Revision as of 01:20, 27 November 2014

Review

The introduction is good and seems to have a perfect size and gives the reader a quick overview of the method.

Formal aspects

• In general the article is well written, however there are some grammatical issues which have to be adressed. Particularly avoid writing in first person at any times, and check your : are, is and substantives, like: The context instead of context.

• The Overall flow of the article seems natural. I would suggest to define or allign the word "context" better in the explaining text since it is used many times, in relation to different topics. for example i got confused from the sentence: It describes five contexts that leaders can use for categorizing operating contexts

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

• The figures also seem to free for errors, but as stated before not referenced to in the text

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

• The article is formatted correctly and the pictures have a nice alignment to each other. Maybe the figure at the top should be considered, so the reader reads the text instead of looking on the figure.

Content aspects

• The article has a overall logical structure which encourages the reader to look at the whole article and thus makes it interesting to read. There are a few obstacles. Mainly the location of the perspective section were a distraction, as the content of it lead the readers attention or thoughts to the baseline of the ideology behind the described method. I would suggest to place it at the end of the examples of the method.

• The articles relation to a project, program or portfolio management, is only given in the section about the usage of the method in projects. I am not clear how to define the relation of the content when the method usually is used by project, program or portfolio management. That should be elaborated

• 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 in the topic of the article. It is not clear how to count the sub-site into the overall size.

• Is there a logical flow throughout the article? Are the parts “tied together” through a red thread? 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".

• Does the article provide sufficient sources and reference material? The article provides sufficient sources and reference material, even though some links for further reading

• Are sources and reference material of high quality? I.e., does the article mostly rely on books, journal articles, standards, and to some degree on high-quality websites, instead of “blog posts”?
• Does the article link to other relevant pages in the APPPM wiki?
• Is “own opinion” clearly differentiated from statements substantiated by literature?
• Does the article seem to be free of “copy & paste” plagiarism?

PEER REVIEW 2

Mainly, I think the article is very good. the topic is appropriate for the subject, its development is clear while the necessary content is present. Therefore generally the end result is good. However some details to improve are evaluated and some suggestions are added:

FORMAL ASPECTS

• In general, the article is free of grammatical, spelling and punctuation errors. Only sometimes some small mistakes are found, for example in the singular/plural form: a very simple example that is used... are the example of...
• The article is written in an appropriate style. However sometimes too long sentences are founded. e.g: last paragraph of section 3 (Perspective on organizational theory and paradigms).
• Figures are not clear and understandable, they are too small and it is very hard (sometimes impossible) to read what is written in the figures in some sections of the article. E.g: abstract, section 1 (The Cynefin model) and section 5 (Cynefin used in projects).
• I am missing references to the figures throughout the text.
• Not sure about if the author have the copyright or right to use the figures?
• The article has the typical Wiki-features and the proper Wiki-style. Nevertheless sometimes the second person is used. From my point of view, it is better to write it as an impersonal way since it is a Wiki article. e.g: section 2: guide on leadership: if you want to become effective...

CONTENT ASPECTS

• The article is related to the content of the course especially in section 5 (Cynefin used in projects) which is not very long. It is understandable the need of an explanation of the Cynefin (in a more general way). However, in my opinion it would be beter to lengthen section 5 since it is the one related directly to the course. As I see the lenght of the article is appropriate, maybe it would be necessary to shorten other parts in order to do this.
• I really like the link: The cynefin LEGO game, I think it clarifies a lot the point of view of the article in a very good practical way.
• The starting summary is appropriate for the article but the criticism (last part) needs gouping sentences in paragraphs. Right now it seems a "bullet point format" and in a discussion I suggest to writte full text.
• Sources and reference material is enough and of high quality.

Good Job :)