>
Large organisations are complex living systems, maybe born with a clear purpose but then evolved in response to sparse stimuli. Year over year, departments and teams make small decisions, optimising for their local perspective of the system, which progressively becomes more opaque.
In critical moments, a model of the system's behavior would be incredibly useful, but nobody knows the full story. Top management may be too distant from operations and stuck with outdated information, while ground operations have higher-quality local information but little knowledge of what is happening elsewhere.
Exploring large-scale business lines or complex business processes relying on the "official narrative" can neutralize the workshop's potential. Participants just "fill the gaps," discarding the stories that don't fit the official narrative.
A wide, not-so-well-defined definition of scope is a great tool to have different perspectives emerge (see also Unlimited Scope ). You may want to enable massive parallel contribution with one person one marker .
The different perspectives will not match, nor will the level of detail, or the granularity of events.
That is perfectly fine .
This lack of structure is a tool to make inconsistencies visible and to discover that the official narrative is no longer aligned with the system's behaviour in the real world.
Chaotic exploration opens the doors to freestyle contribution . But it may trigger some resistance when kicking it off. The larger the scope, the more time it will take to sort it out. Chaotic exploration is not mandatory; it just works better when you have to challenge the official narrative.