View source for Talk:Project Team Roles and Responsibilities

'''Text clarity'''	The text sounds coherent, but there's room for improvement (see below)

'''Language'''	        Can be improved - e.g. "Hiring and involving in a project a right people..." should be changed to "Hiring and involving the right people in a project..." Try to read the abstract over again

'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''	Good, but correcting the language will enhance understanding of the theory/concept

'''Purpose explanation'''	Well addressed (e.g. industry), but who is your reader? Is it the project manager? Does this apply to small, medium or large projects? (see section under "General")

'''Title of the Wiki'''	Good title

'''References'''	        Good reference to PMBOK. Try to think of other relevant mandatory references that are appropriate to use here (but only if it makes sense to do so) 

'''General'''           I like the experimentation with the Youtube video, however I personally wouldn't recommend using them. They're something that can easily be searched online. The article should make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search. Also, does the article apply for small, medium or large project? E.g. for larger projects it would be relevant to discuss project team organizational chart (as also mentioned in the video). May be consider writing about work package owners too under "Standard Project Team roles and responsibilities?"


==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Susan Tyrell''==
===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 is clear and marks the boundaries that the article is going to address. I recommend to explain a bit more about, why is important thought the project life cycle?''

===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 is logic and cover the main idea of the article, I will suggest maybe to eliminate the summary. The discussion section, maybe will be enough to understand the overall purpose for the article  ''

===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 grammar is clear and understandable''

===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===
''Figure 1, it needs to be referenced in the text (Introduction to Project Human Resource Management)''

===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 a practical and academic relevance, since it talks about the human factor and how it affects this role and refers to tools and techniques that support this behavior in a project ''

===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===
''It is an interesting article and understanding the Project Team roles and responsibilities it will add value to the upcoming team work. ''

===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===
''Background section: I recommend to add the references for the Total Project Cost, since is referring to amounts and I will add the Project Team definition''


==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Hafsteinn Thor''==
===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 like how you set the scene with the people first perspective. The abstracts is a good introduction to what the article is about.
I was a bit confused why and what you meant with: " it is essential to clearly allocate roles and define responsibilities for everyone within Project Team already from the very beginning of a Project Life Cycle, namely the Initial Phase"
''

===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 parts which are already written are well structured and quite straight to the point.
I'm missing a bit clearer connection between each part, the red line throughout the article. 
The parts do build upon each other, especially when you talk about the Organizational Planning and than go towards the Tools and Technique application.

I'm sure the flow will be clearer when the last bits and pieces will be written and added. I would recommend to note down the steps and the story you want to tell, so each chapter easily flows into the next one. 
A lot of the parts already do.
 ''

===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 like how the text is quite straight to the point, with minimum usage of fill words. There are a few places where it/is/the is missing and a few words in the wrong tense, but something that you can notice and  fix when finalizing the last draft :)

Try to read the sentences up loud, as often when we read our own text we don't notice if something is missing. As soon as you hear yourself reading the sentences, you might notice some missing words (I always try to do it myself if I have the time)
''

===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 is only one figure at this moment in the article, but I didn't consider it while I was reading the text. 
Be sure why you are including the figure, and maybe highlight it in your text and maybe give it a few words (explenation) as it seems very relevant for the article.

I like when there are figures and tables that sum up the text, especially when they are well connected to the article flow (help to understand and explain).
I see that you've added notes in your text, explaining that you will add tables/figures later, which will likely make the article even better to understand.
''

===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===
''I would consider the article being in between practical and academic relevance. Consider if you should deep down a bit with some of the tools or the theory, to give it somewhat more of an edge.
The article states that it will: 
''focus on the method of assigning roles and responsibilities to a Project Team members and applying adequate tools to ensure it is preserved and maintained properly during a Project Life Cycle''

It is made quite clear what is important, but maybe the why could be highlighted a bit more. Try adding or highlighting why this is important and consider going a bit deeper into how members are assigned to roles (what is considered, what are the drivers etc.)
 ''

===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 of now, most of the information is quite high level, while it is informative for people that for example haven't worked in a project organisation before.
Consider what your target audience is with the article, is it for a student, a professor. Would you learn something from the article if you found it on the internet? 
(I know that there are parts missing and I know when all combined the article will kick ass) 😊
 ''

===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 bibliography seems to consider relevant references and summarizes key references at the end of the article. 
Consider adding references where you list up certain steps, lists or roles that have to be considered.

You might consider if you can add more references from another organisation, another way of looking at project roles etc. (other than PMI or PMBOK).
''