Talk:The Cynefin Framework

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎CONTENT ASPECTS)
 
(50 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
== Review ==
+
= Review by Linus R.V =
  
−
Formal aspects:
+
The introduction is good and seems to have a perfect size and gives the reader a quick overview of the method.
−
*Is the article free of grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors?
+
<br>'''Answer: Thanks for your review, I will do my best to include your recommendations'''
  
−
''Hi dear author, when i make suggestions for another formulation or word, i will write that in '''Bold text''''' and leave the old word in a breaket.
+
=Formal aspects=
  
−
The framework is developed by David J. Snowden (born 1 April 1954)[2], and is used by '''Management''' (leaders) to determine
+
*In general the article is well written, however there are some grammatical issues which have to be adressed. Particularly avoid writing in first person at any time, and check your : are, is and substantives, like: '''The''' context instead of context.
−
'''the''' context of a situation, so they ('''who?''', i used to avoid writing in first person :) ) can make appropriate choices. The framework has been applied in multiple contexts, among them '''Who?''' :) (are) '''is''' strategy management, project management, scientific research, policy making, leadership training, healthcare etc. [3]
+
'''Answer: Thanks, I have corrected a lot of is and are's'''
  
−
The Cynefin framework splits the issues '''which issues??''' that faces leaders into five contexts; simple, complicated, complex, chaotic and disorder. Each of which requires different approaches to leadership style. [1][4] (This last sentence is hard to read)
+
*The Overall flow of the article seems natural. I would suggest to define or allign the word "context"  better in the explaining text since it is used many times, in relation to different topics. For example i got confused from the sentence: It describes five contexts that leaders can use for categorizing operating contexts.
 +
'''Answer: I completely agree with the point of unclear distinction between context and domain. Thanks for pointing this out, it is corrected throughout he whole article now.'''
  
−
'''As a quick overview, The Cynefin Framework consists of:
+
*The figures are meaningfull and appropriate. It would be nice if they were directly linked to the sections were the topic of the figures is explained.
−
A core graphic, which content that varies from source to source
+
'''Answer: The figures now have numbers and are linked accordingly in the text'''
−
A set of methods on how to make sense of- and decisions within ordered and un-ordered systems. (As reader that is hard to understand, maybe reformulate or use a graphic for supporting your statement)'''
+
−
The Cynefin framework distinguieshes between order, unorder and disorder.[5] '''describes five contexts that leaders can use for categorizing operating contexts for making appropriate choices. (two times context makes it hard to read, it is hard dot understand that sentence'''It  '''Each context requires different action.[1] The simple and complicated domains assume an ordered universe, where decisions can be based on facts, right answers can be determined and there is a direct link between cause-and-effect. Whereas the complex and chaotic domains are unordered and deals with uncertainty, there is no direct link between cause-and-effect, and decisions and right answers is searched for in emerging patterns. In the the final domain disorder is hard to determine when one is in it. Different leaders have different opinions, and the way out, is to break the situation down to smaller parts, and assign each sub-situation to one of the four domains. [1]'''  
+
  
 +
* The figures also seem to be free for errors, but as stated before not referenced to.
 +
'''Answer: see above answer'''
  
−
*Is the article written in an engaging style, e.g. short, precise sentences instead of long-winded, hard-to-follow mega-sentences?
+
*Are the figures re-drawn or directly copied from others content?. If they are directly from other content, consider some actions according to copyright.
−
*Are all main points illustrated with an appropriate figure?
+
'''Answer: They are all, but one, made by me from inspiration gathered through multiple sources. The figure not made by me in the section Cynefin used in projects is now cited and properly refereed to.'''
−
*Are the figures clear and understandable?
+
−
*Are the figures free of formal errors (e.g. labeling of axes in diagrams)?
+
−
*Are the figures referenced in the text?
+
−
*Does the author have the copyright or right to use the figures (e.g. through Creative Common Non-Commercial Share Alike attribution?)
+
−
* Is the article formatted properly, i.e. are the typical Wiki-features such as sub-headings, proper bullet-point list, and Wiki-style references used? Are graphics, videos etc. integrated correctly?
+
  
−
• Content aspects:
+
* The article is formatted correctly and the pictures have a nice alignment to each other. Maybe the figure at the top should be considered, so the reader reads the text instead of looking on the figure. Unless it is the aim of placing it there.
−
*Is the article interesting for a practitioner?
+
'''Answer: It is the aim of placing it here, since the figure is so central to the framework. Readers that have seen the Cynefin framework before will probable recognize it, and thereby know what the article is about. '''
−
*Does the article clearly relate to a project, program or portfolio management topic?
+
 
−
*Is it clear which one of the four “content categories” the article belongs to?
+
=Content aspects=
−
*Does the length of the article seem appropriate? Does it contain less relevant passages or excessive details? Does it miss critical details? (The suggested length is “on the order of 3500 words”. Articles can be longer or shorter if it makes sense to do so in order to deliver a quality argument.)
+
 
−
*Is there a logical flow throughout the article? Are the parts “tied together” through a red thread?
+
*The article has a overall logical structure which encourages the reader to look at the whole article and thus makes it interesting to read. There are a few obstacles. Mainly the location of the perspective section were a distraction, as the content of it lead the readers attention or thoughts to the baseline of the ideology behind the described method. I would suggest to place it at the end of the examples of the method.
−
*Is the starting summary appropriate for the article?
+
'''Answer: I agree with your point that the perspective section was misplaced, it is corrected now.'''
−
*Does the article provide sufficient sources and reference material?
+
 
−
*Are sources and reference material of high quality? I.e., does the article mostly rely on books, journal articles, standards, and to some degree on high-quality websites, instead of “blog posts”?
+
*The articles relation to a project, program or portfolio management, is only given in the section about the usage of the method in projects. I am not clear how to define the relation of the content when the method usually is used by project, program or portfolio management. That should be elaborated.
−
*Does the article link to other relevant pages in the APPPM wiki?
+
'''Answer: see answer below'''
−
*Is “own opinion” clearly differentiated from statements substantiated by literature?
+
 
−
*Does the article seem to be free of “copy & paste” plagiarism?
+
*It seems that the Cynefin model only relates to Project Management, not to Programme or Portfolio Management.
 +
'''Answer: The Cynefin framework is a sense- and decision making framework that relates to  management in uncertainty in general. I would therefor argue that it can be used in all the mentioned contexts. However, a large part of the literature describes the use within project management. '''
 +
 
 +
*The length of the article seems appropriate and fullfilling, articles or relations missing where stated in the previous points. The artikel contain some hundred words less then 3500 words, which is acceptable according to the content. It should also be said, that there is a additional site linked to the main artikel, were the author describes a game for leadership training addressing the method/topic of the article. It is not clear how to count the sub-site into the overall size. 
 +
'''Answer: The WIKI-page [[The cynefin LEGO game]] is created by me, and it not a part of my article, it is simply for readers that wants a deeper understanding of the framework. In my article and in [[The cynefin LEGO game]], is is also clearly stated that it is not written by me, simply copied from Agile42.com under a creativecommons license.'''
 +
 
 +
*The overall flow seems logical and natural as stated before, the only part i would point on is the Perspective part, which should be considered to be moved to the end of the article.
 +
'''Answer: The section has been moved'''
 +
 
 +
*The starting article seem to have a nice size and contains the relevant introduction topic, however it could be nice if the statement will be more sharp. Maybe with concrete areas where the model is used and switch the "can´s" to "as is" or "is".
 +
'''Answer: I agree, it is corrected'''
 +
 
 +
*The article provides sufficient sources and reference material, even though some links for further reading.
 +
'''Answer: I'm not quite sure what is meant here. I understand the comment as "I would like some more links for further reading". My answer to that would be that I have listed ten articles, two books, six hyperlinks and two videos for further reading and information, and would argue that the amount of further reading is sufficient.'''
 +
 
 +
*The resources look a like high to good quality reference material. The links are not taken into consideration.
 +
'''Answer: I have put an emphasis on using academic sources, mainly scientific articles'''
 +
 
 +
*The article is linked to another article which describes a method for training purposes according to the content of the article and is thereby highly relevant.
 +
'''Answer: thanks'''
 +
 
 +
*Overall the article seems to be quite objective.
 +
'''Answer: thanks'''
 +
 
 +
* In general the article seems to be free for copy and paste plagiarism, anyway should the author put attention to review sources and destinations to be absolut sure, that copy paste and plagiarism is avoided.
 +
'''Answer: I'm not sure what is meant here. If you mean that I sould make sure that my sources are not plagiated my answer would be that: all my sources have plenty of both forward and backwards referencing. So I would argue that there is no case of plagiarism.'''
 +
 
 +
= '''PEER REVIEW by 131063''' =
 +
 
 +
*Mainly, I think the article is very good. The topic is appropriate for the subject, its development is clear while the necessary content is present. Therefore generally the end result is good. However, some details to improve are evaluated and some suggestions are added:
 +
'''Answer: Thanks for the review'''
 +
 
 +
=='''FORMAL ASPECTS'''==
 +
 
 +
* In general, the article is free of grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors. Only sometimes some small mistakes are found, principally in the singular/plural form e.g: a very simple example that is used... are the example of...
 +
'''Answer: Similar comment in last review, it is corrected, thanks.'''
 +
*The article is written in an appropriate style. However sometimes too long sentences are founded. e.g: last paragraph of section 3 (Perspective on organizational theory and paradigms).
 +
'''Answer: I agree. The mentioned sentence among others are corrected.  '''
 +
*Figures are not clear and understandable, they are too small and it is very hard (sometimes impossible) to read what is written in the figures in some sections of the article. E.g: abstract, section 1 (The Cynefin model) and section 5 (Cynefin used in projects).
 +
'''Answer: I have chosen not to do anything, since it is my understanding that the reader did not know that the pictures work as links. If you press the pictures they will come up enlarged. I have chosen to keep the pictures the same size, 200 px, so it will fit on smaller screens as well. Especially on iPads etc. '''
 +
*I am missing references to the figures throughout the text.
 +
'''Answer: Similar comment in last review, it is corrected, thanks.'''
 +
*Not sure about if the author have the copyright or right to use the figures?
 +
'''Answer: Similar comment in last review, see comments there, thanks.'''
 +
*The article has the typical Wiki-features and the proper Wiki-style. Nevertheless sometimes the second person is used. From my point of view, it is better to use the impersonal since it is a Wiki article. e.g: section 2: guide on leadership: if you want to become effective...
 +
'''Answer: I agree to the comment, it was a citation that was not properly formatted. You will see it like ''"This"'' now. Thanks'''
 +
=='''CONTENT ASPECTS'''==
 +
 
 +
*The article is related to the content of the course especially in section 5 (Cynefin used in projects) which is not very long. It is understandable the need of an explanation of the Cynefin (in a more general way). However, in my opinion it would be beter to lengthen section 5 since it is the one related directly to the course. As I see the lenght of the article is appropriate, maybe it would be necessary to shorten other parts in order to do this.
 +
'''Answer: Thanks for the comment, I have added another example to the section. The article now contains two examples of use, and links to the [[The cynefin LEGO game]], which in my perspective is enough. For additional examples i suggest that the reader follow the guide in additional reading. I want to keep a good balance between in the article, so it is easy for the readers. '''
 +
*There is a logical flow throughout the article and in general is coherent.
 +
'''Answer: Thanks'''
 +
*I really like the link: The cynefin LEGO game, I think it clarifies a lot the point of view of the article in a very good practical way.
 +
'''Answer: Thanks'''
 +
*The starting summary is appropriate for the article
 +
'''Answer: Thanks'''
 +
*The criticism (last part) needs to group the sentences in paragraphs in a coherent way. Right now it seems a "bullet point format" and in a discussion I suggest to writte a full text.
 +
'''Answer: i agree, it has now been revised and written as a full text '''
 +
*It seems that the article could be related to other articles in the APPPM wiki (for example the one named "complexity" and others connected with complexity management). It would be a good idea to include this relation at the end of the article. 
 +
'''Answer: I have already related to other WIKI-articles troughout the whole article (the red words like this: [[project management]]). So I have chosen not to follow your advise and put it in the end pf the article. '''
 +
*Sources and reference material are enough and of high quality.
 +
'''Answer: Thanks'''
 +
*In general the article seems to be free for copy and paste plagiarism, anyway the author should review sources and destinations to be absolutely sure that copy paste and plagiarism is avoided.
 +
'''Answer: Thanks.'''
 +
 
 +
Good Job :)

Latest revision as of 15:04, 1 December 2014

Contents

[edit] Review by Linus R.V

The introduction is good and seems to have a perfect size and gives the reader a quick overview of the method.
Answer: Thanks for your review, I will do my best to include your recommendations

[edit] Formal aspects

  • In general the article is well written, however there are some grammatical issues which have to be adressed. Particularly avoid writing in first person at any time, and check your : are, is and substantives, like: The context instead of context.

Answer: Thanks, I have corrected a lot of is and are's

  • The Overall flow of the article seems natural. I would suggest to define or allign the word "context" better in the explaining text since it is used many times, in relation to different topics. For example i got confused from the sentence: It describes five contexts that leaders can use for categorizing operating contexts.

Answer: I completely agree with the point of unclear distinction between context and domain. Thanks for pointing this out, it is corrected throughout he whole article now.

  • The figures are meaningfull and appropriate. It would be nice if they were directly linked to the sections were the topic of the figures is explained.

Answer: The figures now have numbers and are linked accordingly in the text

  • The figures also seem to be free for errors, but as stated before not referenced to.

Answer: see above answer

  • Are the figures re-drawn or directly copied from others content?. If they are directly from other content, consider some actions according to copyright.

Answer: They are all, but one, made by me from inspiration gathered through multiple sources. The figure not made by me in the section Cynefin used in projects is now cited and properly refereed to.

  • The article is formatted correctly and the pictures have a nice alignment to each other. Maybe the figure at the top should be considered, so the reader reads the text instead of looking on the figure. Unless it is the aim of placing it there.

Answer: It is the aim of placing it here, since the figure is so central to the framework. Readers that have seen the Cynefin framework before will probable recognize it, and thereby know what the article is about.

[edit] Content aspects

  • The article has a overall logical structure which encourages the reader to look at the whole article and thus makes it interesting to read. There are a few obstacles. Mainly the location of the perspective section were a distraction, as the content of it lead the readers attention or thoughts to the baseline of the ideology behind the described method. I would suggest to place it at the end of the examples of the method.

Answer: I agree with your point that the perspective section was misplaced, it is corrected now.

  • The articles relation to a project, program or portfolio management, is only given in the section about the usage of the method in projects. I am not clear how to define the relation of the content when the method usually is used by project, program or portfolio management. That should be elaborated.

Answer: see answer below

  • It seems that the Cynefin model only relates to Project Management, not to Programme or Portfolio Management.

Answer: The Cynefin framework is a sense- and decision making framework that relates to management in uncertainty in general. I would therefor argue that it can be used in all the mentioned contexts. However, a large part of the literature describes the use within project management.

  • The length of the article seems appropriate and fullfilling, articles or relations missing where stated in the previous points. The artikel contain some hundred words less then 3500 words, which is acceptable according to the content. It should also be said, that there is a additional site linked to the main artikel, were the author describes a game for leadership training addressing the method/topic of the article. It is not clear how to count the sub-site into the overall size.

Answer: The WIKI-page The cynefin LEGO game is created by me, and it not a part of my article, it is simply for readers that wants a deeper understanding of the framework. In my article and in The cynefin LEGO game, is is also clearly stated that it is not written by me, simply copied from Agile42.com under a creativecommons license.

  • The overall flow seems logical and natural as stated before, the only part i would point on is the Perspective part, which should be considered to be moved to the end of the article.

Answer: The section has been moved

  • The starting article seem to have a nice size and contains the relevant introduction topic, however it could be nice if the statement will be more sharp. Maybe with concrete areas where the model is used and switch the "can´s" to "as is" or "is".

Answer: I agree, it is corrected

  • The article provides sufficient sources and reference material, even though some links for further reading.

Answer: I'm not quite sure what is meant here. I understand the comment as "I would like some more links for further reading". My answer to that would be that I have listed ten articles, two books, six hyperlinks and two videos for further reading and information, and would argue that the amount of further reading is sufficient.

  • The resources look a like high to good quality reference material. The links are not taken into consideration.

Answer: I have put an emphasis on using academic sources, mainly scientific articles

  • The article is linked to another article which describes a method for training purposes according to the content of the article and is thereby highly relevant.

Answer: thanks

  • Overall the article seems to be quite objective.

Answer: thanks

  • In general the article seems to be free for copy and paste plagiarism, anyway should the author put attention to review sources and destinations to be absolut sure, that copy paste and plagiarism is avoided.

Answer: I'm not sure what is meant here. If you mean that I sould make sure that my sources are not plagiated my answer would be that: all my sources have plenty of both forward and backwards referencing. So I would argue that there is no case of plagiarism.

[edit] PEER REVIEW by 131063

  • Mainly, I think the article is very good. The topic is appropriate for the subject, its development is clear while the necessary content is present. Therefore generally the end result is good. However, some details to improve are evaluated and some suggestions are added:

Answer: Thanks for the review

[edit] FORMAL ASPECTS

  • In general, the article is free of grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors. Only sometimes some small mistakes are found, principally in the singular/plural form e.g: a very simple example that is used... are the example of...

Answer: Similar comment in last review, it is corrected, thanks.

  • The article is written in an appropriate style. However sometimes too long sentences are founded. e.g: last paragraph of section 3 (Perspective on organizational theory and paradigms).

Answer: I agree. The mentioned sentence among others are corrected.

  • Figures are not clear and understandable, they are too small and it is very hard (sometimes impossible) to read what is written in the figures in some sections of the article. E.g: abstract, section 1 (The Cynefin model) and section 5 (Cynefin used in projects).

Answer: I have chosen not to do anything, since it is my understanding that the reader did not know that the pictures work as links. If you press the pictures they will come up enlarged. I have chosen to keep the pictures the same size, 200 px, so it will fit on smaller screens as well. Especially on iPads etc.

  • I am missing references to the figures throughout the text.

Answer: Similar comment in last review, it is corrected, thanks.

  • Not sure about if the author have the copyright or right to use the figures?

Answer: Similar comment in last review, see comments there, thanks.

  • The article has the typical Wiki-features and the proper Wiki-style. Nevertheless sometimes the second person is used. From my point of view, it is better to use the impersonal since it is a Wiki article. e.g: section 2: guide on leadership: if you want to become effective...

Answer: I agree to the comment, it was a citation that was not properly formatted. You will see it like "This" now. Thanks

[edit] CONTENT ASPECTS

  • The article is related to the content of the course especially in section 5 (Cynefin used in projects) which is not very long. It is understandable the need of an explanation of the Cynefin (in a more general way). However, in my opinion it would be beter to lengthen section 5 since it is the one related directly to the course. As I see the lenght of the article is appropriate, maybe it would be necessary to shorten other parts in order to do this.

Answer: Thanks for the comment, I have added another example to the section. The article now contains two examples of use, and links to the The cynefin LEGO game, which in my perspective is enough. For additional examples i suggest that the reader follow the guide in additional reading. I want to keep a good balance between in the article, so it is easy for the readers.

  • There is a logical flow throughout the article and in general is coherent.

Answer: Thanks

  • I really like the link: The cynefin LEGO game, I think it clarifies a lot the point of view of the article in a very good practical way.

Answer: Thanks

  • The starting summary is appropriate for the article

Answer: Thanks

  • The criticism (last part) needs to group the sentences in paragraphs in a coherent way. Right now it seems a "bullet point format" and in a discussion I suggest to writte a full text.

Answer: i agree, it has now been revised and written as a full text

  • It seems that the article could be related to other articles in the APPPM wiki (for example the one named "complexity" and others connected with complexity management). It would be a good idea to include this relation at the end of the article.

Answer: I have already related to other WIKI-articles troughout the whole article (the red words like this: project management). So I have chosen not to follow your advise and put it in the end pf the article.

  • Sources and reference material are enough and of high quality.

Answer: Thanks

  • In general the article seems to be free for copy and paste plagiarism, anyway the author should review sources and destinations to be absolutely sure that copy paste and plagiarism is avoided.

Answer: Thanks.

Good Job :)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php?title=Talk:The_Cynefin_Framework&oldid=5880"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox