Talk:Managing Successful Programmes (MSP)

From apppm
Revision as of 19:41, 18 February 2018 by Nanna (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

Abstract Feedback

Text clarity Good

Language Minor errors e.g. " To achieve this, the he main idea is to sub-divide..." - remove "he"?

Description of the tool/theory/concept Good, but consider going back to basics. Define what program management is and reference standards/mandatory list of references to add credibility. Also, is it true that all organizations need good program management? Also, what defines a successful program?

Purpose explanation Good and sets up the reader's expectations well

References Missing appropriate references to mandatory list of references

Relevance of article Consider the following:

  1. Who is the reader? Program Manager etc?
  2. What will the reader get out of this?
  3. Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the program management community more than a normal web search

Peer review from Nanna (18/02/2018)

Question 1: Is your Wiki article relevant?: The topic is relevant for project managers and the purpose is clearly articulated.

Question 2: Is the Wiki article usable? The article explains well how the tool works but could provide a more hands on guideline for the readers (project managers) on how they use it.

The figure is a good illustration and used to support the text nicely. Be aware the a figure number is missing in the text ("Figure X"). The flow is logic and there is a coherence and consistancy throughout. Grammar and spelling is fine. A few sentences are really long and could maybe be shorter.

Question 3: Is the Wiki article credible? Nice with the reflection of limitations. References needs to be done - but sure you already know that ;-)

Personal tools