Talk:Responsibility Assignment Matrix (RACI Matrix)

Kristine: Very interesting subject. You seem to have a very specific tool and a good idea of how you want to structure your article. Looking forward to reading the finished version of your article.

Charles: Comments for the reviewers: the spreadsheet example can't be uploaded and the internal links of the Wiki have not been set up yet.

Gaetangarnotel - Reviewer n°1

Hi Charles,
Here are my main advice for your article. Of course, it is just my point of view to try to give you some ways of improvement:

• In the overview, you have small details to fix: first, the bold text is a bit weird since it happens only once in the article. Second, you ask rhetorical questions (Why?) which seems a bit too oral to fit in a Wiki article. Maybe you should go back to a more written language, at least in this part.
• "Use and examples": As before, get rid of the oral forms of expression like in "Here is (finally) the explanation of the RACI acronym".
• Thanks for putting my name in your table :) I like the idea of learning through an example instead of having a heavy theoretical part. Maybe you good actually elaborate a bit more on it, by giving a real-life example (Construction project, project at Thales that you led etc..). I think that the example of the simulation game at the end is not sufficient to make the reader understand. Moreover, I've actually been a bit surprised that we begin with an example. You maybe should prepare a bit more the reader saying that instead of getting into theory straightly, we'll learn through an example. Doing so, you avoid the surprise that some people could have.
• For the part, "Using the template", you should introduce what this part is going to be about. It may be an overall comment: you should lead the reader a bit more so we understand your way of thinking.
• I really like the fact that you tried to put this method into perspective by giving alternatives. If you could add some tips for the reader to choose the right method in a clever way, it would be perfect.
• I would see more limitations. With all the alternatives you pointed out, I think that more limitations has forced the different companies to create their own model.
• In the conclusion, you may need a bit more. Summarize all you have said and what the reader should have learnt thanks to your article.
  

As a conclusion, your article is quite good even though some ways of improvement exist. Hope my advice will help you improve it.

Ch.filis, Reviewer 3: Hello Charles, I find the method that you described in your article really interesting. However, I have some comments on some parts of the article:

Formal Aspects:

• I think there are parts in your article that need a bit more attention as far as the grammar and syntax are concerned. Moreover I think that the language that you used is a little bit informal for a wiki article.
• The structure of your article is in a way that is easy to read and follow as your parts have a good connection and flow
• More figures or tables could have been used in order to enhance the “visual result” of your article. Moreover it is a way to gather many information and present them to the reader in a more pleasant way

Content Aspects:

• The “how to use the method” is really analytical and describes the steps in an extensive and understandable way
• The example with the game simulation is kind of helpful, but it should describe in more detail the specific parts of the game where the method contributed to the project
• You should focus a lot more on where is this method applicable and its impacts on the project management. It is a very important part for the reader to understand exactly the purpose of this method
• I also feel that you should have mentionned more limitations and in a more descriptive way

Charles | s141074 | Initial contributor

Thank you so much both of you for your feedback! Many improvements have been made according to your concerns, they should have all been addressed, I hope you will like it better