Talk:Opportunity research - Revision history

S170073 at 10:11, 19 February 2018

2018-02-19T10:11:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:11, 19 February 2018
Line 112:		Line 112:
	''Good bibliography.		''Good bibliography.
	My recommendation is include more PMI and mandatory bibliography because this issue is further discussed in some of the books and would be a good point include them in the article''		My recommendation is include more PMI and mandatory bibliography because this issue is further discussed in some of the books and would be a good point include them in the article''

			==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Argyro Soumpourlou''==
			===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===
			''It is clear and the reader understands the topic of the article. The mandatory references are included. ''

			===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 argument of the article is clearly stated and the structure is logical. In the paragraph opportunities as risks, a conclusion is needed. Overall, the article is analyzed from the project, program and portfolio management point of view as it is needed.''

			===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===
			''In general language is good, but in some sentences the meaning is a bit unclear. For example: the last sentence of Opportunities as Risks. Maybe a different punctuation can help the reader to understand.''

			===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===
			''Figures are clear and explanatory.''


			===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===
			''The article could be useful for managers to identify and manage opportunities in a project, program or portfolio.''

			===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 article summarizes the material from the references and it is easy to be understood.''

			===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===
			''In the article relevant and scientific references are included.''

David Moya Perrino: /* Answer 5 */

2018-02-18T22:49:35Z

Answer 5

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:49, 18 February 2018
Line 83:		Line 83:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	''It is ~~interesenting~~ and ''		''It is interesting and clear. Some sub-parts are too short and more infomation would complete the article ''

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

David Moya Perrino at 22:48, 18 February 2018

2018-02-18T22:48:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:48, 18 February 2018
Line 21:		Line 21:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''It is interesting, clear and relevant but language could be improved in some part in order to get a more formal and academical writing.''

	===Question 2 · TEXT===		===Question 2 · TEXT===
Line 37:		Line 37:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''Structure and logic of the article is ok''

	===Question 3 · TEXT===		===Question 3 · TEXT===
Line 49:		Line 49:

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''There are some parts that could be more formal and a better style could be used. I would revise the text in order to include some changes in grammar.

			Spelling errors:
			Affect organizations as a whole and entire GROUP of stakeholders might be in favor or against taking it
			non-beneficial
			Each of them HAS different interests that might differ and contradict from the others.
			THESE steps are carried out by different people according to in which level the opportunity is.
			It is carried out by the ?¿adecuad?¿ team at the ?¿adecuad?¿ step as not all opportunities are the same (see types of opportunities)
			''

	===Question 4 · TEXT===		===Question 4 · TEXT===
Line 61:		Line 69:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''They are clear and relevant.
			I would include the example table before the references
			Maybe, it would be relevant include in some sections a table or a picture to sumarize ''

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===
Line 73:		Line 83:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''It is interesenting and ''

	===Question 6 · TEXT===		===Question 6 · TEXT===
Line 85:		Line 95:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''It is relevant.
			More insight could be done in order to add relevance to the text''

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===
Line 99:		Line 110:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''Good bibliography.
			My recommendation is include more PMI and mandatory bibliography because this issue is further discussed in some of the books and would be a good point include them in the article''

David Moya Perrino: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: David Moya */

2018-02-18T22:26:29Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: David Moya

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:26, 18 February 2018
Line 12:		Line 12:
	Please check again the point 5, Individual Assignment of the Course handbook and Reference Reading material for the Wiki Assignment and Project Work.		Please check again the point 5, Individual Assignment of the Course handbook and Reference Reading material for the Wiki Assignment and Project Work.

	==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''David Moya''==		==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''David Moya Perrino''==
	===Question 1 · TEXT===		===Question 1 · TEXT===
	'''Quality of the summary:'''		'''Quality of the summary:'''

David Moya Perrino: /* Abstract Feedback */

2018-02-18T22:23:53Z

Abstract Feedback

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:23, 18 February 2018
Line 11:		Line 11:

	Please check again the point 5, Individual Assignment of the Course handbook and Reference Reading material for the Wiki Assignment and Project Work.		Please check again the point 5, Individual Assignment of the Course handbook and Reference Reading material for the Wiki Assignment and Project Work.

			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''David Moya''==
			===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''

S122906 at 08:28, 15 February 2018

2018-02-15T08:28:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:28, 15 February 2018
Line 8:		Line 8:
	The abstract describes the need to look for opportunities, however is not clear who is in charge to look for this opportunities, the abstract is more related within an organization environment than a Project/Program/Portfolio environment.		The abstract describes the need to look for opportunities, however is not clear who is in charge to look for this opportunities, the abstract is more related within an organization environment than a Project/Program/Portfolio environment.

	However you can investigate what is this process to validate/accept a project into a program/portfolio what will be the role of a Program/Portfolio manager in this process		However you can investigate what is this process to validate/accept a project into a program/portfolio what will be the role of a Program/Portfolio manager in this process.

			Please check again the point 5, Individual Assignment of the Course handbook and Reference Reading material for the Wiki Assignment and Project Work.

S122906: /* Abstract Feedback */

2018-02-15T08:24:48Z

Abstract Feedback

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:24, 15 February 2018
Line 8:		Line 8:
	The abstract describes the need to look for opportunities, however is not clear who is in charge to look for this opportunities, the abstract is more related within an organization environment than a Project/Program/Portfolio environment.		The abstract describes the need to look for opportunities, however is not clear who is in charge to look for this opportunities, the abstract is more related within an organization environment than a Project/Program/Portfolio environment.

	However you can investigate what is this process to validate/accept a project into a program/portfolio what will be the role of a Program/Portfolio manager i this process		However you can investigate what is this process to validate/accept a project into a program/portfolio what will be the role of a Program/Portfolio manager in this process

S122906: Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; is not clear enough, check my comments below. Language; Ok. References; missing references. The abstract describes the need to look for ..."

2018-02-15T08:24:27Z

Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; is not clear enough, check my comments below. Language; Ok. References; missing references. The abstract describes the need to look for ..."

New page

==Abstract Feedback==
Text Clarity; is not clear enough, check my comments below.

Language; Ok.

References; missing references.

The abstract describes the need to look for opportunities, however is not clear who is in charge to look for this opportunities, the abstract is more related within an organization environment than a Project/Program/Portfolio environment.

However you can investigate what is this process to validate/accept a project into a program/portfolio what will be the role of a Program/Portfolio manager i this process