Talk:Changing conversations based on the Stacey matrix - Revision history

S143352: /* S143352, reviewer 3 */

2015-09-27T10:30:29Z

S143352, reviewer 3

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:30, 27 September 2015
Line 62:		Line 62:
	== S143352, reviewer 3 ==		== S143352, reviewer 3 ==

	I like the headline, it’s very specific and provides ample opportunity to get in-depth with the topic.		I like the headline, it’s very specific and provides ample opportunity to get in-depth with the topic. It is very exciting to read about other organizational management theories, especially those which are outside the norm and the ability to balance chaos vs control fall into that category.

	Formal aspects:		Formal aspects:

S143352 at 09:54, 27 September 2015

2015-09-27T09:54:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:54, 27 September 2015
Line 67:		Line 67:
	#The wiki setup is not done and seems to be formatted incorrectly concerning references.		#The wiki setup is not done and seems to be formatted incorrectly concerning references.
	#Spelling of the written content is fine, word order requires a bit of work.		#Spelling of the written content is fine, word order requires a bit of work.
	#No link to another APPPM wiki article.		#No link to another APPPM wiki article. As a proposal it could be linked to "Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management"
	#No references are included.		#No references are included.
	# The article seems to be free for copy and paste plagiarism		# The article seems to be free for copy and paste plagiarism

S143352: /* S143352, reviewer 3 */

2015-09-27T09:48:52Z

S143352, reviewer 3

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:48, 27 September 2015
Line 62:		Line 62:
	== S143352, reviewer 3 ==		== S143352, reviewer 3 ==

	I like the ~~topic~~, it’s very specific and provides ample opportunity to get in-depth with the topic.		I like the headline, it’s very specific and provides ample opportunity to get in-depth with the topic.

	Formal aspects:		Formal aspects:
	#The wiki setup is not done and seems to be formatted incorrectly concerning references.		#The wiki setup is not done and seems to be formatted incorrectly concerning references.

S143352 at 09:48, 27 September 2015

2015-09-27T09:48:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:48, 27 September 2015
Line 62:		Line 62:
	== S143352, reviewer 3 ==		== S143352, reviewer 3 ==

	*Its difficult to ~~give~~ a ~~holistic review, when~~ the ~~article~~ is ~~far~~ from ~~done~~.		I like the topic, it’s very specific and provides ample opportunity to get in-depth with the topic.
	*The academic level and quality of the written content, seems to me to be quite good.		Formal aspects:
	*No references or annotated bibliography is included.		#The wiki setup is not done and seems to be formatted incorrectly concerning references.
	*As a ~~proposal could be to link~~ the article ~~to more practical every day project manager tasks, such as group dynamics, motivation factors etc~~.		#Spelling of the written content is fine, word order requires a bit of work.
			#No link to another APPPM wiki article.
			#No references are included.
			# The article seems to be free for copy and paste plagiarism
			Content aspects:
			#Table of content is good with the explaining of the method but also its limitations.
			#The abstract is very precise formulated and gives the reader a clear understanding from the beginning.
			#The academic level and quality of the written content, seems to me to be quite good. However it’s very difficult to give a holistic review, when the article is far from done.

S143352 at 21:53, 22 September 2015

2015-09-22T21:53:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:53, 22 September 2015
Line 59:		Line 59:
	*The headline: ‘’The Big Idea: The strategic choice theory’’		*The headline: ‘’The Big Idea: The strategic choice theory’’
	**Dont over sell it: If you remove ‘Big’ you sound more professional		**Dont over sell it: If you remove ‘Big’ you sound more professional

			== S143352, reviewer 3 ==

			*Its difficult to give a holistic review, when the article is far from done.
			*The academic level and quality of the written content, seems to me to be quite good.
			*No references or annotated bibliography is included.
			*As a proposal could be to link the article to more practical every day project manager tasks, such as group dynamics, motivation factors etc.

MistaJacob at 16:41, 22 September 2015

2015-09-22T16:41:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:41, 22 September 2015
Line 45:		Line 45:
	**’’If the causal connections are clear meaning a high or close certainty is faced beside having shared objectives in agreement, this provides the conditions for the managers for a simple decision-making case.’’		**’’If the causal connections are clear meaning a high or close certainty is faced beside having shared objectives in agreement, this provides the conditions for the managers for a simple decision-making case.’’
	***Suggested correction: If you face a situation in which the relationship between cause and effect are certain, as well as having agreement amongst the different stakeholders, the conditions for a simple decision-making-case is present.		***Suggested correction: If you face a situation in which the relationship between cause and effect are certain, as well as having agreement amongst the different stakeholders, the conditions for a simple decision-making-case is present.
	*There are many times during the article where I had to stop to think, then read it again, without understanding it. Only when i looked at the figure, and saw the terms used there, i started to understand. The reason for this is that you have not explained the terms you ~~use~~; close, far, field, etc.		*There are many times during the article where I had to stop to think, then read it again, without understanding it. Only when i looked at the figure, and saw the terms used there, i started to understand. The reason for this is that you have not explained the terms of the model you are trying to explain; close, far, field, etc.
	**Another thing that contributed to my confusion about which terminology you used, was that you introduce ‘clarity’ and ‘objectives’ in the section ‘Background’. These terms are from another model/theory, and are not in conjunction with the terms of figure 2, where ‘certainty’ and ‘stakeholders’ are used.		**Another thing that contributed to my confusion about which terminology you used, was that you introduce ‘clarity’ and ‘objectives’ in the section ‘Background’. These terms are from another model/theory, and are not in conjunction with the terms of figure 2, where ‘certainty’ and ‘stakeholders’ are used.
	***My advice is for you to stick to one set of terms and explain them in detail before you use them.		***My advice is for you to stick to one set of terms and explain them in detail before you use them.

MistaJacob at 16:39, 22 September 2015

2015-09-22T16:39:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:39, 22 September 2015
Line 44:		Line 44:
	*In general, it was, for me, hard to read. The language, punctuation and sentence construction could have been clearer. One example is the following:		*In general, it was, for me, hard to read. The language, punctuation and sentence construction could have been clearer. One example is the following:
	**’’If the causal connections are clear meaning a high or close certainty is faced beside having shared objectives in agreement, this provides the conditions for the managers for a simple decision-making case.’’		**’’If the causal connections are clear meaning a high or close certainty is faced beside having shared objectives in agreement, this provides the conditions for the managers for a simple decision-making case.’’
	***Suggested correction: If you face a situation in which the relationship between cause and effect are ~~clear~~, as well as having agreement amongst the different stakeholders, the conditions for a simple decision-making-case is present.		***Suggested correction: If you face a situation in which the relationship between cause and effect are certain, as well as having agreement amongst the different stakeholders, the conditions for a simple decision-making-case is present.
	*There are many times during the article where I had to stop to think, then read it again, without understanding it. Only when i looked at the figure, and saw the terms used there, i started to understand. The reason for this is that you have not explained the terms you use; close, far, field, etc.		*There are many times during the article where I had to stop to think, then read it again, without understanding it. Only when i looked at the figure, and saw the terms used there, i started to understand. The reason for this is that you have not explained the terms you use; close, far, field, etc.
	**Another thing that contributed to my confusion about which terminology you used, was that you introduce ‘clarity’ and ‘objectives’ in the section ‘Background’. These terms are from another model/theory, and are not in conjunction with the terms of figure 2, where ‘certainty’ and ‘stakeholders’ are used.		**Another thing that contributed to my confusion about which terminology you used, was that you introduce ‘clarity’ and ‘objectives’ in the section ‘Background’. These terms are from another model/theory, and are not in conjunction with the terms of figure 2, where ‘certainty’ and ‘stakeholders’ are used.

MistaJacob at 16:38, 22 September 2015

2015-09-22T16:38:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:38, 22 September 2015
Line 58:		Line 58:
	**This is another example of where the meaning is lost due to the reason that you do not explain yourself fully. My suggestion would be: It allows to compare the level of agreement amongst stakeholders with the degree of certainty in the relationship between cause and effect.		**This is another example of where the meaning is lost due to the reason that you do not explain yourself fully. My suggestion would be: It allows to compare the level of agreement amongst stakeholders with the degree of certainty in the relationship between cause and effect.
	*The headline: ‘’The Big Idea: The strategic choice theory’’		*The headline: ‘’The Big Idea: The strategic choice theory’’
	**Dont over sell it: If you remove ~~‘Big’you~~ sound more professional		**Dont over sell it: If you remove ‘Big’ you sound more professional
	*To sum it up, my advice to you would be for you to assume that your reader hasn’t heard about this subject before, and therefore explain everything from the beginning.

MistaJacob at 16:37, 22 September 2015

2015-09-22T16:37:08Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:37, 22 September 2015
Line 37:		Line 37:
	OR		OR

	*~~’’Copy~~ of your ~~text’’~~		*''Copy of your text''
	**My feedback		**My feedback

MistaJacob at 16:35, 22 September 2015

2015-09-22T16:35:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:35, 22 September 2015
Line 27:		Line 27:
	Overall Conclusion:		Overall Conclusion:
	The article clearly needs a lot of work (adding more content) and the existing text will have to be referenced accordingly. Minor spelling errors still need correction, but the overall quality and content is good.		The article clearly needs a lot of work (adding more content) and the existing text will have to be referenced accordingly. Minor spelling errors still need correction, but the overall quality and content is good.


			== MistaJacob, reviewer 2 ==

			=== The feedback will be given in the form: ===
			*My feedback
			**My feedback

			OR

			*’’Copy of your text’’
			**My feedback

			=== Feedback ===
			*Since this is not the finished article, I will only give feedback on the content, and not the formatting.
			*In general, it was, for me, hard to read. The language, punctuation and sentence construction could have been clearer. One example is the following:
			**’’If the causal connections are clear meaning a high or close certainty is faced beside having shared objectives in agreement, this provides the conditions for the managers for a simple decision-making case.’’
			***Suggested correction: If you face a situation in which the relationship between cause and effect are clear, as well as having agreement amongst the different stakeholders, the conditions for a simple decision-making-case is present.
			*There are many times during the article where I had to stop to think, then read it again, without understanding it. Only when i looked at the figure, and saw the terms used there, i started to understand. The reason for this is that you have not explained the terms you use; close, far, field, etc.
			**Another thing that contributed to my confusion about which terminology you used, was that you introduce ‘clarity’ and ‘objectives’ in the section ‘Background’. These terms are from another model/theory, and are not in conjunction with the terms of figure 2, where ‘certainty’ and ‘stakeholders’ are used.
			***My advice is for you to stick to one set of terms and explain them in detail before you use them.
			*’’When the managers agree on the desires aimed to achieve but the causal connections make the situation unclear and uncertain how to do it, then it falls into the zone of so called Complicated. The usage of judgmental or intuitive modes of decision making is necessary to execute.’’
			**Why is judgmental or intuitive modes of decision making necessary? and what does it entail?
			*’’In the aspect and understanding of strategic choice, an important parameter is to consider the cause and effect of uncertainty and conflict. These are the two main properties of decision making in the management of an organization including project, program and portfolio management.’’
			**If you state that this (uncertainty and conflict) is the two main properties of decision making, I suggest you show the source (reference), or state that this is your own opinion
			*’’Although, as they move away from this field, the application of rational logic will be impossible and they need to use different approaches.’’
			**Be careful to use the word ‘impossible’
			**This is the first time you use the word ‘field’. When i read it, i firstly didn’t understand it. It was only after some thinking that I realized that it must mean the area on figure 2 which is named ‘Simple’.
			*In the introduction: ‘’It allows to compare the level of agreement with the degree of certainty.’’
			**This is another example of where the meaning is lost due to the reason that you do not explain yourself fully. My suggestion would be: It allows to compare the level of agreement amongst stakeholders with the degree of certainty in the relationship between cause and effect.
			*The headline: ‘’The Big Idea: The strategic choice theory’’
			**Dont over sell it: If you remove ‘Big’you sound more professional
			*To sum it up, my advice to you would be for you to assume that your reader hasn’t heard about this subject before, and therefore explain everything from the beginning.