Talk:Analysis of the current state

Latest revision as of 14:15, 1 December 2014

[edit] Article review by student:

• Nice overall structure, easy to follow
• Nice idea to include a discussion section at the end
• I recommend getting the text proofread by a native English speaker, frequent grammatical errors can be found throughout the text.
• Check capital spelling of titles
• 'Situation analysis' is probably not the right title if the article focuses on analysis of current state only, as sit. analysis/ would include task analysis/future state and summary as well.
• The analysis of the current state would further include analysis of strength & weakness of the system and cause effect analysis
• In both abstract and introduction the first sentence explains what is part of what. Maybe it might sense to talk about the content of the article in the abstract (analysis of current state, what it is, what it contains, what its used for) and then in the introduction clearly describe the bigger picture (context) including solution analysis and the relation to the problem solving cycle.
• I suggest to structure the chapter ‘analysis of the current state’ according to the tools presented e.g.
  • Short introduction
  • Demarcation of system
  • Adopting different point of views (information, energy etc.)
  • Black boxing
  • Add analysis of strength & weakness of the system and cause effect analysis as mentioned above
  • Maybe include stakeholder map here instead of the discussion part.
• Underneath the demarcation picture you talk about five terms → there are six
• I would move the tools you mention in the discussion part into the chapter above and than relate to it as you describe a step-by-step approach on how to conduct the analysis of the current state
• In the summary/conclusion you could reflect whether the analysis has to be adapted to any project specific or if its generic tool or something alike.
• I hope this helped a bit, sorry for little positive feedback

[edit] Feedback from Dnhr0

Hello! I enjoyed reading your article and I found a couple of good points on it that make it entertaining to read:

• There is a nice, natural flow in the content. At the same time, it seems intuitive the way it is organized.
• The figures clarify the content and are helpful.
• The references used throughout the text are from reliable sources. At the same time, the way references are inserted in the text is very nice.

At the same time, I think there are some things that you may want to go through again in order to consider my opinion (if you find it useful). Some of my recommendations are:

• Spelling and Grammar: I could find a repetitive grammar mistake, which is the use of the verb “to be”. There were some cases where I could see using “are” instead of “is”. Another recurrent mistake is between the use of plurals and singulars, which may be related to the one discusses before. I recommend you to ask for a grammar review from a native speaker or any other fellow student that may help you to point out some mistakes that may go unnoticed by you. Here is a list with some other concerns regarding spelling and grammar. Feel free to go through and change only what you consider relevant.
  • Abstract:
    • beneficial instead of “bene-ficial”
    • “The tool is used” or “The tools are used” instead of “The tool are used”
    • “This article considering the analysis of the current state that are a part of the situation analysis”. I would write it “This article considers the analysis of the current state, which is a part of the situation analysis”.
  • Introduction:
    • “and is used to formulate” instead of “and are used to formulate”
    • “The problem solving cycle is constructed” instead of “The problem solving cycle are constructed”
  • Analysis of the current state:
    • Current instead of cur-rent
    • “…ensure the project group is working” instead of “…ensure the project group are working”
    • “If the situation is unknown…” instead of “If the situation are unknown”
    • “An example” instead of “A example”.
    • “Environment is that part of the surrounding system that is relevant to the problem itself” instead of “Environment is that part of the surrounding system that are relevant to the problem it selves”.
    • “Area of effect is the area where effects” instead of “Area of effect is the area that where effects”
    • “information” instead of “ in-formation”
    • “The type of connection and element depends on” instead of “The type of connection and element is depending on“.
    • “One system can contain more than one point of view that are interesting”
  • Black boxes and system hierarchy:
    • “If the system consists “ instead of “If the system consist”.
    • “Instead, a black box could be used” instead of “Instead could be used a black box”
  • Discussion:
    • “Stakeholders” instead of “stake-holders”
    • “conditions” instead of “condi-tions”
• In the abstract, you mention that: “Using system demarcation, it is possible to get an overview of complex structures, bene-ficial for project and program management and people in project groups”. It would be helpful for the reader to list or mention some of the benefits expected from this perspective. I am afraid that it could not be that clear to the readers.
• Under the section “Analysis of the current state”, you say: “The five important terms are described below”, but you are describing 6 terms. Furthermore, I think it may be a good idea to describe them just above the picture, when you first list them in bullet points. That way, the reader may understand what the picture is about once he goes through it.
• I am not sure if the stakeholder’s part should be included under Discussion. To me, it seems like the stakeholders analysis (or mapping) is part of the analysis. I may be wrong, but I think you could make a stronger statement of why you choose to include the stakeholders under this section.
• I consider that it could be interesting to point out the differences between the types of flows (information, material and energy). What is considered to be inside each of them? Again, I think it could be helpful to use an example to illustrate what every type of flow means.
• Don’t forget to reference the figures in the text (i.e. Figure 1). They are very useful, so it could be even better if the text guides you through them.
• I think we do not have a specific referencing format, but it would be better for your article if they were written in the same style.
• It would be nice if the figures could have colours as well, in order to make it more appealing and easier to identify the components. In the first figure, you have changed the type of line, which is also helpful, but I think it may be difficult for the reader to quickly know what is under which area.
• You could consider talking about an actual example to illustrate how these concepts and tools relate to a real life case. Even though you have the charts, it is not completely understandable how it would work. In my opinion, getting an example and going through all the content with it could be very helpful for the reader.
• As discussed in class, I think it could be nice if you were able to insert some links to other relevant pages for the Wiki of the course. For example, there are a couple of articles about Stakeholders; maybe you can find one that is related to your topic.
• I think you should consider using more references. Even though they are good quality sources, the content may still be enhanced with new information.

I hope that my comments could help you with the writing of the article, keep the good work!

[edit] Answers to review

Thanks for the good comments from both student and Dnhr0 even one of you think it was only little positive feedback.

I now the text was full of small errors at the first delivery because of missing time. I wrote the first version in MS Word and copied it into the wiki page - this have created a lot breakdowns (-) in many of the words. That should now be fixed and proofread.

Answers to comments by student

• I knew the title "Situation Analysis" is not correct, but it is not possible to change it by my selves.
• Good point about the abstract vs introduction - I have tried to rewrite both parts as recommended.
• I have changed the structure closer to what you have suggested. Not the same titles, but nearly in that order. All the tools are now described in the section about the analysis.

Answers to comments by Dnhr0

• Thanks for the positive feedback and all the correction of the grammar.
• I have not listed the benefits of an overview, because I think "the good overview" is the benefit it selves.
• Good point with the terms. The structure of the figure and the listed terms are changed.
• The stake holders part are moved and I definitely agree that it make more sense to include it were the tools are presented.

• The figures was supposed to have references and figure texts. Because of some trouble using the right "wiki-command" it was not showed in the article. It is solved now!
• The figures now have some more colors were it makes sense.
• Good idea to add links to other relevant pages in the article
• I would like to have more references at it could probably also have made it easier to write the discussion part, but I have used many hours trying to find information without finding anything relevant for the article. Both through DTU library, Google scholar and by using normal Google search.