In 2014 or so, I took a UX class that changed my life.

Not because I retained all that much about UX design, but because the instructor showed us a user-experience model that had everything I was looking for in a naming-decision model at the time.

Originally developed as a framework for sense-making in complex systems, the Cynefin model (it’s Welsh and it’s pronounced like kuh-NEV-in; I love Welsh) helps categorize problems into one of four quadrants: 

• Simple

• Complicated

• Complex

• Chaotic

(Well, technically five, as “Confusion” is a domain too, but that’s not a place you’ll want to hang out. More on that later…)

What I like about this model is that, once they understand the criteria, most people can see themselves in one of the four quadrants, even if their expectations for the kind of name they really wanted don’t line up.

This is how I’ve adapted the criteria from the Cynefin model into a naming-context tool over the years

With my clients, we customize it further, but it’s a common starting point from which to workshop a decision tool as a group.

Think about something you’ve had to name recently, or something you’re naming now: Which quadrant might it best fit into? Would this framework create better context around the best-possible name?

Understanding if you’re in the Simple quadrant

Here, the solution is clear and straightforward.

For naming, this means identifying existing industry-standard terms or descriptions: If there’s already a common term for a product or service or concept, it’s generally a good idea to use it.

Deviating from this standard only adds unnecessary complexity. If the thing you’re naming is a feature that allows subscribers to unsubscribe, what do you gain by calling it anything other than “Unsubscribe”?

How to decide:

• Is the thing being named any different (be honest!) from comparable offerings?

• Is there already an industry-standard way to refer to it?

• Is there budget (and is it worth the budget?) to make up for the gap in understanding that would come from calling it something other than the industry-standard/commonly expected term?

What to do:

• Audit industry-standard language practices and pick the language that best aligns with the thing you’re naming.
  Example: Naming a standardized internal tool (e.g., OKR dashboard)

• NOTE: Know that your clients or internal stakeholders might feel like they’re not getting a name, and that can feel like a big disappointment. Be ready to discuss the upside of prioritizing clarity over differentiation (better user experience, more budget to devote to marketing the benefits over explaining an unnecessarily complex name, etc.).

Understanding if you’re in the Complicated quadrant

Here, there’s a right (or a right-ish) answer, but it requires expertise to find it.

A product team might choose from several terms that are familiar to their audience but not yet widely adopted. Here, you might find it takes time to strike the right balance between familiarity and differentiation.

How to decide: 

• Do similar offers exist, even if they aren’t exactly the same?

• Are there patterns in how these things are named, or language used to describe them?

• Is there budget (and is it worth budget) to make up for the gap in understanding that would come from calling it something far outside of what these emerging patterns look like?

What to do:

• Do some research!

  • Often a namer, brand strategist, lawyer, or linguist (or a supergroup of all four) can analyze the situation and help you to better understand the language and naming approaches that will best align with audience expectations.
    Example: Playing catch-up with a new-to-your-ecosystem technology that competitors already offer. Is there some consensus around what *most* are calling it? Or a couple of options to choose from?

    • Maybe you’re deciding between calling a timeline workflow tool something a Visual Workflow or a Workflow Visualizer. You might make a case for something like Temporal View, which carries a lot of the same communication, but you might steer clear of something as evocative as Lucent, because you lose your grounding in how your audience would refer to the tool.

    • It can also be a chance to descriptively establish a new category, like Docusign’s introduction of Intelligent Agreement Management: familiar terms, brought together in a clear, compelling way.

Understanding if you’re in the Complex quadrant

There is no single “right” answer—only solutions that reveal themselves through iteration. This is where new names are born for offerings that are differentiated or groundbreaking, and tends to yield more distinctive brand names that you’ll want to trademark.

How to decide:

• Is there not an industry-standard or industry-leading way of referring to the thing you’re naming?

• Are there certain styles of naming that are in play for comparable offers? What are those names communicating, in what way?

  • There might not be any grounding vocabulary, but certain themes, ideas, and naming constructs may be evident: Which do you want to mirror? Which do you want to diverge from?

What to do:

• Use testing, prototyping, and cross-functional input to explore how different names might work: Could an existing brand name do the job? Or would a new name work harder for the brand, signaling a new experience, price point, channel, or use case more successfully than marketing and messaging?
  Example: Naming a product or service in a nascent category or one which represents a significant departure from established norms and expectations

  • This is often a permission slip to create a name that feels “name-y,” while still communicating something unique about the offer. A name like Waymo carries associations with movement and makes sense as an autonomous taxi service, but requires additional context to build real meaning in the minds of its audience. Tesla comes at it from a different angle with the name Robotaxi, which we might place somewhere between the Complicated and Complex quadrants.

Understanding if you’re in the Chaotic quadrant

It’s a little rare in naming, but every now and then, you’re tackling something entirely unprecedented.

In these situations, there are no existing frameworks or naming conventions to rely on. I remember reading a paper on the use of the Cynefin model in foreign-policy decision-making that said something like, when you’re in the Chaotic quadrant, “nothing you’ve learned in your life can prepare you for the decision you have to make”. No pressure!

How to decide:

• You find yourself without existing reference points: It’s clear you have to rely on metaphoric or abstract thinking, gut instinct, and a small, decisive team to make the call.

What to do:

• Naming in this space requires big, bold, unexpected thinking and a willingness to take risks. Teams must also consider the additional effort needed for education and marketing to ensure the name gains traction.
  Example: Naming a new category-defining product or service where customer perception is still evolving, and customer relevance/demand still might need to be shaped.

  • Many AI offerings fit into this realm: Names like NVIDIA’s Omniverse created language for a new kind of worldbuilding ; Google Gemini’s image AI model Nano Banana is such an abstract, out-there name that it sets the expectations for image-making far outside what you’d expect from something named AI Art Image Generator.

  • From a little further back, Uber launched with the promise of being everyone’s private driver, but the name itself signaled its ambitions to be an overarching tech layer on existing transportation infrastructure.

Understanding what do if you’re stuck in the Confused state

Do you often find yourself in the midst of a naming project where executive leadership thinks it deserves a big, beautiful brand name, legal wishes it would just get a descriptive label, and marketing would prefer something that doesn’t require 90% of this year’s marketing budget to explain?

It’s normal, and you’re not alone.

How to decide? Step back and reframe the problem. Identify which Cynefin category it actually belongs to and realign the process. Use your value proposition, audience needs, competitive intelligence, and product roadmaps to help you find your place, and then take that information back to your stakeholders before developing your actual name-development requirements.

Why this model?

The Cynefin model doesn’t give you an instant answer, nor does it tell you exactly how to name something—you’ll still need to do some work there.

But if you’re managing an overwhelming amount of naming requests without a strategic filter, it’s a model that can help you set up an instant triage system, and understand the paths to success for each type of name. The whole process feels easier when there’s a shared sense of the choice you’re actually making.

Want a customized filter for naming decisions, or to talk about other naming operations tools?

Hit my hotline (by that I mean reply to this email) and we’ll set up some time to talk about ways to tackle your most pressing naming challenges.

– Caitlin Barrett


Founder and naming expert, Wild Geese Studio 


Your strategic naming partner for development, operations, and evaluation.

P.S. If you manage naming in a large organization (over $10bn in annual revenue), I’d love to include you in our next round of research for our naming operations benchmark study. Reply to this email, and I’ll send you the details.