Talk:Project Risk Management and Project Risk Management Processes

Josefs says: Hello, I like your idea and topic. But I suggest to chose a focus area, otherwise, your article may end up a bit generic, and not as interesting as it could be because it is too broad. E.g. the root cause areas, or the process or...

Review 1: s150905

Hi, the article appears complete, with a clear topic and its satisfied all the characteristic of the Wiki-article.

Formal aspects

• The part dedicated for the description of the method is clear but i think there is something missing to make the reader more confident with the topic
• It presents a little lack of punctuation and a few spelling errors
• I like the use of the images that help the reader understand better each part

Answer:

• Spelling and grammar errors have been corrected after your comment.

Content

• The article is less than the required words and, while you read it, you feel like there is something missing.
• In my opinion the whole article appear a little generic
• The link between all the parties of the article are not so clearly liked.
• the references used appear to be really focused on the topic

Answer:My answer refers to the first 3 bullets

• I dont think that the article should be 3000 words. It should be no more than 3000 words and mine after some interventions is 2500. The artcle starts with the history of the methodoly and then presents that in every project there uncertainties(as an introduction to the purpose of this methodology). Afterwards the sources of these uncertainties are explained and then follows the methodology of project risk management( why and how is it applied ). After the extensive analysis of the methodology and its processes, i decided to present a more focused process that could be used in project risk management that could enhance the effetctiveness of the methodology. Moreover, a model that explains in detail how this proposed process could help is also presented. To sum up i agree that the methodology itself is general because it is not a so "expertised" method. However, the article explains it in an extensive way and in the end proposes a more specific process to give the reader the opportunity to understand the dynamic and the importance of this methodology.

Thank you very much for your comments!!!

Reviewer 3: s142911

• Nice! Seems like you are already close to finish it. I like the structure.

• The text has a nice flow. The writing style is good as well.

• You are following properly the “methods” structure, maybe I would discuss a bit more the limitation section.

• I would reduce a bit the length of the overview. I think it should give a quick idea of what the article is about.

• Regarding figures: do you think figure 1 and 2 are necessary? If so, I would put it on the side rather than below the text.

• Before using an acronym, be sure to have already indicated it after its full name. i.e. Project Risk Management(PRM).

• Regarding the source, remember to add them the figures. In addition, remember to add a brief summary of each source, and write them following a common structure: i.e. Author, year, Title, editors.

• Since project risk management is a wide topic, you could add some aspect or go more in depth in aspect which are already in it.

Reviewer 2: s141573

Good introduction of the theory and how you created the context of the article.

I furthermore found a good flow of concepts all along the reading.

However sometimes it appears generic, I’d suggest to go more directly to the point and have always in mind to connect the theory to the project management.

The section root causes appears disconnected from the rest of the text, maybe explain better the impact of non- identified risks and highlight the importance of corrective actions.

Good luck with the course!