Talk:Potentials of Key Performance Indicators - Revision history

Ftsn: /* Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Frederik Sørensen */

2019-02-25T13:25:26Z

Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Frederik Sørensen

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:25, 25 February 2019
Line 102:		Line 102:
	''I noticed some lack of references in the article (where did the author get information about “Defining the project workflow”? There’s only a reference on the related figure) No annotated bibliography is provided by the author so far, but I guess it will be added in the “Bibliography” chapter already present in the table of contents :)''		''I noticed some lack of references in the article (where did the author get information about “Defining the project workflow”? There’s only a reference on the related figure) No annotated bibliography is provided by the author so far, but I guess it will be added in the “Bibliography” chapter already present in the table of contents :)''

	==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Frederik Sørensen''==		==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Frederik Sørensen - S153237''==
	===Question 1 · TEXT===		===Question 1 · TEXT===
	'''Quality of the summary:'''		'''Quality of the summary:'''

Ftsn at 13:24, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T13:24:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:24, 25 February 2019
Line 101:		Line 101:
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''I noticed some lack of references in the article (where did the author get information about “Defining the project workflow”? There’s only a reference on the related figure) No annotated bibliography is provided by the author so far, but I guess it will be added in the “Bibliography” chapter already present in the table of contents :)''		''I noticed some lack of references in the article (where did the author get information about “Defining the project workflow”? There’s only a reference on the related figure) No annotated bibliography is provided by the author so far, but I guess it will be added in the “Bibliography” chapter already present in the table of contents :)''

			==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Frederik Sørensen''==
			===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===
			''I like the content of the abstract, and you get an idea of what KPIs are about, and where/when they are applied.''

			===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 arguments are clear, but the flow is lacking. I would suggest that you reorganize the article, building it up in a more chronological way - starting with the definitions of KPIs, and so on.''

			===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===
			''A minor correction would be that you systematically write "KPI's" - it should be written "KPIs" or "KPIs'". Furthermore I would run the whole article through Word in order to check for spelling and grammar corrections that should be made, but nothing serious. Aside from this, the language is precise, and easy to read and 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 of acceptable quality, and substantiates the content of the article. Furthermore, sources of inspiration is clearly stated beneath each figure.''

			===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 is definitely of academic relevance, and relevant to the field of APPPM, though it should be reviewed thoroughly according to the feedback that you have received :-)''

			===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===
			''A revised version of this article would definitely make it more interesting to read academically, but as-is has room for improvement.''

			===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===
			'''Annotated bibliography' is marked as "TO BE ADDED", so I will not comment on this, as I suppose that it is work-in-progress.''

GiorgiaS: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Giorgia Scartozzi */

2019-02-24T15:47:10Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Giorgia Scartozzi

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:47, 24 February 2019
Line 13:		Line 13:
	\|}		\|}

	==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Giorgia Scartozzi''==		==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Giorgia Scartozzi - S182656''==
	===Question 1 · TEXT===		===Question 1 · TEXT===
	'''Quality of the summary:'''		'''Quality of the summary:'''
Line 22:		Line 22:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''The abstract is quite clear, it gives a general introduction of the subject. Maybe the article purpose needs to be slightly elaborated (why is the title "Potentials of KPIs"?). I would suggest making a direct description about how the chapters in the article are related to what was written in the abstract''

	===Question 2 · TEXT===		===Question 2 · TEXT===
Line 38:		Line 38:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''While reading, I encountered a lack of logical flow. I would have liked to read the chapter “Defining KPIs” (and the sub-chapter “Defining the project workflow”) before, and not as the last part of the article; so basically I would have preferred first an explanation on what the indicators and their general purpose are, how to define KPIs in the project, and then what their potentials are. I would suggest a reorganization of the article, just to have more connection and fluency between the chapters.''

	===Question 3 · TEXT===		===Question 3 · TEXT===
Line 50:		Line 50:

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''There are errors (commas when they’re not necessary, mis-spelling, improper writing of sentences… I can indicate those errors in the article if needed (:) that make the article not very fluent while reading. I would suggest a review of each part.''

	===Question 4 · TEXT===		===Question 4 · TEXT===
Line 62:		Line 62:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''The figures are clear and self-explanatory. The author gave a specific description, including if the figure is self-made/inspired by.''

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===
Line 74:		Line 74:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''I think the article could be of potential relevance if a general revision will be done by following the feedbacks.''

	===Question 6 · TEXT===		===Question 6 · TEXT===
Line 86:		Line 86:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''In general, the article is interesting to read, but maybe it could be further elaborated in order to make a higher contribution.''

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===
Line 100:		Line 100:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''I noticed some lack of references in the article (where did the author get information about “Defining the project workflow”? There’s only a reference on the related figure) No annotated bibliography is provided by the author so far, but I guess it will be added in the “Bibliography” chapter already present in the table of contents :)''

GiorgiaS at 17:49, 23 February 2019

2019-02-23T17:49:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:49, 23 February 2019
Line 13:		Line 13:
	\|}		\|}

	==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''~~Sarantis Pavlidis~~''==		==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Giorgia Scartozzi''==
	===Question 1 · TEXT===		===Question 1 · TEXT===
	'''Quality of the summary:'''		'''Quality of the summary:'''

GiorgiaS: /* Feedback on Abstract: */

2019-02-23T17:48:08Z

Feedback on Abstract:

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:48, 23 February 2019
Line 12:		Line 12:
	\|'''References'''\|\| Missing references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references		\|'''References'''\|\| Missing references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references
	\|}		\|}

			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Sarantis Pavlidis''==
			===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''

Raquel Valente: Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity & language'''|| Good |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good |- |'''Article purpose explanation'''|| This needs ..."

2019-02-19T09:18:43Z

Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity & language'''|| Good |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good |- |'''Article purpose explanation'''|| This needs ..."

New page

==Feedback on Abstract:==

{|
|'''Text clarity & language'''|| Good
|-
|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good
|-
|'''Article purpose explanation'''|| This needs to be elaborated
|-
|'''Relevance to curriculum '''|| Relevant. Make sure you clearly relate it with project, program and portfolio management.
|-
|'''References'''|| Missing references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references
|}