Talk:Project Portfolio Management Vs. Programme Management

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.

Thank you

Formal aspects

• In general the language is fine but has small spelling errors. I suggest to do (another) proof-reading.

Yes i agree

• Decide how you want to spell “program”/”programme”. Both spellings are correct; “program” is American English and “programme” is British English.

I were a bit confused when writing the article into the wiki software, since the software consequently changed programme to program. I agree and changed it

• 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.

Yes, i was not quite sure about copyright rules in relation to diagrams, i have changed that

• I suggest putting numbers on the figures (in the figure text) so it is easier to refer to them in the text.

I agree

• References to the figures should be made in the text.

Also agree

• 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.

Thanks for pointing that out, that was a mistake

• 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.

I would argue that it is written in the overall content of project management

• The article is a bit short. As described above it would be great with a discussion section, summary and a more detailed introduction.

I agree and added the sections

• Links to topics (categories) are missing.

Not anymore

• “Own opinion” is differentiated from statements from literature by the use of references.
• The article seems free of plagiarism.

Section wise feedback

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.

Thanks, the beginning of the article has been changed. Findings have not been included, since the idea of the article is to determine the distincions

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?

Yes, i agree and changed the text

• I suggest giving the section the headline “introduction”

I kept it as is, since i understand the first section in a wiki as the "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?

Yes, i agree and changed the text

“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

In my opinion it is important to outline the difference between projects and programmes also, since the section seek to define what a programme is. However has the sentence been shortened, as i dont fully understand : 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.

First of all, i changed the word key factors to Differentiating factors, as key factors can give the reader a understanding of something that is generally valid. I see your point. In the section which i added: What is a standard. I pointed out that the article is based on the definitions of the standard for Programme and Portfolio Management of PMI. Further i pointed out that: The following distinctions are determined throughout the literature and best Practice as being the main differentiating factors of Programme Management Vs Project Portfolio Management.

“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.

I added a section to describe the terms according to existing standards and else I kept the formal structure. The article seek determine the distinctions according to existing literature and best practices. A discussion of distinctions according to existing literature and best practices, would in my opinion increase the complexity, as the article have to be objective. I support your idea of a table, but the addition of certain topics would in my opinion be to specific.

“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.

I agree. Perspective have been changed to discussion and the former text has been changed.

Feedback by Cruijff

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.

Thank you

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

I disagree on that one, since examples would bias the reader according to the content of the use cases.

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

I agree, but not as concluding statement but in the definition of standards, which is the first section.

• 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.

Thank you, and yes indeed

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

agree and done

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.

Thanks :) the pictures are now in higher resolution

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

agree and done

• 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.

as i wrote in the other review, my view is that a discussion of definition and standards would increase the complexity of the article

• 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.

Thanks. Various points could be more specific :)

• Generel: Programme or Program?

Programme, i was confused since the wiki suggested Program as correct

• Intro: Wrap up -> outline

agree and changed

• In section Program Management; Definition: splittet -> split

agree and changed

• In section Program Management; Definition: achive -> achieve

agree and changed

• In section Portfolio Management; Definition: truest? options: best, optimal, most correct

agree and changed

• In section Perspective: perspectivate? option: "put into perspective"

agree and changed