Talk:The Oticon Case: the Spaghetti organisation

Revision as of 22:51, 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.

Reviwer 3: Buurbuur

• Good that the article adhere to the structure of the article type 2
• Think there are a good structure and good red threat
• There are a good link between the text and the figures
• The introduction is written in an engaging style, where I could not wait to read the rest of the case.
• The figures have no references
• Overall I think the languages it good
• The length of the article seems appropriate
• For me it is still not clear, why you call it the spaghetti organisation - is it a theory, tool or just a catchy phrase - it is in the title, but you only use the word 2 times in your article.
• I think that the article link to other relevant pages in APPPM wiki, e.g. the article of stakeholder analysis and matrices, and also the article of leadership styles. This is only based on the title of the article.
• I think your own opinion is clearly differentiated from statements

Overall I think is a awesome article, that gave me a good insight of the case.