Jump to content

Talk:Cynefin framework/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Application changes

Sense-making is not the same thing as the product SenseMaker®, although it is a type of sense-making activity. The success or failure of SenseMaker® does impact on the value of a sense-making framework which has no dependency on that software. In addition the article references says that SenseMaker® did not work on their project but they can see how it could in other contexts. There are many other published cases studies which tell different stories. Until a metastudy is made of those any judgement in wikipedia breaks policy. In addition user Hvgard regards himself as a commercial competitor of SenseMaker® so the attempt to add a misrepresentation of one article is clearly a conflict of interest ----Snowded TALK 19:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

In respect of the latest bit of edit warring from HVGARD, I've checked and none of the existing references in the article link to SenseMaker® so the edit summary is false. Still waiting for a response on the talk page ----Snowded TALK 20:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Its really funny to see the main claimer of the Cynefin model accuse me of a conflict of interest. It is also completely untrue that my company is a commercial competitor of Snowded's Sensemaker software as the tools we use are free and open source.
I simply propose to split this page in a pure page on the Cynefin model and one one the narrative sensemaking approach. It would even be better to put the Sensemaker software on yet another page.
As Snowded seems determined to revert any of my edits, I hope other users will make these changes together.--Hvgard (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The only reference to SenseMaker® on the page is the one you inserted. Before you made that it then it was a pure page on Cynefin. If I have missed something point it out .... ----Snowded TALK 20:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Quotation from report used - inserted here to indicate why the POV tag was inserted, given that HVGARD choose to edit war rather than resolve a dispute on the talk page:
Despite the unsuccessful attempt to apply SenseMaker® as a monitoring method for Triple-S, it is not dismissed as a useful method: it simply did not work within the Triple-S context and for the reasons already mentioned. Other development sector initiatives, including the water and sanitation sub-sector, have used SenseMaker® as a key diagnostic and research method with promising results emerging in relation to decision making.
In addition the article makes no connection between SenseMaker® and Cynefin, in fact there is NO mention of Cynefin so the reference fails to verify the statement. I have tagged for that as well. I'll leave it 24 hours to see if HVGARD can resolve those issues and/or other editors get involved. If not then I will revert to stable state. ----Snowded TALK 07:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you really making the claim that you separate the use of Cynefin as a model and Sensemaker the tool and Narrative??? Sensemaking as a method? We used to have Cynefin, the model, and SenseMAKING, the approach. The two belong together as like left and right. Now we seem to have lost SenseMAKING as the approach is marketed as "doing SenseMAKER projects". Fine with me, though confusing tool and approach might not be the best strategy.

Nevertheless, the reference clearly describes - though not in the exact words - that the sensemaking of stories (experiences) form multiple ontologies around the water system failed in that project despite significant effort from both the team and the vendor. As Cynefin is - as often stated - a model to make sense, the connection made here is obvious and rightful.

That Cynefin is not mentioned in that article is obvious, as that was done in previous publications by the authors. This is an article on the APPLICATION and therefore the ref is used in the section that handles Cynefin/sensemaking applications. I see no reason to remove it from there nor to resolve an issue that ain't there.

Furthermore, the ref 13 in the article on multi-ontology sensemaking explicetely states that it is NOT about Cynefin:

This paper will not cover the sense making framework “The Cynefin Model” that seeks to provide a mechanism for managers to determine the boundaries between ontologies, and the dynamics of cross boundary movement between ontologies. Readers interested in that model should look to two other papers: Kurtz & Snowden 2003 and Snowden 2004 both of which can be obtained from www.cynefin.net.

Pretty sure I can find others that are about sensemaking, not cynefin. Certainly the refs in Dutch. I suggest you remove those. Else I will do in 24 hours.

--Hvgard (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Cynefin is not mentioned in the reference, end of argument. Nothing in the article is about SenseMaker® so your claim that the two should be separated starts from a false premise. Even if the article was relevant it fails by you misuse of the conclusions and by the fact that you are choosing one source from many - that is original research. So you either find a reference that connects the Cynefin framework to that case, and address the factual accuracy of your statement or it goes. ----Snowded TALK 20:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Summary of issues based on Wikipedia practice

Policy on sourcing clearly states that only material which is properly referenced is included and that we use secondary sources, rather than selecting primary sources. Selective use of primary sources is either original research or synthesis. In addition practice on edit warring states clearly that if an edit is reverted it should not be reinstated until a consensus is reached on the talk page. An RFI can be called if needed to gain additional participation or resolve conflict.

In this case it is clear that:

  1. The reference makes no statement about the Cynefin framework, so the statement that anything has been called into question cannot be sustained
  2. The connection between SenseMaker® and Cynefin is not made in the reference, to assume that a comment on the former implies a judgement on the second is thus synthesis
  3. The reference says clearly that SenseMaker® did not work in this case for various reasons, but that it shows considerable potential in other cases, so again the conclusion even if it applied to Cynefin would not apply
  4. The quotation is a primary source and there are many others which say different things. Until a reliable third party source carries out a metastudy we should not draw conclusions on a single primary source

I've gone into some detail here as Hvgard has little experience of editing Wikipedia and a history of reversion of material which is not sourced (including new article creation). So hopefully its clear. Based on the above and WP:BRD until other editors engage and some new consensus is achieved the edit should not be reinstated. To do so would be clear edit warring aside from the wider breech of policy. ----Snowded TALK 08:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure when it started, but I guess it must have been around 2011 that instead of "Narrative Sensemaking" Cognitive Edge started to market SenseMaker projects instead. As Cynefin is a Sensemaking model and has always been intimately connected to Narrative Sensemaking, this has caused confusion as Sensemaker is the name of Cognitive Edge's survey tool.

So my perspective is that Cynefin and Sensemaking are related, but as said elsewhere, its would be better if Narrative Sensemaking had its own page on Wikipedia. Or maybe become a para in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensemaking.

Another thing that is confusing is that the "See also" para of Sensemaking page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensemaking page has links to Trikonic and Cynefin. These two seem out of place there while on the other hand, Triconic might be good to go into the "See also" section of the Cynefin page.Hvgard (talk) 07:36, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Admin oversight requested

Given that I am involved and the nature of recent edits I have asked for admin oversight of the article here ----Snowded TALK 06:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

That is correct. I created the first version of the article in 2006 when Cynefin was still closely connected to the IBM Cynefin Centre. It's funny to see that back then the article included a line on commercial activities "Alltough the Cynefin centres are commercial outfits, most of their works is published using a Creative Commons license." and a bit later that had grown into a full para on intellectual capital and also mentioned the (commercial) activities of the early practitioners.

A bit later Snowded stepped in to edit the page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&type=revision&diff=665720154&oldid=665718224 Hvgard (talk) 07:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference cleanup

Pascal Venier above (in 2008) mentions the reference to the van Biene article. That ref what brought to the attention of Snowded by my because at the time he was in need to references to Cynefin. It is indeed in Dutch and its a report from a Polytechnical school here in Arnhem/Nijmegen. It's not a peer reviewed article.

Same holds for reference 17 (Civiel-militaire samenwerking bij crisisbeheersing, Carré). That is an article in a magazine.

If someone experience thinks these refs should go, please remove them. Hvgard (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Any requests for additional references happy to supply as needed. I'll be putting up an edit request for one of the more recent shortly ----Snowded TALK 08:26, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Request edit on 9 June 2015

Proposal to move the first paragraph on the explanation of Cynefin name to the (Meaning of the word) section. And to Start the article with the 2nd paragraph: (Cynefin is a sensemaking model that provides a typology ......) Hvgard (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

please do not waste the time of volunteers with cosmetic/trivial changes - use edit requests for significant changes. you also have to give reasons. the fact that you have a COI and cannot edit does not make the volunteer community that has no financial interests at stake your servants. Jytdog (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

COI

Article has been edited by person who created the framework per this dif. I would tag it for COI but I cannot do that with the article protected. Left notes in the header. Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

off topic Jytdog (talk) 06:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
And if I ever break the COI rules point it out the diff. COI does not prevent me editing the article, but it does require me to be more than ordinarily careful with sources etc. ----Snowded TALK 20:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
these details are a matter for your Talk page or COIN. I'll open a discussion with you on your Talk page for starters. Jytdog (talk) 02:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

One of the problems here is that actually Cynefin was not created by Snowded alone, but by a group of researchers within IBM from 1999 onwards until (for reasons not entirely clear to me) Cognitive Edge was formed around 2004 / 2005 and the other original contributors became less and less involved. It would be good to get a more balanced view on the emergence of the model and its history. Another step forward would be IMHO to at least mention/reference similar (isomorphic) models CSF and KiF. Cynefin is useful, but IMHO wikipedia gets better when it mentions related models, even when those don't have Wikipedia page (yet). Hvgard (talk) 07:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

That is your opinion and a line you are pressing for reasons of your own without evidence. The first article using the five domain framework 'Complex Acts of Knowing' comes before the engagement of others in IBM Research as established by the citation history. That article by the way has just been listed by peer reviewed research as a 'classic' article. An earlier form exists in a paper at Aston University. In the article with Kurtz aspects of what became her congruence model got added during her period as my research assistant (although she was always more than that, but that is how we kept her in employment) in the Institute of Knowledge Management within IBM, something which is acknowledged, although her tetrahedrons are rarely used these days. If anyone is interested I wrote the full history of the Cynefin model's development acknowledging all influences and contributors with references. As it happens I am working with the creator of the KIF model and we may publish a paper on the links at which point it might become relevant here. If a third party source carries out a review of various models and includes mention of Cynefin then again it might be appropriate. Your opinions are what is called here original research. ----Snowded TALK 08:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Really funny. Maybe you should reread your own chapter in Knowledge Horizons (2000) and have a look at the images. Cynefin is a 2x2 matrix there and evolved into the five domain form later on. So we are talking facts here not opinion. Why do you need to frame other peoples contributions as opinion when they are proven by existing references? When I have time I'll upload the images later today. Maybe you can do that for us?Hvgard (talk) 10:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, please refer to other people work correctly. It's the CONFLUENCE SenseMaking Framework. Like many useful tools they are less and less published in academic papers. The CSF is no exception. http://www.storycoloredglasses.com/p/confluence-sensemaking-framework.html

And finally on KiF. Pass on my greetings to Auke van Breemen. I had the pleasure bringing him and colleagues work to your attention a few years ago. You might remember that. KiF is isomorphous to Cynefin and should be in the see also list. I guess that proposal of that nature from your side might receive favorable votes. Certainly for me.Hvgard (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

If you bother to check I said the first five domain version was in Complex Acts of Knowing. You have been trying to jump from the Knowledge Horizons chapter (a 2 by 2) to the joint paper with Kurtz, ignoring the intermediate sources. That is to try and support your attempt to argue that Cynefin in five domain form arose from the period with Kurtz which is false, per the sources. If you want a history of Cynefin I suggest another editor does it when a reliable third party source writes it up. Auke's experiences of working with you are similar to mine so its natural he and I should talk. Otherwise you need to be aware that self-published sources are not an authority in Wikipedia. ----Snowded TALK 12:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Since you both have conflicts of interest here, both with regard to your separate companies, and with regard to your RW dispute, I ask you both to very strictly limit yourselves to discussing content, not contributor, on article Talk pages, per WP:TPG and WP:NPA. In other words, if you start to type the word "you", stop yourself. If you start to write something that is not in support of a change to or retention of a specific bit of content or a specific source, or about adding new content and sources, in the specific Wikipedia article the talk page is attached to, stop yourself. If you cannot restrain yourselves, the community will need to restrain you. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right, and you can lose that privilege, in whole or in part. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Request edit on 9 June 2015

As Cynefin is a model I propose three changes:

  • Name change of the page to Cynefin Model.
  • Remove ("The Cynefin framework") from the first paragraph. As Cynefin is not a framework, but a model.
  • Replace all occurrences of (framework) with (model) in the rest or the page

Hvgard (talk) 06:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

everything in WP is based on sources. please provide sources showing that it is referred to as a framework, not a model. Jytdog (talk) 06:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The HBR article cited calls it a framework ----Snowded TALK 06:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The very first reference http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=A5C76ABD676F24EA2259EB7951884965?doi=10.1.1.196.3058&rep=rep1&type=pdf states that Cynefin is a sensemaking model. Only later it was marketed as a framework, esp. since Cognitive-Edge emerged. See www.cognitive-edge.com.

A framework is an external structure to support something else. F.e see http://www.thefreedictionary.com/framework. Cynefin doest seem like a framework to me.

Cynefin is a model onto which f.e. sense-making items are placed. As such its use is similar to any other model that is used to place and work with data/information. Commercial marketing efforts should IMHO not distract from classifying Cynefin as a model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hvgard (talk • contribs) 06:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

please stop giving your personal opinions. what matters here are what reliable sources say. that is the only thing that matters. it appears that reliable sources call it a model sometimes and a framework other times. Jytdog (talk) 06:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Request edit on 9 June 2015

The sentence (The term was chosen by the Welsh scholar[1] Dave Snowden) should be changed to (The term was chosen around 2002 by the Dave Snowden, the CEO of Cognitive Edge, while we was employed by IBM Research).

The Welsh connection is not relevant here and IMHO its more important to mention Dave's main source of income instead of a recent appointment (http://www.bangor.ac.uk/psychology/news/honorary-professorship-for-david-j-snowden-22486).Hvgard (talk) 06:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

no source provided. Jytdog (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hvgard (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

This is the last time i will write this. please propose the actual change that you would like to see, with sourcing. Like:

Please change "asdfasdfasdfasdfasdfasdf" to "dddd.[1] ddddd"[2]

References

  1. ^ blah de blah
  2. ^ blah blah

Like that. Jytdog (talk) 06:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Request edit on 9 June 2015

I propose to either split reference 7 into two separate references or remove of one them. Please advices based on these facts:

  • The conference proceedings are a much abbreviated version of the horizon book chapter.
  • The conference proceedings are available online while the book is pretty obscure.

Furthermore, its not clear to me if these publications are peer-reviewed. Does that imply anything based on wikipedia rules for referencing? Hvgard (talk) 06:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

split the ref. the problem with that paragraph is that it is a work of WP:SYN. third party sources are needed for all that. is there any published history of the development of the concept? Jytdog (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
There are multiple citations using it, I'm not sure if anyone has written up the history yet although I did get interviewed by a Doctoral student who was thinking of doing one. Personally I'm not sure all of that is really needed in the article anyway. The various articles can be listed for those who want to read them. I'll ask around to see if anyone has written up the history when things have calmed down a bit here. The current version of the framework can be referenced to the latest article if needed and that is the most relevant fact. ----Snowded TALK 07:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Request edit on 8 June 2015

As noted in 2008 and elsewhere, the german/dutch word Heimat is pretty similar in meaning to Cynefin. No two languages have words of exactly the same meaning, but the fit between Cynefin and Heimat is pretty close.Hvgard (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Got a source which makes the connection? It is the nearest word in German to Cynefin and that may be noteworthy in respect of the two languages. But then you have to ask why pick out German? There is one reference by Peter Schütt which links Cynefin with Heimat in the context of Knowledge Management. Other references are simply to language, with no reference to the framework. So a addition which says that in respect of KM Schütt makes the connection with the German Heimat is probably the most we could do in respect of sourced material and its not really for the lede. I leave it to others to decide if its relevant to the article ----Snowded TALK 19:10, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Hvgard thanks for making a request. To use this effectively, please propose the exact change you want to see made, with its source. We cannot evaluate a vague request. I'm marking this  Not done because it is not a specific request and there is no source. Thanks! A good start. Jytdog (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'm learning :-). The change I propose is to add after (which is commonly translated into English as 'habitat' or 'place') a full stop and start a new sentence:

In German and Dutch the word Heimat has similar connotations.

Then maybe a new para should start: The term was chosen by the Welsh ....

As a response to snowded: I see no need to come up with references linking to words that are obviously similar in two languages. Such a rule would make pages like this unreadable. It's an explanatory sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hvgard (talk • contribs) 05:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

please read WP:VERIFY. everything in WP needs to be sourced. Jytdog (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference that states the connection between Cynefin and Heimat at

Does Place Matter? Sustainable Community Development in Three Canadian Communities ANN DALE, CHRIS LING & LENORE NEWMAN School of Environment and Sustainability, Royal Roads University, Victoria, Canada http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ann_Dale/publication/223465492_Does_Place_Matter_Sustainable_Community_Development_in_Three_Canadian_Communities/links/004635208824f1f722000000.pdf

Page 269 contains: It is commonly thought that decadal or even generational timescales are needed to provide a deep sense of place. Welsh ‘cynefin’ and German ‘Heimat’ are words that described this deep connection between the place and the individual (Rodwell, 2007). The word ‘cynefin’ is about place of birth and upbringing, the environment to which one is naturally acclimatized (Sinclair, 1998), through a life ‘lived and laboured in one place’ (McNeillie, 2005). It is likely, however, that the degree of natural capital, diversity, and aesthetic quality in the landscape in which a community is embedded will directly correlate with the strength of this identity, or the speed with which notions of cynefin and Heimat develop.

So Heimat and Cynefin are similar concepts. Mentioning them both strenghtens the explanatory power of the concept of Cynefin which is alian to a non-welsch audience while Heimat is pretty well known concept to many.Hvgard (talk) 07:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done Jytdog (talk) 07:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Out

Am going to bed now. Do not turn this page into a battleground. Jytdog (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Sleep well ----Snowded TALK 07:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks and yes, sleep wellHvgard (talk) 08:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Request edit on 9 June 2015

<redact> In short, I don't know how to correctly propose a change for this. Please help. Hvgard (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

please read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. private conversations are not reliable sources. Do not write anything here about living people that is not backed up by a reliable source per WP:RS. Please read WP:BLP. Again, please use edit requests to make concrete changes - the actual content you want added or changed, with sources per WP:RS. Please stop proposing vague changes. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

If a book counts as a reliable source, than on page 633 http://www.amazon.com/Working-Stories-Your-Community-Organization/dp/0991369408 Cynthia Kurtz writes about when she started working with the Cynefin group in 2001 after being active on narrative and complexity from 1999 onwards. It reads:

As my second year at IBM ended, Dave Snowden convinced the IBM’s Institute for Knowledge Management (IKM) to hire me as an in- dependent contractor. I started work for the IKM in 2001. This new start had a slightly different mandate than the previous one. Because the IKM (and all the corporate world) was in the midst of discovering complexity theory, I was asked specifically to consider how organizational narrative could work with ideas from complexity. Another old friend met, unchanged and ready for a new embrace.
It turned out, again to my surprise and excitement, that narrative and complexity had met before and were old friends from tens of thousands of years back. You see, stories form complex, emergent patterns; and all complex patterns have stories.
Thus I began a close collaboration with Dave Snowden and Sharon Darwent that lasted several years, off and on. There were several other people in “the group” that was first at the IKM, then IBM’s Cynefin Centre. Some were more and some less involved, but I can’t recall the details now. Let me see, I can think of [[[User:Hvgard|Hvgard]] (talk) 08:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC):whole list of names deleted], but I am sure there other people whose names I have forgotten (or can only remember parts of: was there another Steve?) and for this I apologize.

If this counts as a reliable source I will propose a edit. Hvgard (talk) 08:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a good book, but its self-published and not subject to peer review. So whether it can be used or not will depend largely on what you are proposing to insert or change. This source will give you some guidance ----Snowded TALK 09:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
off topic - COI driven interpersonal dispute Jytdog (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Good point Dave, but that holds for quite a few references. As you've added or has been involved in most of them, maybe you can quickly indicate which references are not peer reviewed or independent.

For example reference 2 is from Emergence which is sponsored by the company you own http://emergentpublications.com/ECO/about_eco.aspx. Furthermore

  • Reference 17 is in a magazine, certainly not peer reviewed. It also seems to be no longer available.
  • Reference 18 is not peer reviewed too. I was part of the team that wrote that report, is that COI?

I propose to delete those three references because of not being peer reviewed or Conflict of Interest. Hvgard (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I am an editor of Emergence, as such we promote it. I have no commercial connection with it not does any organisation with which I am associated fund it in any way. It is a peer reviewed journal on complexity which has been around for a long time. Any article which references my work has not been reviewed by me, nor have I been involved in any editorial decisions on such articles. I will leave the validity of other sourcing to other editors, for the record I did not add references 17 or 18. ----Snowded TALK 10:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The latter is correct. If I remember well I added them because you asked - probably by mail - for references to Cynefin when there were still few. I translated the titles so that other could understand what they were about. I lost the mail archives of those years when I left Oce so can't prove and have no time to find out in the history.
On Emergence, can you declare on the nature of cooperation between Cognitive Edge and the journal that is mentioned here http://emergentpublications.com/ECO/about_eco.aspx. Also please declare on you membership of the editorial board. http://emergentpublications.com/ECO/board.aspxHvgard (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
On reliable sources. The working with stories book IMHO meets the standards for reliable sources. Its a well documented textbook in this field. In fact its the only textbook in this field thus far. Its based on over 15 years of experience by a respected author. If Jytdog agrees the source can stay I will make an edit proposal.

Hvgard (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

That book is an WP:SPS but is at least appears to be independent of the two of you. if so maybe It can be used with attribution. Jytdog (talk) 13:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC) (moderate Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2015 (UTC))
Hvgard do you have a RW relationship with the author of that book? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, like almost all experts in this field know each other pretty well. Hvgard (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I mean corporate/financial. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, i can use the internet. she is a partner of StoryConnect so that is not a great independent source... Jytdog (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
The number of experts in this field is still pretty low. A few dozen at most. There is a lot of interdependence, many have worked together commercially over the last 15 years. Hardly anybody is independent anymore.Hvgard (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

History section

Moving this here for now. As I noted elsewhere, this section is a work of WP:SYN, strung together from primary sources. We don't do that in WP. We need one or more secondary sources that tells the story. In an article rife with conflicts like this, we need independent sources. Putting this here, until we find them...

The Cynefin framework was originally developed in 1999 in the context of knowledge management and organisational strategy by Snowden.[third-party source needed][1][2] It was originally a modification of Max Boisot's I-Space combined with the study of actual, as opposed to stated, management practice in IBM.[third-party source needed] By 2002, it had developed to include complex adaptive systems theory and had started to become a general strategy model.[third-party source needed][3] It was then further developed and elaborated with Cynthia Kurtz as a part of their work with the IBM Institute of Knowledge Management (IKM).[third-party source needed][4] Kurtz had worked with Snowden as a part of an IBM special interest group on narrative from 1999 before joining the IKM in 2001.[third-party source needed] Kurtz and others continued this work at Cognitive Edge, which had been formed by Snowden when he left IBM in 2005.[third-party source needed][5] This period included work to extend the model to Leadership with Mary E Boone, which culminated in the publication of a seminal article in the Harvard Business Review in 2007.[third-party source needed]

[6]

References

  1. ^ Snowden, D. (2000). "Cynefin, A Sense of Time and Place: an Ecological Approach to Sense Making and Learning in Formal and Informal Communities" conference proceedings of KMAC at the University of Aston, July 2000
  2. ^ Snowden, D. (2000) "The social ecology of knowledge management". In Knowledge Horizons : The Present and the Promise of Knowledge Management ed. C Despres & D Chauvel Butterworth Heinemann October 2000.
  3. ^ Snowden, D. (2002). "Complex Acts of Knowing: Paradox and Descriptive Self Awareness". In the Journal of Knowledge Management – Vol. 6, No. 2, (May) pp. 100–111.
  4. ^ Kurtz, C. F.; Snowden, D. J. (2003). "The new dynamics of strategy: Sense-making in a complex and complicated world". IBM Systems Journal, Volume 42, Number 3, 462. Retrieved from http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/423/kurtz.html.
  5. ^ http://www.cognitive-edge.com
  6. ^ Snowden, David; Boone, Mary (November 2007). "A Leader's Framework for Decision Making". Harvard Business Review: 69–76.

Happy to hear about reliable, independent, secondary sources that anybody is aware of. Jytdog (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that is a good move. The section itself arose from a previous dispute so best removed. If I become aware of a independent third party source I will post a change request ----Snowded TALK 05:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
great Jytdog (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

"Draws" paragraph needs references.

The 2nd paragraph needs proper references from the 2nd sentence onwards.

It draws on research into complex adaptive systems theory, cognitive science, anthropology, and narrative patterns, as well as evolutionary psychology, to describe problems, situations, and systems.

Each of the mentioned base theories are not self-evident from the model. Hvgard (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

as below, please read WP:LEAD Jytdog (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Article name

This article should be called Cynefin Framework, which is what it's about, not the word Cynefin. I'm afraid I don't know how to change article names. DavidCh0 (talk) 08:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Even better would be the Cynefin Model, as it is not a framework according to the Wikipedia page on frameworks. It would also help if the "sister"/isomorphic models Confluence Sensemaking Framework (or better model :-)) KiF (Knowledge in Formation, Sarbo c.s) were mentioned too. Maybe there are even more similar models. User:Hvgard — Preceding undated comment added 12:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Find a reference H from a reliable source and things can be included. . ----Snowded TALK 13:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The caption of the image in the article states its a model. To align thinks choosing between model and framework will improve quality. No ref needed for that.Hvgard (talk) 15:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Request edit on 10 June 2015

The article doesn't open with a explanation of the model itself and its use(fulness). Some other model pages seem to open with such content. Hence I suggest to change the opening para too:

Cynefin /ˈkʌnɨvɪn/ is a sensemaking model that provides a typology of contexts that guides what sort of explanations or solutions might apply. The model is based on the ordered, complex and chaotic aspects found in biological, physical, chemical and organisational systems[1]. For a visual explanation see[2].
The model is used in workshops to explore narrative material for relationships between man, experience, and context [2] to describe problems, situations, and systems and to design o.a. approaches to communication, decision-making, policy-making, and knowledge management for social environments, and as teaching material on the nature and management of social systems.

References

  1. ^ The Origins of Order. Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. Stuart A. Kauffman. http://www.amazon.com/The-Origins-Order-Self-Organization-Selection/dp/0195079515
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7oz366X0-8

To execute this change properly:

  • The current opening para can move to / integrate in the (Meaning of the word) paragraph (apart from /ˈkʌnɨvɪn/) that is in the new opening sentence.
  • A large part of the second sentence (It draws on research into complex adaptive systems theory, cognitive science, anthropology, and narrative patterns, as well as evolutionary psychology) can move to the description para (and still needs refs)

I know its a substantial change, but existing content is largely reused/re-ordered to achieve above-mentioned goal. So I feel - despite my COI - its an appropriate edit request.Hvgard (talk) 11:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure you are thinking about the "opening" (the part before the table of contents) properly, I am not sure myself if it is set up properly. Please read WP:LEAD and reconsider. I still need to carefully read this whole article and its sources - I have just been dealing with the editors here so far. We can revisit this after we have both done that. Jytdog (talk) 13:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Fully agree RE the whole setup. The "as is" structure seems not in line with what readers expect. Once the novel structure is clear it might be helpful to first write the "opening" (and YES I mean that part) part (even first here in "talk") and next novel content will follow. Personally I like the setup of Viable system model. That is also a system model, its is also used for diagnosis of organisation. To me that setup seems a natural, though that model has rules and measures and metalanguage which makes the article longer than this one probably will. ThanksHvgard (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Based on WP:LEAD this seems to me a better opening sentence:
The Cynefin /ˈkʌnɨvɪn/ model is a tool for organisational sensemaking. It provides a guidance to what sort of explanations or solutions might apply in various contexts. In use, the model is used to create a topology of sensemaking items whose emergent structure help to make sense of organisational issues, challenges and dynamics.
The model is based on the ordered, complex and chaotic aspects found in biological, physical, chemical and organisational systems[1]. For a visual explanation see[2].
The Cynefin model was developed within IBM Research from 1999 onwards where it started as a 4 quadrant cultural sensemaking model (ref Horizons 1999). Between 2001 and 2003 influences from complexity theory were included and the model evolved to have 5 domains and its current shape (ref 2001 and 2003). In later years modifications to the names of domains led to the current version.(ref to recent article).

References

  1. ^ The Origins of Order. Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. Stuart A. Kauffman. http://www.amazon.com/The-Origins-Order-Self-Organization-Selection/dp/0195079515
  2. ^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7oz366X0-8
Not sure the current proposal explains the notability enough. If there is a controversy, it is about the use of the boundaries in the model. Currently to my knowledge nobody is seeking controversy on that, so that doesn't seem prominent to me.Hvgard (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I believe that your proposal has content that is not in the body of the article. if that is true, you didn't absorb WP:LEAD and I suggest you re-read it. I will not have time to look at this til Saturday. Jytdog (talk) 18:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Correct. First we need to establish the new setup of this page. One way to do that is to look at the new content here and propose the new structure. Next novel paratext can be created and put into the body. Until then this new intro can stay here and moved into place when we have progressed. OK?Hvgard (talk) 06:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

No. lead follows the body, not vice versa. Jytdog (talk) 02:17, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep. That is why lead must stay here. Now first need to come up with new setup, create content, fix lead and then we are in another place.

Based on Viable Systems Model V-model, SWOT and similar pages this might be a start:

  • Overview
  • Domains
  • Objectives
  • Benefits/advantages
  • Limitations
  • Applications
  • Criticism?
  • References
  • Further reading
  • External links

Hvgard (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

General Comments

In no particular order:

  1. When this article was originally created its notability was dubious. However the publication of A Leaders Guide to Decision Making (Snowden and Boone) as the cover article of the Harvard Business Review in November 2007 was important. When that went on to win an Academy of Management award, and a year later another award for number of citations then I think the subject became notable
  2. The phrasing of the Academy award is the nearest thing we have to a independent third party source to draw on to describe the overall nature of the framework
  3. The switch from model to framework happens about then in consultation with the HBR editorial team. It also links to the growing emergence of cognitive complexity within the overall field which is distinguished from computational complexity. A part of that is the distinction between sense-making frameworks in general and modelling. The importance is known to those involved in the field. Given that both are used, the most recent usage, and that in the best cited paper is the logical choice of name.
  4. Complex Acts of Knowing (Snowden) has just been listed as the fifth most cited article in a list of 'classic' articles in the field of Knowledge Management. Serene & Dumay 'Citation classics published in Knowledge Management Journals. Part 1 articles and their characteristics' Journal of Knowledge Management Vol 19 No 2 2015 pp401-431 That fact is not in the current article but is probably worthy of addition.
  5. A search on Google Scholar shows multiple academic articles which use the Cynefin framework for a range of purposes. Some of those are listed here. Inclusions of primary sources for those application is I think legitimate to support specific application areas (such as the role of religion in the Bush Whitehouse), provided it is a sample without evaluation. That includes significant publications in the field of development. Selection criterial there might be on quality of journal.
  6. A search on Google will find multiple other references, including popular books within the Agile community and otherwise which are not academic per se. Without a third party source I am less sure of any inclusion there
  7. There is no independent third party source for the history of the evolution of the framework so that is not valid until one is produced
  8. There is no source to support a statement that would define Cynefin as "used in workshops to explore narrative material for relationships between man, experience, and context", that may be one use by a practitioner, but its not one I recognise as deserving that emphasis. The YouTube reference (and I don't think we can use YouTube as a source) says that narrative is used to define the boundaries and domains of the framework. The method is outlined in the article with Kurtz "New Dynamics of Strategy" and might be mentioned in the article as it is an important reason for the use of 'framework' in the context of sense-making.
  9. Determining where the origins of the model lie should (if it is appropriate to include it), lie in the citation supported claims of the defining articles. If a reliable independent third party source added a more general commentary that would take priority but we don't have one that I know of. Boisot, Juarrero, Douglas and others are amoung those most mentioned in the citations. Picking out one source in the generic field of complexity (Kauffman) which is only referenced in one article in a long list of names is in effect original research. The framework is defined in a series of articles and book chapters all of which are very clear as to their sources and the fields in use.
  10. Berger & Johnson in Simple Habits for Complex Times p237 make the link between Cynefin and the maori turangawaewae which means a place to stand so we should probably include that as we have added in the german and there are others.
  11. Many people come to Wikipedia to download a licensed version of the model so I recently (having received requests) uploaded the latest version granting a license in the process. I can happily add the reference to the most recent publication with that version in it if needed.
  12. VSM as a model is older and has a wider body of literature than Cynefin. Several of the sections from that article structure could only have material if we indulged in synthesis here so I doubt it is appropriate. Also large sections of that article are not properly referenced anyway so its due a clean up

I hope that is useful. I'm holding off any proposals for change until the current exchanges have calmed down. The only ones suggested here are the 'classic' article reference and adding turangawaewae. If any third party is thinking of making changes those may be useful, but I am not formally proposing them at this time. ----Snowded TALK 07:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. About #11, where can people download the licensed software within WP? Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
By loading an image I consent to the standard wikipedia license terms. That saves authors a lot of problems as they have to get sign off for every image these days. The Wikipedia license is known so no issue for them. Given that the framework is in the public domain they could use their own version with attribution, but most want an actual image they can reference. ----Snowded TALK 16:57, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Oh, you meant the picture. I see. Jytdog (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Quick note

I've decided not to work on this article nor the issues around it, going forward. Just letting you know in case you were looking for me to be involved in further discussions here. Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I think that any editor(s) who have any COI with any articles, should step back away from such articles. Of course, the Wiki-community can decide on that. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
? I am not stepping away due to any COI of my own. Jytdog (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I know. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, thanks for all the help. However, the article is not up to standards. How to proceed from here? Do we simply wait until someone else steppes up? Hvgard (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Looks like a neutral editor has stepped in and improved it so hopefully we are done here ----Snowded TALK 21:45, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed gentlemen, it's best to let neutral parties handle this article. GoodDay (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Dire state of affairs

This article is in dire state. It is a confusing mix of a description of the Welsh word Cynefin (it that notable for wikipedia?) and a description of the Cynefin model. It better be fixed (split) or deleted.Hvgard (talk) 13:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Meaning

I’ve added sourced definitions to the lead, but the Meaning section seems to be a description of what the word means to Dave Snowden, not the dictionary meaning. This should be made clear somehow. It seems very unencyclopaedic at the moment. ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 04:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I added in the more poetic definition from the introduction to 'Land and the Sea' that I referenced the second time I used the name in a published article. Personally I think that would be better in the lede. The point really was that the world is not used in its literary sense of 'habitat' in Wales, but implies something more inherently uncertain and which has essential ambiguity, but is powerful in therms of meaning and identity. That is the reason I chose it as the name for the Framework. I like the Maori equivalent as well which is much closed than the German. I remember an on line debate on that with some German speakers who are less sure it is a true equivalent. But its referenced so it stands! ----Snowded TALK 05:32, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Moilleadóir. I've noted earlier that its strange that this page is called/titles Cynefin while it would be much better IMHO if it had the title Cynefin Model. Even Cynefin Framework would be better than just Cynefin as this page is about the model, not about the notion of Cynefin in Welsh.

Furthermore, thanks of adding the sourced definition. Though I can't read the first one and the second link seems to be broken. I wonder which way my understanding of the Cynefin notion will develop. So far your addition lead into the direction that the adjective form is quite connected to the German/Dutch use of Heimat. At least that is what I as a Dutchman conclude.Hvgard (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

A late (& possibly pointless) response. The Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru website has a little link at the top right labelled "English". I don’t think you can directly link to definitions so you have to look up the word yourself. The link to www.geiradur.net is not broken for me. --☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 02:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Page rename

I’ve updated some of the references to use cite templates and made a couple of other edits but this page is still not in a great state. If probably needs a rewrite and might benefit from being moved to a new title. Would either of "Cynefin Framework" or "Cynefin Model" be better titles, given that its meaning and scope really has expanded a long way beyond the Welsh word? --☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 03:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The article has never been about the welsh word but about the framework (it is now referred to as such rather than a model). If it was moved that would make things like the opening definition a lot easier as it could be directly referenced say to the HBR article (which has the highest citations). It would also mean the link to heist could be removed as no third party link has been made between the framework and that and it has a different meaning only being loosely connected to the Welsh. The Welsh for example does not have the concept of reconciliation in it, more a state of being (another reason I chose it as the name). The Maori word on the other hand has been explicitly linked to the framework per the supporting reference and is a more or less direct equivalent. A neutral rewrite using current sources would be useful as the article is frequently referenced in social media. I've limited my contributions over the year to factual changes (the citations, latest version of the framework, definition from the articles) and to dealing with vandalism which comes in spates. The whole of the opening definition by the way comes from the book about Williams not just the quote. Happy to make links etc if it helps and last I heard a history of the framework's development was being written by an academic which will help when it is published. If you plan a set of edits like you did with Cyrano de Bergerac it would be a great contribution and a move to Cynefin Framework should be done sooner rather than later unless someone objects. ----Snowded TALK 04:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I support this proposal to re-name this page as Cynefin Framework. I've not been a contributor to this page but I often refer others to the page for a good introductory explanation of the Cynefin Framework. It has occurred to me for some time that, as snowded says, this article is not about the Welsh word Cynefin - rather about the framework, and I have considered suggesting this name change. What are the Wikipedia rules about making such a name change? Is some sort of voting process required? (I did look to see if I could find a policy on this - but could not easily see it. I expect more experienced editors will know the answer.) Ian Smith (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)>

If there is no opposition any editor can move it, Moilleadóir for example. I would not oppose a move to Cynefin Framework or The Cynefin Framework, I would oppose Model as that is not currently used post the HBR article for reasons connected to the general theory of sense-making ----Snowded TALK 07:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I would not presume to move it to a new title - having not edited this article (but having an interest). ☸ Moilleadóir ☎ will you do it? Ian Smith (talk) 11:43, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Rename article per discussion above. It is all about the Cynefin Framework, not the Welsh word which is used in other contexts. ----Snowded TALK 04:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done I see no objections. Trust you will complete the subesequent clearup - links etc. or let me know if you need any help. Daicaregos (talk) 11:52, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cynefin_framework/Archive_2&oldid=1164854539"