Talk:Benchmarking in Project Management - Revision history

S997303 at 15:29, 1 October 2015

2015-10-01T15:29:20Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:29, 1 October 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Anna: Just a few pointers for you article: It is very important that you keep you focus on the tool/method itself and that you really relate it properly to the overall topic of project management. The article you are making should be a contribution that others can read if they ever need this specific tool when managing a project. So maybe focus more on the use of benchmarking within project management and a little less on the overall use of benchmarking in the external/internal environment of a company.		Anna: Just a few pointers for you article: It is very important that you keep you focus on the tool/method itself and that you really relate it properly to the overall topic of project management. The article you are making should be a contribution that others can read if they ever need this specific tool when managing a project. So maybe focus more on the use of benchmarking within project management and a little less on the overall use of benchmarking in the external/internal environment of a company.

	Reviewer 1, S997303		===Reviewer 1, S997303===
	Hi Dimak		Hi Dimak

Dimak: /* Answer to reviewers */

2015-09-27T16:29:42Z

Answer to reviewers

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:29, 27 September 2015
Line 60:		Line 60:
	===Answer to reviewers===		===Answer to reviewers===

	Dear reviewers, thank for your valuable comments. They indeed helped me to formulate my article on a better way. I have taken into account more or less everything that you stated in your comments. I enlarged the images, created bullet points for the phases of benchmarking, created need categories giving examples and further analyzing all the points on the What to Benchmark section and presented the competencies in bullet points. If it is possible I would like a final feedback on these changes. Thank you once again and good luck with your articles.		Dear reviewers, thank you for your valuable comments. They indeed helped me to formulate my article on a better way. I have taken into account more or less everything that you stated in your comments. I enlarged the images, created bullet points for the phases of benchmarking, created need categories giving examples and further analyzing all the points on the What to Benchmark section and presented the competencies in bullet points. If it is possible I would like a final feedback on these changes. Thank you once again and good luck with your articles.

	Dimitris		Dimitris

Dimak at 16:29, 27 September 2015

2015-09-27T16:29:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:29, 27 September 2015
Line 57:		Line 57:
	*The article is characterized by good cohesion and flow between chapters. It gradually 'zooms in' from general to specific. However, I would recommend the chapter '''What to benchmark''' to be more focused on the project management aspects.		*The article is characterized by good cohesion and flow between chapters. It gradually 'zooms in' from general to specific. However, I would recommend the chapter '''What to benchmark''' to be more focused on the project management aspects.
	*Also someone good argue that there should be and some examples in order to help the reader understand general definitions. For example it could be mentioned as a success story of a benchmarking the development of the computer operational systems 'WINDOWS'.		*Also someone good argue that there should be and some examples in order to help the reader understand general definitions. For example it could be mentioned as a success story of a benchmarking the development of the computer operational systems 'WINDOWS'.

			===Answer to reviewers===

			Dear reviewers, thank for your valuable comments. They indeed helped me to formulate my article on a better way. I have taken into account more or less everything that you stated in your comments. I enlarged the images, created bullet points for the phases of benchmarking, created need categories giving examples and further analyzing all the points on the What to Benchmark section and presented the competencies in bullet points. If it is possible I would like a final feedback on these changes. Thank you once again and good luck with your articles.

			Dimitris

Konstantinos Lymperis: /* Reviewer 2, Konstantinos Lymperis, s142330 */

2015-09-24T10:10:42Z

Reviewer 2, Konstantinos Lymperis, s142330

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:10, 24 September 2015
Line 55:		Line 55:

	'''Content aspects'''		'''Content aspects'''
	*The article is characterized by good cohesion and flow between chapters. It gradually 'zooms in' from general to specific. However, I would recommend ~~to focus more~~ the chapter '''What to benchmark''' on the project management aspects.		*The article is characterized by good cohesion and flow between chapters. It gradually 'zooms in' from general to specific. However, I would recommend the chapter '''What to benchmark''' to be more focused on the project management aspects.
	*Also someone good argue that there should be and some examples in order to help the reader understand general definitions. For example it could be mentioned as a success story of a benchmarking the development of the computer operational systems 'WINDOWS'.		*Also someone good argue that there should be and some examples in order to help the reader understand general definitions. For example it could be mentioned as a success story of a benchmarking the development of the computer operational systems 'WINDOWS'.

Konstantinos Lymperis: /* Reviewer 2, Konstantinos Lymperis, s142330 */

2015-09-24T09:22:03Z

Reviewer 2, Konstantinos Lymperis, s142330

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:22, 24 September 2015
Line 51:		Line 51:
	*Good grammar, not a lot of spelling mistakes. The long sentences, that the others noticed are fixed a lot in this version.		*Good grammar, not a lot of spelling mistakes. The long sentences, that the others noticed are fixed a lot in this version.
	*The quality of some figures is not good (eg figure 3-4) and I could recommend to re-make them (figure 4) since it is simple and it would improve the readability of some key aspects.		*The quality of some figures is not good (eg figure 3-4) and I could recommend to re-make them (figure 4) since it is simple and it would improve the readability of some key aspects.
	*Also I would say that the eight primary competencies could be graphical represented in order to visualize important information		*Also I would say that the eight primary competencies could be graphical represented in order to visualize important information.
			*Finally, it would be nice to use ''"italian"'' when the expression is a directly taken from another document.

	'''Content aspects'''		'''Content aspects'''
	*The article is characterized by good cohesion and flow between chapters. It gradually 'zooms in' from general to specific. However, I would recommend to focus more the chapter '''What to benchmark''' on the project management aspects.		*The article is characterized by good cohesion and flow between chapters. It gradually 'zooms in' from general to specific. However, I would recommend to focus more the chapter '''What to benchmark''' on the project management aspects.
	*Also someone good argue that there should be and some examples in order to help the reader understand general definitions. For example it could be mentioned as a success story of a benchmarking the development of the computer operational systems 'WINDOWS'.		*Also someone good argue that there should be and some examples in order to help the reader understand general definitions. For example it could be mentioned as a success story of a benchmarking the development of the computer operational systems 'WINDOWS'.

Konstantinos Lymperis: /* Reviewer 2, Konstantinos Lymperis, s142330 */

2015-09-24T08:58:55Z

Reviewer 2, Konstantinos Lymperis, s142330

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:58, 24 September 2015
Line 49:		Line 49:

	'''Formal aspects'''		'''Formal aspects'''
	Good grammar, not a lot of spelling mistakes. The long sentences, that the others noticed are fixed a lot in this version.		*Good grammar, not a lot of spelling mistakes. The long sentences, that the others noticed are fixed a lot in this version.
	The quality of some figures is not good (eg figure 3-4) and I could recommend to re-make them (figure 4) since it is simple and it would improve the readability of some key aspects.		*The quality of some figures is not good (eg figure 3-4) and I could recommend to re-make them (figure 4) since it is simple and it would improve the readability of some key aspects.
	Also I would say that the eight primary competencies could be graphical represented in order to visualize important information		*Also I would say that the eight primary competencies could be graphical represented in order to visualize important information

	'''Content aspects'''		'''Content aspects'''
	The article is characterized by good cohesion and flow between chapters. It gradually 'zooms in' from general to specific. However, I would recommend to focus more the chapter '''What to benchmark''' on the project management aspects.		*The article is characterized by good cohesion and flow between chapters. It gradually 'zooms in' from general to specific. However, I would recommend to focus more the chapter '''What to benchmark''' on the project management aspects.
	Also someone good argue that there should be and some examples in order to help the reader understand general definitions. For example it could be mentioned as a success story of a benchmarking the development of the computer operational systems 'WINDOWS'.		*Also someone good argue that there should be and some examples in order to help the reader understand general definitions. For example it could be mentioned as a success story of a benchmarking the development of the computer operational systems 'WINDOWS'.

Konstantinos Lymperis: /* Reviewer 2, Konstantinos Lymperis, s142330 */

2015-09-24T08:58:19Z

Reviewer 2, Konstantinos Lymperis, s142330

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:58, 24 September 2015
Line 46:		Line 46:
	===Reviewer 2, Konstantinos Lymperis, s142330===		===Reviewer 2, Konstantinos Lymperis, s142330===

	Good overall image, nice topic and fantastic reference link both inside and outside wiki!		Good overall image, nice topic and fantastic reference link both inside and outside wiki!

	'''Formal aspects'''		'''Formal aspects'''
	Good grammar, not a lot of spelling mistakes. The long sentences, that the others noticed are fixed a lot in this version.		Good grammar, not a lot of spelling mistakes. The long sentences, that the others noticed are fixed a lot in this version.
	The quality of some figures is not good (eg figure 3-4) and I could recommend		The quality of some figures is not good (eg figure 3-4) and I could recommend to re-make them (figure 4) since it is simple and it would improve the readability of some key aspects.
			Also I would say that the eight primary competencies could be graphical represented in order to visualize important information

	'''Content aspects'''		'''Content aspects'''
			The article is characterized by good cohesion and flow between chapters. It gradually 'zooms in' from general to specific. However, I would recommend to focus more the chapter '''What to benchmark''' on the project management aspects.
			Also someone good argue that there should be and some examples in order to help the reader understand general definitions. For example it could be mentioned as a success story of a benchmarking the development of the computer operational systems 'WINDOWS'.

Konstantinos Lymperis at 08:52, 24 September 2015

2015-09-24T08:52:55Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:52, 24 September 2015
Line 43:		Line 43:
	*Benchmarking during project execution		*Benchmarking during project execution
	*Post-project benchmarking		*Post-project benchmarking

			===Reviewer 2, Konstantinos Lymperis, s142330===

			Good overall image, nice topic and fantastic reference link both inside and outside wiki!

			'''Formal aspects'''
			Good grammar, not a lot of spelling mistakes. The long sentences, that the others noticed are fixed a lot in this version.
			The quality of some figures is not good (eg figure 3-4) and I could recommend
			'''Content aspects'''

Lessisv: /* Reviewer 3, lessisv */

2015-09-22T22:31:24Z

Reviewer 3, lessisv

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:31, 22 September 2015
Line 37:		Line 37:

	''' Conclusion and advices.'''		''' Conclusion and advices.'''
	All in all a well structured article, giving the reader to understand the topic in a satisfactory depth. My only advice would be to maybe use bullet points to better illustrate some parts. For example after Figure 3, when talking about the different phases that benchmarking could be applied, it would be cleaner for the reader to have it presented		All in all a well structured article, giving the reader to understand the topic in a very satisfactory depth. My only advice would be to maybe use bullet points to better illustrate some parts. For example after Figure 3, when talking about the different phases that benchmarking could be applied, it would be cleaner for the reader to have it presented
	through bullet points.		through bullet points.
	eg.		eg.

Lessisv: /* Reviewer 3, lessisv */

2015-09-22T21:29:05Z

Reviewer 3, lessisv

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:29, 22 September 2015
Line 34:		Line 34:

	'''Content aspects.'''		'''Content aspects.'''
	The article clearly relates to project management and in fact dedicates a whole section on it "Benchmarking in Project Management". I takes full advantage of the word limit (3000 words) and the content is presented in a very logical way. Excellent use of references throughout the article. I also really liked the detailed '''Limitations''' section as it is very important for the reader not only to understand what a method can do, but also when is not advised to use.		The article clearly relates to project management and in fact dedicates a whole section on it "Benchmarking in Project Management". It takes full advantage of the word limit (3000 words) and the content is presented in a very logical way. Excellent use of references throughout the article. I also really liked the detailed '''Limitations''' section as it is very important for the reader not only to understand what a method can do, but also when is not advised to use.

	''' Conclusion and advices.'''		''' Conclusion and advices.'''