Talk:Managing Uncertainty and Risk on the Project
From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
DanielKrogh (Talk | contribs) |
|||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | + | tool that can be applied for managing uncertainty and risk in a project. Remember that your article has to fit one of the two article types and the required structure -) | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | - | + | |
| − | + | ||
| + | Review1, Buurbuur: | ||
| + | * I found the topic very interesting and very relevant for this course. | ||
| + | * Good that many point are illustrated with an appropriate figure. | ||
| + | * However i think you scope maybe is too big, maybe just focus on managing uncertainty and risk in either project or portfolio | ||
| + | * In the ''definition'' section i find it difficult to understand and navigate between all the different definitions, maybe it could make it more easy and understandable if you make a grid to show the difference. Or list them up on bulletspoints | ||
| + | * Secure that the article fit to one of the two article types i relation to the required topics | ||
| + | * Write the full wording before abbreviation in this case i refer to the use of FMEA | ||
| + | * However I find the figures clear and understandable | ||
| + | * Good that there are references on every figure | ||
| + | '''Author feedback: I have changed to scope, so that I have a clearer scope on project management and excluded the portfolio part. I deleted a part of the definition section, so that it made more sense. Also I changed the "body" of the article to fit it to Article type 1. I made the full name before the acronym and made it as hyperlink. | ||
| + | ''' | ||
| − | + | Reviewer 2:Andkamp | |
| − | + | ||
| − | Reviewer | + | |
*Great use of English and nice sentences structure | *Great use of English and nice sentences structure | ||
*Great subject but, very broad, needs to be narrowed a little bit | *Great subject but, very broad, needs to be narrowed a little bit | ||
| Line 23: | Line 25: | ||
*Expected to see pros/cons | *Expected to see pros/cons | ||
*Implementations would narrow the whole subject and make it more interesting | *Implementations would narrow the whole subject and make it more interesting | ||
| − | Generally speaking a more wiki style text, with hyperlinks,more bibliography and see also section would be more appropriate to this great text. | + | Generally speaking a more wiki style text, with hyperlinks,more bibliography and see also section would be more appropriate to this great text. |
| + | |||
| + | '''Author feedback: I tried to narrow the article so that I have focus on project management and the tool. I deleted that part with the comparing the different definitions. I have made the relevant inter-wiki links that fitted in this article. I have answered how to use the the tool. I have used more references, so the credibility is higher. Limitations and strengths has been added as well. ''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Reviewer 3 - s141938 == | ||
| + | |||
| + | + | ||
| + | |||
| + | * abstract at the beginning | ||
| + | * captions and figure numbering | ||
| + | * gramatically correct. easy and pleasant to read | ||
| + | * nice references to the graphs - everything is explained nicely | ||
| + | |||
| + | - | ||
| + | * separate consequences in the definitions into paragraphs | ||
| + | * "In the beginning of the a project the uncertainty is very high and depending on the size of the project and to decrease the mission uncertainty it can some extend be used” - I think you're missing something at some point | ||
| + | * really broad - maybe give some methods that are used to minimize risk and uncertainty cause this would stick more with the method type of article | ||
| + | * Advantages and limitations ? (required in the method type article) | ||
| + | * Add more references for higher credibility ;) | ||
| + | * maybe restructure the definition section, to make the article easier to scan quickly | ||
| + | |||
| + | Conclusion: Great article and properly written, but needs to be restructured a bit for quicker scanning of the article and to fit the method article type. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Author feedback: I deleted a part of the definition section so that it made more sense. I scoped the article so that I focused on project management part only. I added limitation/strengths part. I also added more references (I was just not finished with the article at that point) :) I fitted the article to the type 1 article, so that I have the right structure.''' | ||
Latest revision as of 15:08, 29 September 2015
tool that can be applied for managing uncertainty and risk in a project. Remember that your article has to fit one of the two article types and the required structure -)
Review1, Buurbuur:
- I found the topic very interesting and very relevant for this course.
- Good that many point are illustrated with an appropriate figure.
- However i think you scope maybe is too big, maybe just focus on managing uncertainty and risk in either project or portfolio
- In the definition section i find it difficult to understand and navigate between all the different definitions, maybe it could make it more easy and understandable if you make a grid to show the difference. Or list them up on bulletspoints
- Secure that the article fit to one of the two article types i relation to the required topics
- Write the full wording before abbreviation in this case i refer to the use of FMEA
- However I find the figures clear and understandable
- Good that there are references on every figure
Author feedback: I have changed to scope, so that I have a clearer scope on project management and excluded the portfolio part. I deleted a part of the definition section, so that it made more sense. Also I changed the "body" of the article to fit it to Article type 1. I made the full name before the acronym and made it as hyperlink.
Reviewer 2:Andkamp
- Great use of English and nice sentences structure
- Great subject but, very broad, needs to be narrowed a little bit
- Nice figures, but the matrix with the papers is something I expected to be illustrated in matrix and not a Figure, in order to maintain the wiki style of the article.
- Nice Referencing of the figures, although it hadn't any inter-wiki links or in text links.
- The interest of a practitioner could be greater if there was more focusing in aspects of this subject.
- Profound relation with project management
- The good structure assures logical flow
- Extremely poor reference material for such extended article, that could lead someone with bad intensions to think that there's some amount of plagiarism
- Expected to see pros/cons
- Implementations would narrow the whole subject and make it more interesting
Generally speaking a more wiki style text, with hyperlinks,more bibliography and see also section would be more appropriate to this great text.
Author feedback: I tried to narrow the article so that I have focus on project management and the tool. I deleted that part with the comparing the different definitions. I have made the relevant inter-wiki links that fitted in this article. I have answered how to use the the tool. I have used more references, so the credibility is higher. Limitations and strengths has been added as well.
[edit] Reviewer 3 - s141938
+
- abstract at the beginning
- captions and figure numbering
- gramatically correct. easy and pleasant to read
- nice references to the graphs - everything is explained nicely
-
- separate consequences in the definitions into paragraphs
- "In the beginning of the a project the uncertainty is very high and depending on the size of the project and to decrease the mission uncertainty it can some extend be used” - I think you're missing something at some point
- really broad - maybe give some methods that are used to minimize risk and uncertainty cause this would stick more with the method type of article
- Advantages and limitations ? (required in the method type article)
- Add more references for higher credibility ;)
- maybe restructure the definition section, to make the article easier to scan quickly
Conclusion: Great article and properly written, but needs to be restructured a bit for quicker scanning of the article and to fit the method article type.
Author feedback: I deleted a part of the definition section so that it made more sense. I scoped the article so that I focused on project management part only. I added limitation/strengths part. I also added more references (I was just not finished with the article at that point) :) I fitted the article to the type 1 article, so that I have the right structure.
