Talk:The Oticon Case: the Spaghetti organisation

Revision as of 20:59, 22 September 2015

Anna: I like the case you have chosen, however, it is a bit more related to change management, so it is good that you already have planned to relate it to portfolio/program management by focusing on the lessons to be learned for managing programs/portfolios/projects.

Reviewer 2: DanielKrogh

Formal aspects

• The article follows a clear structure as descried in Article Type 2 formulation.
• There are a few mistakes in the text such as “didn’t” where the correct way is did not. Further a few references was not made where the author had attentions to do so.
• The figures illustrates the main points in the article.
• The figures is easy to understand, but I may be biased since I have had change management, which is where the figures are derived.
• All the figures are mentioned in the text.
• The figures has no references.
• There is used wiki-references and there is a fine number of references, but could be used some more in the introduction phase.

Content aspects

• The article may well turn to a practitioner, since the specific case can be a good inspiration to an organization, which has organizational problems at any kind.
• The article relates to program management, which is relevant for the topic.
• The length is as expected.
• The flow in the article is well executed and has a logical structure.
• To high degree, I think the quality of the material is acceptable.
• There is made an annotated bibliography.
• The article has no hyperlinks and therefore no references to relevant pages.
• The author did not make me think there could be a complication with plagiarism.

Personally I have the pleasure to read this article and it is very close be finished in my opinion. If you correct the things I pointed out, I think you have a solid article.

Reviewer 1: s140767

Formal aspects:

• The article’s structured is well defined and “case study” requirements.
• For me, the writing style seems confusing due to its slight incoherency, for example in the “Stakeholder management chapter”.
• Figures are clear enough, but I would suggest adding some illustrations relating to the change management within the case study.
• There are a few grammatical mistakes, for example: interlaced verbs in present/past tense; replace some informal phrases to academic ones (basically, didn’t, figure out...)
• Some references have to be added as it is suggested in the paper and fixed where the code is incorrect.
• The wiki-references are used, the graphics integrated correctly with a good size and location.

Content aspects

• The article could be interesting to a practitioner because it provides a clear overview of the innovative organizational changes, its outcome and challenges that may appear.
• It is though more relevant to portfolio management that to program management, because the topic emphasize the changes in process, methods, and technologies usage.
• The length of the article is appropriate and delivers the quality argument.
• Its logical flow could be improved.
• The hyperlinks to the references need to be added
• The article contains an annotated bibliography

Finally, it is a quite nice article that gives me a good overview of radical changes in the case organization.