Talk:Cynefin framework/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

self published source emergentpublications.com

the fourth source is a link to a pdf file on a self-publishing site: [[1]] I suggest we remove this as a source.

It does seem a wee bit sketchy, yes. Very vague about the review process. I concur that it does not make for a reliable source. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ECO is not a self-published source but a properly refereed journal which has academic listing if you check. Within the field of complexity studies it is well known and has over a million references on Google Scholar. What's up Darkstar1st? Having to eat your own hat coming back to haunt me?  :-) ----Snowded ^TALK 07:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

i did lose the bet fair and square. the hat was delicious :) your link raises even more questions, "...authors to exclude reviewers whom they consider to be unsuitable..." do you know of an additional source we could use here? Darkstar1st (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I checked. I came away very unconvinced. Academia has - as you well know - a large dubious underbelly of 'journals' delivering the sorts of publication and citations by which academics judge & rank themselves. Here we have a journal which appears not to have an identified academic board, and which does have a self-publishing front-end - driven by wordpress, iirc - with the sketchy 'review' guidelines you point to. It is not, for me, an RS. --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Given some of the editorial board's status academically and the google scholar citations I think you would need to make a case at the RS notice board to deny it as a valid source. To do so would impact on other articles I would think given that there are not many CAS journals. The article referenced has a fair number of citations in its own right and was written by a member of the Cabinet Office in the UK so I think it stands up. ----Snowded ^TALK 16:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Could you point us at the editorial board? As for "a member of the cabinet office", you mean some sort of software hack who worked for the cabinet office. tbh, I've done exactly that: it's no big thing; certainly does not confer a halo around one. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh look, I found the board - https://journal.emergentpublications.com/review-board/ - and guess who's on it! You'd have thought that might have been mentioned by now. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm on the editorial board of several journals. Given I am an expert in complexity you shouldn't be surprised. The fact I am on the editorial board was used to validate the existence of the Dave Snowden article per requirements for notability for wikipedia articles on academics. Given two academy of management awards I think it is reasonable for to claim reputation. No halos involved, this is a journal which runs normal review processes. If you think it isn't go the reliable sources notice board and get a third party review. I'll notify the other editors so they can provide the evidence to resolve it there. Its the obvious route, trying to deal with here raises BLP issues ----Snowded ^TALK 11:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

In the context of this article the reference establishes that a member of the British Cabinet Office used the Cynefin framework to discuss the role of religion in the Bush Whitehouse. That is notable and the reference demonstrates the statement. To remove the reference is to prevent other editors fact checking the claim. ----Snowded ^TALK 11:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

the source is using this wikipedia article as its source

the 7th source: Simple Habits for Complex Times. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. p. 237., the first line of page 237 "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cynefin assesed oct 2014" pages 236 and 237 are the footnotes for chapters one and two. i suggest we remove this source. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:CIRCULAR applies. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Source 7 references the use of the Maori word as an equivalent - how is that circular? ----Snowded ^TALK 16:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

self published source bepress.com

Believe in the Model: Mishandle the Emergency is published by an author submitted site, bepress.com, an academic software firm Bepress Darkstar1st (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Its the Journal of "Homeland Security and Emergency Management" please .... ----Snowded ^TALK 16:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, does that have any academic credentials, or is it another roll-your-own journal? We're not exactly talking Nature, are we? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:RS is the place to review the validity of a source. If only journals of Nature's standing are accepted in Wikipedia then you are going to have to delete 90% of the content ----Snowded ^TALK 13:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Clarification needed

Can someone say in plain words what Cynefin is? The first sentence explains only the origin of the term. Then that it's a "framework" that "provides a typology of contexts that guides what sort of explanations or solutions might apply". What is a typology of contexts? Might apply to what? Elsewhere we say it is a "perspective on the evolutionary nature of complex systems" and "defined as the state of being influenced by multiple pasts of which we can only be partly aware". SarahSV ^(talk) 01:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

excellent point. i suggest we remove the Cynefin content/sources, and leave the Cynefin Framework content/sources. those wanting to learn the definition of the welsh term Cynefin, may consult a welsh dictionary. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I've made a brief effort to explain what it is in the first sentence. [2] Anyone should feel free to change what I've written. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, this should be moved to Cynefin framework, lower case, unless Cynefin Framework is the name. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Its a framework so lower case works best. Thanks for those changes and for monitoring the article - its appreciated. "The typology of contexts" comes from the Academy of Management citation when it won a best paper award. That specific link was removed last year which I think was a pity as it gave an authoritative third party definition. The words aren't mine and better to link to the source. A minor issue with the changes I was (and am) the developer not one of them if you check the citation history. "Complex Acts of Knowing" is the first major publication, one of the top cited articles within the field of KM based on a third party study published late last year. That contained the model in its current form, and is sole authored. There are earlier forms without the give domains, same name again sole authored articles or book chapters. ----Snowded ^TALK 13:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Snowded, thanks for the information. The section about the domains need to be rewritten. For example: "in which the relationship between cause and effect is obvious to all, the approach is to Sense - Categorise - Respond and we can apply best practice." It's difficult to derive any meaning from it unless you already understand it. Some plainer language would help, and examples (real or hypothetical) of how Cynefin has been or could be used. SarahSV ^(talk) 13:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to do that as I'm a subject matter expert (and the SME/COI issue remains a problem on wikipedia). I've never been wild about a lot of the text but I've tried to hold back from other than factual changes or defending the occasional attacks. The HBR article referenced expands on those points. Happy to make changes if you think its OK or post material from other articles here if another editor wants to work on it. The page is referenced a lot so good if it was right ----Snowded ^TALK 13:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I would say go ahead and add a real or hypothetical use. I see there are earlier versions of the article that seem clearer. I may go through and try to retrieve some of it. SarahSV ^(talk) 13:50, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

It still seems unclear. For example:

Complex, in which the relationship between cause and effect can only be perceived in retrospect, but not in advance. The approach is to Probe – Sense – Respond, and we can sense emergent practice. Here the evidence supports competing hypotheses and a solution is not susceptible or resolution within an acceptable time period. The approach is for any coherent hypothesis to be given the resources to run a safe-to-fail experiment, or probe and solutions emerge as result of that experimentation.

I understand the first sentence, but not much after that. Is "susceptible or resolution" a typo (should be "to")? What does "we can sense emergent practice" mean? Examples for each of the domains would help a lot. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I like the second driving example (the child running in front of the car), but the first could use a tweak: "in countries that require traffic to drive on the left, it is not rational to drive on the right". A person could drive on the right by mistake. Is the point that it's not rational to drive on the right intentionally? But it would indeed be rational if someone wanted to cause an accident. Can this be made more precise?

Also, the way the responses are written is confusing, e.g. "The approach is to Sense – Categorise – Respond and apply best practice." SarahSV ^(talk) 23:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I didn't have much time this morning but I made a few changes - hopefully that made it clearer ----Snowded ^TALK 03:57, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I've rewritten that section, using an article by Thomas A. Stewart. I wondered whether the driving example was confusing, because driving on a certain side of the road is the law, not merely best practice, so it raised a question.

I also swapped the lead image for a version that uses "simple" instead of "obvious", because that's what the sources say, but I used the other image lower down with an explanation for the difference. Also, the "simple" image includes "disorder", which is helpful, and it doesn't include the other terms that perhaps raise questions too: "no degrees of freedom" (which, again, arguably departs from "best practice"), "loosely coupled", and so on. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The simple (sic) fact remains that the domain is now called 'obvious' and the definitions have developed. Within Complexity Theory (and that is the field) terms like loosely coupled and degrees of freedom are common. Given the use of the article as a reference for many people my view is that it should include the latest version and on that matter I think I am a reasonable authority. Adding disorder to the previous image is easy. One of the issues with third party sources is that they reflect the article that particular author read so there are different statements. They also reflect their particular understanding or the context in which they are writing and there are inevitably BLP issues. Tom Steward's editorial in the HBR edition in which my article with Boone was the cover feature is a good source however - happy with those descriptions. One of the factors as to secondary sources receive weight is checking the verifiable original sources (as provided on your talk page). ---Snowded ^TALK 05:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that what it means to say that the domain is now called "obvious". The sources call it "simple"; one source acknowledged that you now call it "obvious" but prefers nevertheless to call it "simple" because that's what people expect. It's used by lots of people and doesn't (seem to) belong to anyone. That brings me to a question: wasn't this IBM's intellectual property? Are any sources available to describe how it came to develop away from them with the same name and structure (that is, why IBM allowed or wanted that)? SarahSV ^(talk) 05:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Increasingly sources will use 'obvious' but I'm relaxed about that issue if the more recent version is there somewhere although I disagree with you on the subject. All Cynefin Centre work in IBM was placed in the public domain and all methods were declared as open source. To my knowledge they have never made any claim on the framework and it wasn't listed as IP in the negotiations when I left (which included patents and other matters). I've been invited back into IBM several times to present on it and related work.----Snowded ^TALK 05:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I meant to add earlier that it's not that these terms (such as degrees of freedom) aren't used; it's that I don't know how the framework is using them. Ditto with ontological and lots of other terms; they seem to throw up some contradictions, so I want to make sure I've understood how Cynefan uses them before I do. (I'm going to ask you something about ontological, but I'll do it in another thread another time.) SarahSV ^(talk) 05:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Cool, looking forward to that! I did write up the history in a series of blogs and I've been interviewed about that for a third party article. The link may help although I don't propose it as a source in its current form----Snowded ^TALK 05:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Cynefin

(copied with permission from SV talk)

I appreciate the work you have done on the article, however there is one significant issue. The article has been subject to attack on several occasions by an editor who has a commercial partnership with Kurtz (who was previously my research assistant in IBM and a contractor to Cognitive Edge my commercial company). There has also been a rather nasty social media campaign by HVgard to claim that she was the co-author of Cynefin. He has made similar attempts to hijack IP with the author of the KIF model so its a common pattern and an irritant from time to time, although he has no academic standing or position.

A few articles (such as the one you reference) say that the framework was co-created by Kurtz as they have only read the 2003 article "New Dynamics of Strategy" which she co-authored (names alphabetical, corresponding author me). That was three years after the first article and five years after the first use of the framework. It was also developed when I was A Director (not Director) of IBM's Institute for Knowledge Management. The Cynefin Centre followed that, it was never a part of it, but that is a minor point.

Earlier references include:

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) “Cynefin: a sense of time and space, 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 (recently assessed as one of the ten most cited papers in the field)

Others have been involved in the development, Boisot in particular was a mentor. Kurtz developed many of the methods and co-authored two papers with me. Boone made a major contribution to the presentation in the HBR cover article, Marks in respect of application to Health (two co-authored papers). I could go on, and have always gone out of my way to acknowledge sources. But no one (including Kurtz) would claim it was other than my creation. To credit Kurtz is wrong in terms of citation history (see above) and unfair to others who made a larger contribution. ----Snowded ^TALK 04:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Snowded, thanks, I'll take another look at the sources. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

To continue the theme. Kurtz's biog on the article says that she 'helped' found the Cynefin Centre, mine says that I founded it. Several other people helped found the Centre and Kurtz was employed as a sub-contractor - three other full time staff members of IBM were also founders. The fact I enjoyed writing with Kurtz gives her some prominence on one article but that is it. It would be legitimate to say that I funded the Centre with the help of Kurtz AND OTHERS. Sorry to raise this and I appreciate the effort you are putting in here. But there are BLP issues and claims by commercial partners of Kurtz which are problematic to say the least. Everyone works with a team, and to emphasis the role of one person in that team at the expense of others is unfair. On the earlier subject there are plenty of articles which say I created the Cynefin Framework which don't mention Kurtz. Given that conflict the primary sources surely resolve the issue as to which should be used. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

(apologies just realised you are still editing) ----Snowded ^TALK 05:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you mind if I copy this to the talk page and reply there? SarahSV ^(talk) 05:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Not if you manage some of the Trolls who may well appear. You're not the one having to face false accusations of having 'stolen' Kurtz's work in an attempt to promote someone else's business. ----Snowded ^TALK 05:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't understand your reply; can you clarify? I won't copy it if you'd prefer not, but I don't want to hold a discussion about the article in two places. SarahSV ^(talk) 05:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm OK for you to copy I was just making the point that (i) trolls may appear and (ii) there has been some very nasty stuff around attempts to claim Kurtz co-created (or even was the creator) of the model (their term as opposed to framework), So as far as I am concerned this is a potential BLP issue and I've had to deal with the accusation in academic and other environments, Presenting the evidence (per the above references) normally resolves it but Wikipedia is likely to be used for said nefarious purpose in its current form hence my sensitivity. Plagiarism is a very serious accusation in academic circles ----Snowded ^TALK 06:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

still bemused

OK Google Scholar as 1,470 citations of Snowden + Cynefin and 557 of Snowden + Cynefin + Kurtz. You have chosen to privilege one citation based on a reference to one article, Per WP:Weight and the publications cited above the origins of the Cynefin Framework precede the Kurt/Snowden article or any involvement by Kurtz. There is even a blog post by Kurtz talking about when I presented the Cynefin Framework to her at an early meeting. Sorry but this is a BLP issue ----Snowded ^TALK 06:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Number of references doesn't help, because you've been working on this and she hasn't. We need to do three things: (1) find contemporaneous primary sources; (2) support them with high-quality, independent, secondary sources; (3) disregard what involved parties say now about what happened then. The secondary source supporting that Cynefin was developed by Snowden and Kurtz is Williams and Hummelbrunner (Stanford University Press, 2010):

Developed by David Snowden and Cynthia Kurtz when they were at the IBM's Institute of Knowledge Management ..."

The primary source is Kurtz and Snowden (2003), which introduced the Cynefin framework in its current form: five domains, including disorder, and the same description of the domains.

Your argument is that this is wrong, and that earlier primary sources show that it's wrong. There is Snowden 2002, which contains the Cynefin model (p. 13), with known, knowable, complex, chaos. But you and Kurtz were working together on this at the time; you were director of the IBM Cynefin Centre and she was its principal researcher. The 2002 article says: "The above description of the Cynefin model ... originally developed from a study of actual, as opposed to stated knowledge management practice in IBM, (Snowden 1999a) ..." Also, one of the citations is "Snowden D. & Kurtz, C. (2002) 'Social Network Stimulation' awaiting publication - details from author".

There's a book chapter, Snowden, "The Social Ecology of Knowledge Management" (2000), 237ff, which contains the Cynefin model, but it's arguably different (shorter version here). Are Snowden (1999a) and Snowden and Kurtz (2002) available? SarahSV ^(talk) 06:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Kurtz and I were not working together at the time of the publication of either the Aston paper or 'Complex Acts of Knowledge'. I was Director of IBM'S Institute for Knowledge Management (IKM), she was in a group within IBM Research looking at Narrative and other issues. In fact much of the early work on Cynefin, including the chapter in "The Social Ecology of Knowledge Management" came before I joined the IKM when I was working on in a new capabilities unit within IBM UK. That was merged with Prusak's IKM and I became a Director. About a year later (I think) Kurtz lost her job within IBM Research and her Manager emailed me to say could I do anything. She knew that my work on narrative was increasing within the wider context of complex and we found a mechanism to take over her contract (that was difficult in its own right). I was asked by the IBM Systems Journal to produce a new version of the "Complex Acts of Knowing" with a more strategic focus so I asked her to work on that with me. Cynefin existed before that collaboration. Some years later IBM folded the IKM into multiple other groups to create the IBM Business Value Institute and I, Prusak and others left. I secured funding to create The Cynefin Centre and once again gave Kurtz a contract. That survived until 2003 when politics killed it and I left in 2004. Kurtz and I were both working on a DARPA project from that point and when I formed Cognitive Edge a year later I gave her another contract. So Kurtz was not principal researcher of anything at the time of the publication of 'Complex Acts of Knowing'.

As to the secondary sources, there are several which refer to my model, some which reference Snowden & Boone;s model and so on. Like many academics people reference a source and assume that is the original. Bob Williams apologised at some stage for not checking if prior sources existing before making that statement, he just assumed 'New Dynamics' was the first publication. The article in its current form privileges one secondary side reference over others and none of those secondary sources purport in any way to summarise the history of the Cynefin framework. More recent works, such as Greg Brougham's mini-book on Cynefin for the Agile community are clear on origination. Liberating Knowledge (the 1999a reference) exists in paper form I can happily scan you a copy of the introduction when I get home if it would help. The paper on Social Networks was never published, but when I was asked to produce a book chapter on networks I hared Kurtz to co-author again and we ended up with 'Like Bramble Bushes in a Thicket'. Happy to send you a copy of that if you want. Kurtz herself has never made any claim to have originated the framework, she like others contributed to it and promoting her contribution over others is plain wrong. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, it would help if you could scan "Liberating Knowledge" (1999) and email it to me. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I will do, I also have confirmation from Williams and Hummelbrunner that at the time they wrote the article they thought the Kurtz/Snowden paper was the first publication. Do you want that as well? ----Snowded ^TALK 08:40, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, that would help too. SarahSV ^(talk) 18:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

KM World Article

Terribly inaccurate article for which I am pretty sure they had to apologise to IBM and others. Cynefin Centre was at that time a trademark for IBM so it couldn't be used, no investment was received at any stage within Cognitive Edge. The one thing is partially accurate about is the names of many of those involved - Kurtz being one of many and not even a shareholder, just a contractor at her insistence. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Snowded, you have a strong COI here, so please don't edit the article again, especially not in relation to who did what in the 2000s. And everything has to be properly sourced. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, but that inaccuracy was potentially serious. New wording is better but still problematic. Mind you it would be nice if some of the others involved (and referenced in that article) got some mention ----Snowded ^TALK 06:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The text you removed was: "Both [Snowden and Kurtz] left IBM in 2004 to run the Cynefin Centre, a network of members from industry, government and academia, independently of IBM."

The first source is IBM's description of the Cynefin Centre. The second, in KM World, says that Cynefin Centre networks had established themselves in North America, Australia and Europe:

Since gaining its independence from IBM in July, 2004, the Cynefin Centre for Organisational Complexity (www.cynefin.net) is catalyzing a network of academics and practitioners in diverse fields ... The transition last year was an opportunity to explore new trans-disciplinary and participatory approaches to distributed research. Cynefin was also involved in the creation of a ... quarterly journal on social complexity, Emergence: Complexity & Organization ...

You added the following instead (without a ref): "Snowden left IBM in 2004 to create Cognitive Edge a commercial company and network of members from industry, government and academia, independently of IBM."

Other sources say Cognitive Edge wasn't set up until later. You said above that IBM regarded "Cynefin Centre" as a trademark, so it couldn't operate independently of them, but earlier you said "All Cynefin Centre work in IBM was placed in the public domain and all methods were declared as open source." Can you say what was wrong with the text you removed? SarahSV ^(talk) 02:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

There was a messy period immediately after I left IBM in April 2004, compounded by the fact that both my parents died in the previous two months. Cognitive Edge was set up later when we secured a contract from the Singapore Government. The KM World article simply assumed that I would carry on with the Cynefin Centre which I couldn't as they held the trademark. There was a negotiation on that but they wanted too much money for a name (registered for training as I remember it) and all of the methods were in the public domain anyway. There are so many inaccuracies in the that article included the idea that we created E:CO, that has existed for some time and I had become a principle editor while in IBM so the relationship continued. So the wording I suggested seemed closed to the truth without going into complex detail. The article was written by someone who was party to some of the conversations about what might happen and reported it as if it had. In practice some did, when Cognitive Edge was formed for example the US and Australian players mentioned were all involved in the early years. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Many of the sources do not mention framework, any objection to removing them?

Many of the sources are referring to the word only without reference to the framework. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

If the source does not support the use made of it in the article, then it should be removed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

There are three sources as far as I can see and they relate to the meaning of the word. Having two for the first reference is probably not needed but the others make sense ----Snowded ^TALK 07:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I have actually found several. Unless the word framework is mentioned, or creator, or the consulting group, or something other than supporting the way the term is used in a general sense, i suggest we remove. Darkstar1st (talk) 01:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Possibly helpful recollections from Cynthia Kurtz

Hello all. I am the Cynthia Kurtz being talked about here. Obviously I have a conflict of interest and of course would not be editing this article (and never have). But I would like to clarify a few things, partly in hopes that I can be helpful and partly out of my own sense of pride in my work. (This is the first time I have ever contributed to Wikipedia, other than the occasional spastic fix of an "it's" out of place. If I am doing this wrong, please correct me.)

1. A thing called "The Cynefin Model" existed before I started work with Dave Snowden in April 2001. I had nothing to do with it before that date. It was similar but not identical to what has been described on this Wikipedia page.

2. I worked with Dave on Cynefin from April 2001 to (roughly) sometime in 2003. It changed substantially during that time. Dave and I, and to a lesser extent, as I recall, Sharon Darwent and Max Boisot, spent quite a lot of time working on it - discussing, experimenting, presenting, learning from mistakes, and so on. I believe - based on my recollections - that I contributed the second most to the Cynefin framework. Dave may believe that Max Boisot contributed more than I did. I can't guess at whether this is true given that much of Max's contribution came before I got involved. I'm willing - no, happy - to give Max the benefit of the doubt about that. Above all, I would never claim to have contributed the same amount as Dave. That would be ridiculous.

3. The 2003 IBM Systems Journal article was not written in 2003. I have first drafts of it from December of 2001. It took over a year to go through the process of review, revision, acceptance, and publication. We also cut the article down by about half to fit their requirements.

4. I don't know anything about Wikipedia assessment of reliable sources, but in academia judicious peer review is the gold standard. The ISJ article was peer reviewed, scathingly - and rightly - so, and it improved as a result. For example, it was at the insistence of the reviewers and editors that we changed the name of the thing it was about from a "model" to a "framework." They thought the word "model" implied too much scientific certainty. I tried to argue that it was a conceptual model, but they wanted nothing of it.

5. I'm not sure if the journals in which Dave published the earlier papers were peer reviewed - and I don't know if that matters. I do know that I have a document showing that I read and commented on (that is, made suggestions on) at least one article written by Dave and published before the ISJ article. I didn't have the status or the confidence to publish articles or to insist on co-authorship until at least 2002.

6. I estimate that I wrote about 75% of the text in the 2003 ISJ article. That does NOT mean it was 75% my ideas. My guess is that it was about 60-65% Dave's ideas - but it's hard to sort out, to be honest. It contained many intermingled ideas, some fully mine, some fully Dave's, and some which came out of our discussions and experiments and can't be said to have arisen from only one person, or even two people. To give some examples, the "seeing eye" diagrams (the pyramids), the word "unorder," and the "clockwise drift" parts were my ideas, and the words "known," "knowable," "complex," and "chaos" were Dave's, as was the "disorder" space. The transition from straight lines to "bubbles," the "fold" between chaos and known, and the stuff on movements between domains were things we worked on together, and it can't be said that those ideas came from either of us exclusively, nor that we were the only ones involved in the process of their development.

7. In essence the ISJ article describes two intermingled frameworks: Dave's Cynefin framework, as it was evolving as we were working on it, and some separate ideas of my own that got stuck in there because, well, I wrote most of the article. There was originally a lot more of my thinking in it; this was removed when we shortened the article. I worked a lot of that stuff into other places later on. For example, the "brambles" book chapter (again under both names) was about 80% my writing and 80% my ideas. It was written in mid-2003, though it was published in 2007.

8. In 2010 I re-examined the parts of the ISJ paper that were fully mine (mostly the seeing eye parts) and brought them together with some new stuff to form my Confluence framework. I no longer use the Cynefin framework, but actually I never really did; I always used "my version" of it. Dave had little to no influence on the Confluence framework. He didn't much like "Cynthia's version" of Cynefin until much later, and still never talks about it on purpose, I think. That's fine; it was not his thing. Cynefin as he talks about it was, and is, his thing. Some people view my parts of the ISJ paper to be part of Cynefin, some don't. (Do I think my version of Cynefin is part of Cynefin? I have that argument with myself all the time.) I have not yet published the Confluence framework in any peer-reviewed journal (again, unless you count the 2003 ISJ article, which some do). I'll get around to it eventually.

9. I asked Dave to be the "corresponding author" on the 2003 paper because I didn't want to deal with a lot of email or attention. However, my clear recollection is that we agreed on the author order we used because I was upset that I was not being given credit for my contributions to the framework in his presentations of it. Dave may remember this differently, but that's what I remember. I came from academia, and author order meant something important to me, and I felt that eventually it would be more useful than credit in presentations. The "alphabetical order" thing was - again, in my recollection - to get it past the higher-ups, who didn't like the idea of a lowly contractor being first on a publication. But we agreed between us that this would assuage my feelings of being mistreated (over which I recall being on the verge of quitting several times).

10. Over the years various people have called me the co-creator, co-originator, and so on, of the Cynefin framework. This is because they have seen how much it changed during the period of my involvement with it, and they believe that its form before I got involved was insubstantial enough to say that I co-created it. Most of these people have also liked the ideas in the 2003 ISJ article that came from me, like the pyramids, and consider them to be part of Cynefin. In my opinion, all of these people have spoken out with honorable intent, though some of them got carried away and exaggerated things a bit. I've tried to correct them where I could, in the same way I try to correct Dave when he exaggerates. As to whether I really was a co-creator of the framework, I can't say. I can see both sides of the argument. In the end I don't think it matters. I feel that I should get some credit for being involved. But I have more important things to think about. I think the rest of the world does too.

The rest of this is fairly petty stuff.

11. I did not lose my job at IBM Research. It was a temporary job, and it ended on schedule.

12. I was never Dave Snowden's research assistant. I have never been anyone's assistant. I'm too stubborn for it.

13. My official title at the IBM Institute for Knowledge Management was Project Manager. This meant nothing; we agreed on it because it matched the pay grade I asked for. I did not work for the IKM directly, but for a consulting agency.

14. I brought my own funding to the IKM. When DARPA funded the three-year project Dave and I proposed to them (actually we proposed separately and they asked us to work together), they asked me if I wanted to work independently or through IBM. I chose IBM, and I asked them to funnel my funding through the IKM. This covered three years of my work, including most of my work on Cynefin.

15. When the Cynefin Centre was created within IBM, Dave and I agreed that I would be called its "principal researcher." However, this was an unofficial title that had no legal meaning. I was still working for the outside agency as a Project Manager.

16. I did not co-found Cognitive Edge, though I did help with its founding. In the years I worked for the company, I only ever worked as an independent contractor. On the web site and to clients I was called its Director of Research, but again this was purely a ceremonial title with no legal meaning. In 2008, because of a disagreement, I asked Cognitive Edge to stop calling me their Director of Research. They did so. In 2009, because of more disagreements, I stopped working for them completely. Over the years I have looked at this Wikipedia page occasionally, but I've never posted anything before today. I think I'm just getting tired of having this question come up over and over, and I hope this comment will put the whole thing to rest.

I would like to thank the people who have worked on this article. It's hard to sort out the truth, I'm sure, and there are many complex emotions involved in what began as a wonderful collaboration. If it helps, you can look at three or four blog posts I have written about these issues over the years at storycoloredglasses.com (look at the posts labeled "Complexity and Chaos" to find them). None of what I have said here or there qualifies as anything like reliable sources, but I hope it is useful to you nonetheless. Best wishes toward all.

CynthiaFKurtz (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to limit myself to a few comments - Wikipedia is not really the place and I have no dispute with a lot of what Cynthia says and I am grateful for her clarifications on several issues.

1. Many people were involved directly or indirectly in the creation of the Cynefin framework. Max was clearly the main one from its initial inception onwards as we were in constant dialogue. Cynthia remembers Sharon as she worked with her on method development - but there was also Fiona, the two Nicks and several others on the team she didn't meet as they were in the UK (where most of the projects were run) not the US. In respect of method development around its creation and use I doubt anyone would dispute that Cynefin is the second main contributor during that period, As to the nature and form of the framework its development into five domains, the addition of the sense-respond material and the catastrophic fold (that addition came at an Academy of Management lecture and there are several witnesses to Boisot and I frantically drawing different versions and getting excited about the incorporation of Thom's ideas). In respect of ideas, framework structure and concepts Boisot's involvement prior to, during and after the interactions with Cynthia for example was the most significant. Professors Goodwin, Juarrero, McKelvey, Allen, Lissack and others at three serious seminars one in the US and one in the UK also deserve credit.
2. In a jointly authored paper both people's ideas are incorporated - the Confluence model stuff from Cynthia was her contribution to the form of the framework at that time, As she says I was never happy with it, used it briefly but for the last few years have focused on different types of constraint - something that will be published shortly, I always thought the tetrahedrons were a little too structured for a complexity framework.
3. I argued (against opposition within IKM) to list all authors in alphabetical order on all papers. The other research directors thought it was a "charming eccentricity" and never followed the practice The official position was that her name should not be on the paper, but I fought that as I fought the same battle for Lisa and others. I also knew that Cynthia had ownership issues on work prior to her joining IBM so I was sensitive to her need for acknowledgement. The paper was originally commissioned from me by the IBM systems journal following an earlier publication of the Cynefin framework in a compendium of articles on KM which came to the attention of the editors.
4. All journal articles take a year or so prior to publication. All members of the IBM story group (of who Cynthia was one of many) and around a dozen others within the KM field got "Complex Acts of Knowing" for comment at an early stage, All comments were appreciated (especially Cynthia's attention to detail), none changed the framework and I would be frankly amazed if any of them wanted to claim co-authorship. That article, the first with the five domain model, was peer reviewed, won an award in the year of publication and was recently listed as one of the most cited papers of all time within KM. It was based on an earlier paper presented at Aston University which in turn followed from an earlier workshop at Warwick with Professors Merali and Boisot where the fifth domain first emerged.
5. As to all the stuff on IBM employment, titles and funding, I'm sorry but my recall, and that of others involved is very different from that of Cynthia. I'm happy to believe that DARPA said one thing to her and another to me, that is the way of things far too often. Also she was protected from the politics of hiring someone whose contract had not been renewed in IBM Research, within another part of IBM. That was a nightmare and involved all sorts of games with titles, employment structure etc. etc.

The collaboration with Cynthia was an important and as she says wonderful if at times difficult period; similarly with Boone, Mark, Lazaroff and other co-authors over time. There are also others with who I didn't co-author articles who made a major contribution. ----Snowded ^TALK 09:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Cynthia and Snowded, thank you both for this information. I think the version we've had since 29 November summarizes it reasonably well. It currently says:

Dave Snowden, then of IBM Global Services, began work on a Cynefin model in 1999 to help manage intellectual capital within the company. He continued developing it as European director of IBM's Institute of Knowledge Management, and later with Cynthia Kurtz at the IBM Cynefin Centre for Organizational Complexity, established in 2002, where Snowden was director and Kurtz the principal researcher. They described the framework in detail the following year in a paper, "The new dynamics of strategy: Sense-making in a complex and complicated world", published in IBM Systems Journal.

SarahSV ^(talk) 16:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC) Fixed "Institute of Knowledge Management". SarahSV ^(talk) 23:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Notes and references

Yep, I think you did a good job there ----Snowded ^TALK 20:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, if you want the paragraph to be factual (and readable), it should say: "He continued developing it as European Director of IBM's Institute of Knowledge Management, where Cynthia Kurtz joined him in working on the framework in 2001. This work continued at the IBM Cynefin Centre for Organizational Complexity, established in 2002, where Snowden was Director and Kurtz Principal Researcher." Because Dave and I both worked on Cynefin in 2001, not (as what you have implies) only in 2002. In fact, the majority of my work on Cynefin took place in 2001. Also, you're missing the word "Management" in the IKM name. And position titles should be capitalized. 74.70.250.158 (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I had not logged in when I wrote that last comment, but it was me. New to Wikipedia! CynthiaFKurtz (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

And then add the work with Boone (in what is the most cited article) after leaving IBM on leadership, the work with Mark on Cynefin in healthcare informatics and now generic management of risk in health, then add the work with Lazaroff on counter-terrorism. Then soon we will have the work on constraints with a range of collaborators. I could go on and list more with citations to the relevant work including developments in Software design and cyber terrorism. The period around 2002 is important, but it is a part of a 15 year plus history which may get written up by a third party source at some time. The massive contribution of Boisot from its inception to his untimely death is not recorded. The work of the UK team in parallel to Cynthia in the US is not recorded. The work of the Cognitive Edge team over the last twelve years is not recorded. My point though out this is not to over emphasis one collaborator at the cost of others ----Snowded ^TALK 08:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Cynthia, if you can find a reliable source, we can add more. A reliable source would be something like a textbook, journal article, newspaper article, the IBM website, or any contemporaneous source (e.g. a website that existed at the time that describes the work). As for the writing, I've added "management" (thanks for pointing that out), but we use lower case for most titles.

SarahSV, if you can only use reliable sources, you should take out that I was "principal researcher" at the IBM Cynefin Centre. That position doesn't appear on any official record; it was just something we told people. On paper I was a "Project Manager" and not an employee of IBM but of an outside employment agency. That arrangement covered all work for the IKM and the IBM Cynefin Centre. So your sentence should read, "where Snowden was director and Kurtz a contractor" or something like that. As to reliable sources referring to my work on Cynefin before 2002 (a date you seem to have accepted because it is one year before the ISJ article's publication), there are none that I know of. The IKM was a membership organization, and the materials and presentations I participated in writing and presenting for it were never distributed outside the IKM membership. As I said before, I would never claim to be co-creator of Cynefin, and I agree that many people have been involved in its development, and I would never want to diminish any of their contributions; in fact, I think an exhaustive list of contributors (based on reliable sources, as you say) would be an excellent addition to the article. The only reason I have written here is that in this space Dave has previously seemed to claim that I was only barely involved in the development of Cynefin, and in particular to claim that my being first author on the 2003 paper meant nothing, when actually it meant quite a lot. This is important to me because if I am not acknowledged as the legitimate creator of the elements in the 2003 ISJ paper from which I later formed my Confluence framework, I could be accused of plagiarism in reference to my own work.

Dave, re: emphasizing one collaborator at the cost of others, when an interviewer asked you in 2006 to describe the Cynefin framework, you replied: "Let me refer you to the work done by myself and Cynthia Kurtz" (Quiggin 2007, 212). That implies that you did prioritize that collaboration. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I referenced the paper with Kurtz and would do so again, by 2008 I would probably have referenced the HBR article with Boone (the most referenced). If the interview related to health I would reference the papers with Mark and so on. No one is challenging the role of Kurtz as one of many important collaborators over time, there have been many but emphasising one at the expense of the others is wrong. In particular the longest and most profound influence from origin until his death in 2011was Boisot. In that "interview" with Tom (he constructed it from the article and checked I was OK), go back a couple of pages and Peter Ho (then Head of the Civil Service in Singapore) makes the origins of Cynefin pretty clear. The meeting with Peter came before the period when Cynthia worked for the IKM. RAHS was about 3/4 years in the definition phase and contracted a year or so before that interview.----Snowded ^TALK 23:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I've just read those pages (pp. 208–209). He doesn't describe the origins of Cynefin; he talks about a meeting with you, but doesn't say when it was. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:45, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

He doesn't say many things :-) I'm filling in a gap and there are records somewhere of my appointment as an advisor to him when he was PS in MinDef before I moved into the IKM. Why would he give a date in that interview? ----Snowded ^TALK 23:50, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea whether he had reason to mention a date (strange question). It's just that you said he "makes the origins of Cynefin pretty clear", but he doesn't. The point is that we need sources. We currently have:

1. the pre-2003 articles about Cynefin, which show that you worked on it from 1999;
2. the 2003 Kurtz-Snowden paper;
3. you referring to your and Kurtz's work when asked to describe Cynefin in 2006 (Quiggin 2007);
4. Williams and Hummelbrunner 2010 describing Cynefin as "[d]eveloped by David Snowden and Cynthia Kurtz".

SarahSV ^(talk) 00:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Personally I think he makes it clear but you have the pre 2003 papers so its a bit academic anyway. His statement is similar to the Williams one you reference. I've copied you on the exchange with Williams in which he confirms he was not aware of the earlier papers when he made that statement. I've also given you citations which state that I created it, other papers talk about Snowden & Boone's framework as they have only read the HBR article. I'm sure if I checked I could find similar statements about any co-author. That is the way of things in references, and there is no particular reason to choose one over another. We do as you say have articles that precede Cynthia's involvement that reference the framework in its five domain form. No one has written a history of Cynefin that I know of, many people have referenced it and the article they first used. As far as I can see from the above Cynthia makes no claim to creation but to being the first or second most important contributor after myself. Her importance is not disputed, but others also made a significant contribution. I'd put her up there in the top five over the twenty odd years I've been working on it especially in terms of associated method development; for a two/three year period around a decade ago she up there with Boisot & Juarrero in the theoretical discussions as well, no dispute about that. But there was a time before and along time after with other collaborators ----Snowded ^TALK 00:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

You said on 28 November that Bob Williams had apologized at some stage for not checking whether there were sources before Kurtz and Snowden. When did he apologize, do you remember? SarahSV ^(talk) 01:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Either in a conversation or an email as I recall. But recollection is not evidence which is why I emailed him and copied you on the response in which he said he was unaware of the earlier sources. Given the sheer number of citations of Cynefin I'm not sure why you are privileging one source over others? ----Snowded ^TALK 07:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

That email exchange seemed to be the first time you'd discussed it with him, but before that exchange you said he had apologized. That's what puzzled me. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to create puzzlement :-) I thought he simply answered what I was at pains to make a neutral question. I'm actually OK with the current wording, although I think it is unfair to the others who have been involved. Maybe one way is to say that the framework was originally developed by me inspired by Boisot's I-Space model (the 1999 and other citations), further developed with Kurtz and others in the IKM & Cynefin Centre, then subsequently with Boone on Leadership, Mark in Healthcare etc. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

agreed, the opening is still erroneous, Cynefin (/ˈkʌnᵻvɪn/kun-ev-in) is a conceptual framework, no it is a welsh term redirected here. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)