Talk:Critical reflection on Project Portfolio Management software - Revision history

Akemb: /* Peer review by Qwerty */

2014-12-02T15:06:37Z

Peer review by Qwerty

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:06, 2 December 2014
Line 52:		Line 52:
	All in all, it was a pleasure to read through and these points are just my opinion, no offence.		All in all, it was a pleasure to read through and these points are just my opinion, no offence.
	Good job and keep going.		Good job and keep going.

			'''Qwerty. Thank you for the review, i think that it have been useful i have implemented most of your suggested changes into the article'''

Akemb: /* Val review */

2014-12-02T15:05:34Z

Val review

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:05, 2 December 2014
Line 25:		Line 25:
	*"From 1990 - 1999 IT investments rose from 9% - 22%" => % of what?		*"From 1990 - 1999 IT investments rose from 9% - 22%" => % of what?
	*Your article misses maybe a conclusion?		*Your article misses maybe a conclusion?

			'''Thank you very much for your review, i have implemented most of what you have suggested and spend some time on the formatting'''

	=Peer review by Qwerty=		=Peer review by Qwerty=

Qwerty at 00:48, 26 November 2014

2014-11-26T00:48:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:48, 26 November 2014
Line 46:		Line 46:
	*Data from 1990-1999, is it still relevant and comparable in nowadays?		*Data from 1990-1999, is it still relevant and comparable in nowadays?
	*Maybe there should be the an explanation of ERP abbreviation?		*Maybe there should be the an explanation of ERP abbreviation?
			*I would also agree with peer colleague, that something misses in the end, some kind of summing up the whole perspective of the article. Conclusion or discussion part.

	All in all, it was a pleasure to read through and these points are just my opinion, no offence.		All in all, it was a pleasure to read through and these points are just my opinion, no offence.
	Good job and keep going.		Good job and keep going.

Qwerty at 00:45, 26 November 2014

2014-11-26T00:45:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:45, 26 November 2014
Line 39:		Line 39:

	===Content aspects===		===Content aspects===

			*I don't think you should use expression: "this article will focus/will reflect..." Looks like this WIKI is about an article.
			*I am not sure did I get the idea of question formulation? Is that the main focus of this article?
			"This article will reflect on the difficult question, if all portfolio management decisions should or can be taken solely by PPM software or if important management aspects are forgotten in the process."
			*In the abstract you state "With the movement against project based organizations.." and the in the next paragraph you state "In the recent years more and more companies is moving towards project based organizational structures" and then saying the same key concept of important things. Looks like these two sentences conflict.
			*Data from 1990-1999, is it still relevant and comparable in nowadays?
			*Maybe there should be the an explanation of ERP abbreviation?

			All in all, it was a pleasure to read through and these points are just my opinion, no offence.
			Good job and keep going.

Qwerty at 00:29, 26 November 2014

2014-11-26T00:29:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:29, 26 November 2014
Line 28:		Line 28:
	=Peer review by Qwerty=		=Peer review by Qwerty=

	Thank you for your article~~, it~~ was interesting to		Thank you for your article. It was interesting to read and see a critical reflection on PPM Software and on the same hand to get more comprehensive understanding regarding the PPM Software processes.
			There are few thoughts and insights about it that I would like to share with you.

	===Formal aspects===		===Formal aspects===

			*Since it is a WIKI article, I am not sure if there should be a paragraph called "Abstract". Maybe it would be more appropriate way to put it in ahead of the content box?
			*Sometimes composition of sentences makes it hard to understand, and in some cases it looks like missing punctuation what makes difficult to follow the idea.
			*At one place you use expression "is they", should it be "are"?
			*Regarding the figures, what do they reflect upon? Do they really make sense in this context?

			===Content aspects===
	==Content aspects==

Qwerty at 00:16, 26 November 2014

2014-11-26T00:16:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:16, 26 November 2014
Line 28:		Line 28:
	=Peer review by Qwerty=		=Peer review by Qwerty=

			Thank you for your article, it was interesting to

			===Formal aspects===
	==Formal aspects==



	==Content aspects==		==Content aspects==

Qwerty at 00:12, 26 November 2014

2014-11-26T00:12:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:12, 26 November 2014
Line 26:		Line 26:
	*Your article misses maybe a conclusion?		*Your article misses maybe a conclusion?

	=~~PEER REVIEW BY QWERTY~~=		=Peer review by Qwerty=



			==Formal aspects==



			==Content aspects==

Qwerty at 00:09, 26 November 2014

2014-11-26T00:09:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:09, 26 November 2014
Line 25:		Line 25:
	*"From 1990 - 1999 IT investments rose from 9% - 22%" => % of what?		*"From 1990 - 1999 IT investments rose from 9% - 22%" => % of what?
	*Your article misses maybe a conclusion?		*Your article misses maybe a conclusion?

			=PEER REVIEW BY QWERTY=

Valentin Fort: /* Val review */

2014-11-25T15:21:14Z

Val review

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:21, 25 November 2014
Line 9:		Line 9:
	*You should try to introduce the wiki format for references [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Referencing_for_beginners] You can also have a look to other articles who use it		*You should try to introduce the wiki format for references [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Referencing_for_beginners] You can also have a look to other articles who use it
	*figure 1 is missing		*figure 1 is missing
	*It is hard to see the legend/caption in figure 2		*It is hard to see the legend/caption in figure 2. You can add a caption using Wiki formatting.
	*"Executives" or "executives? I think you should choose one of the writing and use the same for the whole article		*"Executives" or "executives? I think you should choose one of the writing and use the same for the whole article

Valentin Fort at 15:18, 25 November 2014

2014-11-25T15:18:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:18, 25 November 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	== Val review ==		== Val review ==

			I would like to start saying that I learnt something reading your article, which is a good point.
			The structure is logical and you manage to turn the complexity of your topic into an easy reading article.
	~~===Content aspects===~~		I divided my feedback in 3 categories that are the following:

	*"Even though Cooper R. argues that poor tools are better than no tools I would ~~argue~~ that a ~~tool that distorts the result is worse~~."?
	*"From 1990 - 1999 IT investments rose from 9% - 22%" % of ~~what?~~
	*Conclusion?

	===Formal aspects===		===Formal aspects===

	*use ~~of references~~		*You should try to introduce the wiki format for references [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Referencing_for_beginners] You can also have a look to other articles who use it
	*figure 1 is missing		*figure 1 is missing
	*hard to see the legend/caption in figure 2		*It is hard to see the legend/caption in figure 2
	*"Executives" or "executives? ~~You~~ should choose one of the ~~writting~~		*"Executives" or "executives? I think you should choose one of the writing and use the same for the whole article

	===Grammar and Spelling===		===Grammar and Spelling===

			Few errors here. To find them, use the research tool.

	*deferral instead of deferal		*deferral instead of deferal
	*" As Lee Merkhofer consulting states. It is not beneficial for software developers to make advanced PPM software targeting niche markets."?		*"As Lee Merkhofer consulting states. It is not beneficial for software developers to make advanced PPM software targeting niche markets."?
	*"The bottom line is that even though PPM decision making software is adapted by many companies it fail"s" to gain user acceptance."		*"The bottom line is that even though PPM decision making software is adapted by many companies it fail"s" to gain user acceptance."

			===Content aspects===

			*Your article is mostly didactic but sometimes you take strong positions like in this sentence: "Even though Cooper R. argues that poor tools are better than no tools I would argue that a tool that distorts the result is worse." Maybe you should stay pedagogic.
			*"From 1990 - 1999 IT investments rose from 9% - 22%" => % of what?
			*Your article misses maybe a conclusion?