Talk:Cynefin framework

I believe the Cynefin organisation is in the process of changing its name to Cognitive Edge. Nick.inglis 04:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Correct, but the Cynefin page is primarily about the method and that seems to holds its name. --Hvgard 13:16, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the editors are right to say that this sounds a bit like an advertisement at the moment. Would it not make more sense for this to be a description of the Cynefin Framework (in its generic form a strategy framework) and its use on KM and other areas. A separate page could references Cognitive Edge (or just a side reference to www.Cognitive-edge.com)?--Snowded 21:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I was going to mention that as well. There's no problem with describing aframework and organisation, but at the moment there seems to be far more promotional stuff than informational content.

On another note, the article refers to your framework with a link that describes a framework as

<<

In software development, a framework is a defined support structure in which another software project can be organized and developed. A framework may include support programs, code libraries, a scripting language, or other software to help develop and glue together the different components of a software project.

>>

Are you sure you mean to refer to a software development framwork? I would have assumed that you'd have a broader KM methodology/framework. HTH LMackinnon 02:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

to be strictly accurate its a decision making framework although its origins are in KM. It's main citations relate to its role as a sense-making framework in the context of situational assessment abnd decision making. Its not a software development framework that I know of!

This is probably advertising if no one else uses the Cynefin framework (other than David's latest company). Jackvinson 21:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

its fairly extensivly used and cited both academic and practitioner. However I didn't put up the entry or request it's up to those participating if they want the entry and/or want it changed. Writing a revised article at a high level without advertising is fairly easy but I am not sure its necessary--Snowded 21:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I've cleansed the page as much as I think is necessary. It still mentions Dave's company, but that doesn't matter I think. The Wikipedia is full of companies and other commercial stuff. Think GM, Ferrari, movies, etc. Cognitive-Egde is just one of the the worlds future large enterprises :-) Hvgard 18:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I have made various changes and inserted a picture of the framework. By skills are not up to making the image smaller, or getting the text to justify around it so if anyone can please do! --Snowded 06:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that last para was just too much advertising and I have taken the liberty to remove it. If "Cognitive-Edge" is inextricably linked to "Cynefin" then the entire article should go too, but if "Cynefin", as stated above, is a legitimate open framework that has been referenced academically by someone other than the original author (and initially I take the statements above at face value, then the article remains legit, but those external references should likely be cited. ThreePD 02:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on that - I thought about deleting it myself. I have reinstated a part, namely that it is open source and additional material is avaialable without restriction other than creative commons. I have mentioned some of the other uses and will look up the citations if someone else does not find them first (and I will appeal on the blog for others to put them in) --Snowded 10:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

this seems to be the work of a single person. The reference is only to one paper. Another other support?

There are several papers that cite the model and it has been used in several PhDs. Some of that material is on the referneced web site. Most models and frameworks come from one person by the way --Snowded 08:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

A reference has been added, which is: "Beyond the standard question - narrative research into question-patterns. Martha van Biene, Hogeschool Arnhem-Nijmegen, 2008. ISBN-nr: 978-90813751-1-5. I however have not been able to trace it. I was wondering whether it had in fact been published in Dutch, rather than in English. -- pascalvenier 22:07, 22 November 2008 (GMT)

It was (dutch that is) --Snowded TALK 23:02, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

pascalvenier 22:42, 29 November 2008 (GMT) L33th4x0rguy removed dual entry and stated "should disambiguate if 2 separate concepts; Removed entry b/c it's better at wikitionary)" and Snowded (→Origins: agree duel entry is not "wikipedian" reinsert meaning under origins). Mea culpa, mea culpa maxima. However I could not find such a wikitionary entry before and still cannot now. Where can it be found?

There isn't, as a single word in a foreign language per se is not notable. Here is is only relevant to provide context to the name of a model --Snowded TALK 04:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to strongly disagree with this argument. As odd as it can be for a Frenchman to defend the noteworthiness of the concept of Cynefin against a Welshman, I would be tempted to think that it just as notable, as say the German concept of [[[Heimat]]], which has been deemed to deserve an entry in Wikipedia. Both seem to be of significant anthropological interest. would disambiguation be a way forward.

pascalvenier 23:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Well you can try it and see what happens. I think you will get a delete (but not from me). Whatever listing two meaning on one article was against wiki policy --Snowded TALK 22:31, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Some of the Wikipedia usages are disconcerting to the neophyte. I shall have to tray and understand better the the rules. pascalvenier23:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Cleaned

I've cleaned this up a bit, and formatted it correctly - hope it helps! Hawker Typhoon 23:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

great job - thanks --Snowded 21:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Tags

OK there is no material on the talk page outlining why this article is NPOV so I have removed the tag. As far as I can see all other material is verifiable against the references which in fact summarise one article - I will place an inline reference and remove that tag. As to one source there are now other articles referenced by other authors, and more could probably be added. The edit history shows several editors involved so I can't see why that tag is in place - anyone want to explain? As per above (unsigned, sorry about that) comment) I will remove the one source tag. --Snowded TALK 05:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Notability - Dave Snowden

I've started a discussion at Talk:Dave_Snowden#Notability_Query about the notability or otherwise of Dave Snowden, who is the author of Cynefin and contributes to this article. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

James, I only edit this article on matters of fact, and if you check you will find the references are in place. As to notability, well few models make the cover article of the HBR for win awards at the US Academy of Management. It also has a strong citation history. If you check back by the way you will see that I did not create this article or Dave Snowden. In respect of that I do not involve myself per the rules, but you might want to check previous discussions. Rockpocket an admin checked into notability when he carried out a series of edits and there is a prior record of a deletion nomination on top of the talk page that you can read. Irvine22 has been messing with it of late as he doesn't like my editing and I am sure other editors will come along and do the same. However I made a decision a long time ago to edit in my own name so that is a part of the consequence. --Snowded ^TALK 09:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Now you have added the tags, please remember that you have to explain the reason for the tags on the talk page, otherwise they can be reverted. I can't seen anything which is an advert by the way, but please point it out. The references are also pretty well laid out and reputable journals, so maybe you could say what would be required in your view? --Snowded ^TALK 09:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know you didn't create it. Both this article and Dave Snowden were created by short-lived accounts which made a few edits in the KM field and then ended their contributions immediately afterwards. I realise it must be difficult editing articles that relate closely to oneself and I have no axe to grind on a personal level, as I think you are a very skilled editor. Actually, I know a little about KM and related fields, but only from a technology angle. I have never heard of Cynefin but I don't dwell much in academic KM realms to be fair. I don't understand what difference it makes that an "admin" has checked for notability, as it's up to editors generally to decide, not one admin, surely? The citations seem to be only loosely related I have to say - can you come across with some good sounding citations we can check via Google Books or online sources relating to the significance of Cynefin? Thanks. At the moment I stand by it sounding like a product ad and I know a think or two about product ads in these fields! However, I will retag it. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The most striking claim to fame would be '(others have) used the Cynefin framework for such purpose as analysing policymaking within the George W. Bush administration and the impact of religion in that process - unfortunately, the PDF cited is not accessible. Is there a replacement link to the source? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thats a paper by a member of the Cabinet Office - copy here http://www.cognitive-edge.com/ceresources/articles/35_Faith_in_the_Bush_White_House.pdf --Snowded ^TALK 09:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Actually Cynefin is a general strategy framework which has been applied to knowledge management and other areas. You have a range of articles there, and much longer list here in Google Scholar. Cover article on the HBR is rarely obtained for a model and the academy of management citation is listed and referenced on the page. That citation from the principle academic body in the field makes the relevance of the model very clear. I can't see what more you require to establish notability.

You haven't pointed out which phrases read like an advert - can you do that? None of the citations show it being used as a "product" and in practice no "product" exists, its a general model used by a lot of academics.

My point on an admin checking for notability related toDave Snowden as did the reference to the prior (failed) nomination for deletion. If you check that you will see that your question has already been answered.--Snowded ^TALK 09:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I will look at those separately. I've spent some time now (located your HBR article on the HBR site, but it only cost-free lets you look at part of it - cost is always a feature of that particular journal!) looking at your refs. Am I right that the nub of your claim to notability for Cynefin is the HBR article in Nov 07 plus a body praising that article? I mean, setting aside references to your own blog and citations which can't be checked online? If so, this article is surely well below notability standards. I've also just been reading through materials in the KM field generally on WP and other articles relating to methodologies to see how this one stacks up in terms of citability. We can get into that. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 11:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Notability claims rarely rest on one claim, I have given you a few. The other cited references can all be checked, they don't have to be available on line. The "Body" you reference is the Academy of Management you know. Given that the model is one within Management Science I think their statement is clear. This paper introduces an important new perspective that has enormous future value, and does so in a clear way that shows it can be used. (The article) makes several significant contributions. First, and most importantly, it introduces complexity science to guide managers' thoughts and actions. Second, it applies this perspective to advance a typology of contexts to help leaders to sort out the wide variety of situations in which they must lead decisions. Third, it advises leaders concerning what actions they should take in response. The typology of contexts they reference is the Cynefin model. The Academy of Management is a reliable and authoritative third party source, and their referenced statement of "significant contributions" clearly establishes notability in its own right. Otherwise look at the references. You have the one on the Bush White House. If you check the google scholar list you will find one from the Naval Post-Graduate school in the US in the context of counter terrorism (one of the sources of the model by the way). Sorry I think you may be making assessments in a field (management science) without knowledge of the significance of institutions such as the Academy and journals such as the HBR. Oh and you keep referencing KM, as I pointed out earlier the model is a generic strategy model, it has been used in KM but its use is much wider --Snowded ^TALK 11:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have never met Dave or talked with him. I have no connection. But I am in the field of KM. My issue with some editors is that they clearly know nothing about the field and look only for references and citations in 3rd party sources to back up their legit need to avoid self promotion. Let me say that in the field, there is Dave and then there is everyone else. If editors had areas of focus that reflected their own knowledge of each field, we could maybe have a more relevant interaction. Today the arena of knowledge moves at a pace faster than many of the traditional approving sources. Much of the truly innovative is of course challenged by the traditional sources. Think of the French Academy and the Impressionists. Is it really Wikipedia's role to exclude the leading edge? I don't think so. Might it be possible to lift the editing from a reliance on traditional sources of citation? Rob (talk) 11:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)