Talk:The Cynefin Framework
From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
(→Review: new section) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Formal aspects: | Formal aspects: | ||
| − | + | *Is the article free of grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors? | |
| − | + | The framework is developed by David J. Snowden (born 1 April 1954)[2], and is used by '''Management''' (leaders) to determine | |
| + | '''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] | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | *Is the article written in an engaging style, e.g. short, precise sentences instead of long-winded, hard-to-follow mega-sentences? | ||
*Are all main points illustrated with an appropriate figure? | *Are all main points illustrated with an appropriate figure? | ||
*Are the figures clear and understandable? | *Are the figures clear and understandable? | ||
Revision as of 16:12, 25 November 2014
Review
Formal aspects:
- Is the article free of grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors?
The framework is developed by David J. Snowden (born 1 April 1954)[2], and is used by Management (leaders) to determine 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]
- Is the article written in an engaging style, e.g. short, precise sentences instead of long-winded, hard-to-follow mega-sentences?
- Are all main points illustrated with an appropriate figure?
- 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:
- Is the article interesting for a practitioner?
- 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?
- 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?
- Is the starting summary appropriate for the article?
- 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”?
- Does the article link to other relevant pages in the APPPM wiki?
- Is “own opinion” clearly differentiated from statements substantiated by literature?
- Does the article seem to be free of “copy & paste” plagiarism?
