Talk:Risk Management Overview

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Abstract Feedback)
(→‎Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Casper)
 
(34 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 7: Line 7:
 
'''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Very thoroughly explained and good momentum
 
'''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Very thoroughly explained and good momentum
  
−
'''Purpose explanation''' Well addressed, perhaps expand on whether or not the Risk Management Process applies more to a specific industry? E.g. Oil and Gas where risk is a serious topic (DONE)
+
'''Purpose explanation''' Well addressed, perhaps expand on whether or not the Risk Management Process applies more to a specific industry? E.g. Oil and Gas where risk is a serious topic  
  
−
'''References'''         Good references. Look at chapter 11 in PMBOK to include further references related to risk in project management context  
+
'''References'''         Good references. Look at chapter 11 in PMBOK to include further references related to risk in project management context
  
 
'''Relevance of article'''          Very relevant but consider to:
 
'''Relevance of article'''          Very relevant but consider to:
Line 15: Line 15:
 
<ol>
 
<ol>
 
   <li> Ensure that the risk management process concept explanation is embedded in a project management context
 
   <li> Ensure that the risk management process concept explanation is embedded in a project management context
−
   <li> Avoid focusing too much on risk management from an organizational/operational perspective, but more project managerial, e.g. don't talk about carrying out a risk assessment for operating an oil rig  
+
   <li> Avoid focusing too much on risk management from an organizational/operational perspective, but more project managerial, e.g. don't talk about carrying out a risk assessment for operating an oil rig
−
   <li> Consult chapter 11 in PMBOK for inspiration
+
   <li> Consult chapter 11 in PMBOK for inspiration  
 
   <li> Consult with Josef if in doubt as he is very knowledgeable about project risk management
 
   <li> Consult with Josef if in doubt as he is very knowledgeable about project risk management
 
</ol>
 
</ol>
 +
 +
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Briet''==
 +
===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?
 +
 +
===Answer 1===
 +
The abstract is very clear and concise. I like the fact that you mentioned that the article would only focus on the risks/threats and not the opportunities, which makes the direction of the article clear. I would maybe suggest that you move this last sentence higher in the paragraph just to make it transparent from the beginning what direction you are going for.
 +
 +
===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?
 +
 +
===Answer 2===
 +
There is a great logical flow to the article and it's very well structured. I would maybe suggest that you try to focus more on the risk management from a project management perspective.
 +
 +
===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?
 +
 +
===Answer 3===
 +
Very good writing! I noticed some minor spelling errors and few examples of unnecessary fill words. See here below some examples:
 +
 +
"Naturally the Impact/Probability for the inherent risk should be '''grater''' or equal to the ratings in the residual" -> Naturally''',''' the Impact/Probability for the inherent risk should be '''greater''' or equal to the ratings in the residual"
 +
 +
"The treatment of risks can consist of adding additional resources ('''manpower''', budget) into the schedule." -> "The treatment of risks can consist of adding additional resources ('''workforce''', budget) into the schedule."
 +
 +
"The identification of risk is a repeatable process since new risks can change '''through''' its life or new risks are discovered." ->"The identification of risk is a repeatable process since new risks can change its life or new risks are discovered."
 +
 +
"making contracts with service providers or buying '''a''' insurance that covers that risk." -> "making contracts with service providers or buying insurance that covers that risk."
 +
 +
"However identifications are only the first '''step'''" -> "However identifications are only the first '''steps'''"
 +
 +
" however, some '''matrices''' also have a 4. level very high" -> " however, some '''matrixes''' also have a 4. level very high"
 +
 +
"the cost of treating the risk should be evaluated and compared '''whit potentially''' loss by risk." ->  "the cost of treating the risk should be evaluated and compared '''with a potential''' loss by risk."
 +
 +
"'''Enventhoug''' risk management naturally" ->"'''Even though''' risk management naturally"
 +
 +
In few cases, you write "a risk" when it's supposed to be just "risk". I would suggest that you look into that.
 +
 +
===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?
 +
 +
===Answer 4===
 +
The figures are very good and I think they are well described and supported by the text. One idea is to add one extra figure, which you create yourself, in the "Risk Management" section relating to the bullets listed in the "Risk management in different industries" section. Just an idea :)
 +
 +
===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?
 +
 +
===Answer 5===
 +
The article is practical and relevant. I like that you mentioned some examples to explain further the tool which helps the reader to understand the tool better. I don't have any suggestions for improvements.
 +
 +
===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?
 +
 +
===Answer 6===
 +
The article is very interesting! I particularly liked the examples that you mentioned in the "Examples of good and bad risk management" whereas the examples provided more insight into the risk management at well-known companies in regards to both good and bad risk management. I don't have any suggestions for improvements.
 +
 +
===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?
 +
 +
===Answer 7===
 +
The Literature including the references is very good and organized. I don't have any suggestions for improvements. Although, I think '''Literature''' is spelled like this rather than '''Litterature''' :)
 +
 +
==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Casper''==
 +
===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?
 +
 +
===Answer 1===
 +
I like that you clearly state the focus of the article! Yet it would help if it was moved earlier in the abstract of the article.
 +
 +
For example:
 +
Projects are part of a dynamic and fast changeling world. Therefore there is a degree of uncertainty and unpredictability in projects. In order to minimize uncertainties and unforeseeable events related to a project, risks are identified and managed throughout the project lifecycle. A risk is an uncertain event that can have e negative effect on one or more objects in a project such as time, cost, performance or scope [1] [2].
 +
 +
This Wiki-article will describe the Risk Management Process, Risk Matrix, Rumsfeld's Unknown-Knowns, inherent- and residual risks. At last limitations and advantages of Risk Management will be discussed and a brief overview of other relevant reading material.
 +
 +
Please note that this article only covers the risk (threat) management of a project and does not look into opportunities management (risks with a positive effect).
 +
 +
===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?
 +
 +
===Answer 2===
 +
The flow of the article is good and each part builds upon the other.
 +
 +
===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?
 +
 +
===Answer 3===
 +
There is some spelling mistakes throughout the article. I suggest that you try to double check using the spell checker in word, otherwise I can help you with access to grammarly that can assist you in correcting the mistakes. The writing style is good and makes it interesting to read.
 +
 +
===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?
 +
 +
===Answer 4===
 +
You have done a great job here! I have no further comments on how to improve.
 +
 +
===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?
 +
 +
===Answer 5===
 +
The article is very relevant for both academics and practitioners.
 +
It is very clear why this subject is relevant reading the article.
 +
I have no further comments on how to improve this article.
 +
 +
===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?
 +
 +
===Answer 6===
 +
The article is interesting to read. It makes a significant contribution beyond a websearch, however if it would make sense, it could help the article if you look into describing/investigating if there is any relevant tools or possible ways to reduce the time consumption doing risk management.
 +
 +
===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?
 +
 +
===Answer 7===
 +
Thorough made throughout the article with proper referencing. All the key references are summarised well. The only thing I suggest to improve is the spelling of literature in the headline.

Latest revision as of 12:28, 26 February 2018

Contents

[edit] Abstract Feedback

Text clarity Text is coherent

Language Good

Description of the tool/theory/concept Very thoroughly explained and good momentum

Purpose explanation Well addressed, perhaps expand on whether or not the Risk Management Process applies more to a specific industry? E.g. Oil and Gas where risk is a serious topic

References Good references. Look at chapter 11 in PMBOK to include further references related to risk in project management context

Relevance of article Very relevant but consider to:

  1. Ensure that the risk management process concept explanation is embedded in a project management context
  2. Avoid focusing too much on risk management from an organizational/operational perspective, but more project managerial, e.g. don't talk about carrying out a risk assessment for operating an oil rig
  3. Consult chapter 11 in PMBOK for inspiration
  4. Consult with Josef if in doubt as he is very knowledgeable about project risk management

[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Briet

[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 abstract is very clear and concise. I like the fact that you mentioned that the article would only focus on the risks/threats and not the opportunities, which makes the direction of the article clear. I would maybe suggest that you move this last sentence higher in the paragraph just to make it transparent from the beginning what direction you are going for.

[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

There is a great logical flow to the article and it's very well structured. I would maybe suggest that you try to focus more on the risk management from a project management perspective.

[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

Very good writing! I noticed some minor spelling errors and few examples of unnecessary fill words. See here below some examples:

"Naturally the Impact/Probability for the inherent risk should be grater or equal to the ratings in the residual" -> Naturally, the Impact/Probability for the inherent risk should be greater or equal to the ratings in the residual"

"The treatment of risks can consist of adding additional resources (manpower, budget) into the schedule." -> "The treatment of risks can consist of adding additional resources (workforce, budget) into the schedule."

"The identification of risk is a repeatable process since new risks can change through its life or new risks are discovered." ->"The identification of risk is a repeatable process since new risks can change its life or new risks are discovered."

"making contracts with service providers or buying a insurance that covers that risk." -> "making contracts with service providers or buying insurance that covers that risk."

"However identifications are only the first step" -> "However identifications are only the first steps"

" however, some matrices also have a 4. level very high" -> " however, some matrixes also have a 4. level very high"

"the cost of treating the risk should be evaluated and compared whit potentially loss by risk." -> "the cost of treating the risk should be evaluated and compared with a potential loss by risk."

"Enventhoug risk management naturally" ->"Even though risk management naturally"

In few cases, you write "a risk" when it's supposed to be just "risk". I would suggest that you look into that.

[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

The figures are very good and I think they are well described and supported by the text. One idea is to add one extra figure, which you create yourself, in the "Risk Management" section relating to the bullets listed in the "Risk management in different industries" section. Just an idea :)

[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

The article is practical and relevant. I like that you mentioned some examples to explain further the tool which helps the reader to understand the tool better. I don't have any suggestions for improvements.

[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 is very interesting! I particularly liked the examples that you mentioned in the "Examples of good and bad risk management" whereas the examples provided more insight into the risk management at well-known companies in regards to both good and bad risk management. I don't have any suggestions for improvements.

[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

The Literature including the references is very good and organized. I don't have any suggestions for improvements. Although, I think Literature is spelled like this rather than Litterature :)

[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Casper

[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

I like that you clearly state the focus of the article! Yet it would help if it was moved earlier in the abstract of the article.

For example: Projects are part of a dynamic and fast changeling world. Therefore there is a degree of uncertainty and unpredictability in projects. In order to minimize uncertainties and unforeseeable events related to a project, risks are identified and managed throughout the project lifecycle. A risk is an uncertain event that can have e negative effect on one or more objects in a project such as time, cost, performance or scope [1] [2].

This Wiki-article will describe the Risk Management Process, Risk Matrix, Rumsfeld's Unknown-Knowns, inherent- and residual risks. At last limitations and advantages of Risk Management will be discussed and a brief overview of other relevant reading material.

Please note that this article only covers the risk (threat) management of a project and does not look into opportunities management (risks with a positive effect).

[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 flow of the article is good and each part builds upon the other.

[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

There is some spelling mistakes throughout the article. I suggest that you try to double check using the spell checker in word, otherwise I can help you with access to grammarly that can assist you in correcting the mistakes. The writing style is good and makes it interesting to read.

[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

You have done a great job here! I have no further comments on how to improve.

[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

The article is very relevant for both academics and practitioners. It is very clear why this subject is relevant reading the article. I have no further comments on how to improve this article.

[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 is interesting to read. It makes a significant contribution beyond a websearch, however if it would make sense, it could help the article if you look into describing/investigating if there is any relevant tools or possible ways to reduce the time consumption doing risk management.

[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

Thorough made throughout the article with proper referencing. All the key references are summarised well. The only thing I suggest to improve is the spelling of literature in the headline.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php?title=Talk:Risk_Management_Overview&oldid=56381"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox