= 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'''

=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. '''

=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.'''

= '''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 :)

2014-11-30T11:56:39Z

LasseMadsen: /* The Cynefin model */

[[Category:Project Management]][[Category:Complexity]][[Category:Management]][[Category:Human Behaviour]][[Category:Uncertainty]][[Category:Visual tools]]
[[File:Cynefin_as_of_1st_June_2014.png‎|200px|thumb|right|Fig 1: The Cynefin Framework]]

This article will introduce the Cynefin framework and its underlying practices, which can be used for sense- and decision making in a complex and complicated world. <ref name="HBR"/> The framework is developed by David J. Snowden (born 1 April 1954)<ref name="About"/>, and is used by leaders to determine the context of a situation, so they can make appropriate choices. The framework has been applied in multiple contexts, among them are [[strategy management]], [[project management]], [[scientific research]], [[policy making]], [[leadership training]], [[healthcare]] etc. <ref name="Health"/>

The Cynefin framework splits the issues that faces leaders into five domains; simple, complicated, complex, chaotic and disorder. Each of which requires different approaches to [[leadership]] style. <ref name="HBR"/><ref name="HBS"/>

As a quick overview, The Cynefin Framework consists of:
* A core graphic [Fig 1], 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.

==The Cynefin model==
[[File:Order_vs._unorder.jpg|150px|thumb|right|Fig 2: Order vs. unorder]]
The Cynefin framework distinguieshes between order, unorder and disorder.<ref name="Hasan"/> It describes five domains that leaders can use for categorizing operating contexts for making appropriate choices. Each domain requires different action.<ref name="HBR"/> The '''simple and complicated''' domains assume an ordered universe[Fig 3 & 2], 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[Fig 4 & 2] and deals with uncertainty, there are no direct link between cause-and-effect, and decisions and right answers are 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. <ref name="HBR"/>

'''The domains of order:'''[[File:Order_vs._unorder_svc.jpg|150px|thumb|right|Fig 3: Complicated and simple domains]]
'''1. The simple domain '''(known knowns) 
The domain of best practice, known-knowns, here we know exactly what we are doing and we have done it before, so we sense, categorize and responds (S-C-R)<ref name="HBR"/><ref name="HBS"/>

'''2. The complicated domain '''(known unknowns) 
The domain where we do not know what is going on, but we know that we can analyse what has happened and figure it out. We are sense, analyse and responds (S-A-R)<ref name="HBR"/><ref name="HBS"/>

'''The domains of unorder:'''[[File:Order_vs._unorder_final.jpg|150px|thumb|right|Fig 4: All domains]]
'''3. The complex domain '''(unknown unknowns) 
In the complex domain we can not determine what will be the outcome, but we can run some experiments and see if they will move us in the right direction. We probe, sense and respond (P-S-R).
In this domain we can only understand what is happening in hindsight <ref name="HBR"/>. 

'''4. the chaotic domain '''(unknowable unknowns) 
In this domain, the domain of unknowables, it does not make sense to search for answers, no patterns exist - only turbulence. We act (do something), we sense where stability emerges and then we respond by working towards complexity (A-S-R)<ref name="HBR"/><ref name="HBS"/>.

'''Disorder''' (not determined) 
These are the situations where one is yet to break down and determine where the situation belongs in the framework.<ref name="HBR"/><ref name="Hasan"/>

'''The cliff''' (the cliff between simple and chaotic domain)[Fig 1] 
The cliff is represented as a fold in the Cynefin Framework. The cliff represents complacency(extreme simplicity), the state where the situation feels secure, but one is unaware of the potential dangers in the existing situation. When the situation moves from simple to chaos in a sudden change, e.g. the business goes from a steady place and is suddenly thrown into chaos, the framework implies that one is fallen of the cliff. <ref name="HBR"/><ref name="HBS"/>

==Guide on leadership==
'''Framework for decision making in multiple contexts'''<ref name="HBS"/><ref name="HBR"/> 
Snowden states, that if you want to become effective as a leader, you must learn to shift your leadership style to match the changing business environments. The four different domains call for different leadership styles and managerial responses.

{|class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;"
|
|'''Characteristics of context'''
|'''The leaders job'''
|'''Danger signals'''
|'''Response to danger signals'''
|-
|'''Simple'''
|
-Known-Knowns, 
-Repeating patterns and consistent events, 
-Cause-and-effect relationships are obvious to everyone, 
-Right answers exist, 
-Fact-based management, 
|
-'''S-C-R:''' Sense, Categorise, Respond, 
-Ensure that best practices are in place, 
-Delegate, 
-Communicate in clear, direct ways, 
|
-Comfort, 
-Desire to make complex problems simple, 
-Entrained thinking, 
-Over reliance on best practice if context shifts, 
|
-Don't assume that things are simple, 
-Stay connected without micromanaging, 
-Recognize both the value and the pitfalls of best practice, 
|-
|'''Complicated'''
|
-Known-unknowns, 
-Expert diagnosis required, 
-Cause-and-effect relationships can be determined, 
-More than one right answer are possible, 
-Fact-based management, 
|
-'''S-A-R:''' Sense, Analyse, Respond, 
-Create panels of experts, 
-Listen to conflicting advice, 
|
-Experts overconfident in their solutions or in past solutions, 
-Analysis paralysis, 
-Viewpoints of non-experts are excluded, 
|
-Encourage internal and external stakeholders to challenge expert opinions and thinking, 
|-
|'''Complex'''
|
-Unknown-unknowns, 
-Flux and unpredictability, 
-No right answers; emergent patterns, 
-Many competing ideas, 
-Pattern-based leadership, 
|
-'''P-B-R:''' Probe, Sense, Respond, 
-Create environments and experiments that allows patterns to emerge, 
-Use methods that can help generate ideas, 
|
-Temptation to look for facts rather than allowing patterns to emerge, 
-Desire for accelerated resolutions of problems or opportunities, 
|
-Be patient and allow time for reflection, 
-Use approaches that encourage interaction so patterns can emerge, 
|-
|'''Chaotic'''
|
-Unknowable-unknowns, 
-No clear cause-and-effect relationships, no point in looking for right answers, 
-Many decisions to make and no time to think, 
-High tension, 
-Pattern-based leadership, 
|
-'''A-S-R:''' Act, Sense, Respond, 
-Take immediate action to reestablish order, 
-Provide clear and direct communication, 
|
-Applying a command-and-control approach longer than needed, 
-Missed opportunity for innovation, 
|
-Try to move the situation towards the complex domain, 
-Set up mechanisms (teams) to take advantage of emerging opportunities, 
|}

==Perspective on organisational theory and paradigms ==

In most current management practices, the ideology that seem to exist assumes that there is an underlying relationship between cause and effect, and predicts that the future can be planned by discovering these underlying relationships. Examples are case studies and consultancy frameworks, that rely on transferring best practices across companies and industries<ref name="TQM"/>.
It is assumed that there is a right answer to problems/situations, and that failure hereof is a failure in analysis on the underlying causal relationships<ref name="HBS"/>.

This ideology belongs to the [[modernist paradigm]] of organisational theory, where managers base their decisions mainly on descriptive measures and statistics<ref name="Hatch"/>. This ideology of decision making is represented in the right hand side of The Cynefin Framework (the domain of order: simple and complicated). 
When introduced to complex situations, former practitioners have relied on reductionistic scientific methods<ref name="ergonomics"/>, which assumes that complex systems are nothing but a sum of its parts<ref name="reductionism"/>. Managers have therefore made decisions by breaking down the situations into sub-parts and analysed each part individually, implying that the answer to the complex problem could be found in the sum of cause-and-effect relationships.

The method of reductionism is, however, contradicting with the ideology of decision making in complexity. When reductionist thinking asserts that we proceed when certain<ref name="reductionism"/>, complexity thinking enables us to proceed by probing that which always be uncertain<ref name="HBR"/>.

The left hand side of the Cynefin Framework (complexity and chaos) therefore breaks with traditional modernistic decision making, by introducing sense- and decision making approaches in situations that does not have underlying causality and is therefore belonging in the [[post-modern paradigm]], where there are no definite answers to situations and problems<ref name="Hatch"/>.

==The driving example (a very simple example)==
[[File:Moving.jpg|200px|thumb|right|Situational changes]]
A very simple example that is used in literature to explain the domains and contexts is the example of driving a car. <ref name="HBR"/>
Let's consider that you are driving a car, a system that is stable one day and we believe we know how it works. When the car runs low on gasoline (simple), we fill it up. A repeating pattern where the solution is commonly known, there is a clear relationship between cause-and-effect. Let's say the car makes an unintended noise, we might have to take it to an expert that will analyse the problem and fix it (complicated), the cause-and-effect relationships are discoverable, but not by everyone. Previous examples both belong in the ordered domain. We can consider situations where we are thrown out in complex or chaotic situations where there are no right answers and underlying causality. Consider that you are the driver, and in the middle of a huge car accident on the highway, all cars go in each their direction with no emerging patterns, there is high turbulence, and you have no time to think. You will need to act(do something), then sense if the situation is moving to the better and then respond accordingly(chaotic).
All of these situations could happen one after another, and one should therefore imagine that the situation moves around in the framework.

==Cynefin used in projects==
The Cynefin framework can be used in projects as a sense-making tool and as a common language for dealing with complexity<ref name="HBR"/><ref name="Larry"/>. When using the framework in [[project management]], Snowden emphasizes using the framework as a collective sense-making method that allows specific patterns to emerge over time in the understanding of the project <ref name="Larry"/>.

Snowden's idea with sense-making in projects is to provide a common understanding by introducing a language used for understanding the environment. Snowden claims that experts' language is too restricted and abstract for managing complexity in project work, and remains about the problem but still far above it<ref name="Larry"/>. Snowden therefore emphasizes the role of language in sense-making about complexity in projects and especially as a communicator to create meaningfull messages that are informative, comprehensive and not oversimplified <ref name="HBS"/><ref name="Larry"/>.

'''Example of the Cynefin Framework used to understand stages of an emergent project to increase active transport''' 
[[File:Example.JPG|200px|thumb|right|Using the Cynefin Framework to make sense of a project within a Australian transport working group Source: Elford, W. (2012)<ref name="ergonomics"/>]]
As a health promotion campaign in Australia, a governmental transport working group, used the Cynefin Framework to make sense of a project to increase active transport. 
In a workshop, the group started to write down description of processes, events, tasks, programmes and concerns on post-it notes. 
They then decided where to place each of the notes in one of the four corners (simple, complicated, complex and chaotic) on a white board. One of the post it notes "Increase Regional Transport Options" could not be allocated into one of the domains, and remained in the disorder domain. 
The note from the disorder domain was split into sub ideas such as "Survey Needs", "Lobby for policy change" and "Integrate bus routes". The group could now make sense of the tasks and place them accordingly.
The figure to the right, shows an example on how the group used the Cynefin Framework, to understand how planning, project management and decision making changes in the transitions between domains. <ref name="ergonomics"/>. 
The example shows how a complex issue can change into the ordered domain for analysis or implementing best practice. Or into the simple domain, since the work group on a routine basis creates computer mapping reports. When it becomes complex when facilitating a workshop for solving transport problems<ref name="ergonomics"/>.

==LEGO game for management training==
The Cynefin Framework is also used for management training on how to make decisions in agile organisations <ref name="LEGO"/>.

I have created an additional MediaWIKI page for understanding the Cynefin Framework. The wiki-page will introduce a game created by Agile42.com<ref name="LEGO"/>, by Andrea Tomasini, an Agile Coach and trainer<ref name="LEGO"/>.

'''Follow this link:''' [[The cynefin LEGO game]],

==Criticism==
The Cynefin Framework has, since it's origin in 1999 <ref name="History"/>, received various forms of critique. The points of critique, have mainly been around the structure of the framework and the definitions or categorizations of the domains. 

'''Critique of the structure of the framework''':
Rick Davies criticize the framework on it's structure, given that it is build up as a 2x2 matrix, but without axes so the one using the framework can't identify, or see, where he or she is in the framework. <ref name="Crit"/> 

In response, Snowden states that the Cynefin Framework is not a 2x2 matrix, but an emergent sense-making framework. He continues, that he does not like 2x2 matrices, since they create a categorization approach where people makes things fit. <ref name="Crit"/>

In addition to this, Tom Graves, another criticizer of the Cynefin Framework, explicitly states that the framework is not a 2x2 matrix, and adds that the disorder domain is fundamental for the model.<ref name="Crit2"/> He states that: ''"The four domains – Simple, Complicated, Complex, Chaotic – represent distinct ‘ways of knowing’, or ways of making sense of ‘the unknown’, the central domain of Disorder. The central domain always exists; the other domains are, in effect, overlays on top of Disorder."''<ref name="Crit2"/> 

There seem to be an ongoing discussion on the use of- and the structure of the Cynefin framework, especially in relation to other sense-making frameworks such as [[The Business Model Canvas]], [[VPEC-T]] and [[Causal Layered Analysis]]

=Additional reading=
For more information on the Cynefin Framework, you might find the following sources useful 
'''Videos''' 
In the right hand side{{#ev:youtube|www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7oz366X0-8|200|right|Cynefin framework explained by David J. Snowden|frame}} {{#ev:youtube|http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mqNcs8mp74|200|right|Simple explanation of The Cynefin Framework, by Shawn Callahan |frame}}
'''Articles'''
*Article: Harvard business review: Snowden, David J., and Mary E. Boone. "A leader's framework for decision making." <ref name="HBR">Snowden, David J., and Mary E. Boone. "A leader's framework for decision making." harvard business review 85.11 (2007): 68.</ref>

*Article: Snowden, Dave. "Strategy in the context of uncertainty." Handbook of Business strategy 6.1 (2005): 47-54. <ref name="HBS">Snowden, Dave. "Strategy in the context of uncertainty." Handbook of Business strategy 6.1 (2005): 47-54.</ref>

*Article: Hasan, Helen, and Alanah Kazlauskas. "The Cynefin framework: putting complexity into perspective." (2014): 55. <ref name="Hasan">Hasan, Helen, and Alanah Kazlauskas. "The Cynefin framework: putting complexity into perspective." (2014): 55. </ref>

*Article: Jarrar, Yasar F., and Mohamed Zairi. "Best practice transfer for future competitiveness: a study of best practices." Total Quality Management 11.4-6 (2000): 734-740. <ref name="TQM">Jarrar, Yasar F., and Mohamed Zairi. "Best practice transfer for future competitiveness: a study of best practices." Total Quality Management 11.4-6 (2000): 734-740.</ref>

*Article: Browning, Larry, and Thierry Boudès. "The use of narrative to understand and respond to complexity: A comparative analysis of the Cynefin and Weickian models." E: CO 7.3-4 (2005): 32-39. <ref name="Larry">Browning, Larry, and Thierry Boudès. "The use of narrative to understand and respond to complexity: A comparative analysis of the Cynefin and Weickian models." E: CO 7.3-4 (2005): 32-39.</ref>

*Article: Van Beurden, Eric K., et al. "Making sense in a complex landscape: how the Cynefin Framework from Complex Adaptive Systems Theory can inform health promotion practice." Health promotion international (2011): dar089. <ref name="Health">Van Beurden, Eric K., et al. "Making sense in a complex landscape: how the Cynefin Framework from Complex Adaptive Systems Theory can inform health promotion practice." Health promotion international (2011): dar089.</ref>

*Article: 'Cynefin Centre: Life after IBM' 2005, KM World, 14, 7, pp. 1-26, Business Source Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 14 November 2014.

*Article: Elford, W. (2012). A multi-ontology view of ergonomics: applying the Cynefin Framework to improve theory and practice. Work, 41, 812.<ref name="ergonomics"> Elford, W. (2012). A multi-ontology view of ergonomics: applying the Cynefin Framework to improve theory and practice. Work, 41, 812.</ref>

*Article: Snowden, D. (2000). Cynefin, A Sense of Time and Place: an Ecological Approach to Sense Making and Learning in Formal and Informal Communities" conference proceedings of KMAC at the University of Aston, July 2000 <ref name="History">Snowden, D. (2000). Cynefin, A Sense of Time and Place: an Ecological Approach to Sense Making and Learning in Formal and Informal Communities" conference proceedings of KMAC at the University of Aston, July 2000</ref>

*Article: The new dynamics of strategy: sense-making in a complex and complicated world http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~brooks/storybiz/kurtz.pdf

'''Books'''
*Book: Hatch, Mary Jo. Organization theory: modern, symbolic and postmodern perspectives. Oxford university press, 2012. <ref name="Hatch">Hatch, Mary Jo. Organization theory: modern, symbolic and postmodern perspectives. Oxford university press, 2012.</ref>

*Book: Cavallo, Antonella. "Risk Management in Complex Projects. An exploratory study to managing unknown unknowns in uncertain environments." (2010).

'''Links'''
*About Dave J. Snowden: http://web.up.ac.za/default.asp?ipkCategoryID=5667<ref name="About">University of Van Pretoria, 2014</ref>

*Cynefin 101, an article by Greg Brougham http://www.infoq.com/articles/cynefin-introduction

*Definition of reductionism: Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science ISSN: 2037-2329 <ref name="reductionism"> Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science ISSN: 2037-2329</ref>

*The Cynefin LEGO game by Andrea Tomasini http://www.agile42.com/en/blog/2011/12/25/cynefin-lego-game/<ref name="LEGO"> http://www.agile42.com/en/blog/2011/12/25/cynefin-lego-game/</ref>

*Criticism of the Cynefin Framework http://mandenews.blogspot.dk/2010/08/test3.html <ref name="Crit"> Criticism of the Cynefin Framework http://mandenews.blogspot.dk/2010/08/test3.html </ref>

*Criticism of the Cynefin Framework 2 http://weblog.tetradian.com/2011/10/29/using-cynefin-in-ea/#comment-69939 <ref name="Crit2"> http://weblog.tetradian.com/2011/10/29/using-cynefin-in-ea/#comment-69939 </ref>

=Bibliography=
<references/>

The Cynefin Framework

2014-11-30T11:51:05Z

LasseMadsen:

[[Category:Project Management]][[Category:Complexity]][[Category:Management]][[Category:Human Behaviour]][[Category:Uncertainty]][[Category:Visual tools]]
[[File:Cynefin_as_of_1st_June_2014.png‎|200px|thumb|right|Fig 1: The Cynefin Framework]]

This article will introduce the Cynefin framework and its underlying practices, which can be used for sense- and decision making in a complex and complicated world. <ref name="HBR"/> The framework is developed by David J. Snowden (born 1 April 1954)<ref name="About"/>, and is used by leaders to determine the context of a situation, so they can make appropriate choices. The framework has been applied in multiple contexts, among them are [[strategy management]], [[project management]], [[scientific research]], [[policy making]], [[leadership training]], [[healthcare]] etc. <ref name="Health"/>

The Cynefin framework splits the issues that faces leaders into five domains; simple, complicated, complex, chaotic and disorder. Each of which requires different approaches to [[leadership]] style. <ref name="HBR"/><ref name="HBS"/>

As a quick overview, The Cynefin Framework consists of:
* A core graphic [Fig 1], 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.

==The Cynefin model==
[[File:Order_vs._unorder.jpg|150px|thumb|right|Order vs. unorder]]
The Cynefin framework distinguieshes between order, unorder and disorder.<ref name="Hasan"/> It describes five domains that leaders can use for categorizing operating contexts for making appropriate choices. Each domain requires different action.<ref name="HBR"/> 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 are no direct link between cause-and-effect, and decisions and right answers are 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. <ref name="HBR"/>

'''Order:'''[[File:Order_vs._unorder_svc.jpg|150px|thumb|right|Complicated and simple domains]]
'''1. The simple domain '''(known knowns) 
The domain of best practice, known-knowns, here we know exactly what we are doing and we have done it before, so we sense, categorize and responds (S-C-R)<ref name="HBR"/><ref name="HBS"/>

'''2. The complicated domain '''(known unknowns) 
The domain where we do not know what is going on, but we know that we can analyse what has happened and figure it out. We are sense, analyse and responds (S-A-R)<ref name="HBR"/><ref name="HBS"/>

'''Unorder:'''[[File:Order_vs._unorder_final.jpg|150px|thumb|right|All domains]]
'''3. The complex domain '''(unknown unknowns) 
In the complex domain we can not determine what will be the outcome, but we can run some experiments and see if they will move us in the right direction. We probe, sense and respond (P-S-R).
In this domain we can only understand what is happening in hindsight <ref name="HBR"/>. 

'''4. the chaotic domain '''(unknowable unknowns) 
In this domain, the domain of unknowables, it does not make sense to search for answers, no patterns exist - only turbulence. We act (do something), we sense where stability emerges and then we respond by working towards complexity (A-S-R)<ref name="HBR"/><ref name="HBS"/>.

'''Disorder''' (not determined) 
These are the situations where one is yet to break down and determine where the situation belongs in the framework.<ref name="HBR"/><ref name="Hasan"/>

'''The cliff''' (the cliff between simple and chaotic domain) 
The cliff is represented as a fold in the Cynefin Framework. The cliff represents complacency(extreme simplicity), the state where the situation feels secure, but one is unaware of the potential dangers in the existing situation. When the situation moves from simple to chaos in a sudden change, e.g. the business goes from a steady place and is suddenly thrown into chaos, the framework implies that one is fallen of the cliff. <ref name="HBR"/><ref name="HBS"/>

==Guide on leadership==
'''Framework for decision making in multiple contexts'''<ref name="HBS"/><ref name="HBR"/> 
Snowden states, that if you want to become effective as a leader, you must learn to shift your leadership style to match the changing business environments. The four different domains call for different leadership styles and managerial responses.

{|class="wikitable" style="margin: auto;"
|
|'''Characteristics of context'''
|'''The leaders job'''
|'''Danger signals'''
|'''Response to danger signals'''
|-
|'''Simple'''
|
-Known-Knowns, 
-Repeating patterns and consistent events, 
-Cause-and-effect relationships are obvious to everyone, 
-Right answers exist, 
-Fact-based management, 
|
-'''S-C-R:''' Sense, Categorise, Respond, 
-Ensure that best practices are in place, 
-Delegate, 
-Communicate in clear, direct ways, 
|
-Comfort, 
-Desire to make complex problems simple, 
-Entrained thinking, 
-Over reliance on best practice if context shifts, 
|
-Don't assume that things are simple, 
-Stay connected without micromanaging, 
-Recognize both the value and the pitfalls of best practice, 
|-
|'''Complicated'''
|
-Known-unknowns, 
-Expert diagnosis required, 
-Cause-and-effect relationships can be determined, 
-More than one right answer are possible, 
-Fact-based management, 
|
-'''S-A-R:''' Sense, Analyse, Respond, 
-Create panels of experts, 
-Listen to conflicting advice, 
|
-Experts overconfident in their solutions or in past solutions, 
-Analysis paralysis, 
-Viewpoints of non-experts are excluded, 
|
-Encourage internal and external stakeholders to challenge expert opinions and thinking, 
|-
|'''Complex'''
|
-Unknown-unknowns, 
-Flux and unpredictability, 
-No right answers; emergent patterns, 
-Many competing ideas, 
-Pattern-based leadership, 
|
-'''P-B-R:''' Probe, Sense, Respond, 
-Create environments and experiments that allows patterns to emerge, 
-Use methods that can help generate ideas, 
|
-Temptation to look for facts rather than allowing patterns to emerge, 
-Desire for accelerated resolutions of problems or opportunities, 
|
-Be patient and allow time for reflection, 
-Use approaches that encourage interaction so patterns can emerge, 
|-
|'''Chaotic'''
|
-Unknowable-unknowns, 
-No clear cause-and-effect relationships, no point in looking for right answers, 
-Many decisions to make and no time to think, 
-High tension, 
-Pattern-based leadership, 
|
-'''A-S-R:''' Act, Sense, Respond, 
-Take immediate action to reestablish order, 
-Provide clear and direct communication, 
|
-Applying a command-and-control approach longer than needed, 
-Missed opportunity for innovation, 
|
-Try to move the situation towards the complex domain, 
-Set up mechanisms (teams) to take advantage of emerging opportunities, 
|}

==Perspective on organisational theory and paradigms ==

In most current management practices, the ideology that seem to exist assumes that there is an underlying relationship between cause and effect, and predicts that the future can be planned by discovering these underlying relationships. Examples are case studies and consultancy frameworks, that rely on transferring best practices across companies and industries<ref name="TQM"/>.
It is assumed that there is a right answer to problems/situations, and that failure hereof is a failure in analysis on the underlying causal relationships<ref name="HBS"/>.

This ideology belongs to the [[modernist paradigm]] of organisational theory, where managers base their decisions mainly on descriptive measures and statistics<ref name="Hatch"/>. This ideology of decision making is represented in the right hand side of The Cynefin Framework (the domain of order: simple and complicated). 
When introduced to complex situations, former practitioners have relied on reductionistic scientific methods<ref name="ergonomics"/>, which assumes that complex systems are nothing but a sum of its parts<ref name="reductionism"/>. Managers have therefore made decisions by breaking down the situations into sub-parts and analysed each part individually, implying that the answer to the complex problem could be found in the sum of cause-and-effect relationships.

The method of reductionism is, however, contradicting with the ideology of decision making in complexity. When reductionist thinking asserts that we proceed when certain<ref name="reductionism"/>, complexity thinking enables us to proceed by probing that which always be uncertain<ref name="HBR"/>.

The left hand side of the Cynefin Framework (complexity and chaos) therefore breaks with traditional modernistic decision making, by introducing sense- and decision making approaches in situations that does not have underlying causality and is therefore belonging in the [[post-modern paradigm]], where there are no definite answers to situations and problems<ref name="Hatch"/>.

==The driving example (a very simple example)==
[[File:Moving.jpg|200px|thumb|right|Situational changes]]
A very simple example that is used in literature to explain the domains and contexts is the example of driving a car. <ref name="HBR"/>
Let's consider that you are driving a car, a system that is stable one day and we believe we know how it works. When the car runs low on gasoline (simple), we fill it up. A repeating pattern where the solution is commonly known, there is a clear relationship between cause-and-effect. Let's say the car makes an unintended noise, we might have to take it to an expert that will analyse the problem and fix it (complicated), the cause-and-effect relationships are discoverable, but not by everyone. Previous examples both belong in the ordered domain. We can consider situations where we are thrown out in complex or chaotic situations where there are no right answers and underlying causality. Consider that you are the driver, and in the middle of a huge car accident on the highway, all cars go in each their direction with no emerging patterns, there is high turbulence, and you have no time to think. You will need to act(do something), then sense if the situation is moving to the better and then respond accordingly(chaotic).
All of these situations could happen one after another, and one should therefore imagine that the situation moves around in the framework.

==Cynefin used in projects==
The Cynefin framework can be used in projects as a sense-making tool and as a common language for dealing with complexity<ref name="HBR"/><ref name="Larry"/>. When using the framework in [[project management]], Snowden emphasizes using the framework as a collective sense-making method that allows specific patterns to emerge over time in the understanding of the project <ref name="Larry"/>.

Snowden's idea with sense-making in projects is to provide a common understanding by introducing a language used for understanding the environment. Snowden claims that experts' language is too restricted and abstract for managing complexity in project work, and remains about the problem but still far above it<ref name="Larry"/>. Snowden therefore emphasizes the role of language in sense-making about complexity in projects and especially as a communicator to create meaningfull messages that are informative, comprehensive and not oversimplified <ref name="HBS"/><ref name="Larry"/>.

'''Example of the Cynefin Framework used to understand stages of an emergent project to increase active transport''' 
[[File:Example.JPG|200px|thumb|right|Using the Cynefin Framework to make sense of a project within a Australian transport working group Source: Elford, W. (2012)<ref name="ergonomics"/>]]
As a health promotion campaign in Australia, a governmental transport working group, used the Cynefin Framework to make sense of a project to increase active transport. 
In a workshop, the group started to write down description of processes, events, tasks, programmes and concerns on post-it notes. 
They then decided where to place each of the notes in one of the four corners (simple, complicated, complex and chaotic) on a white board. One of the post it notes "Increase Regional Transport Options" could not be allocated into one of the domains, and remained in the disorder domain. 
The note from the disorder domain was split into sub ideas such as "Survey Needs", "Lobby for policy change" and "Integrate bus routes". The group could now make sense of the tasks and place them accordingly.
The figure to the right, shows an example on how the group used the Cynefin Framework, to understand how planning, project management and decision making changes in the transitions between domains. <ref name="ergonomics"/>. 
The example shows how a complex issue can change into the ordered domain for analysis or implementing best practice. Or into the simple domain, since the work group on a routine basis creates computer mapping reports. When it becomes complex when facilitating a workshop for solving transport problems<ref name="ergonomics"/>.

==LEGO game for management training==
The Cynefin Framework is also used for management training on how to make decisions in agile organisations <ref name="LEGO"/>.

I have created an additional MediaWIKI page for understanding the Cynefin Framework. The wiki-page will introduce a game created by Agile42.com<ref name="LEGO"/>, by Andrea Tomasini, an Agile Coach and trainer<ref name="LEGO"/>.

'''Follow this link:''' [[The cynefin LEGO game]],

==Criticism==
The Cynefin Framework has, since it's origin in 1999 <ref name="History"/>, received various forms of critique. The points of critique, have mainly been around the structure of the framework and the definitions or categorizations of the domains. 

'''Critique of the structure of the framework''':
Rick Davies criticize the framework on it's structure, given that it is build up as a 2x2 matrix, but without axes so the one using the framework can't identify, or see, where he or she is in the framework. <ref name="Crit"/> 

In response, Snowden states that the Cynefin Framework is not a 2x2 matrix, but an emergent sense-making framework. He continues, that he does not like 2x2 matrices, since they create a categorization approach where people makes things fit. <ref name="Crit"/>

In addition to this, Tom Graves, another criticizer of the Cynefin Framework, explicitly states that the framework is not a 2x2 matrix, and adds that the disorder domain is fundamental for the model.<ref name="Crit2"/> He states that: ''"The four domains – Simple, Complicated, Complex, Chaotic – represent distinct ‘ways of knowing’, or ways of making sense of ‘the unknown’, the central domain of Disorder. The central domain always exists; the other domains are, in effect, overlays on top of Disorder."''<ref name="Crit2"/> 

There seem to be an ongoing discussion on the use of- and the structure of the Cynefin framework, especially in relation to other sense-making frameworks such as [[The Business Model Canvas]], [[VPEC-T]] and [[Causal Layered Analysis]]

=Additional reading=
For more information on the Cynefin Framework, you might find the following sources useful 
'''Videos''' 
In the right hand side{{#ev:youtube|www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7oz366X0-8|200|right|Cynefin framework explained by David J. Snowden|frame}} {{#ev:youtube|http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mqNcs8mp74|200|right|Simple explanation of The Cynefin Framework, by Shawn Callahan |frame}}
'''Articles'''
*Article: Harvard business review: Snowden, David J., and Mary E. Boone. "A leader's framework for decision making." <ref name="HBR">Snowden, David J., and Mary E. Boone. "A leader's framework for decision making." harvard business review 85.11 (2007): 68.</ref>

*Article: Snowden, Dave. "Strategy in the context of uncertainty." Handbook of Business strategy 6.1 (2005): 47-54. <ref name="HBS">Snowden, Dave. "Strategy in the context of uncertainty." Handbook of Business strategy 6.1 (2005): 47-54.</ref>

*Article: Hasan, Helen, and Alanah Kazlauskas. "The Cynefin framework: putting complexity into perspective." (2014): 55. <ref name="Hasan">Hasan, Helen, and Alanah Kazlauskas. "The Cynefin framework: putting complexity into perspective." (2014): 55. </ref>

*Article: Jarrar, Yasar F., and Mohamed Zairi. "Best practice transfer for future competitiveness: a study of best practices." Total Quality Management 11.4-6 (2000): 734-740. <ref name="TQM">Jarrar, Yasar F., and Mohamed Zairi. "Best practice transfer for future competitiveness: a study of best practices." Total Quality Management 11.4-6 (2000): 734-740.</ref>

*Article: Browning, Larry, and Thierry Boudès. "The use of narrative to understand and respond to complexity: A comparative analysis of the Cynefin and Weickian models." E: CO 7.3-4 (2005): 32-39. <ref name="Larry">Browning, Larry, and Thierry Boudès. "The use of narrative to understand and respond to complexity: A comparative analysis of the Cynefin and Weickian models." E: CO 7.3-4 (2005): 32-39.</ref>

*Article: Van Beurden, Eric K., et al. "Making sense in a complex landscape: how the Cynefin Framework from Complex Adaptive Systems Theory can inform health promotion practice." Health promotion international (2011): dar089. <ref name="Health">Van Beurden, Eric K., et al. "Making sense in a complex landscape: how the Cynefin Framework from Complex Adaptive Systems Theory can inform health promotion practice." Health promotion international (2011): dar089.</ref>

*Article: 'Cynefin Centre: Life after IBM' 2005, KM World, 14, 7, pp. 1-26, Business Source Premier, EBSCOhost, viewed 14 November 2014.

*Article: Elford, W. (2012). A multi-ontology view of ergonomics: applying the Cynefin Framework to improve theory and practice. Work, 41, 812.<ref name="ergonomics"> Elford, W. (2012). A multi-ontology view of ergonomics: applying the Cynefin Framework to improve theory and practice. Work, 41, 812.</ref>

*Article: Snowden, D. (2000). Cynefin, A Sense of Time and Place: an Ecological Approach to Sense Making and Learning in Formal and Informal Communities" conference proceedings of KMAC at the University of Aston, July 2000 <ref name="History">Snowden, D. (2000). Cynefin, A Sense of Time and Place: an Ecological Approach to Sense Making and Learning in Formal and Informal Communities" conference proceedings of KMAC at the University of Aston, July 2000</ref>

*Article: The new dynamics of strategy: sense-making in a complex and complicated world http://alumni.media.mit.edu/~brooks/storybiz/kurtz.pdf

'''Books'''
*Book: Hatch, Mary Jo. Organization theory: modern, symbolic and postmodern perspectives. Oxford university press, 2012. <ref name="Hatch">Hatch, Mary Jo. Organization theory: modern, symbolic and postmodern perspectives. Oxford university press, 2012.</ref>

*Book: Cavallo, Antonella. "Risk Management in Complex Projects. An exploratory study to managing unknown unknowns in uncertain environments." (2010).

'''Links'''
*About Dave J. Snowden: http://web.up.ac.za/default.asp?ipkCategoryID=5667<ref name="About">University of Van Pretoria, 2014</ref>

*Cynefin 101, an article by Greg Brougham http://www.infoq.com/articles/cynefin-introduction

*Definition of reductionism: Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science ISSN: 2037-2329 <ref name="reductionism"> Interdisciplinary Encyclopedia of Religion and Science ISSN: 2037-2329</ref>

*The Cynefin LEGO game by Andrea Tomasini http://www.agile42.com/en/blog/2011/12/25/cynefin-lego-game/<ref name="LEGO"> http://www.agile42.com/en/blog/2011/12/25/cynefin-lego-game/</ref>

*Criticism of the Cynefin Framework http://mandenews.blogspot.dk/2010/08/test3.html <ref name="Crit"> Criticism of the Cynefin Framework http://mandenews.blogspot.dk/2010/08/test3.html </ref>

*Criticism of the Cynefin Framework 2 http://weblog.tetradian.com/2011/10/29/using-cynefin-in-ea/#comment-69939 <ref name="Crit2"> http://weblog.tetradian.com/2011/10/29/using-cynefin-in-ea/#comment-69939 </ref>

=Bibliography=
<references/>

2014-11-30T10:25:40Z

LasseMadsen: /* Review by Linus R.V */

Talk:The Cynefin Framework

2014-11-30T10:24:20Z

LasseMadsen: /* Review by Linus R.V */

= 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.'''

=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.

*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.

*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.

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

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

* 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.

=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.

*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.

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

*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.

*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".

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

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

*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.

*Overall the article seems to be quite objective.

* 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.

= '''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:

=='''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...
*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 use the 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 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.
*There is a logical flow throughout the article and in general is coherent.
*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
*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.
*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.
*Sources and reference material are enough and of high quality.
*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.

Good Job :)

Talk:The Cynefin Framework

2014-11-30T10:24:02Z

LasseMadsen: /* Review by Linus R.V */

= 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.

=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.

*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.

*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.

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

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

* 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.

=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.

*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.

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

*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.

*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".

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

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

*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.

*Overall the article seems to be quite objective.

* 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.

= '''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:

=='''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...
*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 use the 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 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.
*There is a logical flow throughout the article and in general is coherent.
*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
*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.
*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.
*Sources and reference material are enough and of high quality.
*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.

Good Job :)

Talk:Project management within volunteering organisations

2014-11-25T22:34:54Z

LasseMadsen:

== Feedback by Lasse Madsen==
* I will review the article as it is now. It seems like it is not completely done :-) Keep up the good spirit!
=Formal aspects=
* The grammatical and spelling in the article is very fine, however some sentences can become a bit long, where I miss some "," or division into paragraphs. An example is: ''"Communication covers both the top down communication from management and the communication between the project leaders and the project team members about the tasks of the team member."'' from the section: Communication.
* I miss '''references to the figures''' in the text. And also the context of the figures.
* It seems like the author has made the figures him/herself which is positive. It makes sure that there is no conflicting copyrights.
* '''Overall structure''' i miss some more WIKI formatting, ie.
**bullet points (*),
**Categories: <nowiki>[[Categories:Management]]</nowiki>
**References: <nowiki>[[project management]]</nowiki>
**Additional reading section
* My suggestion will be to put the introduction before the list of content to make a read-threat
** Also to add a "readers guide" on how the article will be structured, and what the reader can expect.

=Content aspects=
* The first thing that i noticed was the sources used to support the main arguments in the article. I miss academic sources, ie. looking into 'project management in volunteering organizations' from Journals, DTU Findit or Google Scholar or similar. '''An example could be''' to provide a literature review and then comparing it to the method used by the danish scouts. Then '''reflections and a discussion''' on how they could improve their methods. On a quick search i found:
** Hager, Mark A. "Volunteer management practices and retention of volunteers." (2004).
** Cuskelly, Graham, et al. "Volunteer management practices and volunteer retention: A human resource management approach." Sport Management Review 9.2 (2006): 141-163.
** Ellis, Susan J. From the top down. The executive role in volunteer program success. Energize, Inc., 5450 Wissahickon Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19144, 1996.
** Taylor, Tracy, et al. "Using psychological contract theory to explore issues in effective volunteer management." European Sport Management Quarterly 6.2 (2006): 123-147.
* I seem to miss a direct link between the article content and the course. Maybe you could include it in the introduction.
* I seem to miss the point where i as a practitioner could actually use this method or example in relation to my PPP practice. Maybe you could elaborate on this or give an example on how this could be used in a PPPM context.
* Generelly I miss some more references.

==1 Leading without classic authority==
* Maybe a bit about how the article will be structured, otherwise fine :-)

==1.1 Important factors within volunteering management==
* is this a general approach/structure within volunteering management, or is it only from the scout community? Maybe compare with literature.

==1.2 The patrol system; pros and cons==
* I actually do not understand what the patrol system is by reading this section. Could you be more specific? Can it be visualized? Is there a figure?
*Maybe make a list of pros and cons (table or something) to make it more clear ie.

==1.3 Communication and involvement==
* Maybe include some references
* Could these sections be more structured?

==1.5 How is this useful to companies==
* Maybe include your elaboration on how this fits into APPPM
* How could practioneers benefit from this method? What is to be learned?

Talk:Project management within volunteering organisations

2014-11-25T22:30:05Z

LasseMadsen: /* 1.3 Communication */

== Feedback by Lasse Madsen==
* I will review the article as it is now. It seems like it is not completely done :-) Keep up the good spirit!
=Formal aspects=
* The grammatical and spelling in the article is very fine, however some sentences can become a bit long, where I miss some "," or division into paragraphs. An example is: ''"Communication covers both the top down communication from management and the communication between the project leaders and the project team members about the tasks of the team member."'' from the section: Communication.
* I miss '''references to the figures''' in the text. And also the context of the figures.
* It seems like the author has made the figures him/herself which is positive. It makes sure that there is no conflicting copyrights.
* '''Overall structure''' i miss some more WIKI formatting, ie.
**bullet points (*),
**Categories: <nowiki>[[Categories:Management]]</nowiki>
**References: <nowiki>[[project management]]</nowiki>
**Additional reading section
* My suggestion will be to put the introduction before the list of content to make a read-threat
** Also to add a "readers guide" on how the article will be structured, and what the reader can expect.

=Content aspects=
* The first thing that i noticed was the sources used to support the main arguments in the article. I miss academic sources, ie. looking into 'project management in volunteering organizations' from Journals, DTU Findit or Google Scholar or similar. '''An example could be''' to provide a literature review and then comparing it to the method used by the danish scouts. Then '''reflections and a discussion''' on how they could improve their methods. On a quick search i found:
** Hager, Mark A. "Volunteer management practices and retention of volunteers." (2004).
** Cuskelly, Graham, et al. "Volunteer management practices and volunteer retention: A human resource management approach." Sport Management Review 9.2 (2006): 141-163.
** Ellis, Susan J. From the top down. The executive role in volunteer program success. Energize, Inc., 5450 Wissahickon Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19144, 1996.
** Taylor, Tracy, et al. "Using psychological contract theory to explore issues in effective volunteer management." European Sport Management Quarterly 6.2 (2006): 123-147.
* I seem to miss a direct link between the article content and the course. Maybe you could include it in the introduction.
* I seem to miss the point where i as a practitioner could actually use this method or example in relation to my PPP practice. Maybe you could elaborate on this or give an example on how this could be used in a PPPM context.
* Generelly I miss some more references.

==1 Leading without classic authority==
* Maybe a bit about how the article will be structured, otherwise fine :-)

==1.1 Important factors within volunteering management==
* is this a general approach/structure within volunteering management, or is it only from the scout community? Maybe compare with literature.

==1.2 The patrol system; pros and cons==
* I actually do not understand what the patrol system is by reading this section. Could you be more specific? Can it be visualized? Is there a figure?
*Maybe make a list of pros and cons (table or something) to make it more clear ie.

==1.3 Communication==
* Maybe include some references

==1.4 Involvement==
==1.5 How is this useful to companies==
==1.6 References==

Talk:Project management within volunteering organisations

2014-11-25T22:28:08Z

LasseMadsen: /* 1.2 The patrol system; pros and cons */

== Feedback by Lasse Madsen==
* I will review the article as it is now. It seems like it is not completely done :-) Keep up the good spirit!
=Formal aspects=
* The grammatical and spelling in the article is very fine, however some sentences can become a bit long, where I miss some "," or division into paragraphs. An example is: ''"Communication covers both the top down communication from management and the communication between the project leaders and the project team members about the tasks of the team member."'' from the section: Communication.
* I miss '''references to the figures''' in the text. And also the context of the figures.
* It seems like the author has made the figures him/herself which is positive. It makes sure that there is no conflicting copyrights.
* '''Overall structure''' i miss some more WIKI formatting, ie.
**bullet points (*),
**Categories: <nowiki>[[Categories:Management]]</nowiki>
**References: <nowiki>[[project management]]</nowiki>
**Additional reading section
* My suggestion will be to put the introduction before the list of content to make a read-threat
** Also to add a "readers guide" on how the article will be structured, and what the reader can expect.

=Content aspects=
* The first thing that i noticed was the sources used to support the main arguments in the article. I miss academic sources, ie. looking into 'project management in volunteering organizations' from Journals, DTU Findit or Google Scholar or similar. '''An example could be''' to provide a literature review and then comparing it to the method used by the danish scouts. Then '''reflections and a discussion''' on how they could improve their methods. On a quick search i found:
** Hager, Mark A. "Volunteer management practices and retention of volunteers." (2004).
** Cuskelly, Graham, et al. "Volunteer management practices and volunteer retention: A human resource management approach." Sport Management Review 9.2 (2006): 141-163.
** Ellis, Susan J. From the top down. The executive role in volunteer program success. Energize, Inc., 5450 Wissahickon Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19144, 1996.
** Taylor, Tracy, et al. "Using psychological contract theory to explore issues in effective volunteer management." European Sport Management Quarterly 6.2 (2006): 123-147.
* I seem to miss a direct link between the article content and the course. Maybe you could include it in the introduction.
* I seem to miss the point where i as a practitioner could actually use this method or example in relation to my PPP practice. Maybe you could elaborate on this or give an example on how this could be used in a PPPM context.
* Generelly I miss some more references.

==1 Leading without classic authority==
* Maybe a bit about how the article will be structured, otherwise fine :-)

==1.1 Important factors within volunteering management==
* is this a general approach/structure within volunteering management, or is it only from the scout community? Maybe compare with literature.

==1.2 The patrol system; pros and cons==
* I actually do not understand what the patrol system is by reading this section. Could you be more specific? Can it be visualized? Is there a figure?
*Maybe make a list of pros and cons (table or something) to make it more clear ie.

==1.3 Communication==
==1.4 Involvement==
==1.5 How is this useful to companies==
==1.6 References==

Talk:Project management within volunteering organisations

2014-11-25T22:27:07Z

LasseMadsen: /* 1.2 The patrol system; pros and cons */

== Feedback by Lasse Madsen==
* I will review the article as it is now. It seems like it is not completely done :-) Keep up the good spirit!
=Formal aspects=
* The grammatical and spelling in the article is very fine, however some sentences can become a bit long, where I miss some "," or division into paragraphs. An example is: ''"Communication covers both the top down communication from management and the communication between the project leaders and the project team members about the tasks of the team member."'' from the section: Communication.
* I miss '''references to the figures''' in the text. And also the context of the figures.
* It seems like the author has made the figures him/herself which is positive. It makes sure that there is no conflicting copyrights.
* '''Overall structure''' i miss some more WIKI formatting, ie.
**bullet points (*),
**Categories: <nowiki>[[Categories:Management]]</nowiki>
**References: <nowiki>[[project management]]</nowiki>
**Additional reading section
* My suggestion will be to put the introduction before the list of content to make a read-threat
** Also to add a "readers guide" on how the article will be structured, and what the reader can expect.

=Content aspects=
* The first thing that i noticed was the sources used to support the main arguments in the article. I miss academic sources, ie. looking into 'project management in volunteering organizations' from Journals, DTU Findit or Google Scholar or similar. '''An example could be''' to provide a literature review and then comparing it to the method used by the danish scouts. Then '''reflections and a discussion''' on how they could improve their methods. On a quick search i found:
** Hager, Mark A. "Volunteer management practices and retention of volunteers." (2004).
** Cuskelly, Graham, et al. "Volunteer management practices and volunteer retention: A human resource management approach." Sport Management Review 9.2 (2006): 141-163.
** Ellis, Susan J. From the top down. The executive role in volunteer program success. Energize, Inc., 5450 Wissahickon Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19144, 1996.
** Taylor, Tracy, et al. "Using psychological contract theory to explore issues in effective volunteer management." European Sport Management Quarterly 6.2 (2006): 123-147.
* I seem to miss a direct link between the article content and the course. Maybe you could include it in the introduction.
* I seem to miss the point where i as a practitioner could actually use this method or example in relation to my PPP practice. Maybe you could elaborate on this or give an example on how this could be used in a PPPM context.
* Generelly I miss some more references.

==1 Leading without classic authority==
* Maybe a bit about how the article will be structured, otherwise fine :-)

==1.1 Important factors within volunteering management==
* is this a general approach/structure within volunteering management, or is it only from the scout community? Maybe compare with literature.

==1.2 The patrol system; pros and cons==
* I actually do not understand what the patrol system is by reading this section. Could you be more specific? :-)
*Maybe make a list of pros and cons (table or something) to make it more clear ie.

==1.3 Communication==
==1.4 Involvement==
==1.5 How is this useful to companies==
==1.6 References==