Latest revision as of 15:52, 28 November 2014

Thanks a lot for your comments. I will write my answers to them in bold. A "v" would say I read the comment but it doesn't need an answer.

[edit] Hermaeus Mora

[edit] General

• The article is formatted in a proper wiki fashion. The headings, lists and graphics are used correctly. v

• Graphics used are relevant and clear. The 'Stage gate model' is borrowed from an article, it has a reference embedded in the graphic however it's also possible to add references to a figure in wiki. Same regards the 'Gephi network visualization'. These pictures are just used as examples. They are here just to make it visual and I think that just the concept needs a reference in that cases.
• Regarding the abstract, perhaps it doesn't need a heading and since the APPPM wiki is supposed to be developed over the coming years the phrase "Two years ago" should be put in absolute terms. Good reflection for the "Two years ago", I would never find it out by myself.

• As for the language used. Overall it's understandable, which is good. All the words and expressions are used in the proper context, however...
  • There are multiple grammar errors. Fortunately they are rather small, mostly regarding singular and plural forms, however although small they are still striking for the reader. This should be easily amendable with a grammar check in Word or google docs. Thank you for the advice. I did it and corrected my mistakes.
  • The structure of the language is at times informal. There are sentences which can be misinterpreted at first e.g. The system insures low health services prices for all the citizens. while others like For example, a network mapping of the company can enable the directors to be aware of informal links between employees from different department and this can be a good starting point to involve this employees in a cross functional project concerning this departments. should be divided in two for better understanding. I did some changes in the whole article, focusing on this comment. I especially rephrased this two sentences.
  • I can see that the author uses his/her English to the best possible extent so I would suggest that a native speaker/very proficient user has a quick glance at the text to correct the formulation of some sentences. Quoting The Ghost Writer (2010) "Well all the words are there, they're just in the wrong order." (some of them;) It is true that I am used to write as I speak. Thank you to stress this point; I have to improve it.

[edit] Content

• Personally I found this article a very interesting read. It's relevant to PPPM and describes an ongoing issue. v

• The abstract provides a good overview of the articles content. v

• The structure is really clear. Author smoothly goes from one part to the other i.e. what is discussed, what's the situation, who's involved, what's the challenge, how to solve it and what will that achieve. v

• The article falls under the case study write-up category. It's not just 100% informative though as after the introduction the author covers the possible solutions to the existing problem. It seems like an evaluation made by the author however it might as well be a description of the feedback from an advisor company. I don't really get this comment. Do you mean the work I did could have been also done by a consultancy company?

• References. There are five hard references given, however they regard only the tools and concepts described not the actual content. Course 42490 TEMO is referred to yet nothing more than that. This is something that should be addressed because statements such as: "most of them [functional managers] have no skills and experience in project management." should be backed up by some data/references, else they simply become strong opinions. Moreover there is a reference to a software package 'Gephi', it could be nice to have a link to the owner. The reference of TEMO course was a reminder but it was not relevant in the final version. Thanks for notice. Regarding the data, I added a note at the very beginning (before the abstract) to explain where this data is from. In fact, I have discussed twice with one of the directors of the local site of Perpignan on Skype. They are looking for a student to solve this issue during his/her master thesis. The Gephi website has been added as a reference.

[edit] Review from Xyz

I think this is an interesting case study article.

• There are not many grammar, spelling and punctuation errors. The few errors do not effect the general impression. v

• There is a good flow with a clear red thread. v

• There are a sufficient number of figures and they contribute to making the article more understandable. v

• The article looks very much like a real Wiki article, with sub-heading, bullet-point lists, etc. v

• The article would be very interesting for any project manager, student etc, who is looking for a good example on how to make a good case-study write-up. v

• The length of the article is sufficient and does not seem like anything is missing. v

• The abstract is good and gives a fin overview over the article. v

• The article provide adequate references. v

• The article show the author's own opinions. v