The basis of the matrix are two dimensions: agreement and security. The Stacey matrix has much in common with other complexity-based models. For example, a project in Zone 1 is probably the same as a Type A project in the WHOW model. Similarly, zone 2 projects in this model are similar to type B, etc. Projects may have a high degree of agreement on the desired objectives, but little certainty about the causal links that lead to the desired objectives. Relationships between outputs, outcomes and benefits can often fall into this category when assumptions are made about how outputs lead to benefits. Where there is little agreement and little certainty, anarchy can reign. Individuals and organizations sometimes resort to avoidance, but such situations cannot always be avoided. Strategies are needed to deal with these situations if they arise.

This article by Brenda Zimmerman describes the use of Ralph Stacey`s certainty and agreement matrix. The tool is a method for selecting appropriate management measures in a complex adaptive system, depending on the degree of safety and the degree of agreement on the issue in question. In this area of the matrix, data from the past can be collected that can be used to predict the future. Construction and engineering projects typically have a wealth of technical data that allows them to be specified and planned well in advance of the start of delivery work. The work is controlled by monitoring on the basis of detailed plans. The agreement-certainty matrix of the liberating structure exists to help groups sort out the challenges they face based on their complexity.â Projects are almost certain when cause-and-effect relationships are well known and similar projects have been carried out in the past. It is then usually possible to extrapolate from previous experiences to predict the outcome of a new project. Techniques such as parametric and analog estimates depend on this information. Projects that are far from safe must provide something new and innovative (or at least new for the host organization managing the project). Often, cause-and-effect relationships are unclear. Past experiences are not very useful for planning. Some projects are very confident about the possible goals and how they can be achieved, but there is less agreement on which goals have the greatest value.

This can be exemplified by a project manager who struggles to develop a business case that is acceptable to multiple stakeholders who have different views on value. The certainty matrix of the liberating structure agreement exists to help groups sort out the challenges they face based on their complexity. This allows them to question whether or not their approaches are appropriate to the type of challenges they face. This area covers an area where the combination of low-level or low-security agreements makes the project a complex management problem. This is the area that often triggers poor decision-making practices when what they really need is a high level of creativity, innovation and release from previous constraints to create new solutions. Members of a group, team or organization have different views on the goals of the project and how to achieve them. The governance, management style and management approach of the project depend on the degree of agreement. Source: Adapted by professors Brenda Zimmerman and Ralph Stacey Interested in learning many different liberating structures in an intensive 2-day workshop? Check out our program for the next immersion workshops. If you want to sign up, book early – they are exceptionally popular. And join the Dutch user group to learn more about Liberating Structures. Sort challenges into simple, complicated, complex and chaotic areas (45 min.) In this article, we have covered the liberating structure “Agreement-Certainty Matrix”.

It exists to help groups determine which approaches are most effective for the type of challenges they face, or at least to create transparency about gaps. It is a wonderfully powerful structure, although underutilized. Try! And let us know what happened. If I had an hour to solve a problem and my life depended on the solution, I would spend the first 55 minutes asking the right question. Albert Einstein “It`s not that difficult, is it?” I can`t imagine how many times I`ve said exactly these words before starting an initiative. Whether in my work as a software developer, as a Scrum Master or simply as Christiaan. This deep optimism about the simplicity of things is not unique to me. This is a good example of a common cognitive bias called “illusory superiority” (which we covered in a recent article), where we significantly overestimate our own abilities while underestimating the complexity of something. This is problematic because it often leads groups to take a plan-based approach to a challenge where neither work nor effort can be predicted in advance. On the other hand, some organizations are so used to creating plans that even simple activities like creating an Instagram account require a detailed “marketing plan” that effectively stifles attempts at innovation.

Below: The post-its illustrate the placements of the matrix of agreement and certainty for all – each post-it represents an activity or program in the organization In this area, skills such as negotiation, finding a compromise and building coalitions are important. Decision-making becomes political rather than technical. In this article, we cover a liberating structure designed to help groups cope with the complexity of their work and take the right approach. This structure was inspired by the work of Ralph Stacey and Brenda Zimmerman, with whom the creators of Liberating Structures – Henri Lipmanowicz and Keith McCandless – collaborated during their work for the Plexus Institute. We have written this article in depth about their work and the work of Dave Snowden associated with it. In cases like this, a strong sense of shared vision among stakeholders and a flexible and realistic approach to planning are needed. The project manager and sponsor must obviously evolve towards an agreed future state (blueprint), even if some paths are not completely predetermined. Zimmerman, B., (2001). Ralph Stacey`s Agreement & Certainty Matrix, Schulich School of Business, York University, Toronto, Canada.

Liberating structures are a set of interaction patterns that allow you to liberate and engage everyone in a group, from extroverts to introverts and from leaders to followers. In this series of articles, we show how Liberating Structures can be used with Scrum. What approach do you take to a challenge? Do you try the first solution that comes to mind? Do you make a detailed plan in which you specify who does what and when? Or do you ask someone experienced to come up with a solution for you? What if the challenge belonged not only to you, but to a larger group of people? Adaptability and agility are key competencies here, not only for the project manager, but also for the sponsor, team members and stakeholders. Approaches such as concurrent engineering and systems thinking make sense here. The Stacey1 matrix was developed and published by Ralph Douglas Stacey. It is designed to understand the factors that contribute to complexity and select the best management measures to meet different levels of complexity. It has not been specifically designed for project implementation, but it is just as relevant to this area as it is to any other. Whichever approach you choose, you`d do well to adapt it to the complexity of the challenge. Cleaning your office probably doesn`t require a plan or expert opinion and it`s something you should just do. On the other hand, if the office is large and includes a lot of people, you may want to come up with a basic plan to get everyone on the same page.

If your office is an operating room in a hospital, you probably want to get expert advice on the best way to disinfect surfaces. And if the office is on the International Space Station, you might want to do more trial and error on how to clean up weightlessness. What is made possible? They can help individuals or groups avoid the common mistake of solving a problem with methods that are not adapted to the nature of their challenge. The combination of two questions makes it easy to sort the challenges into four categories: simple, complicated, complex and chaotic. A problem is simple when it can be reliably solved with practices that are easy to duplicate. It`s complicated when experts need to find a sophisticated solution that predictably delivers the desired results. A problem is complex when there are several valid procedures, but the results are not predictable in detail. Chaotic is when the context is too turbulent to find a way forward. A loose analogy can be used to describe these differences: simple is like following a recipe, complicated like sending a rocket to the moon, complex like raising a child, and chaotic like the game “Pin the Tail on the Donkey.” Chapter 5`s Liberating Structures Matching Matrix can be used as a first step to clarify the nature of a challenge and avoid discrepancies between problems and solutions that are often the cause of chronic and recurring problems. .

Have any question, Please enter the form below and click the submit button.

*

*

3 + 3 = ? Please enter the answer to the sum & Click Submit to verify your registration.