Talk:Project sponsor
Contents |
Abstract Feedback
Text clarity This can be improved - the text needs to flow, especially after "Effective PM and BA role collaboration..."
Language
- Spelling errors e.g. "Responsabilities"
- Do not write in first person e.g. "we"
- Do not use abbreviations e.g. PM and BA without spelling them out beforehand
Description of the tool/theory/concept Good, but apply the above changes to enhance understanding
Purpose explanation Well addressed (e.g. clear that the Project Owner is the reader), but briefly explain the content/structure of the points going to be addressed in the article in the abstract
References Good use of references, but make sure to specify page numbers and so on
Relevance of article Relevant. Consider to:
- Narrow the role of a project sponsor to a specific phase of a project (e.g. in the initiation stage when creating a business case)
- Explaining the differences between a project manager, project sponsor and project owner
- Explaining the project sponsor's role in terms of project governance
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Ole Schwiethal
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
In the summary you are writing what each chapter is going to be about but you don't present that many key insights. Maybe instead of writing what is going to happen in the chapters, you could write the key insights of each chapter. Maybe you could directly link those key insights with the respective key sources.
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 with its argument and free of contradictions?
What would you suggest to improve?
Answer 2
The link between the different chapters is not always clear and it seems as if the different chapters are not building upon each other. In the section "Role" you could try to define the roles of the project sponsor more clearly and really explain what he does and why he's necessary for the project. The chapter about "Responsibilities" is clear and good. "Relation with other stakeholders" could be more precise about the relationship with stakeholders.
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 writing, grammatical and sentencing issues in the text. E.g. you are not strict about writing "Project Sponsor" or "project sponsor". Often you use a comma before "and" where it is not necessary to use.
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
Figures look good so far and are used in the right way. Maybe you could talk directly about those figures to explain them. The writing style is not always precise enough and you're using some unnecessary fill words or sentences.
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 clear how the article is relevant but in general you could try to write a little more precise.
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
A practitioner might need more detailed information on the roles and activities that he has to perform.
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
Yes, the bibliography is fine. Tres bien!
Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Julia Hösel
Question 1
Quality of the summary:
What would you suggest to improve?
Answer 1
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? The summary has tuned out well. I as a reader of the article know now what I need to expect from the following chapters. Especially mentioning the current problems of Project sponsoring catches my attention. The only which is not clear, maybe because the article is not finalized yet, is the list of relevant sources. Also, I would put the quote a few sentences earlier where you are talking about the misunderstanding of project sponsorship.
Question 2
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
Answer here The article is really interesting to read. I like how you structured started with the general definition into more detailed knowledge. The structure is easy to follow and points out the main topics of sponsorship. The pictures are underlining the topic and give more additional information. You also mentioned the relationship between the project sponsor and project manager as well as the problem that it could happen that the differentiation between both roles is not easy to define. I would like to have a clearer overview of how the project sponsor can influence the on-going project and who has to escalate to whom. Does the Project manager escalate to the project sponsor or to the top management? Who has the last decision within a project (except top management)? Maybe you can try to constitute those relations - maybe with a picture?
Question 3
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
Overall the text is well written and easy understanable. Sometimes there are little mistakes in the structure of the sentences.
Question 4
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 figures which are used. As I mentioned above I would maybe add one more to explain the organizational involvement of the Project Sponsor.
Question 5
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 gives a good overview of the project sponsoring and also why it is important within a project. In my opinion it is designed more academic because after reading you can not really say how to implement a better sponsoring into your company. In my opinion it would be interesting, especially on this topic, how a wrong sponsorship is happening within a real-life example.
Question 6
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 would be perfect for a web research to receive an overview. Still, it would be nice to some more about the current state of art or how sponsoring was changing over the years.
Question 7
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 did not find any misleading sources. All of them give valid information. Therefore, there is no need to change
