Talk:Mindfulness and Cognitive Biases in Project Management

From apppm
Revision as of 21:19, 28 September 2015 by MistaJacob (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Anna: In regards to the choice of topic, I feel like this article does not really fit any of the two types of articles that we want to see for this course. An idea could maybe be to focus on a specific tool that could help a manager to be a "mindful manager" in order to narrow the scope of your article down.

LasseHoier87 reviewer 3

The article is not finished as stated in the section ”To the reviewer”. I have therefore not reviewed the part where the author is writing ideas to the rest of the article. I will comment on what is available at the time of the review.

(Wiki article Peer Review template is used. To see question see "Wiki Article Peer Review and Peer Evaluation")

Formal aspects:

  • It follows the "method" structure in a good and clear way
  • Free of grammatical, spelling and punctuation error. Maybe change “We” to more formal style
    • I'm using we, not as in me and someone else, but as in humans in general which makes it a bit more formal. On the other hand, in the bottom half of the article I am talking directly to the reader by writing "you", which is definitly not the formal way to write an article. That being said, I argue for my choice works here. Lets see if the professors agree.
  • Written in a fine engaging style, short sentences also leading nicely to the next point.
  • I think the figures is ok, but maybe the figure with a lot of text is not suitable (you have a tendency to skip it) Maybe some bullet points with a very short description would be better?!
    • Agreed. It didn't fit the focus of my article, so it was removed and i linked to another article which sole focus was mindfulness.
  • The figures are understandable, but I think “figure 1” should be enlarged.
    • Noted. And enlarged a bit.
  • The choice of figures is fine, but the label is missing. Use none|thumb|caption or similar to get label on the figure
  • The tables and figures is referred to in the text and works fine.
  • Regarding copyright on the figures. I can not see any reference in relation to the figures.
  • I think the overall wiki formation of the article is fine. There are some small things, as mentioned earlier, the placement of the figures, layout of figure. But overall the formation is nicely done.

Content aspects:

  • For practitioners the early version may be a bit theoretical, but if some examples of use could be made, the full understanding would be good.
    • because of the early version as you said.
  • I think the article fits the purpose of this course very good. It is dealing with some key issues in term of system engineering and the behavior behind the development towards high complexity in society.
  • The article is relating to the project management category. But could be used in other aspects also. The article is categorized well within the content categories.
    • I agree. That is commented shortly in the conclusion.
  • It is hard to evaluate the length of the article at this point, but looking at the “thoughts” of the author – I doubt it will too short.
    • haha, ohh yeah. Definitely not too short
  • The logical flow through the article is fine. It seems like there will be a red thread through the rest of the article as well.
  • The starting summary of the article should describe the content in a more detailed way.
    • agree. you saw the early version.
  • The sources and reference material is illustrated fine in the end of the article, but should of course be completed with “full name of author, title, year etc.”
  • The sources and reference material is fine and is mostly relying books, standards and journals. Fine
  • There are no link to other Wiki APPPM articles, but one link to oxford dictionaries, which is of doubtful relevance.
    • Don't know what you normally do here. I kept the reference.
  • Difference between own opinion and statements from literature is hard to say at this point. The article is mostly describing the basic ideas of mindfulness and cognitive biases.
  • There is no reason to think there is any type of plagiarism.

Username: s146898 Reviewer #2

Hey :) I really like the topic of your article and I believe it’s an interesting perspective to look at the psychology behind project management. However, I am not entirely sure whether this is a method. The article is not finished and therefore, the feedback will apply mostly to the finished text. However, I did skim through your notes and they seem to be leading in a good direction and it seems the article will be coherent, once it’s finished.

  • comment to the method issue: Since no "method" exists about cognitive biases in project management, and my topic therefore didn't fit the type of article to write; I firstly got permission to write it anyways; and secondly, I wrote the article so it could be considered to be the "method" itself. This is due to the inclusion of the test to see if you are more predispositioned to get caught by cognitive biases than others; and the fact that the only way to overcome getting caught by cognitive biases, is to familurize yourself with them. This article can in that sense be seen as method (addressing and issue, and providing steps to take towards a "solution").

Formal aspects

  • I would say that this article fits into the Explaining or Illustrating a Method type. However, it does not follow the structure suggested for this type of article. Consider clearly describing which is the big picture, what mindfulness means for project management and then go into detail about how it applies. Think about what are its limitations and maybe what are the pros and cons for using it.
    • My early version (idea) focused on mindfulness and cognitive biases equally. This changed to mostly focus on the latter.
  • As far as grammar is concerned, the vocabulary and language are quite neat. However, there are many times in which “are” is used instead of “is” and vice-versa. e.g. “The social intricacy of human behaviour are one of the larger reasons for this change.” “Engineering systems is per definition socio-technical systems”
    • fixed. Hopefully now without those mistakes.
  • I like the use of figures and the fact that they are mentioned in the text. However, Figure 1 is very small and not easily readable.
    • Noted. And enlarged a bit.
  • You could consider linking the article to other wikis
    • Done. To some extend.

Content aspects

  • Personally, I believe practitioners would be very interested in this topic, as human behaviour plays a big role in the complexity of projects.
  • I would reconsider the summary. Maybe introduce the context in which mindfulness is used in project management, the “big picture”
    • Summary changed after article was finished.
  • I like that your list of references includes relevant books and articles. Don’t forget the Annotated bibliography for each source
    • Noted.
  • Maybe you’d like to consider a section called “Limitations” as well.
    • Agreed. This came in the section i hadn't written for the peer review.
  • Generally, the article seems to have a logical flow. Of course, it is not finished yet…

Username: s143352 Reviewer 1

Your article bears the mark of an independent choice of topic you really care about, making it a liberating energetic read.

Formal aspects:

  1. The article is written in a competent and accurate manner and the reader is accurately guided through the different sections.
  2. No gramma faults or spelling.
  3. The references used throughout the text are from reliable sources (respected universities).
  4. The figures clarify the content easily, and are reasonably interesting.
  5. Figures and pictures are missing references.
  • fixed in the final version.
  1. There is no link to another APPPM wiki article, but perhaps this is a product of the unique topic?
  • Found some links, but yeah, this is a rather unique topic.

Content aspects:

  1. Very interesting reading. I really like the atypical topic.
  2. Super input with questions. It holds the reader's attention and prompts the reader/project manager to self-reflection.
  3. One proposal could be to bullet point intuitive vs. rational thinking in project management. Our society primarily honors the rational thinkers, but what about the uncertainty aspects in projects? Could the intuitive thinkers have an advantage there? Albert Einstein put it this way, “The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift.”
  • Awesome quote! Your suggestion could actually be a good research question for further investigation. Didn't quite fit my aim for the article, which was firstly to establish why our moders society has gotten so complex that we need to think outside the box to deal with it, and secondly to get the reader to doubt his/her own mind enough to inspire a need to seek more information about cognitive biases, so errors can be prevented in that regard.
  1. Another proposal could be to link the article to more practical every day project manager tasks, such as establishing project teams, group dynamics etc.
  • I completely agree with your proposal, but due to the limit of 3000 +- words, i barely had space to get the reader to doubt his/her own mind, which was my primary goal. The next would have been to describe the most common biases to be aware of, which I somehow did ;) and thereafter practical examples should have been used from project management tasks. I included one general example, and left the rest to the reader to draw these connections, which I think I made posssible with how I wrote the article. Furthermore, in the conclusion, I related the topic of cognitive biases not only to project management, but all professions facing high-risk decisions in complex environments.

Personal tools