Talk:Resource breakdown structure - Revision history

Mariapanousi: /* Answer 7 */

2019-02-25T22:01:59Z

Answer 7

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:01, 25 February 2019
Line 181:		Line 181:
	The references are good, you should also check if you find relevant information to ISO 21500 for project management.		The references are good, you should also check if you find relevant information to ISO 21500 for project management.

	The topic seems to be very interesting(although it was new for me), the article until know is well-structured , so I am sure that it will be a very interesting topic so I am waiting to read the whole article :)		The topic seems to be very interesting(although it was new for me), the article until know is well-structured , so I am sure that it will be a very interesting topic and I am waiting to read the whole article :)

Mariapanousi at 22:00, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T22:00:54Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:00, 25 February 2019
Line 14:		Line 14:


	Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: Μaria Stefaniotou		Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: Μaria Stefaniotou


Line 89:		Line 89:

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

			==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Μaria Panousi''==
			===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===
			The summary is well written and clear. It would be a good idea to add also the circumstances that it is suggested to use it.

			===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? Until now, yes.

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 2===
			Although the article is still in progress, it seems to be clear, well-structured with a good logical flow going into the application as well as the limitations. I would suggest to add an example of Resource Breakdown structure.

			===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?

			===Answer 3===
			Good at grammar and spelling and the language is used properly, I do not have specific suggestions for improvement.

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

			Are figures and tables clear?

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

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 4===
			You may use a flow chart to support your application part as well as your example.

			===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===
			The application of resource breakdown structure and the limitations that are analysed seem to be very relevant to the topic.
			As I can see, you will also focus on the advantages . I believe that is very important to explain why to use it and the importance of resource breakdown structure to project management.

			===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?

			I think that the article would be interesting for both a practitioner and academic to read.
			The application that is analysed may be more relevant for a practitioner but the limitations combined with the advantages will make the article interesting for an academic too.

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

			Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?

			Does it briefly summarise 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===

			The references are good, you should also check if you find relevant information to ISO 21500 for project management.

			The topic seems to be very interesting(although it was new for me), the article until know is well-structured , so I am sure that it will be a very interesting topic so I am waiting to read the whole article :)

M Stefaniotou: /* Feedback on Abstract: */

2019-02-25T21:15:57Z

Feedback on Abstract:

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:15, 25 February 2019
Line 15:		Line 15:

	Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: Μaria Stefaniotou		Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: Μaria Stefaniotou


	Question 1 · TEXT		Question 1 · TEXT
	Quality of the summary: Very good		Quality of the summary: Very good
Line 65:		Line 67:

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


	Question 6 · TEXT		Question 6 · TEXT
Line 74:		Line 77:

	What would you suggest to improve? Maybe mention tools that are usually used with RBS, for keeping better track of waht is needed. (maybe it is included in the template mentioned, depending on the project). For example a sort of calendar where the available resources are noted, or a document with the predictions of needed materials, employees e.t.c.		What would you suggest to improve? Maybe mention tools that are usually used with RBS, for keeping better track of waht is needed. (maybe it is included in the template mentioned, depending on the project). For example a sort of calendar where the available resources are noted, or a document with the predictions of needed materials, employees e.t.c.


	Question 7 · TEXT		Question 7 · TEXT

M Stefaniotou at 21:14, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T21:14:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:14, 25 February 2019
Line 12:		Line 12:
	\|'''References'''\|\| Good references.		\|'''References'''\|\| Good references.
	\|}		\|}


			Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: Μaria Stefaniotou
			Question 1 · TEXT
			Quality of the summary: Very good

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

			What would you suggest to improve?-


			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? -


			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? Only a couple things, that would be seen in second reading. For example in the Limitations part, second paragraph, second sentence, the word "that" is written twice. Also, in the Big Idea part, the first sentence of the last paragraph is maybe a little bit confusing. Otherwise, everything is clear and well stated.


			Question 4 · TEXT
			Figures and tables:

			Are figures and tables clear? Not added yet

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

			What would you suggest to improve? -


			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? -

			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? Yes

			What would you suggest to improve? Maybe mention tools that are usually used with RBS, for keeping better track of waht is needed. (maybe it is included in the template mentioned, depending on the project). For example a sort of calendar where the available resources are noted, or a document with the predictions of needed materials, employees e.t.c.

			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? -

Hani Mike Rae Selim: Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity & language'''|| The text is good, however it can be more coherent. Try reading the abstract again and add more punctuation whene..."

2019-02-19T10:49:23Z

Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity & language'''|| The text is good, however it can be more coherent. Try reading the abstract again and add more punctuation whene..."

New page

==Feedback on Abstract:==

{|
|'''Text clarity & language'''|| The text is good, however it can be more coherent. Try reading the abstract again and add more punctuation whenever necessary.
|-
|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good. Could the standards/theories in "Project Human Resource Management" (PMBOK) be touched here?
|-
|'''Article purpose explanation'''|| Well explained, however coherent text will make it even clearer.
|-
|'''Relevance to curriculum '''|| Relevant.
|-
|'''References'''|| Good references.
|}