View source for Talk:Contracting and procurement

==Abstract Feedback==

'''Text clarity'''	Coherent

'''Language'''	        Good

'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''	Good - the words/terms "tendering" or "tendering phase" and "contract management" sum up what is written nicely, so consider adding them in the abstract

'''Purpose explanation'''	Well addressed. Procurement is a large topic that occurs almost during the entire project life cycle. Therefore, narrow your focus, as you're doing, to the tender phase of the project 

'''References'''	        Missing appropriate references to mandatory list of references - see chapter 12 in PMBOK

'''Relevance of article'''           Relevant. when writing the article, consider:

<ol>
  <li> Are you looking at the problem from the client's perspective or supplier's perspective? E.g. Company A selecting a contractor from a list of contractors bidding for a contract
  <li> Explaining how the procurement team fits into the project team
</ol>

==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Ragnhildur''==
===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===
''Answer here''

===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===
''Answer here''

===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===
''Answer here''

===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===
''Answer here''

===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===
''Answer here''

===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===
''Answer here''

===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===
''Answer here''