Traditional or Agile Management?

Why does the type of problem matter?

Did you know that over 70% of projects following a traditional approach fail in environments with high uncertainty or constant change?
Studies like the Chaos Report have shown that failure often lies not in execution… but in choosing the wrong approach.

What if the real issue isn’t the method you choose, but not understanding the kind of problem you’re facing?

Before deciding whether a traditional or agile approach is best, it’s essential to understand the nature of the problem.
To do this, we rely on two complementary frameworks:

The Stacey Matrix
The Cynefin Framework

The Stacey Matrix is an analytical tool developed in the 1990s by Professor Ralph D. Stacey, a specialist in organizational management and complexity theory.
It emerged in response to a common problem in business environments: the tendency to always apply the same management approach without considering the nature of the issue.

This matrix has become especially relevant in contexts where innovation, digital transformation, or product development require adaptive responses rather than strictly procedural ones.

The Cynefin Framework was created in 1999 by Dave Snowden, a Welsh researcher in complexity theory and knowledge management.

This framework is a decision-making tool based on the nature of the context or problem. It is widely used in business management, strategy, leadership, and the resolution of complex problems.

Both frameworks help diagnose what you’re dealing with by evaluating two key dimensions:

1. Certainty – How clear is the problem and its solution?

2.Agreement – How much consensus exists among those involved?

Stacey Matrix

This matrix crosses certainty and agreement to classify the type of problem and suggest the most suitable approach:

High Agreement

Low Agreement

High Certainty

Simple Problem: known solutions, repeatable processes.
Traditional approach

Complicated Problem: requires expert analysis.
Detailed Planning

Low Certainty

Complex Problem: many variables, unclear relationships.
Needs short cycles, trial and error.

Chaotic Problem: no time for analysis.
Act, contain, then reflect.

The Cynefin Framework

It reinforces the idea that not all problems should be approached the same way:

1. Simple (Clear)

Approach: Standard procedures, best practices.

2. Complicated

Approach: Expert analysis, robust planning.

3. Complex

Approach: Experimentation, short cycles, continuous learning.

4. Chaotic

Approach: Immediate action, containment, stabilization.

Conclusion

It’s not about being a fan of agile or traditional methods.
It’s about understanding the problem before applying the solution.

When the environment is stable and predictable, a traditional approach may work.
But in uncertain, changing environments with multiple actors and viewpoints, you need flexibility, adaptation, and short cycles.

The approach shouldn’t be a dogma.
It must be a conscious response to the context you’re facing.