Talk:Lean Project Management

Latest revision as of 00:42, 1 December 2014

[edit] Feedback on "Lean Project Management" by DBDHL

This is a great, well written article providing a solid description of Lean Project Management.

[edit] Formal aspects

• The language is nice and easy to understand but proof-reading is recommended.
• The structure of the article engages the reader. It is well structured and chronologically disposed.
• The use of figures is great and supports the take-away points from the sections.
• The figures seem correct, convincing and easy to understand.
• I suggest adding figure numbers in the figure texts.
• I suggest referring to the figures throughout the text. This hasn’t been done consistently.
• It is assumed that the author has created the figures by him-/herself and that there are no copyright issues.
• The article is very well formatted Wiki-style.
• References are used consistently and correctly and seem to cover the topic to a great extent.

[edit] Content aspects

• It’s great the article starts by explaining the importance of the topic. This is engaging the reader and works as a great appetizer to read more.
• Consider to include some of the findings from the article so it works as a summary.
• The topic is assumed to be highly relevant for a practitioner considering to apply Lean project Management within an organization.
• It is clear that the article belongs to the “Introduction and overview” category since it takes care of the proposed elements.
• The length of the article seems appropriate. The article seems to cover the topic to a great extent without being too “heavy” to read.
• There is a great chronological red thread throughout the article as well as a nice overview.
• References are in general used extensively with relevant sources of high quality.
• The article has a section referring to other Wiki pages, which is great.
• It can be a bit difficult to distinct between own opinion and statements from literature:
  • From the top section: Using “our” in the following sentence makes it seem like it is written by a company and is a bit confusing: “Competition in our industry increasingly makes more important the desire of optimizing what leads to provide our customers better service or product…”
  • From the discussion: “LPM philosophy would become an important part of the companies’ culture because they would see the long-term benefits of applying LPM tools and techniques” – where does this statement come from?
• The article doesn’t seem to have “copy/paste” plagiarism.

[edit] Answer to the feedback on "Lean Project Management" by DBDHL

First of all, thank you for your feedback. I will go throughout your points and I will answer your recommendations point by point (I do not answer when the feedbak is good and there is nothing to be checked). I answered in bold letters:

[edit] Formal aspects

• The language is nice and easy to understand but proof-reading is recommended.

I checked all the text again and I corrected some small language mistakes. I also improved some sentences and now the article is nicer (from my point of view).

• The structure of the article engages the reader. It is well structured and chronologically disposed.
• The use of figures is great and supports the take-away points from the sections.
• The figures seem correct, convincing and easy to understand.
• I suggest adding figure numbers in the figure texts.

Done ;)

• I suggest referring to the figures throughout the text. This hasn’t been done consistently.

Done, I didn't do it before because I was following a more "wiki article estructure" (usually, I haven't seen references to the figures in wiki articles) but after asking the teachers, it seems that in our case do not need to be like that. Thank your for your advice, it is now corrected.

• It is assumed that the author has created the figures by him-/herself and that there are no copyright issues.

Yes, it is

• The article is very well formatted Wiki-style.
• References are used consistently and correctly and seem to cover the topic to a great extent.

[edit] Content aspects

• It’s great the article starts by explaining the importance of the topic. This is engaging the reader and works as a great appetizer to read more.
• Consider to include some of the findings from the article so it works as a summary.

I include some more information related to this issue in the discusion part.

• The topic is assumed to be highly relevant for a practitioner considering to apply Lean project Management within an organization.
• It is clear that the article belongs to the “Introduction and overview” category since it takes care of the proposed elements.
• The length of the article seems appropriate. The article seems to cover the topic to a great extent without being too “heavy” to read.
• There is a great chronological red thread throughout the article as well as a nice overview.
• References are in general used extensively with relevant sources of high quality.
• The article has a section referring to other Wiki pages, which is great.
• It can be a bit difficult to distinct between own opinion and statements from literature:

As it is a wiki-article, adressing an accademic topic, I tried to do the article in an objective way: based on scientific literature and avoiding my own opinion.

• • From the top section: Using “our” in the following sentence makes it seem like it is written by a company and is a bit confusing: “Competition in our industry increasingly makes more important the desire of optimizing what leads to provide our customers better service or product…”

This was one mistake, now I corrected to : Competition in industry increasingly makes more important...Good point!

• • From the discussion: “LPM philosophy would become an important part of the companies’ culture because they would see the long-term benefits of applying LPM tools and techniques” – where does this statement come from?

I think now is fine, this is a conclusion from all the analysis done throughout the article but I think that it was not clear enough in the text, I reformulated now this part in a better way. Hope now is understandable ;)

• The article doesn’t seem to have “copy/paste” plagiarism.

Thank you very much for your feedback, it has been very usefull and it helps me a lot to improve my article :)

[edit] Feedback on "Lean Project Management" by Linus R.V

Well structured, into deep written big article, which immerse the reader into the world of Lean and the Lean Way of project Management

[edit] Formal aspects

• In general the article seem to be free of spelling errors. However, there is a minor constant issue related to the grammar, this issue is constant throughout the article. The article would improve further immediate, by solving that issue.

• The article is well written, with only minor issues regarding long-winded, hard-to-follow sentences.

• The flow of the article seems natural and leaves no space for confusion.

• The figures are meaningfull and appropriate. It would be nice if they were directly linked to the sections were the topic related to a specific figure is explained.

• The figures also seem to be free for errors in the graphics. Further there is however a issue related to the references in the figures, where a single one of them (PMI-Phase delivery model) points at the PMBOK GUIDE in the description of the figures, where the rest is relation free. That needs to be aligned.

• Are the figures re-drawn or directly copied from others content?. If they are directly from other content, consider some actions according to your protection from copyright claims.

• The article is formatted correctly. The appeareance of the figures on the other hand, looks like to have some room for improvement according to size and alignment in the article and in relation to each other.

[edit] Content aspects

• Since the article is describing Lean and How to manage projects in a Lean way, the assumption is made that the article is of highly interest for a practitioner.

• The article describes Lean and How to manage projects in a Lean way into debt, with propper phase descriptions and the evaluation of tools. Thereby the article highly relates to a project management topic. When that is said, the direct link or interaction with general project, programme and portfolio management methods is minor or not existing and may put LPM in the light of a stand alone approach.

• It is quite clear, that the article is related to one of the proposed content categories.

• The length of the article seems nice for the in debt description of a whole PM method, including phases. One could question if the in debt description is aligned with the idea of a wiki. Wikipedia, for instance, has a labyrinthine set of policies and guidelines summed up in its five pillars: 'Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia; Wikipedia has a neutral point of view; Wikipedia is free content; Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner; and Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Encyclopaedia again is defined as: An encyclopedia or encyclopaedia (also spelled encyclopædia, see spelling differences)[1] is a type of reference work or compendium holding a comprehensive summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.[2].

• The overall flow seems logical and natural. Hence no suggestions are proposed.

• The starting article seem to have a nice size and contains the relevant introduction topic, however some people may see "Many companies" as somewhat unclear opening statement. The view on that surely differs and thereby it is meant as discussion point, for general consideration.

• The article provides sufficient sources and reference material, even though a crosslink and a link for further reading.

• The resources look a like high to good quality reference material, thus it is hard to define what the article mainly relies on. The links are not taken into consideration.

• The article is not linked to another APPPM wiki.

• Overall the article seems to be quite objective, since the topic by nature doesn't leave much room for interpretation. It is hard to determine if the author avoided, other crucial relevant information and thereby has ben non objective,

• In general the article seems to be free for copy and paste plagiarism, anyway should the author put attention to review sources and destinations to be absolut sure, that copy paste and plagiarism is avoided.

[edit] Answer to the feedback on "Lean Project Management" by Linus R.V

First of all, thank you for your feedback. I will go throughout your points and I will answer your recommendations point by point (I do not answer when the feedbak is good and there is nothing to be checked),I answered in bold letters:

[edit] Formal aspects

• In general the article seem to be free of spelling errors. However, there is a minor constant issue related to the grammar, this issue is constant throughout the article. The article would improve further immediate, by solving that issue.

I do not know what you mean with "minor constant issue related to the grammar", it is difficult for me to correct it if you are not more especific about which is the constant mistake... Anyway I checked all the text and I found some small mistakes which are already corrected.

• The article is well written, with only minor issues regarding long-winded, hard-to-follow sentences.

I went through the text and I found some long sentences which I changed and I did them shorter. Hope now it is better

• The flow of the article seems natural and leaves no space for confusion.

• The figures are meaningfull and appropriate. It would be nice if they were directly linked to the sections were the topic related to a specific figure is explained.

Done ;), as I said to the other reviewer, I didn't do it before because I was following a more "wiki article estructure" (usually, I haven't seen references to the figures in wiki articles) but after asking the teachers, it seems that in our case do not need to be like that. Thank your for your advice, it is now corrected.

• The figures also seem to be free for errors in the graphics. Further there is however a issue related to the references in the figures, where a single one of them (PMI-Phase delivery model) points at the PMBOK GUIDE in the description of the figures, where the rest is relation free. That needs to be aligned.

I aligned them by doing all the figures from myself which means no references in any of them. Before, the picture related to the PMBOK GUIDE was extracted from this guide but since I am not sure about the copyright issues I decided to change the picture and draw one from myself

• Are the figures re-drawn or directly copied from others content?. If they are directly from other content, consider some actions according to your protection from copyright claims.

I did the figures from myself

• The article is formatted correctly. The appeareance of the figures on the other hand, looks like to have some room for improvement according to size and alignment in the article and in relation to each other.

I tried to align the figures as good as I could, the problem is that depending on your computer or the zoom you have on your screen you will see them in one way or another

[edit] Content aspects

• Since the article is describing Lean and How to manage projects in a Lean way, the assumption is made that the article is of highly interest for a practitioner.

• The article describes Lean and How to manage projects in a Lean way into debt, with propper phase descriptions and the evaluation of tools. Thereby the article highly relates to a project management topic. When that is said, the direct link or interaction with general project, programme and portfolio management methods is minor or not existing and may put LPM in the light of a stand alone approach.

Do you mean "in depth" instead of "into debt"? I relate to project management many times throughout all the article, also I have the category end of text. In my opinion, the relation to Project Management is quite clear since I related to this a lot of times.

• It is quite clear, that the article is related to one of the proposed content categories.

• The length of the article seems nice for the in debt description of a whole PM method, including phases. One could question if the in debt description is aligned with the idea of a wiki. Wikipedia, for instance, has a labyrinthine set of policies and guidelines summed up in its five pillars: 'Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia; Wikipedia has a neutral point of view; Wikipedia is free content; Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner; and Wikipedia does not have firm rules. Encyclopaedia again is defined as: An encyclopedia or encyclopaedia (also spelled encyclopædia, see spelling differences)[1] is a type of reference work or compendium holding a comprehensive summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.[2].

As I understood, a topic for the wiki-article is fine if it is related to the APPPM course and follows the especifications provided by the teachers during the lectures and fulfill the requirenments expected by them. In this sense, the APPPM is a bit different than the "normal wiki".

• The overall flow seems logical and natural. Hence no suggestions are proposed.

• The starting article seem to have a nice size and contains the relevant introduction topic, however some people may see "Many companies" as somewhat unclear opening statement. The view on that surely differs and thereby it is meant as discussion point, for general consideration.

Yes, you are right. I think that this point depends more on a personal opinion of the reader. From my point of view I like the statement as an introductory sentence to the topic of the article. For this reason I decided to keep it.

• The article provides sufficient sources and reference material, even though a crosslink and a link for further reading.

• The resources look a like high to good quality reference material, thus it is hard to define what the article mainly relies on. The links are not taken into consideration.

What do you mean with "The links are not taken into consideration? If you refer to the references I used them throughout the article... Sorry, I do not understand your point...

• The article is not linked to another APPPM wiki.

The article is clearly linked with other APPPM wiki articles, I did even an especial section in which I included the links to the articles related (Point 5: See also), maybe you did not realised about it...

• Overall the article seems to be quite objective, since the topic by nature doesn't leave much room for interpretation. It is hard to determine if the author avoided, other crucial relevant information and thereby has ben non objective,

As it is a wiki-article, adressing an accademic topic, I tried to do the article in an objective way: based on scientific literature and avoiding my own opinion.

• In general the article seems to be free for copy and paste plagiarism, anyway should the author put attention to review sources and destinations to be absolut sure, that copy paste and plagiarism is avoided.

Done ;)

Thank you very much for your feedback, it has been very usefull and it helps me a lot to improve my article :)