Choosing good practice with the Stacey Matrix
Ralph Stacey researched complex adaptive systems and their application to organisations. His research led him to categorise systems along two dimensions:
Certainty
Work which is close to certainty is similar to work we have done before. We understand it and can use past experience to predict what will occur.
If work is far from certainty, it is new and innovative. Cause and effect relationships will be unclear and past experience will be less useful. We will need to incorporate learning in order to proceed.
Agreement
Work which is close to agreement has aligned and shared opinions on how to proceed. There is consensus on the objectives and the direction to take.
If work is far from agreement, goals will be unclear.
The Stacey Matrix
We can represent these systems or environments as a matrix. I have used the “Simple, Complicated, Complex, Chaotic” naming which I use elsewhere in the Plays, which is not Stacey’s own naming.
The Stacey Matrix emphasises the continuous nature of the variation. Each environment will sit somewhere on the matrix, some more complex than others. The tools and approaches we use are situational dependent on the work being done.
Stacey identified five key types of systems.
Close to agreement, close to certainty (Simple)
In this zone, we have significant amounts of data and experience from the past. Risk is relatively low and we expect past events to be reproduceable.
This is the key domain of project management as developed from the 1950s. The key approach here is to use past data to build a plan of the expected work. Initial planning of the work can be reliable and work is controlled and monitored against the initial plans based on variance from the plan.
Far from agreement, close to certainty (Complicated)
In this environment, there is still significant past data and experience. The team are confident of how the work can be delivered. However there is less clarity about value. Multiple options are available and there is less agreement about the objectives to choose.
The key skills here are around negotiation and how decisions are taken. Managing change, possibly frequent change, becomes important.
Close to agreement, far from certainty (Complicated)
Here there is clarity about the objectives and what value is desired. However, possibly because the environment is new, there is uncertainty over cause and effect. The means to achieve the objectives is unclear.
In this zone a clear vision and sense of purpose is important. It may not be possible to plan a path to the goal, but accommodating learning into the processes becomes important.
The zone of complexity (Complex)
The area that Stacey identified as the “zone of complexity” is when lower levels of agreement and certainty occur. He recognised that traditional project management approaches based on initial planning do not work well in this area.
The need to manage both change and learning means that constant adaption is important, along with the freedom to innovate and recognise that new approaches are needed. This is the key area where Agile development is targeted.
Far from agreement, far from certainty (Chaotic)
Stacey identified a fifth area where the approaches of the zone of complexity break down. If agreement and certainty are both very low, new techniques need to be used. Referring to this as “the edge of Chaos”, Stacey suggests it should be generally avoided. However, techniques which have been developed for new organisations, such as Lean Startup, suggest that small increments, trialling, failing fast and pivoting are key techniques here.
Stacey concludes that traditional management approaches focus excessively or exclusively on the “high certainty, high agreement” environment.
This includes both traditional line management (“Scientific Management”) and project management. As we move towards more complex environments we need to develop new and different ways to plan and organise work.
… that human action is nonlinear, that time and place matter a great deal, and that since this precludes simple evidence bases we do need to rethink the nature of organizations and the roles of managers and leaders in them.
“Complexity and Organizational Reality” – Ralph D. Stacey
Good practices
The Stacey Matrix gives you as a leader a useful mental model to assess different types of environment and work and to ensure that the right approaches are used.
As agreement reduces, we need to build approaches (and Plays) to manage change. This includes the ability to make decisions effectively, lowest viable level decision making and self-managing teams.
As certainty reduces we need to build approaches (and Plays) to manage learning. This includes iteration, Sprint Planning and Sprint Review from the product side. From the team side we need effective learning from retrospectives and we need to build a culture of psychological safety to exploit the learning.
Leave a Reply