Talk:Behaviors in scheduling - Revision history

S173562: /* Answer 3 */

2018-02-19T22:24:36Z

Answer 3

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:24, 19 February 2018
Line 156:		Line 156:

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	There are a few grammatical errors, but it is an overall good text. Some word choices (like for instead of to), but nothing you cant straighten out when you read it through. The language has a good flow and just some minor fill words. I do think you could have in mind, when you read it through again, that you would improve the flow and text even more if you change the wording and order of some of your sentences. Read through your first paragraph in "Techniques in scheduling". The errors that occur at this point are probably just because it is not the final paper.		"There are a few grammatical errors, but it is an overall good text. Some word choices (like for instead of to), but nothing you cant straighten out when you read it through. The language has a good flow and just some minor fill words. I do think you could have in mind, when you read it through again, that you would improve the flow and text even more if you change the wording and order of some of your sentences. Read through your first paragraph in "Techniques in scheduling". The errors that occur at this point are probably just because it is not the final paper."

	===Question 4 · TEXT===		===Question 4 · TEXT===

S173562: /* Answer 3 */

2018-02-19T22:24:00Z

Answer 3

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:24, 19 February 2018
Line 156:		Line 156:

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	''There are a few grammatical errors, but it is an overall good text. Some word choices (like for instead of to), but nothing you cant straighten out when you read it through. The language has a good flow and just some minor fill words. I do think you could have in mind, when you read it through again, that you would improve the flow and text even more if you change the wording and order of some of your sentences. Read through your first paragraph in "Techniques in scheduling". The errors that occur at this point are probably just because it is not the final paper.''		There are a few grammatical errors, but it is an overall good text. Some word choices (like for instead of to), but nothing you cant straighten out when you read it through. The language has a good flow and just some minor fill words. I do think you could have in mind, when you read it through again, that you would improve the flow and text even more if you change the wording and order of some of your sentences. Read through your first paragraph in "Techniques in scheduling". The errors that occur at this point are probably just because it is not the final paper.

	===Question 4 · TEXT===		===Question 4 · TEXT===

S173562 at 22:23, 19 February 2018

2018-02-19T22:23:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:23, 19 February 2018
Line 115:		Line 115:
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''You have a broad source of references and they seem good and relevant. There are some points where you write some facts, and don't really back it up e.g. :Despite all of the tangible results schedule changes will also affect humans causing higher pressure, lower productivity and in general - quality reduction. This is due to high number or variables and possible risks even though usually those are thoroughly analyzed because it is not possible to predict any scenario." This part here is a bit weak because it sounds like speculations. Maybe you should write: According to XXX we can see industries having issues with scheduling changes due to..." But in general it seems like you know how to find relevant infromation.''		''You have a broad source of references and they seem good and relevant. There are some points where you write some facts, and don't really back it up e.g. :Despite all of the tangible results schedule changes will also affect humans causing higher pressure, lower productivity and in general - quality reduction. This is due to high number or variables and possible risks even though usually those are thoroughly analyzed because it is not possible to predict any scenario." This part here is a bit weak because it sounds like speculations. Maybe you should write: According to XXX we can see industries having issues with scheduling changes due to..." But in general it seems like you know how to find relevant infromation.''


			==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Jonas Greaker Sjøen''==
			===Question 1 · TEXT===
			'''Quality of the summary:'''

			Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 1===
			''In my opinion, you have a great and very informative abstract. You describe the value of the article and where it applies, which is of importance. I do think you cover every aspect that you have implicated. The only thing would suggest is to shorten some of your enumerations. It would improve the flow if you could list a bit less.''

			===Question 2 · TEXT===
			'''Structure and logic of the article:'''

			Is the argument clear?

			Is there a logical flow to the article?

			Does one part build upon the other?

			Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 2===
			''The structure is impeccable. You have human behaviour as a baseline in every topic and reasoning. Good and distinct thread. Scheduling and time on the other hand, is more defuse. I am not sure if that comes in the CM part. You could be more clear on the purpose of this topic.

			No contradiction that I could find.''

			===Question 3 · TEXT===
			'''Grammar and style:'''

			Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?

			Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 3===
			''There are a few grammatical errors, but it is an overall good text. Some word choices (like for instead of to), but nothing you cant straighten out when you read it through. The language has a good flow and just some minor fill words. I do think you could have in mind, when you read it through again, that you would improve the flow and text even more if you change the wording and order of some of your sentences. Read through your first paragraph in "Techniques in scheduling". The errors that occur at this point are probably just because it is not the final paper.''

			===Question 4 · TEXT===
			'''Figures and tables:'''

			Are figures and tables clear?

			Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 4===
			''No tables or figures''

			===Question 5 · TEXT===
			'''Interest and relevance:'''

			Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?

			Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 5===
			''It is quite clear. It clearly finds benefits to behaviour in scheduling. There are som parts in the middle that could be clearer.''

			===Question 6 · TEXT===
			'''Depth of treatment:'''

			Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?

			Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 6===
			''It seams like you have done a deep dive into the theory and showed where it applies to the scheduling in the project management. I am not sure how much deeper you can go. If it fits your idea you could write about how and where to implement some of the theory in the projects.'

			===Question 7 · TEXT===
			'''Annotated bibliography:'''

			Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?

			Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?

			Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 7===
			''The references are not properly set up in the text yet. There are some parts where you have strong statements that you don't source, maybe take a look into that and see if you have missed anyone.''

DemirDurovic: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Place your name here */

2018-02-19T15:26:09Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Place your name here

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:26, 19 February 2018
Line 100:		Line 100:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''At this point no. It is a lot of rewriting some theory, but not really applying it. What you should do is, to briefly explain relevant theory and write why it is important to notice, because your reader probably know allot this and expect a more applied article. Considering your scope influencing human behaviour on project management the people reading it probably have some knowledge about this area and would learn more. I think my second answer also explains hiow you could do that.''

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===
Line 114:		Line 114:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''~~Answer~~ here''		''You have a broad source of references and they seem good and relevant. There are some points where you write some facts, and don't really back it up e.g. :Despite all of the tangible results schedule changes will also affect humans causing higher pressure, lower productivity and in general - quality reduction. This is due to high number or variables and possible risks even though usually those are thoroughly analyzed because it is not possible to predict any scenario." This part here is a bit weak because it sounds like speculations. Maybe you should write: According to XXX we can see industries having issues with scheduling changes due to..." But in general it seems like you know how to find relevant infromation.''

DemirDurovic: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Place your name here */

2018-02-19T15:11:40Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Place your name here

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:11, 19 February 2018
Line 30:		Line 30:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''Very precise abstract. You write clearly that you will have an emphasis in project management, which is good to have in you abstract. Your abstract seems to be divided and explains you will cover some different aspects, which includes human behaviour in project management, approaches used to plan projects, strategy, decision making factors and plan scheduling as a process. As for this wiki article it seems like you have too many different aspects covered at the same time, and i am afraid it will be very messy and incoherent. What might be a challenge is to find a red thread between all the above mentioned things, and make it clear for the targeted reader, since it can easily just end up being a list of different tools and theories/methodologies with little to no connection to each other. i would rewrite my abstract and make the scope smaller and more clear. ''

	===Question 2 · TEXT===		===Question 2 · TEXT===
Line 46:		Line 46:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	''~~Answer~~ here''		''Your techniques in scheduling shows why you abstract needs to be more clear with a more narrow scope. You list some techniques, which are not necessarily relevant to each other, and they don't quite follow you objective scope being human behaviour's influence on project planning. I would remove some of the techniques and focus on only one maybe two, and explain more in depth why they are relevant. You should also write more precise in the introduction of this part why you have it, and what value it adds. The two lines are a bit cryptical and well formulated, and they do not explain why this part is relevant to the scope, and what it will explain.

			The change management section is frankly a mess. there is no natural flow from the previos section to this one, and they are not connected at all. Again the issue here is the scope, since your scope is so broad you need to write some sections, which are not connected to successfully fulfill your scope. I cannot see the relevance of this section either. The best advice i can give you here is to go back to you abstract or write a section right after that explains what human behaviour is (maybe) and which aspects of human behaviour you will focus on, and to which category i.e you cannot not focus on planning, monitoring, realization etc. This part is also very dense, and you have some interesting aspects, but because your force a lot of information into few sentences it is actually difficult to see who the intended reader is, and why we actually have this part. I looks like you have decide to write an article to the industry, but then you have some very heavy theory. I think your article could be really cool and relevant if you only focused on industry and narrowed your scope down to e.g. "Effect of human behaviour in change management" and focus on project and maybe program management.

			It looks like the last section is not quite done, so i will not comment on that, since i cannot see its relevance. But the direction you are moving in with it follows the same pattern as the previous sections, which i believe you should reconsider.

			You should also consider the general flow of the article in terms of the sections. The three sections you have are not connected at all, and very loosely connected to you scope. There should be build up were you have some sections that are logically place in an order, where you build up information that is relevant for the reader.' Put it this way, when you write the sections ask yourself: What will happen if i change the order of these two sections? Should one of them naturally lead up to the other like: Relevant tools ->Methodologies->Applicability''

	===Question 3 · TEXT===		===Question 3 · TEXT===
Line 58:		Line 64:

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''Your abstract is decently formulated, but the rest has a lot of bad formulations, can be excessively wordy, with few errors which mostly seems to be typing error. You have a good vocabulary. In general it seems like you know how to formulate yourself, and the result of your formulation either comes from fast typing, or because the content has to be very dense due to your large scope. Either way i would re write a lot, and then maybe have a focus on writting it a bit less as spoken language ''

	===Question 4 · TEXT===		===Question 4 · TEXT===
Line 70:		Line 76:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''There are none. But for this type of article i would expect to see a lot. This is a lot with processes, and where and how humans interact with them, which should include graphical representation of the tools. ''

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===
Line 82:		Line 88:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''This is interesting considering your article leads up to be highly relevant in a practical sense, but have a lot of fractions that are highly theoretical. You cannot have one without the other, but I believe you should really focus on the practical sense and maybe find some litteratur that actually explains what the results can be if human behaviour is neglected, or what the benefits can be if they are managed correctly in a project. This would give you a very relevant article, and I believe you will easily find a lot of literature that can give you a strong indication how human ressources can benefit different tools or with the wrong managerial approach can can have a negative consequence''

	===Question 6 · TEXT===		===Question 6 · TEXT===

DemirDurovic: /* Abstract Feedback */

2018-02-19T14:04:55Z

Abstract Feedback

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:04, 19 February 2018
Line 17:		Line 17:
	<li> Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project management community more than a normal web search		<li> Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project management community more than a normal web search
	</ol>		</ol>




			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Place your name here''==
			===Question 1 · TEXT===
			'''Quality of the summary:'''

			Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 1===
			''Answer here''

			===Question 2 · TEXT===
			'''Structure and logic of the article:'''

			Is the argument clear?

			Is there a logical flow to the article?

			Does one part build upon the other?

			Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 2===
			''Answer here''

			===Question 3 · TEXT===
			'''Grammar and style:'''

			Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?

			Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 3===
			''Answer here''

			===Question 4 · TEXT===
			'''Figures and tables:'''

			Are figures and tables clear?

			Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 4===
			''Answer here''

			===Question 5 · TEXT===
			'''Interest and relevance:'''

			Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?

			Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 5===
			''Answer here''

			===Question 6 · TEXT===
			'''Depth of treatment:'''

			Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?

			Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 6===
			''Answer here''

			===Question 7 · TEXT===
			'''Annotated bibliography:'''

			Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?

			Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?

			Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 7===
			''Answer here''

Hani Mike Rae Selim: Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== '''Text clarity''' Text can be more coherent '''Language''' Good '''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Good , but text clarity will mak..."

2018-02-13T21:49:45Z

Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== '''Text clarity''' Text can be more coherent '''Language''' Good '''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Good , but text clarity will mak..."

New page

==Abstract Feedback==

'''Text clarity''' Text can be more coherent

'''Language''' Good

'''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Good , but text clarity will make it easier to follow. Explain what behaviour is

'''Purpose explanation''' Emphasize what the reader will learn/get out of this article

'''References''' Missing references to mandatory list of references where appropriate

'''Relevance of article''' Consider the following:

<ol>
<li> Who is the reader? Project Manager or Sponsor etc?
<li> Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project management community more than a normal web search
</ol>