Talk:Work Breakdown Structure in Construction Management

From apppm
Jump to: navigation, search


Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Ellen Trovåg Amundsen

There is not much to review, since the report is not complete yet. But the summary is clear and concise. In addition, it is interesting that you will include some practical examples to the article - keep ut the good work:):).

Question 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Text clarity Text is good, but avoid writing bullet points in the abstract - the text should flow

Language Good

Description of the tool/theory/concept Well addressed, but try to use the word "scope" in the abstract - as in a work breakdown structure is a tool used breakdown the scope of a project

Purpose explanation Well explained, but consider:

  1. Who is the reader? Project Manager or team etc?

References Missing references to the list of mandatory references/standards

Relevance of article Consider the following:

  1. It is okay to use examples from the Metro Cityring project, but remember it is not allowed to write the article as a case study. The course requirements have changed
  2. Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project management community more than a normal web search
Personal tools