Revision as of 01:11, 26 November 2014

Val review

The article is well structured and go through all the points we can expect. The only issue is that you go through many principles, methods and concepts without well defined all of them or without giving a proper reference to find a CONCISE and PRECISE description. I think your article would take advantage of more descriptions or explanation (1-2 sentences can be enough). Also, I couldn't see any reflection or added value from what we learnt during the related lecture. Finally, I noticed only few spelling mistakes and it is a good point.

I divided my feedback in 3 categories that are the following:

Formal aspects

• You should try to introduce the wiki format for references [1] You can also have a look to other articles who use it. I can see you gave a look how to use them but you should have only in your reference part. Like this, it is possible to have a link when you click on the little number of the reference. You can have a look at the article 'Introducing projects in a functional organization' for an example.
• For your first picture (the list for the task analysis): if you want the text of the next section not start before the end of the picture (so the picture is only in one section) you can write
  before the beginning of the next section.
• Picture in "SWOT Analysis": see above

Grammar and Spelling

• "When a machine runs efficiently, when a matter of fact is settled, one need focus only on its inputs and outputs and not on its internal complexity." Rephrase it especially "one need TO focus", one what? etc
• " its' environment." -> its environment
• "the range of answers decrease" -> decreases

Content aspects

• "The last, but not the least common error is overreaction. There is a need of accurate identification of possible crisis existence and thorough evaluation of situation." I don't really understand what you mean here. How the two sentences are related? How do you define "overreaction"?
• " It could be suggested to use Reg Revans approach of asking three main questions:" Why choosing this one more than another
• "Therefore, willing to obtain as accurate as possible position of the present situation it is desirable to review:" I think you should either shortly describe all of them or either not even mention them.
• Demarcate the system A figure could help to understand this part.

Review by Dutten

Dear Qwerty

First of all: impressive that you worked till 6 o’clock from Monday to Tuesday. I actually did the exact same thing :o)

I like your article, it gives a somewhat detailed overview/step by step approach to situation analysis, and I think it can be applicable for next semester students. If you wish, you can comment on my comments, and I will then answer/elaborate.

• I suppose you are writing the Introduction and Overview or the Descriptions of Particular Methods
  • I think a strength/weaknesses section, evaluating the Situation Anlysis in Problem-Solving Cycle would make the article interesting, and providing more info than our course material.
  • Maybe difficult to make, but very interesting, could be a very short example of how this method have been used. Not step by step, but maybe one part of it that worked really well for e.g. your group.
• I think the introduction part is made very well, it’s understandable and gives a clear overview of the rest of the article
• I think the picture ‘’Steps of the task analysis’’ should be referred to in the text.
  • And I actually think it is irrelevant to show a picture of bulletpoints. Could it not just be written in the text?
• Something is wrong with your [1] reference. It just links to your article.
• Several parts of your article is completely missing references
• You forget to use capital letters in your bullet points list

I corrected these two typos in the Task Analysis, there is several more, but I will let you correct those:

• After THE problem was identified and verified as many as possible facts about the situation must be collected.
• Finding out what is known helps to identify the purpose of the process and leads to exploration of what do the customers and stakeholders EXPECT to receive as a delivery of the process.
  • However I do still not quite understand this last sentence.
• It could be an idea, to show an illustration of a system demarcation to increase understandability.