.
Ian:
But I every everything I'm googling about this is making me slightly more confused. Yeah. Yeah. I've got this idea of that I found a website, and then he says, at a high level, Knutphen divides problems into ordered and unordered problems. Yeah.
Ian:
And then it's give this website has some questions like, does this problem have a stable solution? Is there someone somewhere who knows for certain what to do? Can I learn how to do this and get repeatable results? And then if you answer yes to one of the questions, then you might be in an ordered Yeah. Line or otherwise an unordered.
Ash:
Yeah. In addition to, like, the nuts and and bolts of of the Kanafin framework, although, you know, it's probably not the greatest way to describe it. Mhmm. But I'm interested in these frameworks, maps, models, whatever we we call them, in terms of, like, how useful they are. Yeah.
Ash:
And are they interesting but a bit impenetrable? Have you used this or something then? So I think I've used it in, like, a limited way. So go to, like, into an organization and how and look at how they do their testing. And then, like, for example, might pick something like, how do they do, like, load testing?
Ash:
And then from the outside, it looks like a chaotic bonfire where, you know, everyone is trying to, everyone's using their own tools and their own, you know, their own different ways of working, which might be fine. But if you're trying to achieve a particular thing, it's kind of as an organization, it's kind of hard if everyone's, like, going running off in different directions. So to me, it's like, that looks quite chaotic. Yeah. So I would then say, right.
Ash:
Okay. So act, sense, and respond. So it might be like, well, okay. So, you know, might go in and say, well, can we build a dashboard which brings all these results together, for example? So that might be the action, then you can use that to sense, and then people might so then then you can respond to the problem.
Ash:
Because it reminds me of Wardley mapping as well. Have you ever heard of Wardley mapping?
Ian:
I have, and I looked into it once, but I must say I never really got my head around it.
Ash:
Yeah. Because that kind of talks in similar say, it's more of a product focused thing, but it looks at the stages of market evolution. So you've got when a particular product is in its genesis and then when it's, only usable when it's customized and then when it becomes a product and then it becomes a commodity. So it's like going through those stages of, you know, of of of being a generic thing that you can just sort of deploy on when you need to. Mhmm.
Ash:
Because, like, if it's a commodity, you just buy it in. But if there's something so it's often used in a way to say, well, as part of our entire tool chain, what are the things that we need to create ourselves and what are the things that we shouldn't create ourselves because, like, they already exist out there is a way that I've often, like, thought of it. So why would you, you know, why would you build yourself a project management tool like Jira when you can just buy it? Then it's just a commodity, which you can just use, and it does everything that you need to do, probably. So don't don't worry about building that yourself.
Ian:
Because building it yourself might be complex, whereas using one that someone else has built is complicated. Yeah.
Ash:
Yeah. Exactly. So Oh. Yeah. So it's it's they become more interesting when you try and apply Yeah.
Ash:
Like, rather than the theory, it's like the the reality of it. It's hot. I think there's probably is something about having these these more these frameworks to me are much more impenetrable when you try and learn the theory of them. But once you hear a few examples, then they get a bit a bit clearer.
Ian:
Yeah.
Ash:
But I've never met a a company yet that will use them to make decisions. So there's something to me about whether or not how easy they are to adopt and to explain to everybody and to then start to use in, you know, in in reality in your business decision making.
Ian:
They don't do what people want. The this doesn't do what people people want things to be simplified. Yeah. And I don't think this simplifies them. It simply gives you a bit of a direction about how to deal with the complexity of them.
Ian:
Yeah. But people like this kind of reductive, you know, all of this is that Yeah. Yeah. Kind of, thing enables us to communicate clearly an understanding of something. Yeah.
Ian:
But most things aren't aren't simple.
Ash:
No. No.
Ian:
So I I think it's probably very powerful, but I can I can see that maybe people maybe people's desire for simplicity would make them not like something that makes them engage with the actual complexity of Yeah? Of stuff.
Ash:
Yeah. I often find the sort of the language within Connefin as well is very academic. Like, the the site that you found with the simplified sort of questions is easier to pass than when you when I go on to the Cinefin site. I'm like, wow. This is this is quite quite wordy.
Ash:
It's quite academic. I need the dictionary next to me in order to to sort of step my way through it.
Ian:
Perhaps an AI might be a I I I wonder if you could, put the documentation into an AI Mhmm. And and have it act as a kind of conefing coach. Yeah. So it sort of help me identify what sort of situation I'm in using this framework and ask me as many questions, you know, that kind of that kind of prompt. I wonder if that would be a way of of approaching it that might might be quite valuable.
Ash:
Yeah. Because every description of Kanafin, Wardley Mapping is really long. Yeah. And, like, like, the intro video for for is 10 minute for the intro video. Yeah.
Ash:
So in terms of, like, my ability to to concentrate, I could manage 10 minutes, but it's very dense work Yeah. For for 10 minutes as well. So I don't know. I think in this in this thing, I've I've struggled to explain it simply. Because it isn't.
Ash:
No. I don't think it is. Maybe that's okay. You know? But it's just it's just not all that simple.
Ian:
Yeah. It'd be nice to come up with a potted. Yeah. But I I actually in some ways, I kind of like that because I find it quite frustrating sometimes when people really want to
Ash:
Yeah. They want like a
Ian:
They want it to be oversimplified. Yeah. Because, obviously, you lose a lot of detail when you oversimplify.
Ash:
And maybe that would be the a problem to do that for for something like they can have in frameworks. If you oversimplify it, then you might end up with people saying, well, it's in that quadrant of non quadrants, and I'll do the act, sense, respond thing. And I'll just do it in a rote manner, you know, because I just want it to be nice and easy and stuff I can repeat. Yeah. But the idea is that you, you know,
Ian:
it's This isn't for those situations?
Ash:
Yeah. It's for the things that are genuinely, like, require a bit more subtlety, and sense making is the is the phrase that's used of what's going on. So maybe my my my my desire for a more simple introduction is part of the the the not the problem, but, you know, the challenge with trying to use model, frameworks like this. I still I still want to say model.
Ian:
Well, I think our very clear advice to listeners is if it looks very complicated, then you might like to investigate this.
Ash:
Yeah. Yeah. I think I think probably with things like can have in worldly mapping, you can probably, like, leave yourself in a slightly confused state and, like, sit with it for a while about what it's all about and do a bit more research rather than looking to be reductive about it straight away. Mhmm. Seems like a sensible way to approach something like that.
Ash:
Because once you start to see it from different angles, let's say you've got the site that you found with the questions that might really appeal to you and make it a lot, a lot clearer. But it's designed for a world that isn't always obvious what to do and what state things are in. So it's designed to help you to do that. But that no. That's necessarily a difficult thing to do, isn't it?
Ash:
Yeah. So maybe it it is gonna be hard to pass at first, which might not appeal to all of us, initially, at least.
Ian:
So in your notes here
Ash:
Mhmm.
Ian:
It says, Gwen says that you're a lot like Dave Snowden, delivering judgment from a Welsh castle. I
Ash:
I I don't know if he's in a castle, but he does these, like, sort of fireside chats
Ian:
Alright.
Ash:
Where, he pontificates the state of the world.
Ian:
See that word comes from, pontiff. Yeah. So he's like the pope of
Ash:
Fucking effing pope. Yes. So and Gwen seems to think that I would enjoy that. Just come up with a framework and then sit and pontificate it and broadcast it out to the world.
Ian:
Well, you know, you're halfway there at least for testability, aren't
Ash:
you? Yeah. That's true. That's true.
Ian:
Maybe there are the the four states of testability that are definitely not a quadrant.
Ash:
No. I like a quadrant.
Ian:
The thing about quadrants is though that they they generally specify 2 variables, and then you're looking at what happens with the different combinations of the 2 variables. Yeah. Both low, both high. Yeah. Etcetera.
Ian:
And I guess that's the sense in which is not a quadrant.
Ash:
Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely.
Ian:
It's the the variables are altogether more complicated than that
Ash:
Yeah. Than that. Because a a lot of people in the in the testing world got very interested in in Carnethon when it first emerged and went on various Carnethon retreats.
Ian:
Retreats? Mhmm. Yeah. In Welsh castles.
Ash:
In Welsh castles to pontificate over the state of the world and how to make sense of it. I don't quite hear it quite as much in in the testing scene anymore, but it has I think they've done various of white papers, and they've got involved with various, like, European Union initiatives for, you know, helping leaders. So that I think it has kind of expanded outwards a bit.
Ian:
Well, that's good. Mhmm. Mhmm. I mean, I think it's genuinely valuable. It's just that sort of gap of how you explain it to people Yeah.
Ian:
And how people how you have to get help people get over their desire for simplicity.
Ash:
Yeah. Yeah. Definitely. Because it's hard to do that, isn't it? Because everybody kind of wants
Ian:
All you have to do is you just have to Just
Ash:
just have to use the word just all the time. Yes. I'm just going to explain this to you.
Ian:
That would just do it.
Ash:
So I think that was my thing.
Ian:
That was a a great thing. I and I feel as though, there's more investigation to do about that. But Yeah. For a topic like that, there always there will always be more. Yeah.
Ian:
But it's interesting, and I I do find it fascinating, this thing of people's fascination with simplicity. Mhmm. And some you know, how if you could just find that snappy 12 words that explain the thing.
Ash:
Yeah. Yeah. Because there's a good in I think you added some notes from from chat GPT about connectivity. So it talks about dynamic movement. So situations can move from one domain to another over time or as they are managed.
Ash:
So your your interventions might move them between domains.
Ian:
And you might want that.
Ash:
Yeah. Yeah. Or you might it might be unintended. Yeah. You might tip something from clear into complicated chaos.
Ash:
Yeah. Mistakes. Yeah. Yeah. Exactly.
Ash:
So and then it can often is particularly useful for understanding how dynamics change as patterns evolved or under the impact of external forces. So I guess that's probably, like, an interesting one as well because broadly mapping goes into that too. So that that talks about, like, your subjects to the forces of the world. So a few years ago, no business was talking about generative AI. Yes.
Ash:
Pretty much. And now every business is like, how do we get this into our product? Yes. What for right or wrong, but but, essentially, any plans that were made
Ian:
Take our money. Take
Ash:
our money. Yeah. Yeah. Any plans that were made, suddenly generative AI has changed a lot of business's plans, hasn't it?
Ian:
It has.
Ash:
And thrown it into a, probably, into a more chaotic domain.
Ian:
Chaotic domain, Yeah. Well, we better act.
Ash:
Yeah. Exactly. So that's probably what's happening, isn't it?
Ian:
And then sense and respond.
Ash:
Yeah. But maybe just act. Let's just do the act.
Ian:
Yes. This is something. We need to do something. This is something, so let's do it.
Ash:
So yeah. But I guess it's like but I think that's where you can understand can have it becomes more useful. You pick something like that and then say, well, where is it on on the model, and and what does it mean for us? And I guess that's probably a good way to, start to understand, like, the old place in the world and the things that are impacting on you.
Ian:
Blimey. Very existential.
Ash:
Tis, isn't it? Too existential? No.
Ian:
No. No? This is what a lot of things. It's never too existential.
Ash:
Oh, no. That's true.
Ian:
Although we may survey the wreckage of our conversation and say, what a lot of things? Because that does have a lot of things. Yeah. And more things that we didn't talk about and more things.
Ash:
All things have more things underneath them.
Ian:
Was it Spike Milligan? Big fleas have little fleas on their backs to bite them, and little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
Ash:
There you go. You
Ian:
see? Blimey. It's funny the things your brain fishes out from the deep. There was a second verse about and greater fleas have bigger ones and
Ash:
Alright. Okay.
Ian:
Goes in the other direction as well. I can't remember it. Well Maybe next time. Yeah. Wow.
Ash:
Wow. Like, substantial things.
Ian:
So you're always testing me about this, Ash. Mhmm. I'm gonna get it in first. What is our email address if people want to get in touch with us?
Ash:
So it's technology EOS at what a lot of things dot com. That's true. You got it right. Mhmm.
Ian:
First time.
Ash:
First time.
Ian:
So get in touch with us.
Ash:
Mhmm. Please do.
Ian:
Tell us what you think of our oversimplification of Cynefin or maybe our special sound effects Yeah. When we say Cynefin So when I turn it off the the reverb of it cuts off. Sounds a bit weird. But if I leave it on you hear faint echoing laughter filtered through it. Okay.
Ian:
Well, thank you for listening to What A Lot Of Things, and we'll be back at some point. Not to be determined.
Ash:
Because who wants deadlines? The damned. That's who want them. We need you to press the button and say, "the damned".
