View source for Talk:Design thinking

==Abstract Feedback==

'''Text clarity'''	Coherent

'''Language'''	        Clear

'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''	The concept is clear, but how does design thinking relate to project management? Is this a relatively new concept in project management? Who is the "customer" in this case? Does this apply to a particular industry/company culture? Where does it best work? Consider to list the 5 phases of design thinking in the abstract

'''Purpose explanation'''	Good, but can improved once the article scope is narrowed down to a project management knowledge area or areas. Consider briefly explaining the structure of the article and the points to be discussed to set the reader's expectations

'''References'''	       Good, but try to make appropriate references to the mandatory list of references if possible

'''Relevance of article'''      Consider the following:

<ol>
  <li> Who is the reader? Project Manager or team etc?
  <li> Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project management community more than a normal web search
</ol>



==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Vincent Oriot''==
===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 puts the tool in a context and presents its relevance to face the challenges addressed, we have a brief history of the tool, creation, development, and the 5 processes this tool is using. In conclusion, complete abstract.''

===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 argument is clear and precise, maybe some clearer examples could be appreciated? to distinguish this article from a theoretical article. The flow is good, we go through the sections with a red rope, the following sections answer the questions initiated by the previous ones. THe argumentation is consistent, in a hurry to read the final sections where the discussion will be the most present.''

===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===
''It doesn't appear to contain errors, and this was verified through an app, The writer doesn't try to gain words by adding unnecessary sentences, everything that is written is relevant. I would put some words in '''bold''', just to highlight them and help the reader to find the keywords he is looking for.''

===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 are well introduced with a legend every time, they are useful to picture the processes of the tool and their link between each other. THey are not overused.''

===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 gives good practices and advice, presents limitations and pitfalls, so added to the theory of the tool, it allows the reader to have a functional and practical article. Waiting for the last section to conclude about the practicability, but this article is relevant for students that discover the tool, or professionals that want to use it. ANither advice to make it even more complete would be to create some links within the article to other articles about a notion that is mentioned (i'm thinking about "brainstorming", the reader could directly reach the other article by clicking.''

===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===
''As mentioned before, this article this article is relevant either for academic purposes of professional ones, This article combines and analyzes many different sources and rearrange them into a complete summary, limiting the time spent to gather all this information.''

===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 it does, the references are well used and quoted, the sources are objective.''