Revision as of 00:09, 26 November 2014

Feedback for "Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management" by Dbdhl

Overall it’s an interesting topic and article. The flow and read thread is great and meaningful. It’s a nice appetizer for going deeper into the subject.

Formal aspects

• Decide how you want to spell “program”/”programme”. Both spellings are correct; “program” is American English and “programme” is British English.
• The figures are nice, easy to understand and free of formal errors. I am however concerned about the “Cross-Company Portfolio Management Process Relationships, PMI” figure. Did you create the figure yourself? I suggest to follow-up on this.
• I suggest putting numbers on the figures (in the figure text) so it is easier to refer to them in the text.
• References to the figures should be made in the text.
• References to readings are Wiki-features are used correctly.
• Some parts of the text which are not quotes are written with italic letters and I don’t understand why.
• The article is assumed to be interesting for a practitioner since it lays out the differences between Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management.
• It is not clear which one of the four “content categories” the article is written in.
• The article is a bit short. As described above it would be great with a discussion section, summary and a more detailed introduction.
• Links to topics (categories) are missing.
• “Own opinion” is differentiated from statements from literature by the use of references.
• The article seems free of plagiarism.

Section wise

Summary

• It would be great with a short summary in the beginning of the article to let the reader know what the article is about - including findings.

Introduction

• The 2,5 lines of text in the beginning of the article are great. Could you write a little more about why it can be difficult to distinct between programme and portfolio management?
• I suggest giving the section the headline “introduction”.
• You write that “Both Project Portfolio Management and Programme Management are mentioned as two common extensions of today´s project management practice." I’m wondering who mentions this? Can you insert a reference or maybe just reformulate it, if it is common knowledge?

“Program Management”

• I find it a bit difficult to understand the following text: “The distinction between a Project and a Program is given by the benefits which a Program provides over and above those that projects can archive on their own, such as exposure, prioritisation, more efficient use of resources and better alignment with other projects”. I think the idea of describing the difference between a project and a programme is great, so if you could just
• I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

“Project Portfolio Management”

• I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

“Interface”

• I think the “Interface” section is great because it describes how Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management relate to each other. It would be nice with a softer link between the two sections describing Programme Management and (Project) Portfolio Management and the “Interface” section meaning that a discussion of the differences would be great. This could be supported by e.g. a table listing the differences in on certain topics. I suggest making a “discussion” section where you discuss the differences and then have the “interface” section as a sub-section.

“Perspective”

• I find it difficult to understand the purpose of this section.
• The quote is quite dominating in the section and I think it would be better to make a reference instead. Also, the quote is about “General Project Management approach” which is not the main topic of the article as I understand it.

Feedback by Cruijff - (Fixed DbDhl :-) )

tl;dr: A very solid article, encompassing clear relevant information in a structured manner. The core is there. If extra fluff and material engaging the reader is included it would take it up a level.

Review of content

• The content of the article is very well structured with a clear tone of voice throughout.

• A discussion of use cases and/or existing examples would be interesting as a reader and would ground the concepts further.

• A final concluding segment, where perhaps methods of portfolio and programme management are compared, could strengthen the overall storytelling of the article.

• The length of the article seems appropriate for the subjects mentioned. The text is sufficiently dense without any unneeded extra material. I imagine though that there are a lot of related subjects that could be relevant to present and/or familiarize the reader with along the way. Methods, tools, theories etc.

• I miss referencing to the figures in the text, linking specific areas of interest to the accompanying figure.

Review of formal aspects

• Good choice of figures for each section. Illustrates the concepts precisely and in an easy to understand manner. They look skillfully made, but could be provided in a higher resolution making that evident to the viewer.

• Figure numbers and references would be make the already excellent figures more available for the viewer.

• The article is very well referenced throughout. Relies a bit heavily on direct citations of paragraphs. Could be interesting to have the author reflect on the meaning of these citations, compare them etc. in order to hold the reader's hand along the way.

• I find the written style structured and very informative, which gives the impression of a solid scientific approach. At various points in the article it could be advised to simplify the style, making it easier to read and less "clunky"/"stiff". Engage the reader a bit more, without losing the content delivery out of sight.

• Generel: Programme or Program?
• Intro: Wrap up -> outline
• In section Program Management; Definition: splittet -> split
• In section Program Management; Definition: achive -> achieve
• In section Portfolio Management; Definition: truest? options: best, optimal, most correct
• In section Perspective: perspectivate? option: "put into perspective"