Talk:Need-Based Theories of Motivation - Revision history

S140234 at 21:34, 19 February 2018

2018-02-19T21:34:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:34, 19 February 2018
Line 88:		Line 88:
	''The article is missing all the references. Remember to find reference related to the topic and use the mandatory references too. ''		''The article is missing all the references. Remember to find reference related to the topic and use the mandatory references too. ''

	==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Walther Emil Eriksen''==		==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Walther Emil Eriksen''==
	===Question 1 · TEXT===		===Question 1 · TEXT===

Walther Emil Eriksen: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Walther Emil Eriksen */

2018-02-19T17:15:55Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Walther Emil Eriksen

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:15, 19 February 2018
Line 90:		Line 90:
	==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Walther Emil Eriksen''==		==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Walther Emil Eriksen''==
	===Question 1 · TEXT===		===Question 1 · TEXT===

	~~NOTE: only abstract was visible when giving feedback on Monday 19th.~~


	'''Quality of the summary:'''		'''Quality of the summary:'''
Line 98:		Line 95:
	Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?		Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	~~Key focus is clearly on value proposition canvas. However, the 2nd part of summary begins to describe the canvas into detail.~~
	~~Maybe this part should move a little further down in article? Instead, a suggestion is to be more general, summarizing points/insights in this part.~~


	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''The summary is not clear. The key points of the article are missing. Try to incorporate more arguments to why need theories are important for a project manager. Core references would also be good to incorporate to make the key points and arguments more reliable''

	===Question 2 · TEXT===		===Question 2 · TEXT===
Line 110:		Line 104:

	Is the argument clear?		Is the argument clear?
	~~Yes~~

	Is there a logical flow to the article?		Is there a logical flow to the article?
	~~Yes~~

	Does one part build upon the other?		Does one part build upon the other?
	~~N/A~~

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

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?
	~~- Make a part early in the article explaining the whole canvas~~
	~~- Use examples to bridge the gap between theory and practice~~
	~~- Be critical towards the method and look into who/what kind of project this is really valuable for~~

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''The article is missing arguments throughout. It is providing methods without elaborating on when to use them and the relation to a project manager. Article is clearly not finished and the application part specifically needs more content.''

	===Question 3 · TEXT===		===Question 3 · TEXT===
Line 133:		Line 120:

	Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?		Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?
	~~Yes~~

	Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?		Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?
	~~Yes~~

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?
	I would avoid using "pain" and "gain". If you want to include this, then I suggest to elaborate this. What is it that a customer avoids when "how the products aid their customers and relieve them of their ‘pain’"?

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''Minor grammatical errors, but overall a precise language in the article''

	===Question 4 · TEXT===		===Question 4 · TEXT===
Line 148:		Line 132:

	Are figures and tables clear?		Are figures and tables clear?
	~~Yes~~

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

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?
	~~The figure in text now is as it should be :-)~~

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''Figures should be re-made by the author and their content needs to be elaborated to understand their importance toward the arguments.''

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===
Line 163:		Line 144:

	Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?		Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?
	~~Yes especially if it bridges the gap between practical and academics, then it could be useful in a project.~~

	Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?		Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?
	~~Not yet.~~

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?
	~~Write the rest of the article.~~

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''The relevance needs to be more precisely elaborated. What does the different needs theories mean for a manager?''

	===Question 6 · TEXT===		===Question 6 · TEXT===
Line 178:		Line 156:

	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?
	~~Not yet.~~

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?
	~~As mentioned before:~~
	~~- bridge gap between practical and academics~~
	~~- be critical~~

	~~And~~
	~~- focus on management~~

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''Not yet, more content is needed and more precise arguments. Examples from real life cases could be used to make the relevance more clear.''

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===
Line 198:		Line 168:

	Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?		Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?
	No

	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?
	~~Look at slides regarding annotated bibliograpy~~

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''Article is missing references and annotated bibliography.''

Walther Emil Eriksen: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Julianna Apli */

2018-02-19T16:53:45Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Julianna Apli

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:53, 19 February 2018
Line 87:		Line 87:
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''The article is missing all the references. Remember to find reference related to the topic and use the mandatory references too. ''		''The article is missing all the references. Remember to find reference related to the topic and use the mandatory references too. ''


	==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Walther Emil Eriksen''==		==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Walther Emil Eriksen''==

Walther Emil Eriksen: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Julianna Apli */

2018-02-19T16:42:16Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Julianna Apli

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:42, 19 February 2018
Line 87:		Line 87:
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''The article is missing all the references. Remember to find reference related to the topic and use the mandatory references too. ''		''The article is missing all the references. Remember to find reference related to the topic and use the mandatory references too. ''


			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Walther Emil Eriksen''==
			===Question 1 · TEXT===

			NOTE: only abstract was visible when giving feedback on Monday 19th.


			'''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?

			Key focus is clearly on value proposition canvas. However, the 2nd part of summary begins to describe the canvas into detail.
			Maybe this part should move a little further down in article? Instead, a suggestion is to be more general, summarizing points/insights in this part.


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

			===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?
			N/A

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

			What would you suggest to improve?
			- Make a part early in the article explaining the whole canvas
			- Use examples to bridge the gap between theory and practice
			- Be critical towards the method and look into who/what kind of project this is really valuable for

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

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

			Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?
			Yes

			Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?
			Yes

			What would you suggest to improve?
			I would avoid using "pain" and "gain". If you want to include this, then I suggest to elaborate this. What is it that a customer avoids when "how the products aid their customers and relieve them of their ‘pain’"?

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

			===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?
			The figure in text now is as it should be :-)

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

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

			Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?
			Yes especially if it bridges the gap between practical and academics, then it could be useful in a project.

			Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?
			Not yet.

			What would you suggest to improve?
			Write the rest of the article.

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

			===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?
			Not yet.

			What would you suggest to improve?
			As mentioned before:
			- bridge gap between practical and academics
			- be critical

			And
			- focus on management

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

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

			Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?
			No

			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?
			Look at slides regarding annotated bibliograpy

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

S172414: /* Answer 7 */

2018-02-18T18:56:06Z

Answer 7

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:56, 18 February 2018
Line 86:		Line 86:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''The article is missing all the references. Remember to find reference related to the topic and use the mandatory references too. ''

S172414: /* Answer 6 */

2018-02-18T18:55:52Z

Answer 6

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:55, 18 February 2018
Line 72:		Line 72:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''The article is very general, right now is more like a description of the theories. An improvement could be to make it more precise, connect it more to project management and explain step by step how they could be used by project managers for example.''

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

S172414: /* Answer 5 */

2018-02-18T18:55:40Z

Answer 5

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:55, 18 February 2018
Line 60:		Line 60:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''The article is need to elaborate further on why and how is the theories relevant. I would suggest to find a case study and illustrate the theories with the help of it.''

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

S172414: /* Answer 4 */

2018-02-18T18:55:24Z

Answer 4

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:55, 18 February 2018
Line 48:		Line 48:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''The figures are not really illustrative, it would make more sense to either make your own tables or write down the content of the tables in the text. I would suggest to add figure text and references to every figure/table.''

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===

S172414: /* Answer 3 */

2018-02-18T18:55:02Z

Answer 3

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:55, 18 February 2018
Line 36:		Line 36:

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''Grammar is okay apart from a few spelling mistakes.''

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

S172414: /* Answer 2 */

2018-02-18T18:54:49Z

Answer 2

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:54, 18 February 2018
Line 24:		Line 24:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''The article parts do not really build upon each other. I would suggest to follow the recommended structure for the article and move the draft chapter under big idea. It nice to start with the background/history and maybe add some more explanation about the usage and the relevance of the theories under this chapter. The list of the theories could be moved under application, with adding how is it used and why is it relevant. It would be nice to additionally compare the theories to each other.''

	===Question 3 · TEXT===		===Question 3 · TEXT===