Talk:Managing Successful Programmes (MSP) - Revision history

Anne at 19:53, 19 February 2018

2018-02-19T19:53:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:53, 19 February 2018
Line 108:		Line 108:
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''Nice with the reflection of limitations. References needs to be done - but sure you already know that ;-)''		''Nice with the reflection of limitations. References needs to be done - but sure you already know that ;-)''


			==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Anne''==
			===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===
			''The summary is very clear and covers the main/key focus well.''

			===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===
			''Your argumentation is very clear and concise. It is well-structured, which gives the article a great flow. ''

			===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===
			''Your written language is good and precise - no huge grammatical or spelling errors. Some of your sentences is very long with many commas, maybe it can be shortened a bit. ''

			===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===
			''Your figure is very clear and meaningful for the article. It is good that you have the illustration and afterward elaborate the theory (they complement each other nicely) - again the flow of the article works really well. Please notice that your reference to the Figure is missing the number. ''

			===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 highly relevant and it is made very clear in the article.''

			===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===
			''The tool is well described throughout the entire article. A stepwise guidance - a how to - could be beneficial and make the article even more relevant for the reader.''

			===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===
			''You are missing the references - I have noticed that you have them in the text, but you have not referenced it 'correctly', so please remember that.''

Nanna at 19:50, 18 February 2018

2018-02-18T19:50:05Z

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
-==Peer review from Nanna (18/02/2018)==
+==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Nanna''==
-'''Question 1: Is your Wiki article relevant?:'''
+Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
-'''Question 2: Is the Wiki article usable?'''
+What would you suggest to improve?
-The figure is a good illustration and used to support the text nicely. Be aware the a figure number is missing in the text ("Figure X"). The flow is logic and there is a coherence and consistancy throughout. Grammar and spelling is fine. A few sentences are really long and could maybe be shorter.
+===Answer 1===
-'''Question 3: Is the Wiki article credible?'''
+===Question 2 · TEXT===
-Nice with the reflection of limitations. References needs to be done - but sure you already know that ;-)
+'''Structure and logic of the article:'''

Nanna at 18:41, 18 February 2018

2018-02-18T18:41:37Z

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 The topic is relevant for project managers and the purpose is clearly articulated.
-'''Question 2: Is the Wiki article usable?'''
+The figure is a good illustration and used to support the text nicely. Be aware the a figure number is missing in the text ("Figure X"). The flow is logic and there is a coherence and consistancy throughout. Grammar and spelling is fine. A few sentences are really long and could maybe be shorter.
 '''Question 3: Is the Wiki article credible?'''
 Nice with the reflection of limitations. References needs to be done - but sure you already know that ;-)

Nanna at 18:32, 18 February 2018

2018-02-18T18:32:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:32, 18 February 2018
Line 20:		Line 20:


	==Peer review from Nanna (18/02/2018)		==Peer review from Nanna (18/02/2018)==

	'''Question 1: Is your Wiki article relevant?:'''		'''Question 1: Is your Wiki article relevant?:'''

Nanna at 18:32, 18 February 2018

2018-02-18T18:32:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:32, 18 February 2018
Line 18:		Line 18:
	<li> Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the program management community more than a normal web search		<li> Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the program management community more than a normal web search
	</ol>		</ol>


			==Peer review from Nanna (18/02/2018)

			'''Question 1: Is your Wiki article relevant?:'''
			The topic is relevant for project managers and the purpose is clearly articulated.


			'''Question 2: Is the Wiki article usable?'''
			• Does the article provide hands on guidance? Can the reader (at least prototypically) apply
			the method after reading the article?
			• 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?
			• Quality of the summary: Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or
			contribution of the article clear?
			• Formal aspects:
			▪ Figures and tables: Are figures and tables clear and provide meaningful support?
			Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?
			▪ 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?
			▪ Grammar and style: Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Is the
			language precise without unnecessary fill words?

			'''Question 3: Is the Wiki article credible?'''
			Nice with the reflection of limitations. References needs to be done - but sure you already know that ;-)

Hani Mike Rae Selim: /* Abstract Feedback */

2018-02-14T17:46:12Z

Abstract Feedback

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:46, 14 February 2018
Line 5:		Line 5:
	'''Language''' Minor errors e.g. " To achieve this, the '''''he''''' main idea is to sub-divide..." - remove "he"?		'''Language''' Minor errors e.g. " To achieve this, the '''''he''''' main idea is to sub-divide..." - remove "he"?

	'''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Good, but consider going back to basics. Define what program management is and reference standards/~~material~~. Also, is it true that ''all'' organizations need good program management? Also, what defines a successful program?		'''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Good, but consider going back to basics. Define what program management is and reference standards/mandatory list of references to add credibility. Also, is it true that ''all'' organizations need good program management? Also, what defines a successful program?

	'''Purpose explanation''' Good and sets up the reader's expectations well		'''Purpose explanation''' Good and sets up the reader's expectations well

Hani Mike Rae Selim at 17:45, 14 February 2018

2018-02-14T17:45:11Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:45, 14 February 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Abstract Feedback==		==Abstract Feedback==

	'''Text clarity''' ~~Text is coherent~~		'''Text clarity''' Good

	'''Language''' Minor errors e.g. " To achieve this, the '''''he''''' main idea is to sub-divide..." - remove "he"?		'''Language''' Minor errors e.g. " To achieve this, the '''''he''''' main idea is to sub-divide..." - remove "he"?

	'''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Good ~~and easy to follow~~, but ~~how does this relate~~ to ~~project magement rather than just organizational~~ management ~~or day-to-day problem solving at work~~? ~~This should be emphasized and clarified in the abstract~~		'''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Good, but consider going back to basics. Define what program management is and reference standards/material. Also, is it true that ''all'' organizations need good program management? Also, what defines a successful program?

	'''Purpose explanation''' Good~~, but can improved once the article scope is narrowed down to a project management knowledge area or areas. Consider briefly explaining the structure of the article~~ and ~~the points to be discussed to set~~ the reader's expectations		'''Purpose explanation''' Good and sets up the reader's expectations well

	'''References''' Missing appropriate references to mandatory list of references		'''References''' Missing appropriate references to mandatory list of references
Line 14:		Line 14:

	<ol>		<ol>
	<li> Who is the reader? ~~Project~~ Manager ~~or Sponsor ect~~?		<li> Who is the reader? Program Manager etc?
	<li> What ~~kind~~ of ~~issues can be tackled using future workshop~~?		<li> What will the reader get out of this?
	<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 program management community more than a normal web search
	</ol>		</ol>

Hani Mike Rae Selim: /* Abstract Feedback */

2018-02-14T17:38:24Z

Abstract Feedback

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:38, 14 February 2018
Line 3:		Line 3:
	'''Text clarity''' Text is coherent		'''Text clarity''' Text is coherent

	'''Language''' Minor errors e.g. " To achieve this, the '''''he''''' main idea is to sub-divide."		'''Language''' Minor errors e.g. " To achieve this, the '''''he''''' main idea is to sub-divide..." - remove "he"?

	'''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Good and easy to follow, but how does this relate to project magement rather than just organizational management or day-to-day problem solving at work? This should be emphasized and clarified in the abstract		'''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Good and easy to follow, but how does this relate to project magement rather than just organizational management or day-to-day problem solving at work? This should be emphasized and clarified in the abstract

Hani Mike Rae Selim: Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== '''Text clarity''' Text is coherent '''Language''' Minor errors e.g. " To achieve this, the '''''he''''' main idea is to sub-divide." '''Desc..."

2018-02-14T17:37:58Z

Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== '''Text clarity''' Text is coherent '''Language''' Minor errors e.g. " To achieve this, the '''''he''''' main idea is to sub-divide." '''Desc..."

New page

==Abstract Feedback==

'''Text clarity''' Text is coherent

'''Language''' Minor errors e.g. " To achieve this, the '''''he''''' main idea is to sub-divide."

'''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Good and easy to follow, but how does this relate to project magement rather than just organizational management or day-to-day problem solving at work? This should be emphasized and clarified in the abstract

'''Purpose explanation''' Good, but can improved once the article scope is narrowed down to a project management knowledge area or areas. Consider briefly explaining the structure of the article and the points to be discussed to set the reader's expectations

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

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

<ol>
<li> Who is the reader? Project Manager or Sponsor ect?
<li> What kind of issues can be tackled using future workshop?
<li> Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project management community more than a normal web search
</ol>