Talk:Work Breakdown Structure - Revision history

Kxviinth at 18:22, 19 February 2018

2018-02-19T18:22:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:22, 19 February 2018
Line 123:		Line 123:

	'''No suggestions'''		'''No suggestions'''

			==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Kevinth Balasubramaniam''==
			===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===
			Explains the main concept of WBS, and gives the reader a clear understanding of what it is. However, does not depict a summary of the article. Suggestion would be further explain how it is applicable, methods mentioned in sec "application" in short, also the main limitations when that is written.

			===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===
			Follows the template suggested and has a great flow. As a reader I do get the full understanding of the scope, especially in the start where it is clearly defined what WBS is. Utuilization of PMBOK makes definition credible and easy to relate as it is described how it is correlated with project scope etc. Really like the application sections, wherein each method are clearly provided with bullet points. No suggestions to give, other then a similar structure to limitations would be to prefer.

			===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===
			Great. Coherent and easy to understand. No unnecessary fill words used and flows well when reading.

			===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===
			Lacks figures. Would be a great addition if a figure of a WBS was given, showing the different deliverables and sub-deliverables. I.e I suggest a figure in Big Idea, where you clearly describe the structure.

			===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===
			High degree of relevance, and connected to deliverables and project scope management. It is clear in the text, but could also be further specified in the abstract. Pinpointing it makes it easy for reader to understand to what extent WBS is used in Project Management, and will further give the reader understanding of what to expect from the tool.
			===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 is interesting and provides a clear understanding to what degree WBS is used in project management. Application-section is a clear overview of different methods and are of high quality.

			===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===
			Not yet, but should provide a sources that further depicts examples of WBS been used in different projects. Would be an interesting to see how it is applied in a certain project and which method used.

Jantalas: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Jan Talaš */

2018-02-17T21:35:21Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Jan Talaš

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:35, 17 February 2018
Line 22:		Line 22:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	''~~Answer here~~''		The abstract/summary provides the reader coherent overview of what the article is about. The purpose and relevance are well described.

			'''Suggestions''': State who can benefit from this method.

	===Question 2 · TEXT===		===Question 2 · TEXT===
Line 38:		Line 40:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	''~~Answer here~~''		The argument is clear - description of a method and its application. The flow is mostly logical - In ''Big Idea'' section, ''upper levels'' are mentioned at the beginning. The reader doesn' know the entire structure or the complex picture of the topic. The ''Definition'' may be moved into the ''Big Idea'' part and be followed by Key features (bullet points). Individual parts are mostly well linked. The article is consistent and free of contradictions.

			'''Suggestions''':

			In ''Big Idea'' section, ''upper levels'' are mentioned at the beginning. The reader doesn't know the entire structure yet(upper, middle, lower levels) or the complex picture of the topic. Some introduction can be added (1/2 sentences).

			The ''Big Idea'' part can be divided into 2 paragraphs. 1st about the structure (upper and lower levels), 2nd focused more on control account and identifiers.

			The ''Definition'' may be moved into the ''Big Idea'' part and be followed by Key features (bullet points).

			Mention who can benefit from this article.


	===Question 3 · TEXT===		===Question 3 · TEXT===
Line 50:		Line 63:

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	''~~Answer here~~''		There are several grammatical and spelling errors. Language can be improved. For example, this sentence: ''Decomposition is a technique used for dividing and subdividing the project scope and project deliverables into smaller, more manageable parts, the work packages.
			''

			'''Suggestions''': Read the article few more times. Let anybody else ready it. Use a tool for spelling check - they are available online.


	===Question 4 · TEXT===		===Question 4 · TEXT===
Line 62:		Line 79:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	~~''Answer here''~~		There are no figures or tables.

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===
Line 74:		Line 91:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	~~''Answer here''~~		The article is rather practical focused. The reader can derive why the article is relevant.

			'''Suggestions''': State the improtance of the article more clearly.
	===Question 6 · TEXT===		===Question 6 · TEXT===
	'''Depth of treatment:'''		'''Depth of treatment:'''
Line 86:		Line 104:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	''~~Answer here~~''		The article is interesting as it describes a method that is used by many on daily basis. It highlights some important aspects of this method that can are unlikely to be found on the internet.

			'''Suggestions''': mention some example of the problematics

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===
Line 100:		Line 120:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''~~Answer here~~''		The article cites properly and clearly. Key references are well summarized.

			'''No suggestions'''

Jantalas: /* Abstract Feedback */

2018-02-17T19:42:06Z

Abstract Feedback

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:42, 17 February 2018
Line 12:		Line 12:

	'''Relevance of article''' In general the abstract is ok, since WBS is an old topic, when developing the article don't forget to elaborate and describe new developments on the topic and avoid to be too generic. Try to find new trends in the use of WBS.		'''Relevance of article''' In general the abstract is ok, since WBS is an old topic, when developing the article don't forget to elaborate and describe new developments on the topic and avoid to be too generic. Try to find new trends in the use of WBS.

			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: Jan Talaš==
			===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''

Hani Mike Rae Selim: /* Abstract Feedback */

2018-02-13T15:15:58Z

Abstract Feedback

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:15, 13 February 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Abstract Feedback==		==Abstract Feedback==
	~~Text Clarity; Ok.~~

	~~Language; Ok.~~		'''Text clarity''' Good

	~~References; Ok.~~		'''Language''' Good

	~~In general~~ the ~~abstract is ok, since WBS is an old topic, when developing the article don~~'~~t forget to elaborate and describe new developments on the topic and avoid to be too generic.~~		'''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Good

	Try to find new trends in the use of WBS.		'''Purpose explanation''' Well addressed (e.g. clear that the Project Manager is the reader), but who you mention both projects and programs. It is important to make it clear which one you're referring to in the article as the subject area could differ depending on which one you look at? Or are you comparing WBS in both projects and programs?

			'''References''' Good

			'''Relevance of article''' In general the abstract is ok, since WBS is an old topic, when developing the article don't forget to elaborate and describe new developments on the topic and avoid to be too generic. Try to find new trends in the use of WBS.

S122906: Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok. References; Ok. In general the abstract is ok, since WBS is an old topic, when developing the article don't forget to ..."

2018-02-12T12:40:42Z

Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok. References; Ok. In general the abstract is ok, since WBS is an old topic, when developing the article don't forget to ..."

New page

==Abstract Feedback==
Text Clarity; Ok.

Language; Ok.

References; Ok.

In general the abstract is ok, since WBS is an old topic, when developing the article don't forget to elaborate and describe new developments on the topic and avoid to be too generic.

Try to find new trends in the use of WBS.