Talk:Constructive Controversy

Latest revision as of 13:19, 1 December 2014

[edit] Feedback from ProjectGoat

I have made the feedback as I was reading the article so the points should come in the right order.

Intro

• Good introduction, however, a short example of use to reach consensus about a controversial topic might be a good idea to explain the method a bit further, maybe just like explain how to make people take sides or give an example of a topix where this could be beneficial.
  • Added a better explanation.

History and origin

• The history and origin part is quite interesting, but the last part about the release of other books and articles should maybe be moves to a “further reading” part at the end of this article.
  • Will keep it here. I think it's relevant. However I will add a Further reading chapter to the end of the article.

Explanation of Concept

• Spelling: The cognitive biases can be set aside (instead of sat)
  • Corrected
• Maybe write a bit more about how constructive controversy can be used when inevitable unplanned events happen, and when these create problems in the original project plan
  • Few sentences added to clear it up. The way to use it here, is the exact same way. :)

Step-by-Step Guide (consider using hyphens) (Changed!)

• Make a reference to D.W. Johnson’s 6 steps
  • Done
• Maybe make some sort of a concluding comment on the steps and what steps are different/omitted in other theories
  • I feel like I have already done this when i write: "Some say 4, others 5 or 6. While it is the exact same process, different theorists have chosen to split it up differently."?

The Roles of the different participants when using constructive controversy

• Reference to the Constructive controversy article
  • Done
• Who has fitted the table? Did you do it or have your found the fitted one in another article?
  • Yes, I have. I'll write that if you think it's necessary
• I think there is a need for providing more explanation of how this table should/could be used.
  • Will explain how the six steps relate to the Recitation, Group Discussion and Controversy Phase.

Rules for using Constructive Controversy

• The first sentence should be re-written in order to make more sense. Maybe something along the lines of: “In order to use Constructive Controversy, a certain set of rules or guidelines will now be presented to help things along”
  • Corrected
• Maybe include a couple of sentences about what the dangers are of not using these rules.
  • Done

Example of Constructive Controversy being used in Project Management

• Very good idea to give a concrete example
  • thanks
• Just a minor detail – if you write “for” in italic you should maybe also write “against” in italic
  • Corrected
• Grammar: Jean-Luc and Agnes are placed – instead of is
  • Corrected
• Grammar: The two team discuss – instead of discusses
  • Corrected
• Grammar: Both Jean-Luc and Andrei have become… and decide – instead of has and decides.
  • Corrected.
• Where does this example come from? Have you read about it or has this been made up for the purpose of the article? Write a bit about this maybe
  • Yes I made it up for this article. I've add a sentence or two about it.

Discussion

• Maybe the educational use should be mentioned more in the article itself, before being discussed more thoroughly in this part
  • It's already mentioned in the introduction, but I'll mention it a couple of other places as well to me more thorough.
• The “Johnson and Johnson” part could potentially be written as its own paragraph and then only summarised/referred to in the discussion
  • Probably, but I think it fits neatly in here to be honest.
• Other than that it is a very good discussion - a bit long, but very nice indeed
  • Thanks

References

• The references should be changed to make it more clear who it the author, what is the name of the article, what is the publisher, the year, etc. … Make it look more like reference number 8.
  • Done for the scientific articles. I will keep the reference to Google books, since it redirects the user to the exact page for reference.

General comments

• Consider writing more about the use in risk management
  • More about the use in Risk Management added.
• It's a nice article and the flow is pretty good
  • Thanks
• Consider using synonyms for ‘however’ and remember commas before and after.
  • The word was only in the text a combined 4 times. I've changed two of them now, and placed the commas. Thanks.

[edit] Review by Bdmn

• Overall an interesting wiki-article
  • Thanks

[edit] Content aspects

• Good with the connection to how it can be used in project management.
  • Thanks
• The first introduction section is written as the rest "will be written". Try to tell what the article will present instead.
  • You're right. Corrected.
• Add a category to the article; e.g. Project management, Risk management, Decision-making
  • Done
• Very nice with an example! It clearly shows the positive effects of the use. However it can perhaps be more clear if it was presented step-by-step. A step-by-step presentation gives the reader an easier overview how it can and should be used in reality.
  • Steps added. I hope it's a bit more clear now.

[edit] Formal aspects

• It can be a bit confusing what parts relating to each other when headings are dividing the text with lines. Try not to use the first heading since it's used as the overall heading and use "second heading ==" instead
  • I see. Done.
• First two sentences seems a bit contradictory. Can an uncommon method be commonly used?
  • You're right. Corrected.
• Overall a good use of appropriate words. However, you should consider a quick spell check. Use Word or other software that also including grammar check.
  • Ran it through MS Word, and I found a couple of grammatical errors. Has been Corrected now.
• Describe the first table,, how does it connect with the steps?
  • Has been corrected as well.
• Overall a good use of references, however, they have a tendency to disappear in the end
  • Thanks. I've added a couple more where I felt it was appropriate.