Talk:Belbin's team roles
Contents |
Abstract Feedback
Text Clarity; Ok.
Language; Ok, try to use more an academic language
References; missing references related to the standards
Try to relate with an specific aspect of Project Management Standards. What is the relevance of this topic for Project Managers?
One reference is missing, please review the Mandatory References in the listed Reading material of the course.
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Konstantinos Terzakis
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
The summary describes very nice the content of the article and provides the reader about what is coming next. It gives the sense that it is going to be a generic article, which is the case for the rest of the article. Except for some grammatical errors, I would suggest not to use so many times the phrase "Belbin team roles", as almost every sentence starts with this phrase.
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 article is coherent and there is a logical flow, making it easy for the reader to separate the content in each section. Although I would suggest to merge the sections "How to use the Belbins' Team Roles" and "Why and When should I use Belbin's team roles? and then write different paragraphs explaining separately the "Why" the "How" and the "When", as from my point of view, the reader is somewhat confused at this sections.
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
As I have already mentioned above there are some grammatical errors in the article, while I would suggest to use a more accademic language, especially when an article is not so technical but it mainly describes a particular theory
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
There are not so many figures in the article, as it mainly consisted of a long extensive table which clearly describes the Belbin's team roles. Maybe the usage of some additional figures would make the article more attractive
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
The article is practical and there is an academic relevance, especially for a reader who does not have any idea about this theory. I would suggest to include the author's perspective.
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
The article describes an old theory, although it is practical for a practitioner or academic to read, so as to learn how Belbin divided the team roles. I suggest to critisize these team roles with the PMI standards, as well as describe the dynamic of this theory and how it has been developed nowadays. For example, initially the Belbins' team roles used to be 8 and then 9. How the contemporary management has contributed to the change of these roles ? That way the article could be enhanced and contribute more than an cursory web search as this theory is an old theory and there is lot of literature in the web that describes it.
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
The article cite properly previous work and summarize the key references. Although, there are many references based on web-search. Possibly, I critical review of this theory can attract the interest of the reader, as it is mainly based on (old) literature and does not provide the opinion of the reader. Additionally, the references can be grouped so as to be more practical for the reader.
Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Nikoleta Kolitsopoulou
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
The abstract gives a nice overview to what is following in the text. It is easy to understand the concept of the method, but the summary shows that is a more generic article than an academic one. About the language, I did not mention grammatically and lexical errors, but I would suggest you to use another phrase instead "Belbin team roles" in some of the sentences.
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 structure of the article is coherent and there is a reasonable flow. For that reason, it is easy for the reader to go through the text, although I would suggest to change the sections "How to use the Belbins' Team Roles" and "Why and When should I use Belbin's team roles?" to a section called Application and three subsections about how to use this method, why this theory and when it is applicable.
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
I did not notice significant grammatical and lexical errors in the text but I would suggest to write in a more academic way because this article focus on the description of a management theory and also specialists of this field will read it.
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
I like the table in the Belbin's Team Roles section, because it presents clear these specific roles and it is quit detailed and organised, but as a reader I would prefer to know before I go through of it what it is about and its description and not after it. Moreover, I would suggest you to put more figures in the article and the picture which is in the section "Dr. Meredith Belbin", I would recommend to incorporate it in the text, because there is created a lot of empty space at the left and right side of it (just for an aesthetic reason).
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
The article has an academic relevance and it is more practical for readers who first reads about this method and he is not a specialist or a manager.
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
The method which is described in this article is an old one and on the web are a lot of sites or blogs that are referred on this theory. For that reason I would recommend you to analysed more this method either with examples in specific projects or how it has been evolved over the years. Moreover, I would suggest you to present if and if yes, how the Belbins' team roles follow the PMI standards.
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
The article cite summarizes nice the key references and the annotated bibliography is ok.
