Talk:Business Analytics in Civil Engineering Projects - Revision history

Hoda.vn: /* Answer 2 */

2018-02-19T21:53:40Z

Answer 2

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:53, 19 February 2018
Line 139:		Line 139:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	''...''		''It is clear that you have used lots of subjects to cover different aspects of topic and have tries to make it easy for reader to understand the meaning of whole text , but being more consistent and try to connect each section in a more logical and relevant way could be a good idea. ''

	===Question 3 ===		===Question 3 ===
	'''Grammar and style:'''		'''Grammar and style:'''

Hoda.vn at 21:43, 19 February 2018

2018-02-19T21:43:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:43, 19 February 2018
Line 115:		Line 115:

	==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Hoda Vazirinasab''==		==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Hoda Vazirinasab''==
	===Question 1 · ===		===Question 1 ===
	'''Quality of the summary:'''		'''Quality of the summary:'''

Line 123:		Line 123:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	''~~...~~. ''		''Well summary which is have a good explanation of what you are going throw in the article. ''

	===Question 2 ===		===Question 2 ===
Line 139:		Line 139:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	''...		''...''
	===Question 3 · ===		===Question 3 ===
	'''Grammar and style:'''		'''Grammar and style:'''

Line 150:		Line 150:

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	''...		''Generally is a good writing however, There are some minor mistakes. Need to mention I am not an English speaker. Using of some online websites for correct spelling and grammar could be a good idea.''

	===Question 4 · ===		===Question 4 ===
	'''Figures and tables:'''		'''Figures and tables:'''

Line 162:		Line 162:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	''...''		''At the first look lots of pictures are visible which is a good point to elaborate the text, but there is no caption or explanation for most of the pictures. Adding explanation and relevant captions could help for better understanding.''

	===Question 5 · ===		===Question 5 ===
	'''Interest and relevance:'''		'''Interest and relevance:'''

Line 174:		Line 174:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	''.~~... "~~		''As I can see you have used both practical and academic relevance subjects to explain article topics witch is very nice. ''

	===Question 6 · ===		===Question 6 ===
	'''Depth of treatment:'''		'''Depth of treatment:'''

Line 186:		Line 186:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	''...		''Lack of related words to connect different parts is visible . Caption for pictures and some explanation helps to make it more interesting for academic read.''
	===Question 7 · ===		===Question 7 ===
	'''Annotated bibliography:'''		'''Annotated bibliography:'''

Line 199:		Line 199:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''...''		''Yes, it is an article base on data and properly citing.But Mandatory References related to the standards are missed, There are not key references summarize at the end of the text.''

Hoda.vn at 13:49, 19 February 2018

2018-02-19T13:49:13Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:49, 19 February 2018
Line 114:		Line 114:
	''Good, nothing to suggest.''		''Good, nothing to suggest.''

	==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Hoda Vazirinasab''==		==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Hoda Vazirinasab''==
	===Question 1 · ===		===Question 1 · ===
	'''Quality of the summary:'''		'''Quality of the summary:'''

Hoda.vn at 13:48, 19 February 2018

2018-02-19T13:48:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:48, 19 February 2018
Line 113:		Line 113:
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''Good, nothing to suggest.''		''Good, nothing to suggest.''

			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Hoda Vazirinasab''==
			===Question 1 · ===
			'''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===
			''.... ''

			===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===
			''...
			===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===
			''...

			===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===
			''...''

			===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===
			''.... "

			===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===
			''...
			===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===
			''...''

S133819: /* Abstract Feedback */

2018-02-19T08:24:08Z

Abstract Feedback

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:24, 19 February 2018
Line 15:		Line 15:

	Please check again the point 5, Individual Assignment of the Course handbook and Reference Reading material for the Wiki Assignment and Project Work.		Please check again the point 5, Individual Assignment of the Course handbook and Reference Reading material for the Wiki Assignment and Project Work.

			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Mint Rasmussen''==
			===Question 1 ===
			'''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===
			''Good overview of the article.''
			''Include an explanation of BIM and Time scheduling analysis 4D in your abstract, since you are writing about it in your article. ''

			===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===
			''The article needs better coherence. Work on the transition from each parts.''

			''I would like to suggest you to create a table for BIM and CAD models where these two tools are set up next to each other. I think this will give a better overview of the tools. I would like to see section 2.3 set up differently to give a better overview, such as: ‘’’Design visualization’’’: explain how it benefits. ‘’’Material and cost estimation’’’: explain how it benefits, and so on.''

			===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===
			''There are some minor grammatical and spelling errors in the article.''

			''My suggestions would be to mark all the keywords with italic style, to give a better overview of which words are keywords. Another suggestion would be to ask someone to proofread the article, to minimize the minor errors. ''

			===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 that there are a lot of figures! Unfortunately, some of the figures do not have references, captions, or explanation of why they are there.''

			‘’Add references, captions and explanation to the figures.’’
			===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===
			''This article have included many relevant tools associated with the topic, which is nice.''

			''The article is a little bit disorganized and needs a bit more polishing.''

			===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===
			''The article is a little bit disorganized and needs more work to make it more interesting for a practitioner or academic read. ''
			''My suggestions can be seen above. ''

			===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===
			''Good, nothing to suggest.''

S122906: /* Abstract Feedback */

2018-02-10T22:00:00Z

Abstract Feedback

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:00, 10 February 2018
Line 13:		Line 13:

	Initially you don't need to elaborate upon any case, you don't need sections 5 and 6 of your article, however if you have insight information about this case I would recommend you to use it and see how the project dealt with project controls aspects.		Initially you don't need to elaborate upon any case, you don't need sections 5 and 6 of your article, however if you have insight information about this case I would recommend you to use it and see how the project dealt with project controls aspects.

			Please check again the point 5, Individual Assignment of the Course handbook and Reference Reading material for the Wiki Assignment and Project Work.

S122906: Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok, minor grammar mistakes. References; missing references related to the standards. In general the abstract is ok, when d..."

2018-02-10T21:57:44Z

Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok, minor grammar mistakes. References; missing references related to the standards. In general the abstract is ok, when d..."

New page

==Abstract Feedback==
Text Clarity; Ok.

Language; Ok, minor grammar mistakes.

References; missing references related to the standards.

In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget to relate with an specific aspect of Project Management Standards, in your case is related with Project controls, try to find sources related with this aspect.

Is also good that you already established the structure of the article, however I can see that the headings are more related with BIM/VDC aspects.

I recommend you to investigate how currently project controls are managed in a digital environment (BIM/VDC environments).

Initially you don't need to elaborate upon any case, you don't need sections 5 and 6 of your article, however if you have insight information about this case I would recommend you to use it and see how the project dealt with project controls aspects.