Talk:Resources in Project Management - Revision history

Helenegravdal at 18:24, 24 February 2019

2019-02-24T18:24:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:24, 24 February 2019
Line 51:		Line 51:
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''This part seems fine.''		''This part seems fine.''

			==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Helene Gravdal'' ==
			===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 clear and states following questions you are going to answer in the article. It is clear that the topic is related to program/project/ portfolio management, by including commonly asked example questions from a project managers perspective, good! ''
			===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 structure of the article is good, with supplementary describing figures and tables. The argument is stated in the summary with a logical flow of the article, placing the different chapters in the right order. Well done! ''
			===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===
			''Would it be possible to change some of the wording in the abstract, as most of the sentences begin with “resource/s” or is included in almost every sentence. Apart from that, the it is clear and straight to the point. The style is precise and well structured, giving the reader a good overview.''
			===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===
			''It would be great to have a consistent chose of colours for the figures and tables to get a better flow. If it is possible to get a higher pixel quality that would be nice. Apart from that, the figures and tables illustrate a good overview of the supplementary texts. ''
			===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===
			''As I mentioned, the relevance of the article is already stated in the summary. Great! ''
			===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===
			''It would be great to extend the conclusion a bit more to relate the different chapters to one other. It seems like the conclusion is more of a summary of the report than a conclusion. This part should highlight the main arguments and should aim for a answer or reflection to the main topic. ''
			===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===
			''The annotated bibliography gives a good overview of the main resources used in the article. ''

S145492: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Helena Rejndrup */

2019-02-24T17:37:17Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Helena Rejndrup

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:37, 24 February 2019
Line 50:		Line 50:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''~~Answer will come later..~~.''		''This part seems fine.''

S145492: Created page with "==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Helena Rejndrup'' == ===Question 1 · TEXT=== '''Quality of the summary:''' Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution o..."

2019-02-24T09:27:13Z

Created page with "==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Helena Rejndrup'' == ===Question 1 · TEXT=== '''Quality of the summary:''' Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution o..."

New page

==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Helena Rejndrup'' ==
===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 sufficient.''
===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===
''A lot of terms are mentioned and explained, it makes me forget the key focus. Also I don’t really see how they all connect. It would be nice to have a bit more flow, to make it a bit clearer how the terms are connected. Some of the sections begins a bit random: “It is not sufficient to only have some inputs. There also have to be some tools/equipment for making sure the project parts are being implemented.” You mention project parts, but what project parts? ''
===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===
''Smaller errors: “looked out how the…” (Plan resource management). The language is nice, but it could be more spot on. I don’t know if I would say things like “Project charter is probably one of the most confusing areas” as it seems like you think it is confusing, and I do not know if that is relevant to the reader''
===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===
''Did you remake the figures yourself? I got the impression that we have to do that. Quite a few of the illustration are blurry.''
===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 seems very relevant to the topic, though i''
===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===
''There are so many elements in the article, it seems a bit shallow some of it. I think it would be nicer to focus on fewer parts of this, and then tell how and why this is important to manage the resources in project management.''
===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 will come later...''