Talk:Agile Project Management

Latest revision as of 12:32, 27 November 2014

[edit] Review by secna

Answers to review by author (Username111) is written below bullet points in bold/italic.

Overall a good article, which gives a good overview into what agile PM is and relevant within the topics of PM.

• It would improve the understanding of agile if you start out with a very short intro to what is agile PM is before you start the history of the method it will make it easier to follow.
  • I don't quite agree. If the reader don't know what agile is, I believe that it is important to start by understanding what agile is, before moving into what APM is. In addition, there is no simple way to describe APM in a single sentence, and therefore i will leave the definition of what APM is in the detailed method description

• The amount of references that you have found is good, and when you read the article it really shows that it have been carefully investigated. But when you just write “it can be found in [x], then atleast I thought it was ruining the reading flow, I think it would help if you also added the name of the article that your referring to in the text.
  • I agree. I have added the name of the article where it made sense.

• Is there any related methods/standards that can be used together with agile PM?
  • Yes. Due to the flexible and adaptable nature of APM in can in principle be used with any method if it makes sense. If a project is run by a traditional plan-based project management approach, and there is no complexity or uncertainty, it might not make much sense to use it. However, as soon as a project is experiencing complexity or uncertainty, APM can be introduced, no matter which method is being used. The main barrier for implementing APM to any project is more the organisational structure and culture, not the method or standard used.

• Its nice figure which gives a good overview of the APM model, remember to refer to the figure in the text.
  • Figure reference added to the text.

[edit] Review by Dunseiz

Answers to review by author (Username111) is written in bold/italic

This article is very well disposed and well argued. Good job! I have therefore focused my review on technical and formal stuff that in my opinion could lift the article. Enjoy :)

REFERENCES

The references are done manually as far as I can see. I have taken the liberty and made reference 1 to 4 "linked" for you. No. 4 differs slightly in coding due to the multiple usage. They can be copied/pasted and modified to fit the rest of the references.

Thank you for the example. I have corrected the referencing to be linked.

LAYOUT

There are many short sections in the introduction which can be a bit difficult to separate. This is mainly due to the line spacing when jumping to next line. Maybe you could use more sub-sub titles to separate these short sections or maybe just make an extra space between them?

I agree that the short sections can be difficult to separate due to the formatting of linespacing in the wiki setup. If I introduce subsub(sub) headings it will will give me sub headings with four numbers, e.g. 2.2.1.1 Rolling wave planning, which I believe also will confuse the reader. I looked at some of the other articles and the linespacing seems to be a common issue due to the wiki setup. I will therefore leave it as it is, in order for it to fit the general style of all the articles in this wiki.

GRAMMAR

word contractions are usually not used in written language. "...agile methodologies often don’t separate between..." should be "...agile methodologies often do not separate between..." "In many cases agile methodologies doesn’t even use..." should be "In many cases agile methodologies do not even use..."

I have corrected all the word contractions to be separate words now