Revision as of 04:24, 27 November 2014

Feedback on "Lean Project Management" by DBDHL

This is a great, well written article providing a solid description of Lean Project Management.

Formal aspects

• The language is nice and easy to understand but proof-reading is recommended.
• The structure of the article engages the reader. It is well structured and chronologically disposed.
• The use of figures is great and supports the take-away points from the sections.
• The figures seem correct, convincing and easy to understand.
• I suggest adding figure numbers in the figure texts.
• I suggest referring to the figures throughout the text. This hasn’t been done consistently.
• It is assumed that the author has created the figures by him-/herself and that there are no copyright issues.
• The article is very well formatted Wiki-style.
• References are used consistently and correctly and seem to cover the topic to a great extent.

Content aspects

• It’s great the article starts by explaining the importance of the topic. This is engaging the reader and works as a great appetizer to read more.
• Consider to include some of the findings from the article so it works as a summary.
• The topic is assumed to be highly relevant for a practitioner considering to apply Lean project Management within an organization.
• It is clear that the article belongs to the “Introduction and overview” category since it takes care of the proposed elements.
• The length of the article seems appropriate. The article seems to cover the topic to a great extent without being too “heavy” to read.
• There is a great chronological red thread throughout the article as well as a nice overview.
• References are in general used extensively with relevant sources of high quality.
• The article has a section referring to other Wiki pages, which is great.
• It can be a bit difficult to distinct between own opinion and statements from literature:
  • From the top section: Using “our” in the following sentence makes it seem like it is written by a company and is a bit confusing: “Competition in our industry increasingly makes more important the desire of optimizing what leads to provide our customers better service or product…”
  • From the discussion: “LPM philosophy would become an important part of the companies’ culture because they would see the long-term benefits of applying LPM tools and techniques” – where does this statement come from?
• The article doesn’t seem to have “copy/paste” plagiarism.

Feedback on "Lean Project Management" by Linus R.V

Well structured, into deep written big article, which immerse the reader into the world of Lean and the Lean Way of project Management

Formal aspects

• In general the article seem to be free of spelling errors. However, there is a minor constant issue related to the grammar, this issue is constant throughout the article. The article would improve further immediate, by solving that issue.

• The article is well written, with only minor issues regarding long-winded, hard-to-follow sentences.

• The flow of the article seems natural and leaves no space for confusion.

• The figures are meaningfull and appropriate. It would be nice if they were directly linked to the sections were the topic related to a specific figure is explained.

• The figures also seem to be free for errors in the graphics. Further there is however a issue related to the references in the figures, where a single one of them (PMI-Phase delivery model) points at the PMBOK GUIDE in the description of the figures, where the rest is relation free. That needs to be aligned.

• Are the figures re-drawn or directly copied from others content?. If they are directly from other content, consider some actions according to your protection from copyright claims.

• The article is formatted correctly. The appeareance of the figures on the other hand, looks like to have some room for improvement, according to size and alignment in the article.

Content aspects

• Since the article is describing Lean and How to manage projects in a Lean way, the assumption is made that the article is of highly interest for a practitioner.

• The article describes Lean and How to manage projects in a Lean way into debt, with propper phase descriptions and the evaluation of tools.. When that is said, the direct link to general project, programme and portfolio management methods is minor or not existing and may put LPM in the light of a stand alone approach.

• It seems that the Cynefin model only relates to Project Management, not to Programme or Portfolio Management.

• The length of the article seems appropriate and fullfilling, articles or relations missing where stated in the previous points. The artikel contain some hundred words less then 3500 words, which is acceptable according to the content. It should also be said, that there is a additional site linked to the main artikel, were the author describes a game for leadership training addressing the method/topic of the article. It is not clear how to count the sub-site into the overall size.

• The overall flow seems logical and natural as stated before, the only part i would point on is the Perspective part, which should be considered to be moved to the end of the article.

• The starting article seem to have a nice size and contains the relevant introduction topic, however it could be nice if the statement will be more sharp. Maybe with concrete areas where the model is used and switch the "can´s" to "as is" or "is".

• The article provides sufficient sources and reference material, even though some links for further reading.

• The resources look a like high to good quality reference material. The links are not taken into consideration.

• The article is linked to another article which describes a method for training purposes according to the content of the article and is thereby highly relevant.

• Overall the article seems to be quite objective.

• In general the article seems to be free for copy and paste plagiarism, anyway should the author put attention to review sources and destinations to be absolut sure, that copy paste and plagiarism is avoided.