Revision as of 01:10, 26 November 2014

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.

Formal aspects

• In general the language is fine with small spelling errors. I suggest to do (another)
• proof-reading. Decide how you want to spell “program”/”programme”. Both spellings are correct; “program” is American English and “programme” is British English.
• 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.
• I suggest putting numbers on the figures (in the figure text) so it is easier to refer to them in the text.
• References to the figures should be made in the text.
• 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.
• 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.
• The article is a bit short. As described above it would be great with a discussion section, summary and a more detailed introduction.
• Links to topics (categories) are missing.
• “Own opinion” is differentiated from statements from literature by the use of references.
• The article seems free of plagiarism.

Section wise

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.

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?
• I suggest giving the section the headline “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?

“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
• I think it should be explained where the key factors come from e.g. a simple reference.

“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.

“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.