Jump to content

Talk:Cynefin framework

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Darkstar1st (talk | contribs) at 13:18, 6 April 2018 (→source barely mentions Cynefin Centre, not Framework). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Application in use

A chart was recently published on social media and the author is willing for its use. The source is here, table 9 and its on page 151. It uses Cynefin as a A Leader’s Framework for Policing Protest. It is an interesting aspect of use, I don't personally endorse it and I'm looking a the paper at the moment. However real world cases of actual use regardless of politics might be helpful. ----Snowded TALK 05:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting paper. We would need a release to use the table. SarahSV (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thats what I thought - He linked too me on social media so I will ask him to load it with the appropriate license ----Snowded TALK 05:16, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A Leaders Framework for Policing Protest - Designed to aid police executives in a strategic response to protests and demonstrations.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxgeron (talk • contribs) 23:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maxgeron, thank you for releasing and uploading this! I've added it to the applications section for now (see here). I'm hoping to add a few more words about your paper, because it's a very interesting use of the framework. SarahSV (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cynefin framework. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing by person with COI

I noticed User:Snowded has edited this page several times over the last year while he has a clear and declared COI.Hvgard (talk) 10:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. several times this has been discussed in the past with little or no action. [1] the entire history section appears self sourced Darkstar1st (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the history section based on primary and secondary sources. As for Snowded, his edits to this article in the last year were one each in August and October 2017 to remove unsourced. Before that it was November 2016. Hvgard, I thought you had stopped this pursuit of him. SarahSV (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He's stalking any mention of Cynefin on social media at the moment so I've been waiting for him to show up ... -----Snowded TALK 15:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As usual .... no comment. Maybe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:No_personal_attacks helps to stop this?Hvgard (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Connected contributors (editors with a COI) should refrain from directly making substantive edits to articles to which they are connected, per Wikipedia guidelines, but I agree with SarahSV (above) that merely reverting vandalism or reverting unsourced edits (as in this case) is not problematic. But it's good to alert other editors about substantive edits by connected contributors. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
while we are here, can we stop archiving the COI section, it is obvious some editors disagree and if you look thru the edit history there are substantive edits for this editor, example: Snowden and Boone an "Outstanding Practitioner-Oriented Publication in OB" award from the Academy of Management's Organizational Behavior division, added in 2008, still here today... Darkstar1st (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That was before the COI policy was notified Darkstar1st and it has been referenced and validated since. It is also one of the references that makes the article notable. Are you still upset at having to eat that hat? :-) -----Snowded TALK 17:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped looking when I got to the 11th source and all of them are written by you, with the exception one which reprints your text. the majority of this article is primary sourced. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:57, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar will give you more, but I'm happy with the work SarahSV did to sort it out and stop the conflicts. Hopefully we are not going back there. -----Snowded TALK 18:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.. this article does not match that description in the least. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what the article is based on; most of it is based on secondary sources (writing from memory and a brief glance). SarahSV (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the rules are pretty clear. COI means no editing. No editing at all! The warnings at the top of this talk page seem clear enough to me. When does this end and somebody with enough power finally takes the appropriate action?Hvgard (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The COI was established 7 June 2015 or earlier. I count some 14 edits by User:Snowded since then from a search in the history.Hvgard (talk) 20:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COI doesn't mean no edits at all. It's unusual for anyone to object to uncontroversial edits; see WP:COIU. Also see WP:HARASS. SarahSV (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the top of this page. It reads: Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. And why you mention WP:HARASS is unclear to me.Hvgard (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the COI concerns at this article should be taken (again) to WP:COI for the community's views. It's up to you 'more involved' folks, of course. GoodDay (talk) 00:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heimat

Its worth making the point (for an uninvolved editor to take up) that the link between Heimat and Cynefin is unsourced. I know some people have made the comparison but Homeland is very different from habitat in meaning, even if we take the direct translation. Within the context of the Framework (and this article is about the Framework not the word) the meaning from Sinclair’s introduction to Kyffin Williams 'The Land and the Sea' namely “It describes that relationship: the place of your birth and of your upbringing, the environment in which you live and to which you are naturally acclimatised.” was the documented reason for the choice with that phrase's sense of inherent unknowability. Heimat has various historical political associations as well which I suspect were part of the reason for its original inclusion. The Māori comparison has been made by a Pākehā author in good faith and is sourced but I note (with no request for a change) that in discussions with Māori around the setting up of a research centre in New Zealand last November that it was not considered an equivalent and there are various discussions going on as to what is. -----Snowded TALK 17:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For years you mentioned in talks that Cynefin meant "place of your multiple belongings". That is in line with Kyffin Williams that you quote as "It describes that relationship: the place of your birth and of your upbringing, the environment in which you live and to which you are naturally acclimatised.". Anyone with a basic knowledge of German or Dutch (that has the word Heimat too) can tell you that that is also the meaning of Heimat. No source needed.Hvgard (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is called original research and as I said this is not an article about word, its about the framework -----Snowded TALK 20:29, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Who needs original research on a known word that has a similar meaning in another language?Hvgard (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to expand the "see also" section

The contents of the "see also" section is a bit limited at the moment.

For starters it is weird that the Confluence Sensemaking Framework (CSF) is not mentioned. The CSF has been developed by Cynthia Kurtz one of the initial developers of Cynefin as is apparent from the references list. Please see http://www.storycoloredglasses.com/p/confluence-sensemaking-framework.html.

Next, as Cynefin is claimed to be a Sensemaking framework one would expect other sensemaking frameworks (models) to be in the "see also" section. The link about mentions quite a few (but it also has "relevant inputs", so someone needs to select the sensemaking tools from that list.

Then, Sensemaking is the lifework of Karl Weick and before that Brenda Dervin. One would expect some references to their work. Dervin isn't even mentioned and Weick only in a rather old comparison article (ref 9).

Another strange think is that Narrative Inquiry is in the "see also" section. NI is a method, Cynefin is model. When NI stays in the "see also" section it would be much more appropriate to mention PNI (Participatory Narrative Inquiry) which is the name given to the method by Cynthia Kurtz that was described in her book www.workingwithstories.org and that basically covers the Narrative Sensemaking approach initially developped at IBM.

Happy to provide more suggestions on request as long as I don't have to suggest/co-author text :-). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hvgard (talk • contribs) 20:18, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For other editors, Hvgard hass a commercial relationship with Kurtz and is actively promoting PNI and CSF. The line above is one he is taking in various social media challenges to promote his business. He is currently promoting on Linkedin what he claims is the replacement for the Cynefin Framework (links available if anyone wants them) which probably explains why he has returned to this article (about his only interest on what are periodic visits to Wikipedia) This is not about creating an good article it is about pursuing an off wiki long running dispute. I'll leave it to more experienced editors where this goes next. If there are questions of fact that I can help with please ask otherwise I have a lot of other articles to monitor and work to do -----Snowded TALK 20:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone that runs a business is promoting something Dave. You tour the world for approx. 20 years advocating Cynefin and your business as a quick look at the CE website will show. What's wrong with that? Yes we work with partners and Cynthia who is (like to many academics these days) living on a mix of academic/research work, publishing and doing projects. So what? I just make suggestions and you always respond by making me look like the black sheep of the family. Please have a look in the mirror. I just make suggestions and leave the editing to the editor ...... (over and out)Hvgard (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And FYI I was contacted by someone that had noticed you were editing again. I check this page maybe once or twice a year. I know its contents inside out. After all I helped create it with Pascal Venier in November 2008. I can still remember how happy you where back then.Hvgard (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pascal managed to retrieve something and I have no recollection of being happy with your original work, indeed a lot of corrections had to be made. I placed the framework in the public domain many years ago and lots of people have picked it up and worked with it since all with royalty payments of any type. Without that use and the third party citations it would not stand as an article. -----Snowded TALK 21:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(outsider view) Anybody can edit this article, be it a proponent or opponent of the topic. Splitting hairs, just won't do. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. It is just that when I did that in the past I found a lot of resistance from a few people here (I don't mention any names). So I leave it to others to implement (or not) the serious suggestions above.Hvgard (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One source tag

I am adding this to the article until we can get a better mix of sources. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult one. To my best knowledge Cynefin was initially a co-production of several people within IBM (Research) and possibly some from other organisations (as IBM Research tends to be dovecote). Who choose the name or published a model (a 2x2) under the Cynefin name first is not the most important. The 2003 publication seems to be the first complete one in a sufficiently serious journal. It is also the one that gave the model most of its current shape and contents. Some personal reflections on the history here https://storyconnect.nl/two-cents-cynefin/?lang=en

So why difficult? Well, there was a creation group, that is not reflected very well in both the text and the list of references. It would be great when the list becomes more mixed, but not only w.r.t sources, but also w.r.t. reflecting contributions in the early years. What would also help is more references to other sensemaking work and models. Both additions would add to a better balance. Given the developments in (academic) publishing I suspect that such sources might be harder and harder to find.Hvgard (talk) 22:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find it weird User:Darkstar1st that your flag is removed after just 15 mins by the editor that seems (or acts as) to be in charge of this article. Is that normal? .......Hvgard (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the editor is supposed to discuss before removing the tag, so I will add it back if the edit reman unopposed. The summary mentioned BLP, yet the article is not about a person, perhaps therein lies the confusion? Darkstar1st (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Template:One source says: "This template should only be used for encyclopedic content which has a verified, cited source, but only the one source." This article cites more than one source, so the template is clearly inappropriate, and its removal was justified (if not by the policy cited in the edit summary). Biogeographist (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
relies largely or entirely on a single source, so yes this article largely relies on a single source, Dave Snowden. perhaps you consider the sources on the word Cynefin to be the other sources, i suggest this would miss the thrust of the template. Cynefin is not the topic of the article, rather the Cynefin Framework, which is not found in the Welsh-English dictionary. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

source barely mentions Cynefin Centre, not Framework

I suggest we remove this as a source for anything other than what is supported by the passage that mentions Dave Snowden and the Cynefin Center Dave Snowden, director of IBM's (IBM) Cynefin Centre for Organisational Complexity in Wales, has been working with antiterrorism experts and finds that they think more creatively if he poses problems set in a different time -- the Civil War, for example. this passage is being used to support the following:

  • This is the domain of legal structures, standard operating procedures, practices that are proven to work. Never draw to an inside straight. Never lend to a client whose monthly payments exceed 35 percent of gross income. Never end the meeting without asking for the sale. Here, decision-making lies squarely in the realm of reason: Find the proper rule and apply it.
  • Here it is possible to work rationally toward a decision, but doing so requires refined judgment and expertise. ... This is the province of engineers, surgeons, intelligence analysts, lawyers, and other experts. Artificial intelligence copes well here: Deep Blue plays chess as if it were a complicated problem, looking at every possible sequence of moves
  • Hard insurance cases are one example of this domain. "Hard cases ... need human underwriters", Stewart writes, "and the best all do the same thing: Dump the file and spread out the contents
  • Stewart identifies battlefields, markets, ecosystems and corporate cultures as complex systems that are "impervious to a reductionist, take-it-apart-and-see-how-it-works approach, because your very actions change the situation in unpredictable ways
  • Stewart offers others: "the firefighter whose gut makes him turn left or the trader who instinctively sells when the news about the stock seems too good to be true." One crisis executive said of the collapse of Enron: "People were afraid. ... Decision-making was paralyzed. ... You've got to be quick and decisive—make little steps you know will succeed, so you can begin to tell a story that makes sense. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cynefin_framework&oldid=834572150"