View source for Talk:SWOT analysis for Prefabrication Housing Production

==Feedback on Abstract:==

{|
|'''Text clarity & language'''|| The text is ok but it to be more coherent in some parts, specially in the "Portfolio Management of prefabricated houses (Big Idea)"
|-
|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Although you have a description of a prefabricated house process, there is no clear description of what tool/theory/concept you want to describe/analyse
|-
|'''Article purpose explanation'''|| Needs to elaborated. Although you have a context/industry background, the purpose of the article is not explicit
|-
|'''Relevance to curriculum '''|| Make sure you choose a tool/theory/concept that is relevant to project, program or portfolio management and try to define a specific focus to do an in-depth analysis throughout the article
|-
|'''References'''|| Missing references (the one you have in the abstract are not at the right place). Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references
|-
|'''Others'''|| I assumed that your abstract was under the "Summary" and "Portfolio Management of prefabricated houses (Big Idea)" headings. The abstract should be a summary of your article and should have a clear description of the tool/theory/concept you want to analyse and the explanation of the article's purpose. In this kind of article, making references to the lectures might not be as relevant since people from outside the class can also read it. You might also consider to write the abstract all together under a heading called "Abstract" to make it easier to read.  The title should also give a better idea/understanding of the tool/theory/concept related to project, program or portfolio management that you want to analyse.

|}

==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Daniel Vorting''==
'''Disclaimer on feedback: the feedback provided is based on the status of the wiki-article on the 24'th of february. The content is very limited and thus the feedback likewise.'''
===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 think your article touches upon an interesting topic, but i don't clearly see the linkage to project/program/portfolio management. You are just describing a new way of building houses. You write that you wish to apply the BMW managing system to the construction industry, but that is the only place it is mentioned. I suggest you do a search on modular theory, platform theory, technological architectures etc. as it will provide you with some theoretical background to your method''

===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 argumentation on the advantages of building modular houses are quite clear. It is not very easy to see any logical flow in the article, when it's not finished. I do not see how the chapters are linked together. You should write a lot more in your article, before it is clear where you are going with it.''

===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===
''Grammer is fine, sentences are a bit long. Language is okay, but a bit too many 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 is one picture of a prefabricated house, which gives okay insight into the understanding of what is meant. I suggest you add more principal drawings, explaining your theory and approach.''

===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 believe there could be an interesting practical and academic relevance to the topic, but whether the article is able to provide that is hard to tell, based on what has been written. Write more.''

===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 to read from the practitioners point of view. Again i find it hard to address the academic level based on the scarce amount of information that it has. I think most of what is written in the article is based on a few references. I strongly suggest you investigate the academic field of modularity, platforms etc. in order to give your article some academic perspective. You really should not cite Wikipedia in an academic article! I strongly suggest you do some proper research instead of a Wikipedia article and a company website (Scandibyg).''

===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===
''Most of the content of this article is based on nothing but opinion. I do not see any references to e.g. the entire 'Advantages and Applications' chapter, where you come up with a large number of impact-points to why prefabricated houses are good. Not very academic.''

==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Dana Rut Gunnarsdóttir''==
===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 does not give a brief introduction to the article's topic and I find it hard to see how the article touches upon the project, program or portfolio management. "

===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 advantage of using this method in building house is clear.  However, find it hard to read through the article, would recommend to break the text up a bit and have more paragraphs. 

===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 languages in the article is good, and few grammatical errors."

===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===
''Would be good to have more figures, preferably that link the article topic with project/program/portfolio 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===
''It is hard to answer, there is a missing text how the topic touches the PPPM, which I believe you will address before the final hand-in :)"
===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 for a practitioner to read."

===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===
''Most of the work is based on opinion. Would recommend to try to find a way to add more theoretical part, where you link the Process of prefabricated housing to one of the curriculum topic in an academic way. :) "