Talk:Key performance indicator (KPI)
Contents |
Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity | Good |
| Language | OK but remember to correct your misspellings |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good |
| Purpose explanation | Good but try to relate it more to project, program or portfolio management |
| Title of the Wiki | Good |
| Relevance to curriculum | Make sure to relate KPIs to project, program or portfolio management instead of the organisation in general |
| References | Remember to make correct references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references |
| Other |
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Helena Rejndrup
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
I am not a completely sure of the key focus from this text just yet.
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
So far there is a flow to the article, though the argument isn’t clear just yet. The background builds on the abstract, which is good. I would just suggest some more text about the specific use of KPI’s In project management.
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
The article is written in a very nice and professional language. So far no/few 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
There are non yet. It would be nice with some figures
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
There are examples of the use of KPI, but the article should go deeper into how a project manager can use this.
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
At the moment the article is very shallow, and undone. But I guess there will be more to the anatomy of KPI + application of KPI (in project management) and limitations of 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
It's not there yet
Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Heðin Gunnarsstein Poulsen
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 is and shows what you are tending to write about. The key focus is mentioned. This sentence "Key Performance Indicators are yet to be discovered by the construction industry". Do they not have KPI indicators at all in construction field? And also what kind of construction or is it overall? Where is there reference for this? Also there are some type/grammer/spelling errors somewhere inbetween. But all in all it is a good abstract and shows what you are going to write about, but which part of Project, program or portfolio management are you going to focus on? This is not stated
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
As the article is not finished yet it is hard to evaluate. But the flow until now is okay. But the substance in the article has not been mentioned yet and therefor it is hard to evaluate if there is a flow. Only the background and a few bullet points are mentioned
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
There are some typing errors. But all in all the language is clear and well-written so far.
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 no figures yet, so this cannot be evaluated
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
This article is definitely of high academic relevance as it states one of the most important aspects in project management. The measure of succes: KPI.
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 is interesting and easy to read. The article is as now very shallow and a lot of text is missing, but I am sure it will be interesting as this article is of high relevance.
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
There is only one reference. There will have to be more references and the one reference which is cited is referenced nicely.
