Talk:Changing conversations based on the Stacey matrix

Revision as of 10:48, 27 September 2015

Anna: Very nice topic choice. I like that the method is so specific so that it will allow you to go into greater details in the 3000 word article.

Reviewer 1 – User: s113735

Feedback:

Formal Aspects:

• The article clearly relates to the “method or tool” structure, which is required. Super!
• There are a few grammatical or spelling errors, which can easily be corrected for increased understanding. These are mainly missing words or endings of words i.e.: “

“This alines [aligns] with the theory of Ralph D. Stacey (2000). “ “This level of complexity is referred [to] as Chaotic. “ “It allows [us/you] to compare the level of agreement with the degree of certainty “ Other than these small errors the language is generally at a high, technical level fit for a scholarly Wiki article.

• Your sentences are short and concise and rarely becomes long and jumbled!
• The Wiki seems to be formatted correctly with headings sub-headings etc.
• The figure is clear, referenced in the text and seems to be formally sourced.

Content Aspects:

• I find your choice of topic specific and relatable, which is really nice! It also clearly relates to a project, program or portfolio management topic.
• Your introduction and your figure gives me (the reader) a good idea of the tool and its purpose.
• The article at the time of reading is, sadly, not finished as I can see plenty of other topics remains unwritten.
• From the topic list, I can see that there eventually will be a nice logical flow throughout the article.
• So far, NO references or annotated bibliography exists in the article; this needs to be included.
• So far, the article does not link to any other articles on the Wiki. I understand that it might be tough to find something directly related to this specific tool amongst the rather limited topics on the Wiki. I suggest trying to find some broad topics or even Categories to link to when writing. For instance, you might link to “human behaviour” (a category on the Wiki) when writing about the “agreement dimension” in the Stacey Matrix.

Overall Conclusion: The article clearly needs a lot of work (adding more content) and the existing text will have to be referenced accordingly. Minor spelling errors still need correction, but the overall quality and content is good.

MistaJacob, reviewer 2

The feedback will be given in the form:

• My feedback
  • My feedback

OR

• Copy of your text
  • My feedback

Feedback

• Since this is not the finished article, I will only give feedback on the content, and not the formatting.
• In general, it was, for me, hard to read. The language, punctuation and sentence construction could have been clearer. One example is the following:
  • ’’If the causal connections are clear meaning a high or close certainty is faced beside having shared objectives in agreement, this provides the conditions for the managers for a simple decision-making case.’’
    • Suggested correction: If you face a situation in which the relationship between cause and effect are certain, as well as having agreement amongst the different stakeholders, the conditions for a simple decision-making-case is present.
• There are many times during the article where I had to stop to think, then read it again, without understanding it. Only when i looked at the figure, and saw the terms used there, i started to understand. The reason for this is that you have not explained the terms of the model you are trying to explain; close, far, field, etc.
  • Another thing that contributed to my confusion about which terminology you used, was that you introduce ‘clarity’ and ‘objectives’ in the section ‘Background’. These terms are from another model/theory, and are not in conjunction with the terms of figure 2, where ‘certainty’ and ‘stakeholders’ are used.
    • My advice is for you to stick to one set of terms and explain them in detail before you use them.
• ’’When the managers agree on the desires aimed to achieve but the causal connections make the situation unclear and uncertain how to do it, then it falls into the zone of so called Complicated. The usage of judgmental or intuitive modes of decision making is necessary to execute.’’
  • Why is judgmental or intuitive modes of decision making necessary? and what does it entail?
• ’’In the aspect and understanding of strategic choice, an important parameter is to consider the cause and effect of uncertainty and conflict. These are the two main properties of decision making in the management of an organization including project, program and portfolio management.’’
  • If you state that this (uncertainty and conflict) is the two main properties of decision making, I suggest you show the source (reference), or state that this is your own opinion
• ’’Although, as they move away from this field, the application of rational logic will be impossible and they need to use different approaches.’’
  • Be careful to use the word ‘impossible’
  • This is the first time you use the word ‘field’. When i read it, i firstly didn’t understand it. It was only after some thinking that I realized that it must mean the area on figure 2 which is named ‘Simple’.
• In the introduction: ‘’It allows to compare the level of agreement with the degree of certainty.’’
  • This is another example of where the meaning is lost due to the reason that you do not explain yourself fully. My suggestion would be: It allows to compare the level of agreement amongst stakeholders with the degree of certainty in the relationship between cause and effect.
• The headline: ‘’The Big Idea: The strategic choice theory’’
  • Dont over sell it: If you remove ‘Big’ you sound more professional

S143352, reviewer 3

I like the topic, it’s very specific and provides ample opportunity to get in-depth with the topic. Formal aspects:

1. The wiki setup is not done and seems to be formatted incorrectly concerning references.
2. Spelling of the written content is fine, word order requires a bit of work.
3. No link to another APPPM wiki article.
4. No references are included.
5. The article seems to be free for copy and paste plagiarism

Content aspects:

1. Table of content is good with the explaining of the method but also its limitations.
2. The abstract is very precise formulated and gives the reader a clear understanding from the beginning.
3. The academic level and quality of the written content, seems to me to be quite good. However it’s very difficult to give a holistic review, when the article is far from done.