Talk:Lean Project Management tools

Abstract Feedback

Text Clarity; need some clarification, check comments below

Language; Ok, minor gramar mistakes

References; Ok.

The abstract mentions Lean tools, how many tools you will compare?, the content table list 3 tools, and then text says that two tools will be compared.

There are many lean tools, why and how you decide the tools to compare, try to find references that classify this tools.

You have a typo with the word "Murda" is MUDA, do not forget to add the definition of Muda and the importance of this word in the article.

Six sigma is an statistical tool/technique developed by motorola for manufacturing processes focused to reduce defects, why is considered a lean tool?, try find a reference that support this.

Since Lean approaches are related with different management styles from the recommended literature, please find more relevant literature.

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Rikke - giver feedback i eftermiddag mellem 16:00-17:45 eller 22:30-23:59

Giver feedback i eftermiddag mellem 16:00 - 17:45

Question 1 · TEXT

Quality of the summary:

Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 1

Reading the summary I expect to get basic knowledge (short introduction to) Lean principles, Muda, how to decide/measure Value for customer, Diming cycle, Agile project management inkl. Scrum, how Diming is similar to Agile (and where it is not?) and how some deepening knowledge of Lean Project Management and how and where in the process the different tools are used helpful?

Hov - kan jo bare skrive dansk. Helt overordnet ide - kunne det være interessant at skrive artiklen med Lean principles for øje? Fx. Value for customer (mig som læser) - og hvem forventer du at jeg er (Hvad er værdi for mig - praktisk viden/akademisk viden) - Value stream (map all the processes that is necessary), Eliminate Waste (hvad er ikke anvendeligt - eller hvad i de foreslåede værktøjer er ikke anvendeligt, mens andet i værktøjet måske er).

Question 2 · TEXT

Structure and logic of the article:

Is the argument clear?

Is there a logical flow to the article?

Does one part build upon the other?

Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 2

Du er tydeligvis igang med at skrive og skabe en struktur i teksten, så der mangler naturligt nok fortsat en rød tråd og naturligt flow for mig som læser.

Hvorfor fx Six Sigma - summary skriver intet om hvorfor denne introduceres eller hvilken (naturlig eller eksperimenterende) sammenhæng den har med Lean Project Management. Hvad er den naturlige sammenhæng mellem Lean og Six Sigma? (lidt for teknisk beskrevet ift. hvordan de øvrige redskaber er beskrevet).

Question 3 · TEXT

Grammar and style:

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 3

Fint og forståeligt sprog. Der er en detalje i indledningen hvor du sammenligner Agile og Lean og skriver respectively uses Kanban and Scrum. Dette betyder at Agile benytter Kanban og Lean bruger Scrum. Mener det er omvendt.

Question 4 · TEXT

Figures and tables:

Are figures and tables clear?

Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 4

Ingen figurer og/eller tabeller endnu. At vise Kanban synes relevant. Ligeledes kan Diming vises grafisk og vil give lidt liv i teksten.

Question 5 · TEXT

Interest and relevance:

Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?

Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 5

Svært at sige om du sigter mod praktisk anvendelig eller akademisk artikel. Men nok vigtigt at vælge enten/eller og gøre det klart i introduktionen, eller sikre begge dele - bagvedliggende teori og how to apply in practice. Endvidere kunne det for mig som læser være interessant at vide om (og i hvilken grad) Lean Project Management og de foreslåede værktøjer anvendes i dag i denne kontekst - evt. i hvilke brancher - eller om artiklen har til formål at inspirere mig til noget nyt.

Question 6 · TEXT

Depth of treatment:

Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?

Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 6

Savner lidt at se sammenhængene imellem de værktøjer du vælger at præsentere - relevansen ift. Lean men også ift. hinanden. Kan man sige noget om det/illustrere det?

Question 7 · TEXT

Annotated bibliography:

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 7

Ikke endnu. Se Scopus og Google Scholar og måske er der andre APPPM-wikis der er relevante at linke til/snitflade/uddybende ift. områder af din wiki

Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Nina

Question 1 · TEXT

Quality of the summary:

Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 1

The abstract gives a good insight to the article and I think it is nice to read that there will be a "discussion" regarding if Agile and Lean are conflicting concepts.

Question 2 · TEXT

Structure and logic of the article:

Is the argument clear?

Is there a logical flow to the article?

Does one part build upon the other?

Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 2

The argument is clear and within each chapter there is a good explanation to why it is divided as it is.

It is not quite clear why there is a section only dedicated to define a project. I would suggest that the first parts (2+3+4) gets a "Introduction" or "Definitions" or "Background" - framing. This way the reader knows what to expect of the chapters.

In the Muda-section, did you plan on describing the waste-types?

Question 3 · TEXT

Grammar and style:

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 3

Very nicely written. Good language. Only a few spelling mistakes in the sections that are not done yet

Question 4 · TEXT

Figures and tables:

Are figures and tables clear?

Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 4

Going to be good :)

Question 5 · TEXT

Interest and relevance:

Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?

Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 5

It is theoretical and explains which practical tools are used. The "why/how" could be more clear from a Project Manager's view.

Question 6 · TEXT

Depth of treatment:

Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?

Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 6

The tools are explained to depth but as stated in answer 5, the why/how could be addressed a little further.

Question 7 · TEXT

Annotated bibliography:

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 7

Still under construction