Latest revision as of 16:01, 25 September 2015

Josef: Hello, I really like your idea of looking at antifragility and its application in project management. However, I am not entirely sure if your discussion of "simulating failure scenarios" and "upside/downside risks" fits the heading. If you look at our PMI whitepaper, you will find a few categories/principles of Antifragiltiy and their application to project management. Nassim Taleb's book (which I reckon you must read if you were to write about Antifragility) contains many more possible points of "connection". I suggest to take that as a "point of departure", and see what you can apply how to project management.

[edit] Feedback of s141506, Reviewer 2

[edit] Structure

• I didn't find really any grammar mistakes which is good.
• Are the first chapters part of abstract or introduction or what.. You could elaborate little bit more with headings in the start so it would be easier to reader to follow the text.
  • I have created subheading for the introduction part, to improve the overview of this section.
• In the article there is often mentioned number 1 and then bulletpoints. For example the chapter The definition of a good system is . Is it suppose be like this and also the other same kind of chapters?
  • I have deleted the numbers and just made bullet points.
• Maybe samekind conclusion in the end would wrap the text better together. Now it is little bit scattered in different parts.
  • In the end of the article I have made a new section called " Discussion" with subheadings of "Pros" and "Cons" to wrap everything up and comment on the limitations.

[edit] Content

• Having the aviation of one example for antifragility is very good. It gives reader immediately better understanding of the whole consept.
• Pictures are nice looking and simple but still informative. Reader can easily understand what write have wanted to show with the picture.
• Like I wrote in structure that try to use more headings.
  • I have added a couple of new headings.
• You have used much New York Times articles as reference, it can be quite one-sided.
  • the reference is not to a article, New York Times is the publisher of the book I have been using.

[edit] Overall

• Good article about subject that for me personal didn't have much information.

[edit] (S142899_I am not aware of whether I am reviewer ½ or 3)

• Summary of the references are missing at the end.
  • I have made a section with reference and under the section "annotated bibliography" there are a few comments on the reference.

Thanks for the review, you made some good point and I have almost used all of them!

A)

• Generally the level of grammar structure is in a good level. Some expression mistakes were found though for example:(….is not in balance with the laws of nature.

….. is fragile, repetition of the word “volatility”)– in the first paragraph expression mistakes

• • I have rephrased the sentences and tried to correct the expression mistakes. Though I was not able to find the mistakes in the first sentence.
• “The projects of our time are designed for stability and can be defined as highly complex, pursuit of effectivity and interdependency.” missing reference probably
  • There is not reference in this part. The sentence is based on ideas from the book, but no direct reference.
• ”For the past 2-3 decades, we have continued the pursuit of efficiency” - who we?
  • This is corrected to emphasize the point I was trying to make.
• “What we should do, is build a system that is not fragile to these events.”- comma in the wrong place
  • corrected the comma fault.

B) missing reference to the figure 1 and remember to mention it in the text before the figure

• I have made reference in the text to the figure, making it easier to the reader.
• Why table of context is in the middle of the text?
  • The content list should be in the correct place now.
• Under the paragraph Create Project Portfolios that can Collectively Learn from Others’ Mistakes:

“The definition of a good system is: "1."  The amount of errors within the system is small “remove the number “1”.”

• • The number is removed and replaced with a bullet point.
• ” Concerning antifragility in management of portfolios, programs and projects. “ is unnecessary”
  • this sentence is removed totally and replaced with something else.
• In the BMW example insert reference not only to the text but also to the figure 2.
  • I have made a reference to the lectures from Josef
• Under the “Application” paragraph’s I would probably insert also the other examples that you use in the article in order to make this paragraph more concrete.
  • I have decided to add another heading instead but still having two different "application" sections. The sections is dealing with two different ideas and I think this would be confusing to the reader.
• find reference for the production of the Lupo mentioned in this paragraph as well.
  • This reference is found and added.
• The fact that you are using so many quotes adds to the article but you could try to eliminate them into 2-3 max since it reduces reader’s “reading flow” at some point.
  • The topic of this article is new knowledge to me also, the idea of the quotes is to compact the essence of the topic into one line, and further elaborate in the rest of the section. But I see your point and maybe you are right.

C)

• I would recommend to spend a little more time in reviewing the intro and the closing part of the article in order to provide a more solid base for the reader with more details and raping up of the scope of the article
  • The introduction is divided into sub-sections, in order to make it easier to the reader and catch the interest. In the end of the article a section "discussion" is made with "pros" and "cons" in order to discuss the limitations of the ideas in practice.
• Adding subheading for example naming the different cases would also add to the context of the article
  • Good idea this is done

Thank you for a really good review, definitely somthing I could use and I think it made the final result much better.

[edit] Reviewer 3: s113665

• The entire article is very well written with a good use of punctuation and a prober technically language.
  • Thank you!
• The first section of the article is quite long.
  • The first section is divided into smaller part with sub headings.
• Add a title.
  • The title is added
• Consider dividing it into a couple of subtitles as well.
  • Yes, this is done and the I think it works better now.
• You have two sections named ‘Application’.
  • The section is renamed with two different names.
• As it however may be the prober way of division, it still adds unnecessary confusion.
• Nice graphics with good relevance to the subject!
• Well-made ‘References’ section!
• (I’m stealing some of that for my own article ;))
• There maaaay be a bit too many references in the text, and some of them are also quite extensive and could be shortened without loosing the ‘article’- and dramatic effect.
  • I perfectly see you point, but as this a totally new topic to me (and properly also the reader) the idea of making one sentence which contains the main idea of the whole section is good sense to me. But you could also argue for the idea you are making.
  • Would prefer to have the longer ones interoperated and incorporated in the main text instead of being an independent section in quotation marks.
  • I tried to do that also, but many of the quotes is metaphors making it a bit more fun to read, I think at least.

There’s not much else to add, as it is by far the most finished article I’ve seen and reviewed! The article is neither in the need of additional proofreading, as there are next to no spelling-/grammar-/punctuation errors! Bottom line it is a good article and I wish you good luck for the final review and grading!

Thanks for the review, definitely something I used.