Talk:Managing Successful Programmes (MSP)

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 20: Line 20:
==Peer review from Nanna (18/02/2018)
==Peer review from Nanna (18/02/2018)==
'''Question 1: Is your Wiki article relevant?:'''
'''Question 1: Is your Wiki article relevant?:'''

Revision as of 19:32, 18 February 2018

Abstract Feedback

Text clarity Good

Language Minor errors e.g. " To achieve this, the he main idea is to sub-divide..." - remove "he"?

Description of the tool/theory/concept Good, but consider going back to basics. Define what program management is and reference standards/mandatory list of references to add credibility. Also, is it true that all organizations need good program management? Also, what defines a successful program?

Purpose explanation Good and sets up the reader's expectations well

References Missing appropriate references to mandatory list of references

Relevance of article Consider the following:

  1. Who is the reader? Program Manager etc?
  2. What will the reader get out of this?
  3. Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the program management community more than a normal web search

Peer review from Nanna (18/02/2018)

Question 1: Is your Wiki article relevant?: The topic is relevant for project managers and the purpose is clearly articulated.

Question 2: Is the Wiki article usable? • Does the article provide hands on guidance? Can the reader (at least prototypically) apply the method after reading the article? • 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? • Quality of the summary: Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? • Formal aspects: ▪ Figures and tables: Are figures and tables clear and provide meaningful support? Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? ▪ 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? ▪ Grammar and style: Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?

Question 3: Is the Wiki article credible? Nice with the reflection of limitations. References needs to be done - but sure you already know that ;-)

Personal tools