Talk:The Cynefin Framework

Review

Formal aspects:

• Is the article free of grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors?

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.

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]

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)

As a quick overview, The Cynefin Framework consists of: A core graphic, which content that varies from source to source 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 sentenceIt 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]

• 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?

PEER REVIEW 2

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:

FORMAL ASPECTS

• In general, the article is free of grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors. Only sometimes some small mistakes are found, for example in the singular/plural form: a very simple example that is used... are the example of...
• 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).
• 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).
• I am missing references to the figures throughout the text.
• Not sure about if the author have the copyright or right to use the figures?
• 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 write it as an impersonal since it is a Wiki article. e.g: section 2: guide on leadership: if you want to become effective...

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 option 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.
• 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.
• The starting summary is appropriate for the article but the criticism (last part) needs gouping sentences in paragraphs. Right now it seems a "bullet point format" and in a discussion I suggest to writte full text.
• Sources and reference material is enought and of high quality.