Talk:Cynefin framework/Archive 4

Not a refereed source
Source 3 (Williams, Bob; Hummelbrunner, Richard. (2010). Systems Concepts in Action: A Practitioner's Toolkit, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 10, 173.) is a book, not from a refereed journal. This reference plays a quite vital role in the sentence: This allows them to make sense of their own and other people's behaviour.[3] The framework draws on research into systems theory, complexity theory, network theory and learning theories.[4]

IMHO this is not a solid way to establish/proof that Cynefin draws on those theories. For Network and Learning theories that is certainly not apparent from the tool itself. And for Systems theory I would love to see more proof or a refereed source.

For the chaos domain there seems no source thus far. IMHO chaos theory seems logical at first sight, but on second thought the role of chaos (not chaos theory) as a natural phenomenon / driving force that plays a role in the emergence of complex systems is of a completely different order and hard to relate to the Chaos domain. So in Cynefin it seems to come more from the chemical/physical notion of chaotic states than chaos in the natural sciences nor from chaos theory in the mathematical sense, as is stated roughly too in the para on the chaotic domain. So what ref is appropriate here? Kauffman's Origin of Order https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Kauffman ?Hvgard (talk) 16:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Framework or model
First of all, happy to see all this is now under discussion. The page is improving lately. The subject of this "talk" subsection started with "what is it" and "is it a framework or a model". The current text is better than before but still quite confusing. The first sentence reads:

The Cynefin framework (/ˈkʌnᵻvɪn/kun-EV-in) is a decision-making model that helps managers incorporate complexity into their decisions.

So first it is a framework and a few words later it is a model. Why not start with "Cynefin is model" or "The Cynefin model"?

Then on purpose: Cynefin is not a decision-making model. It is a model that helps (or intends to) improve decision making.

Next on "who uses": why only managers? Some use it personally, some in groups, some managers, etc.

And why incorporate complexity while the model is about order, chaos AND complexity? I think that is too much detail so early on.

To cut a long story short, I suggest. Cynefin (/ˈkʌnᵻvɪn/kun-EV-in) is a model used in personal and organisational decision making.Hvgard (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * agreed, a model is developed within a framework, ergo, The Cynefin framework is a decision-making model is a misnomer. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * , I've simplified it along your lines, but not by calling it a "model" (it's not a representation, so it's probably best to avoid "model"). The first sentence now reads: "Cynefin is a conceptual framework used to help managers, policy-makers and others reach decisions." SarahSV (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that wording is better and it keeps framework which has been largely used since the Kurt/Snowden article.  I note that Hvgard has a COI in respect of this article (and history) in case other editors are not aware.  Snowded  TALK 20:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks SarahSV for these changes/improvements. Having framework OR model is much better that both. Still when one looks at all pages that have "framework" in their title, one observes that most of those pages refer to either a software framemwork or a set of policy. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=intitle%3A"framework". The page on models (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model) shows that the meaning of model indeed is representional (not in Dutch, but apparently in English). One could argue that Cynefin represents the different perspectives/nature of systems (order, chaos, complex and mixes of those) and is used to create a representation (so a model), but that won't solve the confusion for many readers. So I looked at a few comparable "things" such as SWOT and these seems to be called tools mostly. That seems logical. Cynefin is a tool to aid decision making.


 * Next, the page on conceptual framework states that order to qualify as such there need to be several variations and contexts. As far as I know these don't exist. There is an application to map dynamics of systemic movements, but that is not part of Cynefin. So I think that tool is the best qualification. Hvgard (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * One addition: Cynthia has (over the last ten years) developed the Confuence Sensemaking Framework. See http://www.storycoloredglasses.com/p/confluence-sensemaking-framework.html. That model IMHO qualifies as a conceptual framework as it features several variations. F.e. "greater constrainst vs greater coordination" and "greater participation vs greater proliferation" and "greater conjuction vs greater cooperation". I would love to see the CSF on wikipedia too, but I won't create it as that would undoubtedly lead to more COI accusations which is sad as the CSF framework would form a nice addition to the "see also" list.


 * Finally, and this will almost certainly elicit reaction, my personal critique on Cynefin is that it is incomplete in terms of systemic aspects. So I agree to the critique mentions on the page that "covers too limited a selection of possible contexts". Before I knew about Cynefin, so before 2003 I was already working on models wherin the (physical and/or psychological or other "ogical" boundaries played a role. Around 2008 I first made that explicit but after discovering Confluence (which is boundary free in its virgin state) I decided to further develop my ideas a publics the Hexagon Sensemaking Canvas https://storyconnect.nl/hexagon-sensemaking-canvas-introduction/?lang=en. That is over a year ago and we are now working on an update that should appear in the forthcoming months.


 * So actually there are at least 3 comparable tools (Cynefin, Confluence Sensemaking Framework (CSF) and Hexagon SenseMaking Canvas (HSC)). Actually there is a fourth similar model called Knowledge in Formation (KiF) (see https://storyconnect.nl/glossary/knowledge-in-formation/?lang=en) but one of its authors does not agree that it is comparable. And for the real investigators .... Cynthia lists over 20 sensemaking (releated) models/tools/frameworks she calls siblings at the bottom of http://www.storycoloredglasses.com/p/confluence-sensemaking-framework.html. The text just above the list is very informative on this type of tools and some of that text IMHO deserves to go in this or other wikipedia pages.Hvgard (talk) 12:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hvgard, it's a way of looking at things, a way of organizing. Conceptual framework is fine. As for the others, if there are independent sources, articles could be created. See WP:GOLDENRULE for the kind of sourcing we need: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic". SarahSV (talk) 00:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Public domain
Re: "All Cynefin Centre work in IBM was placed in the public domain". Who released it, do you know? If it has been released, does that mean we can use any of the Cynefin diagrams? SarahSV (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * It was a part of the declarations on all training courses run by the Cynefin Centre, authorised by the VP responsible. I no longer have access to those however its 12-13 years ago.  The diagrams are in published articles and can be used as such under normal publication rules.  I have no documents anywhere in which IBM asserts any ownership.  Heading for coach now at airport will check in later  Snowded  TALK 06:07, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * When all work of the Cynefin Center was put in the public domain than that leads to the question what else than the Cynefin tool is involved. Can Snowded  broadly remember the list of items involved? What were other results/assets of the Cynefin Centre work? In http://www.kmworld.com/Articles/News/News-Analysis/The-Cynefin-Centre-Life-after-IBM-14542.aspx documentation of Cynefin concepts and methods are mentioned as well as a suite of software applications. This would imply that all that is in the open source which I find hard to believe, but certainly not impossible.Hvgard (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

COI?
The discussion above seems to indicate an attempt by an editor with a declared economic and reputational interest in the subject to shape the article in a manner favourable to himself. Surely this is a WP:COI? CarsonNCraig (talk) 07:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Reputation issues are important I'm afraid, hence by saying this is a BLP issue. For Wikipedia's voice to say that I didn't create a framework is to say that I am lying when I make that claim in public.  COI and BLP do not mean that someone with a repetitional issue should be ignored in favour of an alternative COI  Snowded  TALK 07:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * One of the problems in the past that led to the COI declarations, is that while sensemaking-tools such as this one are IMHO important to have as a page in wikipedia, but the number of people that were involved or close to its provenance is small. I have some different opinions than Snowded, but my position on this is close. I first encountered Cynefin in 2003/2004 and have followed The Cynefin Centre, Cynthia Kurtz, Cognitive Edge, Anecdote and other organisations and individuals that were close to this process and/or contributed to it so I think I have useful things to say and do so now on this talk page. It is pointless to repeat what I said about the emergence/provenance of Cynefin elsewhere here, so in case you are interested, see https://storyconnect.nl/two-cents-cynefin/?lang=en.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hvgard (talk • contribs) 13:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Disorder
Snowded, can you recommend a good source (the best source you're aware of) on the domain of disorder? I've having a hard time really understanding its function. SarahSV (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll find something and email it with the other material when I get home (later this week) Snowded  TALK 07:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


 * got it, thanks. I'll take a look at it over the next few days. SarahSV (talk) 00:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Any progress on this? The Wikipedia disambiguation page on Disorder seems to suggest that randomness is closest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disorder. I think that the use here is closer to "the structural (messy) properties of an agglomerate" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agglomerate. Any real situation, after all - is - depending on perspective - a mixture/entangled network of (ordered/complicated, complex, chaotic) and (controlled, cooperative and autonomy) aspects.Hvgard (talk) 10:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Randomness is nothing whatsoever to do with the use of disorder within the Cynefin framework. Within that context it is the state of not knowing which if the other four domains you are in.  You appear to be trying the refine the various Cynefin framework terms (see also your comment on Kauffman and Chaos) based on your  own reading of how those words are used elsewhere  Snowded  TALK 10:10, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It is logical that people ask this as Kaufmann's Order (started as Known, later Obvious, now Simple), Complex and Chaotic aspects of systems in nature (which you reference in your video on Cynefin and which is in list of influential books on your companies website: http://cognitive-edge.com/resources/influential-books/). But disorder isn't in there. The only thing I notice here is that Wikipedia suggests Disorder is close in meaning to Randomness in a series of reaction that inquire into its function. So a good source is needed. One that explains the difference of the use in Cynefin and the meaning Wikipedia suggests.Hvgard (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You need to read up wikipedia policies on original research and synthesis This article is about the Cynefin Framework in which disorder is defined.  Snowded  TALK 22:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think that will help here. If will help when you share the emails you apparently shared with SarahSV 7 December 2016 please.Hvgard (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * What emails would that be, and how would they help with this issue? SarahSV (talk) 00:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The emails you said "got it, thanks" about on Dec 7. We still lack a good source (the best source you're aware of) here on the domain of disorder. I'm pretty knowledgeable on that topic given the fact I hold a PhD in chemistry/complexity science. The use of disorder here still puzzles me. So good sources will not only help but seem essential.Hvgard (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * As far as I am aware the subject of this article is The Cynefin Framework, it is not a place for a general discussion of complexity theory, disorder or different theories or takes on the subject,  Snowded  TALK 00:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The email had nothing to do with randomness. I asked for sources on the disorder domain in the Cynefin framework. SarahSV (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please explain how a private email exchange meets Wikipedia standards of reliability and verifiability of sources?CarsonNCraig (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't. I asked for a source. An email with sources arrived. SarahSV (talk) 01:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Separate entry for Cynefin (the word) and a link to Tūrangawaewae
There is a separate entry for Heimat. I'm not Welsh, but Cynefin seems a quite specific word that - like Heimat - might deserve a separate entry OR there can be a link to an external source that explains its meaning.

Furthermore, it seems logical to add a link to Tūrangawaewae https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C5%ABrangawaewae too to relate to words with a closely similar meaning in other languages. Hvgard (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * agreed, the opening is still erroneous, Cynefin (/ˈkʌnᵻvɪn/kun-ev-in) is a conceptual framework, no it is a welsh term redirected here. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks Darkstar1st. Can you make the appropriate changes. I'm not allowed to do so.Hvgard (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Changes were made yesterday Snowded  TALK 12:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Those are other changes than proposed here. I created a separate Cynefin page using the information on the Welsh word found mostly here and in some other places. Someone with more knowledge on the Welsh language can undoubtedly improve that page. Maybe someone else such as Darkstar1st can now remove the duplicate information on the meaning of the world from this page, leaving only why the name was chosen.Hvgard (talk) 19:59, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Hvgard, when you copy text from one article to another, you're supposed to give credit in the edit summary or at least on the talk page; otherwise it's plagiarism and a copyright violation. See Copying within Wikipedia. SarahSV (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Slimvirgin. Right! That is why I requested to remove that sentence here as it seems more relevant there now. I don't dare to make those changes here due to COI. But I honestly think it doesn't belong here anymore and should be re-added to the Cynefin page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hvgard (talk • contribs) 20:33, 6 January 2017 (UTC)


 * For that article to remain, you would need to find secondary sources showing that the word is notable as an encyclopedia entry. See WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Heimat is an example of an article about a word. Otherwise it's just a DICDEF. SarahSV (talk) 20:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Citation templates
Does anyone have a strong preference for the citation templates? I find them difficult to use, because I can't see the wikitext when there are lots of templates, so I've been adding manual cites. I don't know when the templates were first added, but the article was created without them in 2006, and still didn't have them in 2013 (example). Most references currently don't use them, so I'd prefer to continue using the manual references. SarahSV (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The refs were converted to templates by one editor here in January 2013. SarahSV (talk) 01:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Chaotic domain
The Chaotic domain in Cynefin has two aspects. (1) Entered accidentally (mostly from a collapse from the obvious domain due to complacently, or Clayton's idea of competence based failure during a period of rapid change.  (2) Entered deliberately it can be a space for innovation but it requires energy to maintain that state (think of a skunk works project or as a metaphor Nuclear fission) or, by maintaining separate between actors for mass sensemaking or wisdom of crowds.  Snowded  TALK 05:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * , thanks. If you can recommend additional sources, that would be helpful. SarahSV (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll track them down over the weekend. Snowded  TALK 05:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

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)


 * That's an interesting paper. We would need a release to use the table. SarahSV (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 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)

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


 * , 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)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723143154/http://www.iglc.net/conferences/2005/papers/session01/05_059_Koskela_Kagioglou.pdf to http://www.iglc.net/conferences/2005/papers/session01/05_059_Koskela_Kagioglou.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.business2.com/articles/mag/0%2C1640%2C44584%2CFF.html

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

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

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Who needs original research on a known word that has a similar meaning in another language?Hvgard (talk) 20:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

(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)
 * 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)

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)
 * Agreed. several times this has been discussed in the past with little or no action.  the entire history section appears self sourced Darkstar1st (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 17:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 18:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * , I cited BLP because it seems clear that Snowden is the target here, and the edit implied that he had written the article himself. BLP applies to all material about living persons on any page. SarahSV (talk) 14:24, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * @SarahSV: I didn't interpret the comment in the tag that way; I interpreted it as meaning (incorrectly) that all of the cited sources were written by Snowden. Of course, if the tag meant that Snowden wrote this article by himself, that is incorrect as well. Biogeographist (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * 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)

It seems that you are looking at a different article than the one I am looking at. Here is a list of sources not by Snowden that Cynefin framework currently cites, copied and pasted from the "References" section (I've copied and pasted rendered plain text, not the wiki markup, so some formatting is lost):


 * Berger, Jennifer Harvey; Johnston, Keith (2015). Simple Habits for Complex Times. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
 * Williams, Bob; Hummelbrunner, Richard (2010). Systems Concepts in Action: A Practitioner's Toolkit. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
 * Browning, Larry; Latoza, Roderick (31 December 2005). "The use of narrative to understand and respond to complexity: A comparative analysis of the Cynefin and Weickian models", Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 7(3–4): 32–39.
 * "The Cynefin Centre: Life after IBM", KM World, 14(7), July/August 2005.
 * Stewart, Thomas (November 2002). "How to Think With Your Gut", Business 2.0 (1–5), 4–5.
 * Lambe, Patrick (2007). Organising Knowledge: Taxonomies, Knowledge and Organisational Effectiveness. Oxford: Chandos Publishing.
 * Geron, Stephen Max (March 2014). "21st Century strategies for policing protest" (pdf), Naval Postgraduate School.
 * O'Neill, Louisa-Jayne (2004). "Faith and decision-making in the Bush presidency: The God elephant in the middle of America's livingroom" (PDF). Emergence: Complexity and Organisation. 6 (1/2): 149–156.
 * French, Simon; Niculae, Carmen (March 2005). "Believe in the Model: Mishandle the Emergency". Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management. 2 (1). doi:10.2202/1547-7355.1108.
 * Verdon, John (July 2005). "Transformation in the CF: Concept towards a theory of Human Network-Enabled". Ottawa: National Defence, Directory of Strategic Human Resources.
 * Shepherd, Richard; Barker, Gary; French, Simon; et al. (July 2006). "Managing Food Chain Risks: Integrating Technical and Stakeholder Perspectives on Uncertainty". Journal of Agricultural Economics. 57 (2): 313–327.
 * Bellavita, Christopher (October 2006). "Shape Patterns, Not Programs", Homeland Security Affairs, II(3), 1–21.
 * Pelrine, Joseph (March 2011). "On Understanding Software Agility: A Social Complexity Point Of View" (PDF). Emergence: Complexity & Organization. 13 (1/2): 26.
 * Mark, Annabelle L. (2006). "Notes from a Small Island: Researching Organisational Behaviour in Healthcare from a UK Perspective". Journal of Organizational Behavior. 27 (7): 851–867. doi:10.1002/job.414. JSTOR 4093874.
 * Sturmberg, Joachim P.; Martin, Carmel M. (October 2008). "Knowing – in Medicine". Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 14 (5): 767–770. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2008.01011.x.
 * Burman, Christopher J.; Aphane, Marota A. (September 2016). "Leadership emergence: the application of the Cynefin framework during a bio-social HIV/AIDS risk-reduction pilot", African Journal of AIDS Research, 15(3), 249–260. doi:10.2989/16085906.2016.1198821.
 * Cox, Kate, Lucy Strang, Susanne Sondergaard and Cristina Gonzalez Monsalve. Understanding how organisations ensure that their decision making is fair. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2017.
 * Firestone, Joseph M.; McElroy, Mark W. (2011). Key Issues in the New Knowledge Management. Abingdon: Routledge, 132–133 (first published 2003).

Clearly the article cites more than one source. Adding Template:One source is inappropriate. The article could use more sources, but that is best accomplished by doing some research and adding more sources, not by tagging the article with a template that doesn't fit. Biogeographist (talk) 13:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * have you read any of the sources? this one was written by a grad student for his thesis...Darkstar1st (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I've read some of Berger & Johnston 2015. I haven't read the thesis you mentioned above. But I have cited theses in other Wikipedia articles, so I am not opposed in principle to citing theses. That is what Template:Cite thesis is for, after all. Biogeographist (talk) 13:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * the thesis uses Dave Snowden as a ref., so still single source. as to the section, the source might be used at the article on Dave Snowden or IBM, but not here as the framework is not discussed, rather the Dave Snowden and the IBM Cynefin Center, finds that they think more creatively if he sets problems in a different time not really enough to justify so many citations if at any at all here. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * says: "The word 'source' when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: The piece of work itself (the article, book); The creator of the work (the writer, journalist); The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)". Regardless of which of those three meanings of "source" you are using, the thesis you mentioned above is not the same source as Snowden. I don't understand what you are trying to say in your previous comment from "as to the section" onward. But the idea that Snowden and the thesis in question are a "single source" is clearly wrong. Biogeographist (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * apologies, i meant the section below. so the thesis cites the creator as his source in the thesis. someone repeating what the creator of one source wrote does not make it an additional source. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to be using a meaning of the word "source" that is not one of the standard meanings on Wikipedia mentioned above (from ). Someone "repeating what the creator of one source wrote" is indeed an additional source; that is one of the factors that differentiates a primary source from a secondary source. Biogeographist (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

BLP
Darkstar1st, when you began editing these articles in 2016 (this one and the bio), did you do that after a dispute elsewhere with Snowded? SarahSV (talk) 14:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * please strike-thru your accusation and remember to wp:agf Darkstar1st (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a question, not an accusation, and I'd appreciate an answer. WP:BLP says:


 * "Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities. Experience has shown that misusing Wikipedia to perpetuate legal, political, social, literary, scholarly, or other disputes is harmful to the subjects of biographical articles, to other parties in the dispute, and to Wikipedia itself.Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest."


 * SarahSV (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)


 * He has a prior dispute -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 01:58, 7 April 2018 (UTC)


 * He or you User:Snowded? Hvgard (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

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)


 * Are we talking about the IBM Cynefin Centre (approx 2000-2004) or the new/recent one in Wales? The former seems more relevant here as Cynefin was developed in the contact of the former. Hvgard (talk) 11:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

This article not seems to be about a living person, so why ....
Is this statement on the talk page?


 * The Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, including this article.

I can understand that it is useful to mention original creators. For that http://www.workingwithstories.org pages 631-637 might help. When that is done respectfully (more contributors mentioned), the statement above can be removed INHO as the page is not about living persons (anymore, it was much stronger in the past) but about the model. Hvgard (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * How come you don't open up an Rfc on this article, about your concerns? GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Given the athmosphere I think it would be much better when somebody else does that. I would support that. Feel free. Hvgard (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It has to be you. One isn't going to get anything done, if one doesn't put in the effort. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Never done that. Happy to try with a few others. First question: which template? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Rfc Hvgard (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If it's important enough to you, then you can figure it out. GoodDay (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not important enough to put that amount of effort into something that will be corrected anyway over time. Thanks for your help.Hvgard (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Request edit on 1 May 2018
Reversion of changes by Euan urs - editor has previous record of vandalising related article - for example adding commentary to a photograph and granting me a knighthood!  All part of a intermittent pattern of disruption on both articles by a single sock puppet or a group of them. The changes are to add commentary or insert or remove material not in the references. User:NeilN has been doing a good job of wacking moles on one article which I suspect is the reason for activity shifting here using a dormant account -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 09:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sock blocked. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 11:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but there are two of them, The other one just activated -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 12:22, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Seminal works
An editor removed the following:"The Cynefin framework, as a form of organizational or systems philosophy, developed from previous work in the field. In particular, Russell L. Ackoff's Scientific Method: optimizing applied research decisions, C. West Churchman's Inquiring Systems, John Tukey's Exploratory data analysis, Douglas John White's Decision Methodology, and Mike Pidd's Tools for Thinking: Modelling in Management Science have been credited as seminal works within the Cynefin framework community."

stating in the edit summary: "Simons article doesn't say that - it plays Cynefin in that stream of thought but it does not say it developed from it"

The article I used as a source states:

"I then turn to Snowden’s Cynefin framework to articulate some further thoughts on the varied contexts of modelling. Cynefin provides a structure in which to discuss different forms of uncertainty from the deep uncertainty through the growth of knowledge as we learn about the world to stochastic behaviours and randomness."

"The process of building a picture of the real world though modelling is discussed in several places. There are, for instance, the seminal texts of Ackoff (1962), Churchman (1971), Pidd (1996), Tukey (1977) and White (1975, 1985)"

"Snowden’s Cynefin framework is particularly informative. He introduced Cynefin to categorise contexts for inference and learning, knowledge management and decision making. Cynefin, while saying little that is new, provides an intuitive backdrop for discussing many analytical processes."

Given that the definition of a seminal work is that such a work is regarded as having "strongly influencing later developments," I wrote "The Cynefin framework, as a form of organizational or systems philosophy, developed from previous work in the field"--if the objection is to the phrase "as a form of organizational or systems philosophy"--I will be fine with removing it; this was my description of the list of seminal works; they are mostly organizational or systems philosophies. However, it is incorrect to say that Cynefin is new and did not develop from earlier modeling (modeling here is synonymous with system) methods. It did. Otherwise the works that Simon French cites would not be described as seminal, and French would not state "Cynefin, while saying little that is new."

In context to this, if one has some familiarity with the seminal works and Cynefin, it is self-evident where Cynefin draws from them. I am not trying elaborate on these details in the article, as it would be original research without a source.

So in short, the disputed "The Cynefin framework, as a form..." paragraph ought to go into the article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Well for a start as the creator of the Cynefin framework I can tell you that I hadn't read the Churchman, Tukey or Pidd references until I saw Simon's article. Further I engaged in a debate at Wharton with Boisot and others where I challenged aspects of Ackoff.  Simon's article is placing Cynefin within the context of his field of interest or study namely modeling and statistics. It would make sense to place a variant of what you wrote in the "Applications and reception" section.  To say something along the lines of "French has positioned Cynefin within the context of ...." would make sense. The origins and influences on the framework's creation are in the citations on the four principle articles and two book chapters.  Simon's article is important - as he says (in an earlier paper) he went from hostile to positive and did much to establish the use of Cynefin within his field and others have picked up on that. Critically his first use of those references is to say "The process of building a picture of the real world through modeling is discussed in several places. There are, for instance, the seminal texts of ...". He then moves to sense-making as a field and starts to talk about the utility of Cynefin to distinguish types of method etc. -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 06:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I assume at least some of the older seminal works would have influenced the culture of IBM, and that in turn could have been a general source of inspiration when you were creating Cynefin--so it is still plausible that you are correct about not knowing the other works and French is still correct by noting "Cynefin, while saying little that is new."


 * I find it curious that the "Applications and reception" section states "Criticism of Cynefin includes that the framework is difficult and confusing, needs a more rigorous foundation, and covers too limited a selection of possible contexts." It is easier to view Cynefin as a simplification and application of the seminal works rather than an obfuscation. Actually, it is the simplification aspect that makes it appear to lack a "rigorous foundation." In particular, nobody accuses Churchman of lacking a "rigorous foundation," and if they understood how Cynefin derives from the seminal works, this criticism could be rebutted. As for the criticism that Cynefin "covers too limited a selection of possible contexts," it is possible to integrate Cynefin into other modeling systems for a more robust analysis. An example of this is here and here.


 * As for your suggestion that a version of my edit be placed in the "Applications and reception" section, I encourage you to make the first edit in that direction, and if I disagree I can revise it or talk it through here.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I should not make that type of edit on the article as I have a COI. I think it would be a valuable addition but not if it doesn't report what Simon actually says in the article.  Suggesting background influence in IBM is original research or supposition. But to be clear Simon talks about those seminal works providing sense-making within organisations. He then goes on to describe the utility of Cynefin in method selection.  Again it is synthesis to imply an origin that Simon does not make in the article.  The two blog posts from one author you reference are not (thank God) a reliable source.  The hierarchy with spirituality at the top is not what Cynefin is about or ever has been - it is anti-hierarchical in its very nature.  Of the two criticism references: the first is dubious as the authors were promoting their own rival framework which has now faded, the second is correct and was one of the reasons why known and knowable were removed a decade ago. -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 07:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Another possibility would be if you would regard David Ing as an influence.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 17:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Well not in the sense I think you mean it. He with Haeckel was in the systems thinking wing of IBM, I was in the complexity wing.  Some aspects of Cynefin (the whole probe-sense-respond) sequence was developed to specifically argue that their work made narrow assumptions about causality and was a single ontology approach.  The influences are fully acknowledged in the various foundational articles and in the history of Cynefin blog series I wrote.  Speculation is original research and/or synthesis-<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 18:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Another possibility would be Churchman's own work for IBM. See several citations here.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * No idea where you are trying to go with this. I wasn't aware of, or involved in work Churman did for IBM.  Other people in IBM worked with me on the complex systems work of which Cynefin was a part, but the origins and influences lie in sources outside of IBM -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 20:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I was seeing if I could prod your memory. I might have better luck asking French how he thinks you learned from the seminal works. Or would you rather do the asking instead?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * A very odd question in the context of editing a Wikipedia article. Are you suggesting that Simon has been with me throughout the process rather than hearing about the framework when I presented it at his University?  Neither does his article say that Cynefin is derived from those works - it says that there are seminal works in the field and Cynefin sits within a tradition of work on sense-making; all within the very specific context of his field.  You seem to be implying that I am not acknowledging or have forgotten, a source or a series of sources and need to be prompted into doing so. In the context of Wikipedia editing why would you ask Simon to speculate on something?  Any answer would be original research.   Checking your edit history (I checked back to the start of 2019 and then for a few thousand from when you started) is highly detailed and valuable work on religion and also schools etc. in the mid-west.  This is your first foray into Management theory.  Is that connected with the work we have started with the Lutheran Church of America in our Numinous Program?


 * I think I'll try and see if I can email Simon French. If I can't find his email, I'll ask you. I believe you are honest with me, but potentially haven't yet explored all of the possibilities you could have learned from others one way or another. This is not my first foray into management theory, both on and off WP. I have not heard about your work with the Lutheran Church of America or the Numinous Program, but now that you mention it I'm all ears.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Simon is aware of the conversation but given the length of time you have been editing Wikipedia I am really surprised you are not aware of the fact that you can't use original research. I've learnt from many others and all my articles are stuffed full of references to them. Other academics, such as Simon, place my work in the context of other authors and thinkers within their field - and to say that (as the article now does) respects their sources.  You are running very close to suggesting  I am not being honest despite saying the opposite: actions speak louder than words.   The Numinous program will be posted on my blog and a new web site shortly.  I will also broadcast it on social media. If you send me your email I will link you to the research officer who is running the program. -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 06:08, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Cynefin Community
Just to be clear the above-named editor belongs to an ad hoc group of people who have decided to create a repository of information about the use of the Cynefin Framework. They are not a part of Cognitive Edge as a company, or of the Cynefin Centre and we have no control over, or direction of their work. If they had asked me (which they wouldn't have) I would have advised against making that edit. -<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 09:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Request edit on 13 February 2021
Request addition of something along the lines of:

In February 2021 A field guide for decision makers inspired by the Cynefin framework was published as a shared effort between the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge service, and the Cynefin Centre. It aimed to provide sense-making support to the European policymaking process.

Snowden, D. and Rancati, A., Managing complexity (and chaos) in times of crisis. A field guide for decision makers inspired by the Cynefin framework, Smith, B., Snowden, E., Winthagen, V., Andriani, P. and Caspari, A. editor(s), Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020, JRC123629.

https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC123629

That also contains an updated version of the framework which will be loaded shortly along with a request for updated text

---<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 13:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Request edit on 13 February 2021
Request addition of something along the lines of:

In February 2021 A field guide for decision makers inspired by the Cynefin framework was published as a shared effort between the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge service, and the Cynefin Centre. It aimed to provide sense-making support to the European policymaking process.

Snowden, D. and Rancati, A., Managing complexity (and chaos) in times of crisis. A field guide for decision makers inspired by the Cynefin framework, Smith, B., Snowden, E., Winthagen, V., Andriani, P. and Caspari, A. editor(s), Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2020, JRC123629.

https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/handle/JRC123629

That also contains an updated version of the framework which will be loaded shortly along with a request for updated text

---<b style="color: #801818; font-family: Papyrus;">Snowded</b> <small style="color: #708090; font-family: Baskerville;">TALK 13:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Prof Simon French's recognition
The wording of this passage is disingenuous:
 * Prof Simon French recognises "the value of the Cynefin framework..."

Prof. French is entitled to the verb summarizing his concessive re-assessment, but we can't export it into our indirect speech. He writes:


 * Over the years that view has softened and, influenced by many colleagues, I have come to recognise:
 * • the value of the Cynefin framework...
 * • the value of the Cynefin framework...
 * • the value of the Cynefin framework...

All well and good, or at least pending an assessment of Prof. French's analysis. But it borders on equivocation to toss verbs of cognition to and fro between speaker and observer:


 * "I know Brad Hunkman is passionate about me." ("Get a grip, lady.")
 * "She knows Brad Hunkman is passionate about her." ("Lucky girl.")

So, I'd rather the the wording went more along the lines of:


 * Prof. Simon French has assessed the Cynefin framework as valuable "in categorising decision contexts..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohndanR (talk • contribs) 18:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Name and spelling (Cynefin/Kanevin)
It is unfortunate that the name supposedly is pronounced vastly different from how it is spelled in English. Before learning what it is about one is struck with the task of learning how to pronounce it. Does the framework have an alternative name or spelling in English that is notable? I see "kanevin" seems to be used as a transcription by some sources in English and Swedish. Sauer202 (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2024 (UTC)