Talk:Managing groups for high performance

Latest revision as of 17:09, 19 February 2018

[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Rikke - giver feedback i eftermiddag mellem 16:00-17:45 eller 22:30-23:59

[edit] Question 1 · TEXT

Quality of the summary:

Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 1

Ud fra introduktionen vil jeg forvente at artiklen giver mig et nærmere indblik i hvordan jeg som PM kan

• etablere mit team og
• hvilke dynamikker jeg skal være opmærksom på når jeg løbende skal lede mit team.

Måske vil jeg også have en forventning om, at få listet nogle af de værktøjer som du nævner eksisterer, hvis de er relevante ift. de to fokuspunkter for artiklen.

Savner at du definerer High-performance team og tydeliggør hvad der gør det high performance og hvorfor du finder de nævnte teorier særlige vigtige ift- high performance/hvordan de nævnte teorier kan anvendes ift. at lede high performance teams. (Du definerer group og team)

[edit] Question 2 · TEXT

Structure and logic of the article:

Is the argument clear?

Is there a logical flow to the article?

Does one part build upon the other?

Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 2

Det er lidt svært at sige om jeg vil foretrække at afsnittet 'Etableringen af mit team' skal komme før 'Dynamikker i teamet' for det giver jo god mening at kende til dynemikker før jeg sammensætter, men alligevel, så virker det lidt omvendt. Tror det mest intuitive (for mig) er Etablering og så Dynamikker, men det er fordi jeg ser dynamikkerne som det jeg skal være opmærksom på når jeg skal lede teamet efterfølgende.

Der mangler på nuværende tidspunkt af artikelskrivningen lidt et tydeligt flow (for mig) - måske kommer den råde tråd når Application færdiggøres. Tænker du at application er 'hvordan du så anvender al denne viden/teori du nu har listet op, så du i praksis 1. får sammensat et high-performance team og 2. får dig en strategi for hvordan du fastholde det som high-performance'?

[edit] Question 3 · TEXT

Grammar and style:

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 3

Artiklen er i en tidlig fase og sproget ikke relevant pt.

[edit] Question 4 · TEXT

Figures and tables:

Are figures and tables clear?

Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 4

Fint med Conformity-Deviance figure og Five-stages of team development.

[edit] Question 5 · TEXT

Interest and relevance:

Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?

Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 5

Jeg vil have en forventning om, at den giver mig en praktisk tilgang til anvendelse af de gennemgåede teorier. Uanset hvad så er det måske godt at state det i introduktionen (forventningsafstemning).

[edit] Question 6 · TEXT

Depth of treatment:

Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?

Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 6

Der er pt ikke nogen ny vinkel på PM af high performance teams (for mig) - kan heller ikke lige komme på en idé til hvad det kunne være, men tænker videre til imorgen.

[edit] Question 7 · TEXT

Annotated bibliography:

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 7

Ikke endnu. Brug Scopus og Google Scholar. Der må endvidere være andre APPPM-wikis som vil være relevante at linke til. Fx ift. tools - eller andre syn på ledelse af High performance teams.

[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Malthe Muff

[edit] Question 1 · TEXT

Quality of the summary:

Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 1

The objective of the article is clear from the summary and so is the scope.

The section "Structure of the article" could be a bit more clear.

[edit] Question 2 · TEXT

Structure and logic of the article:

Is the argument clear?

Is there a logical flow to the article?

Does one part build upon the other?

Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 2

The structure of the article is good. It makes sense to start by defining a group and then go deeper in to the subject as the article proceeds. There is also a nice logic to it, so I think you should stick with this structure when finishing your article. Especially, because you introduce all the factors that are important for a team, before suggesting how a PM should form a team.

[edit] Question 3 · TEXT

Grammar and style:

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 3

As it is a draft, I will skip this :)

[edit] Question 4 · TEXT

Figures and tables:

Are figures and tables clear?

Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 4

I am sure you will put some nice figures eventually. I think it would be nice in the group dynamics part or at least use bullets or levels on this part

[edit] Question 5 · TEXT

Interest and relevance:

Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?

Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 5

Currently none, so will not comment.

[edit] Question 6 · TEXT

Depth of treatment:

Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?

Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 6

The article makes it possible for the reader to an understanding of what a team/ group is and then covers the whole journey into making a successful team. In addition to the limitations in the end I suggest you also talk about some the challenges there can be in putting a team together e.g. personal dispute, small organisation with limited diversity etc

[edit] Question 7 · TEXT

Annotated bibliography:

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 7

I am sure it will eventully :)

[edit] Abstract Feedback

Text Clarity; Ok.

Language; Ok.

References; Ok.

Since you reference PMI, look if this standard has any definition of group or/and team, if not find these definitions and compare them group vs. team, investigate if projects are developed by groups or teams and based in this research change or not the title of your article. You still missing more specific references regarding your topic.

In general the abstract is ok, nice that you already established the structure of the article, how ever you still missing the annotated bibliography and reference sections, what you have under your note section are references.

Just a reminder, Annotated bibliography is a list of articles, books or documents followed by a briefly descriptive and evaluative paragraph.

When developing the article don't forget to elaborate and describe the relevance for a Project Manager.