Talk:Risk Management Overview - Revision history

JonasHL: /* Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Casper */

2018-02-26T11:28:55Z

Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Casper

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:28, 26 February 2018
Line 135:		Line 135:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	===~~DONE~~ Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	I like that you clearly state the focus of the article! Yet it would help if it was moved earlier in the abstract of the article.		I like that you clearly state the focus of the article! Yet it would help if it was moved earlier in the abstract of the article.

Line 158:		Line 158:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	===~~DONE~~ Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	The flow of the article is good and each part builds upon the other.		The flow of the article is good and each part builds upon the other.

Line 170:		Line 170:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	===~~DONE~~ Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	There is some spelling mistakes throughout the article. I suggest that you try to double check using the spell checker in word, otherwise I can help you with access to grammarly that can assist you in correcting the mistakes. The writing style is good and makes it interesting to read.		There is some spelling mistakes throughout the article. I suggest that you try to double check using the spell checker in word, otherwise I can help you with access to grammarly that can assist you in correcting the mistakes. The writing style is good and makes it interesting to read.

Line 182:		Line 182:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	===~~DONE~~ Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	You have done a great job here! I have no further comments on how to improve.		You have done a great job here! I have no further comments on how to improve.

Line 194:		Line 194:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	===~~DONE~~ Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	The article is very relevant for both academics and practitioners.		The article is very relevant for both academics and practitioners.
	It is very clear why this subject is relevant reading the article.		It is very clear why this subject is relevant reading the article.
Line 222:		Line 222:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	===~~DONE~~ Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	Thorough made throughout the article with proper referencing. All the key references are summarised well. The only thing I suggest to improve is the spelling of literature in the headline.		Thorough made throughout the article with proper referencing. All the key references are summarised well. The only thing I suggest to improve is the spelling of literature in the headline.

JonasHL: /* Abstract Feedback */

2018-02-26T11:28:07Z

Abstract Feedback

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:28, 26 February 2018
Line 7:		Line 7:
	'''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Very thoroughly explained and good momentum		'''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Very thoroughly explained and good momentum

	'''Purpose explanation''' Well addressed, perhaps expand on whether or not the Risk Management Process applies more to a specific industry? E.g. Oil and Gas where risk is a serious topic ~~(DONE)~~		'''Purpose explanation''' Well addressed, perhaps expand on whether or not the Risk Management Process applies more to a specific industry? E.g. Oil and Gas where risk is a serious topic

	'''References''' Good references. Look at chapter 11 in PMBOK to include further references related to risk in project management context ~~(DONE)~~		'''References''' Good references. Look at chapter 11 in PMBOK to include further references related to risk in project management context

	'''Relevance of article''' Very relevant but consider to:		'''Relevance of article''' Very relevant but consider to:
Line 15:		Line 15:
	<ol>		<ol>
	<li> Ensure that the risk management process concept explanation is embedded in a project management context		<li> Ensure that the risk management process concept explanation is embedded in a project management context
	<li> Avoid focusing too much on risk management from an organizational/operational perspective, but more project managerial, e.g. don't talk about carrying out a risk assessment for operating an oil rig ~~(DONE?)~~		<li> Avoid focusing too much on risk management from an organizational/operational perspective, but more project managerial, e.g. don't talk about carrying out a risk assessment for operating an oil rig
	<li> Consult chapter 11 in PMBOK for inspiration ~~(DONE)~~		<li> Consult chapter 11 in PMBOK for inspiration
	<li> Consult with Josef if in doubt as he is very knowledgeable about project risk management		<li> Consult with Josef if in doubt as he is very knowledgeable about project risk management
	</ol>		</ol>

JonasHL: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Briet */

2018-02-26T11:27:37Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Briet

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:27, 26 February 2018
Line 28:		Line 28:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	===~~DONE~~ Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	The abstract is very clear and concise. I like the fact that you mentioned that the article would only focus on the risks/threats and not the opportunities, which makes the direction of the article clear. I would maybe suggest that you move this last sentence higher in the paragraph just to make it transparent from the beginning what direction you are going for.		The abstract is very clear and concise. I like the fact that you mentioned that the article would only focus on the risks/threats and not the opportunities, which makes the direction of the article clear. I would maybe suggest that you move this last sentence higher in the paragraph just to make it transparent from the beginning what direction you are going for.

Line 44:		Line 44:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	===~~DONE~~ Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	There is a great logical flow to the article and it's very well structured. I would maybe suggest that you try to focus more on the risk management from a project management perspective.		There is a great logical flow to the article and it's very well structured. I would maybe suggest that you try to focus more on the risk management from a project management perspective.

Line 56:		Line 56:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	===~~DONE~~ Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	Very good writing! I noticed some minor spelling errors and few examples of unnecessary fill words. See here below some examples:		Very good writing! I noticed some minor spelling errors and few examples of unnecessary fill words. See here below some examples:

Line 98:		Line 98:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	===~~DONE~~ Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	The article is practical and relevant. I like that you mentioned some examples to explain further the tool which helps the reader to understand the tool better. I don't have any suggestions for improvements.		The article is practical and relevant. I like that you mentioned some examples to explain further the tool which helps the reader to understand the tool better. I don't have any suggestions for improvements.

Line 110:		Line 110:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	===~~DONE~~ Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	The article is very interesting! I particularly liked the examples that you mentioned in the "Examples of good and bad risk management" whereas the examples provided more insight into the risk management at well-known companies in regards to both good and bad risk management. I don't have any suggestions for improvements.		The article is very interesting! I particularly liked the examples that you mentioned in the "Examples of good and bad risk management" whereas the examples provided more insight into the risk management at well-known companies in regards to both good and bad risk management. I don't have any suggestions for improvements.

Line 124:		Line 124:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	===~~DONE~~ Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	The Literature including the references is very good and organized. I don't have any suggestions for improvements. Although, I think '''Literature''' is spelled like this rather than '''Litterature''' :)		The Literature including the references is very good and organized. I don't have any suggestions for improvements. Although, I think '''Literature''' is spelled like this rather than '''Litterature''' :)

JonasHL: /* Answer 1 */

2018-02-26T11:26:12Z

Answer 1

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:26, 26 February 2018
Line 135:		Line 135:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	===Answer 1===		===DONE Answer 1===
	I like that you clearly state the focus of the article! Yet it would help if it was moved earlier in the abstract of the article.		I like that you clearly state the focus of the article! Yet it would help if it was moved earlier in the abstract of the article.

JonasHL: /* Answer 2 */

2018-02-23T14:18:35Z

Answer 2

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:18, 23 February 2018
Line 44:		Line 44:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	===Answer 2===		===DONE Answer 2===
	There is a great logical flow to the article and it's very well structured. I would maybe suggest that you try to focus more on the risk management from a project management perspective.		There is a great logical flow to the article and it's very well structured. I would maybe suggest that you try to focus more on the risk management from a project management perspective.

JonasHL: /* Answer 1 */

2018-02-20T09:22:59Z

Answer 1

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:22, 20 February 2018
Line 28:		Line 28:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	===Answer 1===		===DONE Answer 1===
	The abstract is very clear and concise. I like the fact that you mentioned that the article would only focus on the risks/threats and not the opportunities, which makes the direction of the article clear. I would maybe suggest that you move this last sentence higher in the paragraph just to make it transparent from the beginning what direction you are going for.		The abstract is very clear and concise. I like the fact that you mentioned that the article would only focus on the risks/threats and not the opportunities, which makes the direction of the article clear. I would maybe suggest that you move this last sentence higher in the paragraph just to make it transparent from the beginning what direction you are going for.

JonasHL: /* Answer 7 */

2018-02-20T09:10:56Z

Answer 7

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:10, 20 February 2018
Line 222:		Line 222:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	===Answer 7===		===DONE Answer 7===
	Thorough made throughout the article with proper referencing. All the key references are summarised well. The only thing I suggest to improve is the spelling of literature in the headline.		Thorough made throughout the article with proper referencing. All the key references are summarised well. The only thing I suggest to improve is the spelling of literature in the headline.

JonasHL: /* Answer 5 */

2018-02-20T09:09:01Z

Answer 5

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:09, 20 February 2018
Line 194:		Line 194:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	===Answer 5===		===DONE Answer 5===
	The article is very relevant for both academics and practitioners.		The article is very relevant for both academics and practitioners.
	It is very clear why this subject is relevant reading the article.		It is very clear why this subject is relevant reading the article.
	I have no further comments on how to improve this article.		I have no further comments on how to improve this article.


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

JonasHL: /* Answer 4 */

2018-02-20T09:08:34Z

Answer 4

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:08, 20 February 2018
Line 182:		Line 182:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	===Answer 4===		===DONE Answer 4===
	You have done a great job here! I have no further comments on how to improve.		You have done a great job here! I have no further comments on how to improve.

JonasHL: /* Answer 3 */

2018-02-20T09:08:01Z

Answer 3

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:08, 20 February 2018
Line 170:		Line 170:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	===Answer 3===		===DONE Answer 3===
	There is some spelling mistakes throughout the article. I suggest that you try to double check using the spell checker in word, otherwise I can help you with access to grammarly that can assist you in correcting the mistakes. The writing style is good and makes it interesting to read.		There is some spelling mistakes throughout the article. I suggest that you try to double check using the spell checker in word, otherwise I can help you with access to grammarly that can assist you in correcting the mistakes. The writing style is good and makes it interesting to read.

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