View source for Talk:Designing Project Teams

== Review by Keyser-sözer ==

review use of commas, i have removed ones that are unnecessary. a few sporadic grammar or spelling errors, i have also changed them myself where I can. all sections that I have suggested changes towards are chronological so that they are easier to find within the body of the text.

change the wording of this section "How it will be advantageous to combine the individual teams in relation to current project and departments. It sheds light on whether each team need specific roles to solve a given task optimally (campion M, 1996)." 

i have removed the use of 1st person from this section, you use the sentence "in my opinion", avoid 1st person in an academic article. "In order to complete a project successfully, it is important that there is a good relationship and good cooperation among the team members. As it is a part of humans social needs. (Hein 2009)"

change the wording of this section "When a number of people included in a group with others, consume each person a form of role."

change the wording of this section "At the same time as providing awareness of own and other team roles better internal acceptance of colleagues' strengths and weaknesses in teamwork."

change the wording of this section "Over the nine years analyzed and observed by Belbin and his team, the factors which influence whether a team was successful or failure. His research resulted in particular in two conclusions (Mullins 2007)."

change the wording of this section "The organizer(s) are motivated by their sense of loyalty to the rest of the team, therefore, they often also the acidic tasks that others would otherwise let lie. Often the organizer however seen as inflexible because they find it difficult to leave their own thoughtful plans and structures"

There have been a few sections where I have had to change "he" or "she" to they. Avoid being gender specific. This is particularly apparent in the nine roles section.

Consider reviewing the whole of the nine roles section. Some words and sections are clumsy. The strengths and weaknesses section is strong, quick and to the point, however the descriptions of each role are poorly worded. I have changed a lot myself but there are a lot of words that could be changed to something more formal eg "Resource investigators, however, often have to get input from others as there is a danger that they will get bored themselves and thus become ineffective in the group (Belbin 2010)." Don't use the words "get bored" here. Definitely worth considering using a stronger synonym for a lot of words within this section.

change the wording of this section "The intermediary shall ensure social cohesion, where the roles are bound together and creating team spirit. The intermediary would then like that all is well, which can result in conflict-avoidance. At the same time, the intermediary may be a little invisible in the team, but only until they are gone and the small discussion starts to flare up (Belbin 2010)."

The two ending sections are clumsy, "team performing" and "conclusion". Team performing is clumsy in its wording, review how you have interlinked sentences and review some of the grammar. Likewise with the conclusion, however also consider reviewing what is being conveyed by the conclusion. A few words on how the Belbin Team Development tool could be improved could be considered along with more of a focus on the tool, your thoughts seem very disjointed, like you are not really drawing a conclusion at all until you reach the last two sentences.

Overall, the first few sections introduce the tool well. You have covered the need for a tool that defines a team and then you have went on to explain how Belbin's tool solves this problem. The Nine Roles section is good for defining exactly what the tool covers, however it definitely needs a few adjustments here and there. The ending section is relatively disjointed, you need to focus your thoughts a bit more potently, maybe include some argumentation about how well the tool performs its job. The report certainly includes the foundations for being a strong article.


*editing note- i have said where wording needs to be changed instead of changing it myself because I am uncertain of what you are trying to say. If you are having problems rewording these sections yourself, please message me and try to explain what you are trying to say, I would be more than happy to change it myself if I knew what you were trying to say.

== Peer review - Different ==

* Many sources. Nice structure. Easy to read in most sections!

* A very bold statement from the beginning! I like it, but it might require a source. (The most common characteristics of Danish companies are, that for each project, they are composing a new team)

* I probably wouldn't write "my" in an article like this. Try rephrasing it to "The article" or something in that direction. Specifically this line: "As lunching and building the project teams is the most important stages of starting up a project, my research in this article is to find out how Belbin’s team development-concept will help to ensure the right teams in projects"

* In the section "Designing teams" you use the word "team" 5 times. While I do understand it is necessary to use it a couple, 5 times might be going a bit overboard.

* The reference of  (Hvenegaard 2003) might just be needed once in the first paragraph of designing teams

* You write: "Over the nine years analyzed and observed Belbin and his team" It should just be: "Over nine years Belbin and his team analyzed and observed"

* You write: "Belbin defends 9 roles, which he means a person may take in the context of a group.". It would probably be better with: "Belbin defines 9 roles, which a person may take in the context of a group."

* There is quite a few grammatical errors in your article, and I've noted here some of them, but it would be an extensive process to catch them all. I'm convinced that you are a Dane, since your English sounds a bit Danish at times. Maybe you could look through it again, with a spell check on, or maybe get some help rephrasing some of the sentences that sounds "Danglish"

* " and a number of questionnaires" are there more than one questionnaire? A questionnaire can contain several questions, but I'm not sure if this is what you mean?

* "I" and "my" are used a couple of times in the section of  section as well

* Good description of roles.

* The word "weakness" misses a capital letter in two places.

* There are a few punctuation errors in this section (The Nine team roles) - The word "Strength" has to be moved down a line, in more than one place. (e.g. under Finisher and Shaper)

* I'm not quiet sure why you are describing some roles as "he" and some as "she". It might not be necessary to change it, however.

* Under "Team worker" (also missing capital W), you suddenly start to talk about a "Intermediary". Is this the same role? Something is definitely up here.

* Finisher is written with the quotation marks " ". When you aren't doing it with the other roles, it might not be great _just_ to do it here.

* Under Team Performing(P here should also be capital!) you write: "Belbin has not optimal team size ranges". Maybe instead: "Belbin has not defined optimal team sizes as it differs from project to project, but he suggests..."

* Under Team Performing you write that the teams should be balanced, but not really what that entails. Maybe add a couple of sentences about having a balanced team?

* Under Conclusion "Belbin Team Development is ideal when you want to work with:" might be better as "Belbin Team Development is ideal when you want to attain:

== Review - WinWin ==


=Structure=
* Nice and chronological structure in the article, but could definitely benefit from using more figures to break up the heavy text.
* The language is overall very appropriate and precise. However there are some obvious spelling and grammar mistakes. Taking care of this small matter will lift the article to a whole new level making it a much smoother experience for the reader. 
* Try to incorporate tables instead of all the bullet points. It might provide a better overview for the reader.   

=Content= 
* There are several very strong paragraphs including the "roles" and "strengths/weaknesses". 
* Very nice to have all the sources. It shows hard work and that the article is reliable. 
* Maybe try to have clearer definitions and points throughout the report and make sure nothing is up to the interpretation of the reader. For instance under "Team Worker" you suddenly refer to "Intermediary", which is the same or something different?

= Review - WinWin =


==Structure==
* Nice and chronological structure in the article, but could definitely benefit from using more figures to break up the heavy text.
* The language is overall very appropriate and precise. However there are some obvious spelling and grammar mistakes. Taking care of this small matter will lift the article to a whole new level making it a much smoother experience for the reader. 
* Try to incorporate tables instead of all the bullet points. It might provide a better overview for the reader.   

==Content== 
* There are several very strong paragraphs including the "roles" and "strengths/weaknesses". 
* Very nice to have all the sources. It shows hard work and that the article is reliable. 
* Maybe try to have clearer definitions and points throughout the report and make sure nothing is up to the interpretation of the reader. For instance under "Team Worker" you suddenly refer to "Intermediary", which is the same or something different?