User talk:MSB/IMB-EU-2013/PS2-P2


 * Don't forget to leave your progress report here. This can be and should be simple—you pick the format and the level of detail. I'm looking for information on (1) What did you mean to do this week? (2) What did you actually do this week? (3) If there's a gap between 1 and 2, what're you going to do differently next week? --msb (discuss • contribs) 08:48, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Progress Report 1
The group met via skype on Sunday, 21 April to distribute tasks and sum up the results of the research that has been done until that point in time.

Ruslan and Svetlana: researched about companies that apply APM both in IT and consulting. Result: maybe it's smarter to compare a "before and after" of a company that started applying APM at one point and what changed through the change of project management method?

Anne looked into sources that are related to the cultural aspect in our project and found quite a few things.

Julia searched viable sources about APM, Scrum and Waterfall to contribute to the theoretical foundation of the project.

Decisions for this week: Ruslan and Svetlana are on the Munich trip, therefore no time to read up things - but to ask questions about APM in Q&A sessions in university and companies. Anne and Julia are in Berlin, will dig deeper into the theory during this week (22-28. April) to convey the knowledge lateron to the entire group as a foundation of further work.

Progress Report 2

 * Researched about Waterfall & Agile methodologies (theory). Started write up about Waterfall & Agile theory.
 * Updated structure of the term project, agreed on layout, referencing methodology (Harvard).
 * Brainstormed about possible interview partners (reg. China / Chinese company culture).
 * Agreed on Interview with T.R. (what to ask, when to meet, how to coordinate).
 * Continue researching on two company examples (which were transforming from waterfallt o agile) and company culture (theoretical approaches, parameters typically for Chinese).
 * Create document / platform to collect interesting questions to ask interview partners.

Scrum Master Comment 29.04.13
This is good stuff thank you for doing what I asked... please don't consider the weekly report a bureaucratic exercise. Think of doing this project for a customer so that you have to take customer relationship seriously. This means that at any time you can point towards what you have done, what you haven't done yet and what you're going to do differently. Use the week as the base unit of planning. Your overview is good, what's missing is the looking ahead: you seem to have done this looking back at your completed tasks but until you commit to what you are going to do next week, you're not quite there yet! Consider using this page to organize your own work!--msb (discuss • contribs) 15:23, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Take a look at a couple of Scrum Sprint review report samples here and here (alas, in German).

Progress Report 3
Comment Anne:

EXAMPLE: how about that?
 * everybody read what is already in here, let's talk about the layout and structure of our Wiki-Text.
 * do we want to and can we link to other webpages? (Wikipedia? others?) - Yes we can!--Ruslan.vakilov (discuss • contribs) 09:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * figure out how to upload pictures - Done. It is not trivial, but quite easy. I will show it tomorrow--Ruslan.vakilov (discuss • contribs) 09:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * figure out how to creat boxes --> Ruslan? ;) - see it UK.gov study!--Ruslan.vakilov (discuss • contribs) 09:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments Julia:
 * we could certainly link our different paragraphs more, like with hash tags maybe? I am sure at least Ruslan knows how to do that, I've long wanted to learn that
 * I am not sure about the layout. But this is not the final version anyway, right? I find it a bit too text-heavy. It's a numeration of stuff. Maybe it gets better automatically once we insert graphs and stuff. But let's discuss in the next meeting, maybe we can come up with something new!
 * Why are "drawbacks of waterfall" after the APM? Wouldn't it make more sense if it was inserted after Waterfall itself?
 * Generally speaking: Let's all read and also review our parts. There are still a lot of typos that sometimes make it hard to read.
 * I have a problem in case study government: I don't understand the picture! Either explain to me tomorrow and we find out I am stupid or maybe we have to explain this picture in a subtitle or do something else? Illustrations should be ideally self-explanatory, we have to assume our reader doesn't know all this.

Comments Svetlana:
 * Looks good!
 * Anne, how have you done the text box? I would like to put BT case in one of those.
 * I haven't done the proofreading for my part. I will work on it in the next couple of days.
 * "drawbacks of waterfall"-I put it there so it would be used by others and help with their part. I will edit and delete most of it.

Progress Report 4

 * Julia will edit the whole text looking for language problems.
 * We agreed that we will make links between different sections for the logic flow.
 * J and A. Start writing connecting parts. Links inside parts. Introduction and intro in each part.
 * Ruslan will upload all pictures. (Create folder in Dropbox with your names and put pictures with links and descriptions to be filled in Wikiversity and a place where to put it in our paper).
 * In case studies we need to refer to the theoretical part. Connect theoretical statements (evaluation pros and cons). Include drawback of the Waterfall into case study of BT. (For questions call AF).


 * We will finish with theory and case study parts BEFORE we start with Cultural part write-up
 * Continue and finalize until 13.05.2013 with possible questions to Timo Römer.
 * Collecting theories on cultural differences in Titanpad whatever comes to our mind.
 * Ask a Professor (H. Herr) of Chinese studies in IMB about cultural differences in PM. (follow-up)
 * Ask Prof. G. Bruche for an interview about his experience in PM in Asia.

Scrum Master Comment 02.05.2013
Well done. Don't forget that you can also use your own experiences as a case-let or for illustration of agile methods. This will make your case stronger. Looking forward to seeing how your progress!--msb (discuss • contribs) 10:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Progress Report 5

 * Email to Prof. with specific questions what to read and how to review the write-up. --> done
 * A bit of a pro/con discussion about APM is still missing from a theoretical point of view. --> let's decide if and when to work on that after the sprint review --> partly done
 * Scrum as a part / sub-topic is missing. Svet will work on a proposal until next Wednesday. --> postponed, open
 * formal changes in the text need to be done - Anne/Ruslan talk via phone as soon as Ruslan had added his part. Anne/Svet will change today. Proposals for changes in the Introduction and linking parts proposed by Anne in wiki directly. --> done
 * In our next meeting we should talk about referencing. --> open
 * prepare and hold springt review presentation for next session (JG & RV) --> ongoing
 * prepare and have interview with TR (AF & SG) --> ongoing
 * let's brainstorm on wednesday on: how can we tackle the question - what other traditional methods are there? (Please see MSB's answers)
 * Looking forward to your review tomorrow!--msb (discuss • contribs) 17:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Q&A 10.05.13

 * Is the text already well structured in terms of logical flow, clear language and depth of content so far?
 * Looks fine to me!


 * Would you prefer more pictures to illustrate the theory / explanation? Or is it already appropriately / illustrative / self-explaining?
 * Not for me to say. Happy to see any! Illustration/tables/graphs etc. when and where useful. Ideally self-made (adapted to purpose) rather than copied from somewhere and therefore carrying lots of information not relevant. The images I looked at where very interesting and well commented (in the image) but I couldn't find a narrative connecting and explaining them (e.g. 5.1)--msb (discuss • contribs) 09:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Is the first part of the research question already covered or answered? (Research question for the respective part written: Which is more advantageous - traditional / waterfall method or APM nowadays?) - please take into account, that we will have interviews within the next weeks with e.g. Timo Roemer to conclude / discuss the pros and cons of the agile method.
 * (3.2) seems to contain the answer but is not finished. You need to discuss your research question (albeit briefly) in a short "discussion" section. If you had a hypothesis (I think you did, if you did, state it explicitly) then discuss that, otherwise summarize findings. Another point: why waterfall? Are there other methods? If you don't discuss them you must say why. Ideally using the literature but that's always a good idea.--msb (discuss • contribs) 09:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * General comment: looks like a worthwhile project in progress! You NEVER have to write a URL in the wiki (in the PDF version the links are given at the end automatically). This is the web! Hide links! Looks as if you're ready to tackle the culture part. Well done so far!--msb (discuss • contribs) 09:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Mid-Sprint Review
Agile Process Management —Julia and Ruslan present using Prezi —chronological outline —show progress report: how we proceeded —frustration with sources: only IT sources REFLECT —case studies: settled for China bc of previous knowlege —beginning to write in wiki using agreed steucture —DID YOU USE APM YOURSELF? —HOW DID YOUR CONFIDENCE CHANGE? —field interview —future: what did you find out that is interesting? anything new? name of your topic.... process or project mgmt? has your position towards the topic changed? audience: anything to learn from your work for ppl in different cultures? MSB make contact with IBMAN students.
 * Here are my unedited notes from the mid-sprint review: very well done! Thanks for preparing so well!

STRENGTH simplicity, emphasis on discussion, apply method to yourself and reflection on group work IMPROVEMENTS not prepared questions for audience --msb (discuss • contribs) 13:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Progress Report 6
What's your strategy for "further research on cultural part"? A specific task list (steps to be taken during the week) will make it easier to handle such a large, open topic.--msb (discuss • contribs) 09:05, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * share notes about "how to improve in the final sprint review" (still open)
 * prepared interview notes and audio stream (done)
 * include most useful outcome from interview into Wiki (still open)
 * select which info to use and what not for the Wiki entry (in progress)
 * further research on cultural part (in progress)
 * check pro/con discussion about APM from a theoretical point of view (partly done, tbc)
 * scrum as a part / sub-topic of APM (still open)
 * we should talk about referencing (still open)
 * what other traditional methods besides waterfall? (still open)
 * links between the different sections for the logic flow (to be done at the end)
 * refer to different phrases/names from Agile picture also in the Agile theory text (open)

Progress Report 7

 * write up additional other traditional methods (in progress)
 * change position of and edit other traditional methods part (open)
 * shared notes from sprint review --> how to improve in final sprint review with "customer" (done)
 * include most useful outcome from interview into Wiki (done)
 * add T.R.'s profession (open)
 * own experience from exhibition industry "how to apply agile" (done)
 * APM part - looks inappropriate after AF's changes :/
 * check pro/con discussion about APM from a theoretical point of view (partly done, tbc)
 * scrum as a part / sub-topic of APM (still open)
 * refer to different phrases/names from Agile picture also in the Agile theory text (open)
 * we should talk about referencing (still open)
 * links between the different sections for the logic flow (to be done at the end)

Progress Report 8
[under construction...] ToDo list:
 * write up additional other traditional methods (done)
 * change position of and edit other traditional methods part (done)
 * ask for T.R.'s profession (done) --> Svet sends again
 * APM part - looks inappropriate after AF's changes :/
 * check pro/con discussion about APM from a theoretical point of view (partly done, tbc)
 * scrum as a part / sub-topic of APM (done)
 * refer to different phrases/names from Agile picture also in the Agile theory text (done)
 * we should talk about referencing (still open) --> "Cite error: Invalid tag; no text was provided for refs named smith" please check and change referencing
 * links between the different sections for the logic flow (to be done at the end)
 * Introduction adoption - Julia (done)
 * Waterfall in the end, Anne will make transition part.(done)
 * Introduction to other methods - Ruslan [done]
 * Rewrite Other methods part in normal language - Ruslan (open)
 * In RUP mention iterations to link to Agile - Ruslan [done]
 * Elaborate more for 4 phases of RUP - Ruslan [done]
 * Conclusion to Other methods part - Ruslan [done]
 * Edit whole "Agile method" part - Julia (done)
 * Check Gil's quote to add in text- Julia (open)
 * Agile manifesto picture - Ruslan [done]
 * Edit SCRUM part - Svet (done)
 * Introductory part to case studies - why? - Ruslan (open)
 * Think on "Feature" part - Everybody
 * Our experience on working in Agile way - Anne (merged Svet's and my part - done)
 * Send questionnaire to S.A. + gather interview - Anne (done)
 * Draft of presentation structure - Anne (done - tbc)
 * Adapt in text referencing to foot notes (Svet)
 * Move transition part "why these case studies" to appropriate - Julia (open)
 * Great, you're using this as a task board. Makes me happy. Good work. Keep going. Cheers!--msb (discuss • contribs) 21:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Progress Report 9
hahahahahah, I can do all colors of the rainbow!

we should talk about referencing (still open) --> "Cite error: Invalid tag; no text was provided for refs named smith" please check and change referencing
 * Add initiative on documentation of Hasso Plattner Institute (reg. lack of documentation) - Ruslan
 * Draft of presentation structure - Anne (done)
 * Move transition part "why these case studies" to appropriate section - Julia (open)
 * Think on "Feature" part - Everybody
 * Introductory part to case studies - why? - Ruslan (open)
 * Check Gil's quote to add in text- Julia (open)
 * Rewrite Other methods part in normal language - Ruslan (open)
 * Adapt in text referencing to foot notes (Svet)
 * links between the different sections for the logic flow (to be done at the end)
 * ask for T.R.'s profession (done) --> Svet sends again (Anne send eMail to Svet) (Anne: done; Svet: done)
 * APM feature assessment - Ruslan
 * Waterfall feature assessment - Svet (done)
 * Presentation layout - Anne
 * Text editing - Julia
 * add S.A. interview to text - Anne (done)
 * Apple-Organge-Picture - Anne
 * Icons / Pictograms for Presentations - Ruslan
 * Presentation parts:
 * Progress - Svet ( in progress)
 * Limitations - Julia
 * Prototyping - Ruslan
 * Results - Anne
 * send Presentation to Svet - Anne (done)
 * review position of boxes - Julia / Anne

Progress Report 10
--> "Cite error: Invalid tag; no text was provided for refs named smith" please check and change referencing (done)
 * Add initiative on documentation of Hasso Plattner Institute (reg. lack of documentation) - Ruslan (done)
 * Move transition part "why these case studies" to appropriate section - Julia (Anne-done)
 * Include features part/table and evaluation on APM in Academic Group Work - Anne (done)
 * Introductory part to case studies - why? - Ruslan (already done by somebody :) Thanks!)
 * Rewrite Other methods part in normal language - Ruslan (done + Added references to Wikipedia pages in intro, although in the end there are references to them also)
 * Adapt in text referencing to foot notes - Svet (done)
 * links between the different sections for the logic flow – Anne / Julia
 * Include T.R. profession – Anne (done)
 * Include S.A. interview Box - Anne (done)
 * formate color of boxes - Anne (done)
 * Send T.R. link to website – Anne (will be done at the end of the project)
 * Apple-Organge-Picture - Anne (skipped!)
 * Include video "how our wiki grew" to wikipage? - Ruslan (done)
 * Review position of colored boxes (where to put S.A.'s?) - Julia (Anne - done)
 * send feedback notes from presentation day ASAP to Anne - Svet (done)
 * include feedback from presentation day into wiki - Anne (done)
 * include Symbols, Arrows in Contrasting Wikitable - Ruslan (done)
 * write Conclusion - Anne (inlcuded bullet points) / Julia (done)
 * @Julia: could you please check, whether the process picture in APM is still at the right position? It seems to be mixed up with the scrum part since we added the scum workflow part later. (Anne- done)
 * @all: Should we include the Bubble-White-Board Picture from the final review in the "Scrum Workflow" part as illustration? Or better in the Apllication in Academic Group Work part?
 * Include Pictures in Consulting, Exhibition, Acandemic part - Ruslan (done)

Content
This term paper evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of agile project management methods (APM) in general, and the scrum APM method in particular. they also wants to find out if APM can be transferred from IT to non-IT areas. To answer these questions, the authors compare traditional PM methodologies based on a "waterfall" approach with APM. After some theory and a historical summary, two case studies of British companies who have adopted APM In the IT sector, are presented. Next, the authors are looking at the use of APM in consulting and in exhibition management. Sourcing and methodology of these caselets could be improved. However, the authors close with a so-called "self experiment", namely a look at APM in academic group work using the creation of their own term paper as an example. In the end, all research questions are brought to a satisfactory conclusion. I really enjoyed reading this account of methods that I know quite well but whose presentation in this term paper was still interesting and innovative.

Structure
The paper was written by four different authors. It benefits from a rather strict structure, namely introduction, theory/history of the methods, case studies, conclusion and references. This structure seemed wholly appropriate. Only the methodology remains a little unexplored. If this had been a thesis or a proper research paper, a literature review and/or a separate section on the methods employed (not just as part of the final case study) would have been necessary.

Form
Formally, the work was completed in a (public) wiki (wikiversity). Given this medium, there are remarkably few English mistakes and only a few errors of expression. The sourcing is not completely satisfying throughout: in a number of places I was looking for references in vain and sometimes the authors use Wikipedia for content rather than reference, which seems superfluous given that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (an example would have been better, e.g. in the section on hybrid methods). Given that for authors worked on this term paper using several platforms, the evenness of the text is rather impressive. The references however are not as evenly written as they should be: some references consist only in (uncommented) links while others are properly completed.

Relevance
The paper is highly relevant. So much so, that I've already used it in postgraduate workshops, I will use it in graduate and undergraduate teaching as a reference, and I think extracting some of its content could form the basis of an interesting scientific paper, especially on the application of APM outside of IT. Grade: very good

Process
As mentioned, the authors had to struggle with several (IT) platforms and the agile methodology which was imposed upon them by me. Their weekly APM reports were regular, reliable and informative; the group did not only work with, but adopt and expand the proposed process.

Strengths
Using, analyzing and expanding an IT-based project management method to create an interesting, well-written, even and highly relevant scientific term paper.

Weaknesses
References at times uneven, table and image captions sometimes missing. Small stuff!

--Birkenkrahe (discuss • contribs) 21:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)