Talk:Roadmapping - Revision history

JensMoller at 10:33, 19 February 2018

2018-02-19T10:33:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:33, 19 February 2018
Line 15:		Line 15:

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

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	Nice summary - you state the areas you want to examine, thats good - the quote from PMI is a bit difficult for me to really get the relevance of in the summary but if it works for you its fine ;) - maybe be more specific which kind of roadmap is the focus? strategic, technological?		Nice summary - you state the areas you want to examine, thats good - the quote from PMI is a bit difficult for me to really get the relevance of in the summary but if it works for you its fine ;) - maybe be more specific which kind of roadmap is the focus? strategic, technological?
Line 106:		Line 105:

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


	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	''~~Answer here~~''
			''Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
			I really like the bullet points in the end. It makes it very easy to see the big picture. It makes the reader more interested in the article.
			What would you suggest to improve?
			I don't have anything at the moment, I might come up with something.
			''

	===Question 2 · TEXT===		===Question 2 · TEXT===
Line 124:		Line 129:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	''~~Answer here''~~		''
			Is the argument clear?
			I like the introduction to the roadmapping, obviously it is difficult to say anything about the a clear argument, but it seems like the framework opens up for a good clear argument.

			Is there a logical flow to the article?
			Yes, indtroduction, guide, limitations.
			I think you should write a conclusion in the guide ( It is properly already your plan ;) )
			I hope you will do reflections about the tools in the guide beside the limitations.

			Does one part build upon the other?
			Depending on how you will do your guide, I would like some more theory/introduction before the guide, if the guide is a short bulletpoint guide. I like your critical reflection on the methods, tools and techniques.

			Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?
			Yes

			What would you suggest to improve?
			You might want to reflect on when to use the guide on describe to which specific situations the different tools should be used.

			''
	===Question 3 · TEXT===		===Question 3 · TEXT===
	'''Grammar and style:'''		'''Grammar and style:'''
Line 136:		Line 158:

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?
			Minor errors, but definitely understandable.

			Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?
			Some sentences could be more precise, but in the whole pretty good

			What would you suggest to improve?
			I'm sure when you have more time you will find the minor errors.''

	===Question 4 · TEXT===		===Question 4 · TEXT===
Line 148:		Line 177:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''Gives a good overview of the context.''

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===
Line 160:		Line 189:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''it is definitely a good clear idea. It is nice to have a go to guide for program management!''

	===Question 6 · TEXT===		===Question 6 · TEXT===
Line 172:		Line 201:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''Like the rest of us you have bin on a huge time pressure, so some in depth text is needed''

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===
Line 186:		Line 215:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''Good references. Especially the one with Josef! ;)
			I guess, that it's always nice with more references.''

JensMoller at 09:53, 19 February 2018

2018-02-19T09:53:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:53, 19 February 2018
Line 98:		Line 98:
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	you need to briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article - and yes i think you try to cover the article nicely with theory instead of opinion		you need to briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article - and yes i think you try to cover the article nicely with theory instead of opinion

			==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Jens Esben Okholm Møller''==
			===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''

Joachim Schou Larsen at 20:25, 18 February 2018

2018-02-18T20:25:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:25, 18 February 2018
Line 71:		Line 71:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	Yes i think it will be of high practical relevance when the application is complete - maybe it will be stated a bit more why it is PM relevant when you talk more about the strategic alignment?		Yes i think it will be of high practical relevance when the application section is complete - maybe it will be stated a bit more why it is PM relevant when you talk more about the strategic alignment?

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

Joachim Schou Larsen at 20:23, 18 February 2018

2018-02-18T20:23:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:23, 18 February 2018
Line 34:		Line 34:
	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	General there is a nice structure and flow in the article where the different parts is going to build upon each other when its alle done :) - there is no contradictions no - i would maybe suggest to do a more thorough explanation of how to do the roadmap so you understand the technicalities you talk about in the limitation section		General there is a nice structure and flow in the article where the different parts is going to build upon each other when its alle done :) - there is no contradictions no - i would maybe suggest to do a more thorough explanation of how to do the roadmap so you understand the technicalities you talk about in the limitation section

			the 6 benefits of roadmap you mention is maybe a bit out of context when we haven't been introduced to the roadmap yet?

	===Question 3 · TEXT===		===Question 3 · TEXT===

Joachim Schou Larsen at 20:21, 18 February 2018

2018-02-18T20:21:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:21, 18 February 2018
Line 57:		Line 57:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	'~~'Answer here''~~		Yes a good picture, don't know if you should make it yourself? perhaps you should talk a bit about "strategic alignment" as a concept/theory before diving into the specific section of roadmapping?

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===
Line 69:		Line 69:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	~~''Answer here''~~		Yes i think it will be of high practical relevance when the application is complete - maybe it will be stated a bit more why it is PM relevant when you talk more about the strategic alignment?

	===Question 6 · TEXT===		===Question 6 · TEXT===
Line 81:		Line 81:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	~~''Answer here''~~		yes the abstract was creating some interest - so i think it will be interesting when it is completed

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===
Line 95:		Line 95:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	~~''Answer here''~~		you need to briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article - and yes i think you try to cover the article nicely with theory instead of opinion

Joachim Schou Larsen at 20:13, 18 February 2018

2018-02-18T20:13:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:13, 18 February 2018
Line 33:		Line 33:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	~~''Answer here''~~		General there is a nice structure and flow in the article where the different parts is going to build upon each other when its alle done :) - there is no contradictions no - i would maybe suggest to do a more thorough explanation of how to do the roadmap so you understand the technicalities you talk about in the limitation section

	===Question 3 · TEXT===		===Question 3 · TEXT===
Line 45:		Line 45:

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	~~''Answer here''~~		You have a very nice language - some writing mistakes in the limitations section just check it out (y)

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

Joachim Schou Larsen at 20:04, 18 February 2018

2018-02-18T20:04:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:04, 18 February 2018
Line 17:		Line 17:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	Nice summary - you state the areas you want to examine, thats good - the quote from PMI is a bit difficult for me to really get the relevance of in the summary but if it works for you its fine ;) - maybe be more specific ~~with~~ kind of roadmap is the focus? strategic, technological?		Nice summary - you state the areas you want to examine, thats good - the quote from PMI is a bit difficult for me to really get the relevance of in the summary but if it works for you its fine ;) - maybe be more specific which kind of roadmap is the focus? strategic, technological?

	===Question 2 · TEXT===		===Question 2 · TEXT===

Joachim Schou Larsen at 20:01, 18 February 2018

2018-02-18T20:01:36Z

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Joachim Schou Larsen==
 ===Question 1 · TEXT===
@@ Line 8: / Line 17: @@
 ===Answer 1===
-''Answer here''
+Nice summary - you state the areas you want to examine, thats good - the quote from PMI is a bit difficult for me to really get the relevance of in the summary but if it works for you its fine ;) - maybe be more specific with kind of roadmap is the focus? strategic, technological?
 ===Question 2 · TEXT===
@@ Line 87: / Line 96: @@
 ===Answer 7===
 ''Answer here''

Joachim Schou Larsen at 19:49, 18 February 2018

2018-02-18T19:49:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:49, 18 February 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: Joachim Schou Larsen==
			===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''
	==Abstract Feedback==		==Abstract Feedback==
	Text Clarity; Ok.		Text Clarity; Ok.

S122906: Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok. References; Ok. In general the abstract is ok, nice that you already established the points you want to examine in the..."

2018-02-15T08:03:07Z

Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok. References; Ok. In general the abstract is ok, nice that you already established the points you want to examine in the..."

New page

==Abstract Feedback==
Text Clarity; Ok.

Language; Ok.

References; Ok.

In general the abstract is ok, nice that you already established the points you want to examine in the article when developing the article don't forget to elaborate and describe the relevance for a Program Manager.