Talk:Benefits Realization Management as a key driver of Project Management Effectiveness

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Feedback on Abstract:)
Line 16: Line 16:
 
|'''References'''|| Remember to make correct references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references
 
|'''References'''|| Remember to make correct references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references
 
|}
 
|}
 +
 +
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Jack Frain''==
 +
===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===
 +
Very clear summary with a nice structure related to project, program and portfolio. Maybe try and link together all of the subsections. They are well written but it does not flow amazingly from Abstract to Terminology for instance.
 +
 +
===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 argument is well written and the images are a great example but I would try and explain the benefits. For instance on figure 1, explain why these benefits are advantageous and how they can influence projects, programs or portfolios. Each part partially is built on the last although this could be made clearer. Altogether a very structured and well written article!
 +
 +
===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===
 +
Grammar is almost perfect everywhere, although some sentences are a little long for my own liking such as 'Depending on the situation a substituting benefit may have to be determined if the planned benefit can ultimately not be realized or if it becomes a disbenefit because of external factors such as changing political regulations'. But that is completely your choice if you want to have them (a little hard to understand first time reading). Apart from that, very nice and not a lot of unnecessary fill words.
 +
 +
===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===
 +
As I mentioned before, the figures are good but a little more explanation of them would be good! A good amount of images though which explain your arguments well.
 +
 +
===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===
 +
It is of very high practical and academic relevance. I am very impressed at how well it is written and easily understood. Not a lot to improve I believe.
 +
 +
===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 an interesting topic, little jealous I did not get to pick it myself. It really goes into depth over the benefits and how to execute and sustain them in an academic environment. I would not improve anything in this section.
 +
 +
===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===
 +
I can see that you have not finished this section so I cannot really comment.

Revision as of 18:00, 23 February 2019

Contents

Feedback on Abstract:

Text clarity Really good
Language Really good
Description of the tool/theory/concept Really good
Purpose explanation Really good
Title of the Wiki Good
Relevance to curriculum Yes
References Remember to make correct references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Jack Frain

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

Very clear summary with a nice structure related to project, program and portfolio. Maybe try and link together all of the subsections. They are well written but it does not flow amazingly from Abstract to Terminology for instance.

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 argument is well written and the images are a great example but I would try and explain the benefits. For instance on figure 1, explain why these benefits are advantageous and how they can influence projects, programs or portfolios. Each part partially is built on the last although this could be made clearer. Altogether a very structured and well written article!

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

Grammar is almost perfect everywhere, although some sentences are a little long for my own liking such as 'Depending on the situation a substituting benefit may have to be determined if the planned benefit can ultimately not be realized or if it becomes a disbenefit because of external factors such as changing political regulations'. But that is completely your choice if you want to have them (a little hard to understand first time reading). Apart from that, very nice and not a lot of unnecessary fill words.

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

As I mentioned before, the figures are good but a little more explanation of them would be good! A good amount of images though which explain your arguments well.

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

It is of very high practical and academic relevance. I am very impressed at how well it is written and easily understood. Not a lot to improve I believe.

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 an interesting topic, little jealous I did not get to pick it myself. It really goes into depth over the benefits and how to execute and sustain them in an academic environment. I would not improve anything in this section.

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

I can see that you have not finished this section so I cannot really comment.

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox