Talk:PRINCE2 - For successful Project Management - Revision history

Mihaelagh at 10:24, 26 September 2015

2015-09-26T10:24:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:24, 26 September 2015
Line 19:		Line 19:

	c. The article seems convincing enough. Changes are mentioned above in order to create a more solid outcome. Extra information in the THEMES paragraphs could probably be added. (not necessary though)]]		c. The article seems convincing enough. Changes are mentioned above in order to create a more solid outcome. Extra information in the THEMES paragraphs could probably be added. (not necessary though)]]

			----
			s146898 to S142899

			Thank you for your feedback! I am glad to hear that you find the article convincing enough :) Here is a point by point answer to your comments:

			A
			*2. I agree that I need to use more commas or to shorten my sentences and I am trying to do that for my final version.
			*3. I wrote Business Case because that how they use it in the book, but I guess that for the purpose of this article I could have it in small letter. And yes, you are right, I need to double check my references. This was the raw finished article, I still need to do the fine-tuning.
			*4. I don't really understand what you mean by that, but I will take a closer look at this part.
			*5. References for tables and figures are now added.
			*6 &7. Done!
			*8. The purpose of this part was to give a brief introduction to the Themes and then use the table to illustrate the description an what questions each theme answers. I believe it is easier to remember and to understand if they are placed in a table as opposed to bullet-points or subheadings.
			*9. I prefer to use capital letters, as those are the names of the processes.
			*10. They are now added.
			*11. Could be :)

			B

			I tried to adjusted a bit to make it more coherent with the rest of the article. I introduced this part because I find it very relevant for PRINCE2. This is a method that is meant to be tailored to specific projects. That also includes tailoring projects that are part of programmes. I also find it relevant for the course, as we learn about projects, portfolios and programmes.


	----		----

Mihaelagh at 10:09, 26 September 2015

2015-09-26T10:09:48Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:09, 26 September 2015
Line 53:		Line 53:

	----		----

			'''s146898 to LasseHoier87 reviewer 1'''

			Thank you for your feedback. I am glad to hear you had a good impression of my article.

			For the formal aspects:
			* You are right about the typos and minor mistakes and they are now corrected after re-reading and fine-tuning the article.
			*I also agree that sometimes I use too long sentences and I'm trying to change that. I am also reviewing my summary.
			*I changed Figure 1, now it is bigger and easier to read.
			*For the figures, I now added the source. I wasn't sure how to do this, because some of them I made myself based on the information from the book, so they were not taken directly from there. I did however state the source now.

			For content aspects:
			*Thank you so much for the comment regarding the subheadings! I also didn't like the layout with so many subtitles for such short paragraphs. I changed that now into a bullet-point list.
			*I am trying to find relevant articles from APPPM wiki to link my article to.

Lassehoier87 at 21:22, 22 September 2015

2015-09-22T21:22:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:22, 22 September 2015
Line 19:		Line 19:

	c. The article seems convincing enough. Changes are mentioned above in order to create a more solid outcome. Extra information in the THEMES paragraphs could probably be added. (not necessary though)]]		c. The article seems convincing enough. Changes are mentioned above in order to create a more solid outcome. Extra information in the THEMES paragraphs could probably be added. (not necessary though)]]

			----

			'''LasseHoier87 reviewer 1'''

			First impression is good, especially the use of illustrations is good. The layout is nice and the use of illustrations makes it more interesting reading the article.

			Formal aspects: (Wiki article Peer Review template is used)

			*The article is as clearly stated in the article following a “method”
			*No gramma faults or spelling. Small typing errors or plural mistakes. E.g. line 1 “six performance aspect'''s'''”
			*Written in a fine engaging style. In the start, the sentence is too long and may be a bit too much direct style. Use more formal style.
			*I think the figures are fine and illustrative, making the sense obvious.
			*Good and understandable figures, maybe the figure 1 is a bit small. The text is almost impossible to see.
			*No formal errors in the figures or tables as far as I can see
			*Yes the figures and tables is referred to in the text
			*Regarding copyright issue – It is not clear to me if you have cleared this with the author of the figures.
			*I think the overall wiki formation of the article is fine. Good use of headlines, sub-headlines and so on. Excellent !

			Content aspects:
			*For practitioners it is a relevant article, because the topic is very relevant to practitioners.
			*I think is linking good to APPPM course as it is dealing with project management.
			*The length of the article is fine. I don’t think it should be longer, maybe too manu sub-titles. I would properly make it more coherent and try to leave out some of the sub-titles. E.g. bullet points and a short description to each bullet point.
			*I think the overall red thread is fine. First introduction of the method, principles, themes, processes and projects in a program environment.
			*The starting summary is good and works fine.
			*The reference is good sufficient.
			*The material used is both books and websites. The quality is sufficient.
			*Yes, good section of annotated bibliography. Describing very good the books used.
			*As far as I noticed, there were no link to other APPPM wiki article.
			*Own opinion is clearly stated in “ limitations” where the reflections is dealt with. Nice to reflect and point out the limitations.
			*There is no reason to think there is any type of plagiarism.


			----

S142899: Created page with "[[(S142899_I am not aware of whether I am reviewer ½ or 3) In general this is a good article with minor improvements needed. A) 1. Introduction: Clear description of the prin..."

2015-09-22T20:30:45Z

Created page with "[[(S142899_I am not aware of whether I am reviewer ½ or 3) In general this is a good article with minor improvements needed. A) 1. Introduction: Clear description of the prin..."

New page

[[(S142899_I am not aware of whether I am reviewer ½ or 3)
In general this is a good article with minor improvements needed.
A)
1. Introduction: Clear description of the prince2 method. The word “right” is purposely mentioned 3 times in the same sentence. Is this acceptable? Grammatically I could not identify any obvious error at the introduction.
2.Probably, the use of commas (,) will help the reader to read the text easier.
In the PRINCIPLES paragraph, in the last sentence capitals after commas could be changed into small letters.
3.In the CONTINUED BUSINESS JUSTIFICATION paragraph the words: Business Case, start with capital letters. I would recommend to switch in small letters.
In the same paragraph, check if reference is missing.
4.In the paragraph LEARN FROMEXPERIENCE, overlapping of the “ lessons learned” meaning exists.(probably reform it in a more concrete way)
5.References for tables are missing
6.In paragraph “Manage by exception” : Refer the references for the four managing levels
7.Focus on Products paragraph according to prince 2 ( reference missing).
8.In the themes paragraph, I would firstly introduce the themes and then I would explain the strength of Prince2.
9.In the PROCESSES Paragraph, when referring to processes use “…” instead of capital letter in each word.
10.Also reference for the figure 2 and table 3 are missing.
11.At the last paragraph, the expression “That is,…” Could be changed in order to ensure a more scientific way of expression.

B. The paragraph PROJECTS IN A PROGRAMME ENVIRONMENT might be evaluated again if it should be fitted in this order on not. Perhaps, it seems too generic and does not follow the flow of the other paragraphs.

c. The article seems convincing enough. Changes are mentioned above in order to create a more solid outcome. Extra information in the THEMES paragraphs could probably be added. (not necessary though)]]