This is a model I’ve been thinking about for a while. Not a framework. A tool for teams to think with.
There’s an “action” game in the old Tabaluga TV show — a set of children has to cross a frozen lake by jumping from ice floe to ice floe. The floes are connected. Some are stable, some are shaky, some you have to skip entirely to find a better path. The structure of the lake is always there. But the path across it is yours to discover.
I keep coming back to this image when I think about how teams actually work in complex domains.
The problem with process diagrams
Most process visualizations are flowcharts. Linear. Sequential. Node A leads to Node B leads to Node C. They look clean in a slide deck. They describe how work should go.
They rarely describe how it actually goes.
In complex domains (software product development being a textbook example) work is not a conveyor belt. It’s navigation. Teams move through uncertainty, loop back, skip steps, combine things in ways the process diagram never anticipated. The interesting question isn’t “did you follow the process?” It’s “did you make good decisions about which practices to apply and in what combination?”
A flowchart can’t answer that. A hexagon map can.
Hexis and Hexagons
I discovered the use of hexis in Cynefin — Dave Snowden’s framework for understanding complexity. It describes a part of a process, a practiced capacity. Not a rule you follow blindly, but a capability or an offering you can choose.
I liked the double meaning: hexagonal tiles as a shape, hexis as a concept. So: hexagons.
Each hexagon represents a single practice. Inspired by The Art of Agile Development — practices like user story mapping, pairing, retrospectives, definition of done, scenario writing, stakeholder review — each one a discrete, learnable, applyable unit of work.
The hexagons connect to each other. The connections aren’t arbitrary — they represent real relationships between practices. Some practices enable others. Some run in parallel. Some build on what another produces. The structure is intentional.
Work modes as patterns
Here’s the core idea: a work mode is not a process. It’s a pattern of hexagons.
Discovery looks different from Delivery. Not because they follow different flowcharts, but because they activate different practices in different configurations. Discovery might center around Hills, Personas, Idea Pitches, lightweight prototyping. Delivery around Epics, Scenarios, Software Teaming, Definition of Done, Sprint Review.
But the real power of the model isn’t in the named modes. It’s in what teams can do with it:
They can skip ice floes. If a practice doesn’t apply right now — skip it. The structure is still intact. The other floes are still connected. Nothing breaks.
They can swap ice floes. A team working in a context where formal user research isn’t possible might replace a Persona workshop with a quick stakeholder interview. Same position in the pattern, different practice. The shape holds.
They can see where they are. This is underrated. A hexagon map gives teams a shared visual language for “what are we doing right now and what comes next.” Not a prescription — a compass.
What this is not
It’s not a new methodology. It’s not a certification track. It’s not a replacement for judgment.
It’s a visualization tool for complex work. One that holds structure and flexibility at the same time. The structure gives teams orientation. The connections between hexagons make the reasoning visible: “if we skip this one, what does that mean for the ones it connects to?”
That’s a conversation worth having. Most process diagrams don’t even make it possible.
Where I’m taking this
Discovery and Delivery are the two processes I’ve mapped so far. But the model scales. A stabilization phase has a different pattern. So does a team going through onboarding, or one dealing with significant technical debt. The hexagons stay the same — the pattern shifts.
The Tabaluga tv show never gave you a fixed path. It gave you a lake, a set of floes, and a problem to solve. The skill was in reading the ice.
That’s what I want for teams.