Talk:Benefits Realisation Management (BRM) - Revision history

DimKok: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: "Dimitrios Kokkinopoulos" */ new section

2019-02-26T12:53:44Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: "Dimitrios Kokkinopoulos": new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:53, 26 February 2019
Line 195:		Line 195:
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	I suggest to link the references with text		I suggest to link the references with text

			== Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: "Dimitrios Kokkinopoulos" ==

			===Question 1 · TEXT===
			'''Quality of the summary:'''

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

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 1===
			Representative, personally I would more paragraph structure.


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

			Is the argument clear? Yes

			Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes

			Does one part build upon the other? Yes

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

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 2===
			Good logical flow and broad coverage.


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

			Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Mostly

			Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 3===
			Some repetitive phrases and the usage of word "wether" should be limited and fixed.


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

			Are figures and tables clear? Yes

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

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 4===
			Clarifying figures, would fix a little bit the visual siting of them (size and captions).


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

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

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

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 5===
			Very analytical but some more practical approach should be included to avoid repeating the key points of BRM.


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

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

			Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? No

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 6===
			The concept by its nature seems to be shallow and easily understood. Deeper treatment would include hands-on approach


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

			Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Yes

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

			Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 7===
			According to the standards.

S182299: /* Answer 7 */

2019-02-25T21:46:03Z

Answer 7

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:46, 25 February 2019
Line 194:		Line 194:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	-		I suggest to link the references with text

S182299: /* Answer 5 */

2019-02-25T21:45:26Z

Answer 5

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:45, 25 February 2019
Line 168:		Line 168:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	~~''Answer here''~~		I would suggest to contribute more on the relation between benefits and success of a program and maybe state some differences between them

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

S182299: /* Answer 6 */

2019-02-25T21:45:11Z

Answer 6

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:45, 25 February 2019
Line 180:		Line 180:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	~~I would suggest to contribute more on the relation between benefits and success of a program and maybe state some differences between them~~		-

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===

S182299: /* Question 5 · TEXT */

2019-02-25T21:44:14Z

Question 5 · TEXT

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:44, 25 February 2019
Line 161:		Line 161:
	'''Interest and relevance:'''		'''Interest and relevance:'''

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

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

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

S182299: /* Question 6 · TEXT */

2019-02-25T21:43:28Z

Question 6 · TEXT

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:43, 25 February 2019
Line 173:		Line 173:
	'''Depth of treatment:'''		'''Depth of treatment:'''

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

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

S182299: /* Answer 6 */

2019-02-25T21:42:51Z

Answer 6

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:42, 25 February 2019
Line 180:		Line 180:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	~~''Answer here''~~		I would suggest to contribute more on the relation between benefits and success of a program and maybe state some differences between them

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===

S182299: /* Answer 7 */

2019-02-25T21:38:27Z

Answer 7

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:38, 25 February 2019
Line 194:		Line 194:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
			-

S182299: /* Answer 7 */

2019-02-25T21:38:03Z

Answer 7

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:38, 25 February 2019
Line 194:		Line 194:

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

S182299: /* Question 7 · TEXT */

2019-02-25T21:37:47Z

Question 7 · TEXT

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:37, 25 February 2019
Line 185:		Line 185:
	'''Annotated bibliography:'''		'''Annotated bibliography:'''

	Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?		Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Yes

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

	Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?		Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?