Latest revision as of 20:14, 1 December 2014

[edit] Val review

The article is well structured and go through all the points we can expect. The only issue is that you go through many principles, methods and concepts without well defined all of them or without giving a proper reference to find a CONCISE and PRECISE description. I think your article would take advantage of more descriptions or explanation (1-2 sentences can be enough). Also, I couldn't see any reflection or added value from what we learnt during the related lecture. Finally, I noticed only few spelling mistakes and it is a good point.

I divided my feedback in 3 categories that are the following:

Thank you for your review and suggestions.

[edit] Formal aspects

• You should try to introduce the wiki format for references [1] You can also have a look to other articles who use it. I can see you gave a look how to use them but you should have only in your reference part. Like this, it is possible to have a link when you click on the little number of the reference. You can have a look at the article 'Introducing projects in a functional organization' for an example.

I have introduced WIKI style references.

• For your first picture (the list for the task analysis): if you want the text of the next section not start before the end of the picture (so the picture is only in one section) you can write
  before the beginning of the next section.

I think I got it and now it looks better, actually it looked different before, but I don't know how it changed to that position at he moment you made the comment.

• Picture in "SWOT Analysis": see above

Did the same, it looks nice now.

[edit] Grammar and Spelling

• "When a machine runs efficiently, when a matter of fact is settled, one need focus only on its inputs and outputs and not on its internal complexity." Rephrase it especially "one need TO focus", one what? etc

That's an expression "one need focus", and that's a citation.

• " its' environment." -> its environment

Corrected

• "the range of answers decrease" -> decreases

Corrected

[edit] Content aspects

• "The last, but not the least common error is overreaction. There is a need of accurate identification of possible crisis existence and thorough evaluation of situation." I don't really understand what you mean here. How the two sentences are related? How do you define "overreaction"?

It means that sometimes people overreact in some situations and they assume to soon that it is a problem. So to avoid that it is recommended to evaluate situation and find out is it a real crisis or just a warning.

• " It could be suggested to use Reg Revans approach of asking three main questions:" Why choosing this one more than another

Because it is a suggestion and I think he is proper one, who is the one who proposed Action Learning and how to approach problem solving.

• "Therefore, willing to obtain as accurate as possible position of the present situation it is desirable to review:" I think you should either shortly describe all of them or either not even mention them.

I think it is not an option to remove it. Therefore, reference is provided for more in-depth understanding of each statement'

• Demarcate the system A figure could help to understand this part.

Yes, I thought about picture too, but didn't had enough time then, now I added it.

[edit] Review by Dutten

Dear Qwerty

First of all: impressive that you worked till 6 o’clock from Monday to Tuesday. I actually did the exact same thing :o)

I like your article, it gives a somewhat detailed overview/step by step approach to situation analysis, and I think it can be applicable for next semester students. If you wish, you can comment on my comments, and I will then answer/elaborate. Thank you for your review

• I suppose you are writing the Introduction and Overview or the Descriptions of Particular Methods
  • I think a strength/weaknesses section, evaluating the Situation Anlysis in Problem-Solving Cycle would make the article interesting, and providing more info than our course material.
  • Maybe difficult to make, but very interesting, could be a very short example of how this method have been used. Not step by step, but maybe one part of it that worked really well for e.g. your group.

Yes I agree with you, but I am not sure if the study cases are applicable in this type of article

• I think the introduction part is made very well, it’s understandable and gives a clear overview of the rest of the article
• I think the picture ‘’Steps of the task analysis’’ should be referred to in the text.

Yes, it is quite a good idea

• • And I actually think it is irrelevant to show a picture of bulletpoints. Could it not just be written in the text?

From my point of view it is the more visual way to present and easier to get this kind of information.

• Something is wrong with your [1] reference. It just links to your article.

All the references are made in WIKI style

• Several parts of your article is completely missing references

Taken into consideration

• You forget to use capital letters in your bullet points list

I corrected these two typos in the Task Analysis, there is several more, but I will let you correct those:

Yeah, I am not sure if you were supposed to edit something, but nevertheless I took it in consideration. And here it is, the general assumptions on writing the bullet-points. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/bullet-points

• After THE problem was identified and verified as many as possible facts about the situation must be collected.

'Considered.

• Finding out what is known helps to identify the purpose of the process and leads to exploration of what do the customers and stakeholders EXPECT to receive as a delivery of the process.

'Considered.

• • However I do still not quite understand this last sentence.
• It could be an idea, to show an illustration of a system demarcation to increase understandability.

'It is there now, I just hadn't enough time last week.