Talk:Resource breakdown structure

From apppm
Revision as of 22:15, 25 February 2019 by M Stefaniotou (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

Feedback on Abstract:

Text clarity & language The text is good, however it can be more coherent. Try reading the abstract again and add more punctuation whenever necessary.
Description of the tool/theory/concept Good. Could the standards/theories in "Project Human Resource Management" (PMBOK) be touched here?
Article purpose explanation Well explained, however coherent text will make it even clearer.
Relevance to curriculum Relevant.
References Good references.

Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Μaria Stefaniotou

Question 1 · TEXT Quality of the summary: Very good

Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?-

Question 2 · TEXT Structure and logic of the article:

Is the argument clear? Yes

Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes

Does one part build upon the other? Yes

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

What would you suggest to improve? -

Question 3 · TEXT Grammar and style:

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Yes

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes

What would you suggest to improve? Only a couple things, that would be seen in second reading. For example in the Limitations part, second paragraph, second sentence, the word "that" is written twice. Also, in the Big Idea part, the first sentence of the last paragraph is maybe a little bit confusing. Otherwise, everything is clear and well stated.

Question 4 · TEXT Figures and tables:

Are figures and tables clear? Not added yet

Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? -

What would you suggest to improve? -

Question 5 · TEXT Interest and relevance:

Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? Yes

Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? Yes

What would you suggest to improve? -

Question 6 · TEXT Depth of treatment:

Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes

Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? Yes

What would you suggest to improve? Maybe mention tools that are usually used with RBS, for keeping better track of waht is needed. (maybe it is included in the template mentioned, depending on the project). For example a sort of calendar where the available resources are noted, or a document with the predictions of needed materials, employees e.t.c.

Question 7 · TEXT Annotated bibliography:

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Yes

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? Yes

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes

What would you suggest to improve? -

Personal tools