Revision as of 23:41, 22 September 2015

Josef: Hello, I really like your idea of looking at antifragility and its application in project management. However, I am not entirely sure if your discussion of "simulating failure scenarios" and "upside/downside risks" fits the heading. If you look at our PMI whitepaper, you will find a few categories/principles of Antifragiltiy and their application to project management. Nassim Taleb's book (which I reckon you must read if you were to write about Antifragility) contains many more possible points of "connection". I suggest to take that as a "point of departure", and see what you can apply how to project management.

Feedback of s141506, Reviewer 2

Structure

• I didn't find really any grammar mistakes which is good.
• Are the first chapters part of abstract or introduction or what.. You could elaborate little bit more with headings in the start so it would be easier to reader to follow the text.
• In the article there is often mentioned number 1 and then bulletpoints. For example the chapter The definition of a good system is . Is it suppose be like this and also the other same kind of chapters?
• Maybe samekind conclusion in the end would wrap the text better together. Now it is little bit scattered in different parts.

Content

• Having the aviation of one example for antifragility is very good. It gives reader immediately better understanding of the whole consept.
• Pictures are nice looking and simple but still informative. Reader can easily understand what write have wanted to show with the picture.
• Like I wrote in structure that try to use more headings.
• You have used much New York Times articles as reference, it can be quite one-sided.

Overall

• Good article about subject that for me personal didn't have much information.

(S142899_I am not aware of whether I am reviewer ½ or 3)

• Summary of the references are missing at the end.

A)

• Generally the level of grammar structure is in a good level. Some expression mistakes were found though for example:(….is not in balance with the laws of nature.

….. is fragile, repetition of the word “volatility”)– in the first paragraph expression mistakes

• “The projects of our time are designed for stability and can be defined as highly complex, pursuit of effectivity and interdependency.” missing reference probably
• ”For the past 2-3 decades, we have continued the pursuit of efficiency” - who we?
• “What we should do, is build a system that is not fragile to these events.”- comma in the wrong place

B) missing reference to the figure 1 and remember to mention it in the text before the figure

• Why table of context is in the middle of the text?
• Under the paragraph Create Project Portfolios that can Collectively Learn from Others’ Mistakes:

“The definition of a good system is: "1."  The amount of errors within the system is small “remove the number “1”.”

• ” Concerning antifragility in management of portfolios, programs and projects. “ is unnecessary”
• In the BMW example insert reference not only to the text but also to the figure 2.
• Under the “Application” paragraph’s I would probably insert also the other examples that you use in the article in order to make this paragraph more concrete.
• find reference for the production of the Lupo mentioned in this paragraph as well.
• The fact that you are using so many quotes adds to the article but you could try to eliminate them into 2-3 max since it reduces reader’s “reading flow” at some point.

C)

• I would recommend to spend a little more time in reviewing the intro and the closing part of the article in order to provide a more solid base for the reader with more details and raping up of the scope of the article
• Adding subheading for example naming the different cases would also add to the context of the article

Reviewer 3: s113665

• The entire article is very well written with a good use of punctuation and a prober technically language.
• The first section of the article is quite long.
  • Add a title.
  • Consider dividing it into a couple of subtitles as well.
• You have two sections named ‘Application’.
  • As it however may be the prober way of division, it still adds unnecessary confusion.
• Nice graphics with good relevance to the subject!
• Well-made ‘References’ section!
  • (I’m stealing some of that for my own article ;))
• There maaaay be a bit too many references in the text, and some of them are also quite extensive and could be shortened without loosing the ‘article’- and dramatic effect.
  • Would prefer to have the longer ones interoperated and incorporated in the main text instead of being an independent section in quotation marks.

There’s not much else to add, as it is by far the most finished article I’ve seen and reviewed! The article is neither in the need of additional proofreading, as there are next to no spelling-/grammar-/punctuation errors! Bottom line it is a good article and I wish you good luck for the final review and grading!