Talk:Constraint mapping

The text refers to a short article I wrote prior to the TOC/Cynefin Exploratory in 2019 and does mention the difference in definition of "constraint" in Cynefin and Theory of Constraints. But it's just a statement that they don't necessarily mean the same thing and doesn't explain them at all. The thinking was expanded quite a bit at the Exploratory and a later TOC conference presentation. It would likely be too much for this specific entry, but it seems like a link to an updated view of the two would help to head off any potential confusion. This would be quite short, maybe 3 or 4 paragraps at most. (Short version: Generally what TOC calls a constraint are What Cynefin calls Governing Constraints and, perhaps ironically, what TOC calls solutions (or "injections") are nearly all Enabling Constraints. The difference reinforces the point that not all constraints are bad.) --StevenHolt (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

It may be beneficial to split this page into two - (a) a more general framework article on Constraints including typology, background and role in complex change; and (b) a linked Constraint mapping page that is method-specific? However, this may be better done once the page is more stable, so we can ensure coherence in one place.

I think we already have this with the Constraints page as a compliment to this one - move to close? --Gregb^talk 10:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Question

Is it correct to say that container-connection-exert+force is equivalent to the CDE model of Glenda Eoyang, where connection would be an Exchange and force would be the result of differences? If so, this method would be useful as a starting point for the creation of a method of mapping those constraints here. --Simplexity 12:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

God no ,or only by distorting it to fit.-----Snowded ^TALK 14:16, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Alright, noted. Are you able to provide more details about the "Exert-a-force" type of constraint on the Constraint concept page? --Simplexity 08:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Simplexity do you think we can close this based on the current Constraints page? --Gregb^talk 10:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I am afraid not because there is a type of constraints called “Exert a force” that is not explained in the current Constraints page assuming this constraint mapping page remains the method specific page, am I right? --Simplexity (talk) 11:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Other resources

Added a link to Alicia Juarrero's speech (2015) on Vimeo. Should this replace the preceding list item, which points to a broken link?--LucaOrlassino (talk) 11:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Luca should this be on the Constraints page - --Gregb^talk 10:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Constraint mapping method

To declutter this page, have moved the content which led to Dave's comments below under 'We need to talk' to:

https://cynefin.io/wiki/User:IainPhillips/naturalising_sense-making_approach

For brevities sake the reasons I was, and am, thinking of the steps which are now at the above location is:

1. Asking outright for constraints using a typology and a set of symbols, personally I'd struggle without considering a context in which there are constraints.
2. To get details of important constraints, identify the key contexts or situations - the turning points - I thought Future backwards to do this.
3. Once we have contexts, use these to identify what aspects are complex and the decisions made - I thought 3 or 4 points for this.
4. As part of points 2 and 3, or separately (I have no strong views), use the identified contexts (point 2) and knowledge of what is complex, and decisions made (point 3) - together with the typology and symbols - to map the constraints.

My other points were then really about Vector theory of change I think and taking the output of above and:

1. Mapping a landscape
2. Designing and iterating a portfolio of interventions - Safe to fail portfolio and Ritual Dissent.

We need to talk

Would someone set up a call - it is going to be easier to talk this through. Some key points

Snowded - Have posted a message in Slack to Manuela Schwenninger ---- Iain_P (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

1. Constraint mapping is a typology which cannot depart too far from the Field Guide and needs a set of symbols as well as a process in the form of a structured method.
2. Those three can be components in an assembly that might include things like future backwards - the sequence above is one possible one but it is too biased towards facilitation to be generic.
3. this article may be better as an assembly with other supporting articles

Have removed the confusing text above and instead summarised my thinking of why I am thinking of the steps.---- Iain_P (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Have read the Field guide and other than above doesn't use stories first, I can't see another departure. ---- Iain_P (talk) 21:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

As I say a call will be easier - who is the cat herder in this group? -----Snowded ^TALK 08:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

This new page may help -----Snowded ^TALK 10:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Call would be good, as I'm confused how to move forward now. I've drafted most of the 'why' of the method and was about to write up the 'how' i.e. Structured method. I can't sort the symbols so was doing what was able to. ---- Iain_P (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we are close but better to sort our structure now :-) -----Snowded ^TALK 08:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

other links

Found this but not sure of the history - https://brokenbaysoftware.co/2021/09/01/Enabling-Constraints/ - --Gregb^talk 14:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)