Talk:Financial appraisal of project proposals - Revision history

Daugaard: /* Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Place your name here */

2018-02-18T15:37:08Z

Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Place your name here

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:37, 18 February 2018
Line 114:		Line 114:
	I think you should try to add some references to the compulsory readings.		I think you should try to add some references to the compulsory readings.

	==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''~~Place your name here~~''==		==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Sebastian Daugaard''==
	===Question 1 · TEXT===		===Question 1 · TEXT===
	'''Quality of the summary:'''		'''Quality of the summary:'''
Line 123:		Line 123:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	~~''Answer here''~~		The purpose of the article is clear. I think that the scope of the article may not be related to project management, but more to program or portfolio management, as the project manager is often introduced after doing the initial comparisons of projects. Potentially validate this with a TA.

	===Question 2 · TEXT===		===Question 2 · TEXT===
	'''Structure and logic of the article:'''		'''Structure and logic of the article:'''
Line 139:		Line 138:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	~~''Answer here''~~		I like the flow of the article and the similarity in how the methods are explained. I would like to see references to articles talking about uncertainty management, or some kind of disclaimer addressing it, as the world may not always be that tangible.

	===Question 3 · TEXT===		===Question 3 · TEXT===
Line 151:		Line 150:

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	~~''Answer here''~~		I like the language. Some sentences drag on for a while with an abundance of commas.

	===Question 4 · TEXT===		===Question 4 · TEXT===
Line 163:		Line 162:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	~~''Answer here''~~		The figure in the abstract could be tied more into the writing (and be enlarged a bit). The other figures provide an excellent overview of the examples. It might be interesting with a pros-cons table of the different cost-estimation techniques.

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===
	'''Interest and relevance:'''		'''Interest and relevance:'''
Line 175:		Line 173:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	~~''Answer here''~~		I would certainly polish the connection to the course a bit i.e. whether this tool is for the project, program or portfolio manager.

	===Question 6 · TEXT===		===Question 6 · TEXT===
	'''Depth of treatment:'''		'''Depth of treatment:'''
Line 187:		Line 184:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	~~''Answer here''~~		At the time, I feel like the article is similar to what you could find by googling different ECON definitions. So I would focus on establishing a strong connection to the course. Potentially you could discuss when it makes sense to use the different tools.

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===
Line 201:		Line 198:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	~~''Answer here''~~		No annotated bibliography yet. 1 source is not a lot for such a long text. I can imagine that the economics is difficult to find in the course-litterature, but you could talk about risk analysis e.g. the severity/probability matrix.

PiotrMieszalo at 14:06, 18 February 2018

2018-02-18T14:06:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:06, 18 February 2018
Line 31:		Line 31:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	~~''Answer here''~~
	Yes, nothing.		Yes, nothing.

Line 48:		Line 47:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	~~''Answer here''~~
	Yes, Yes the flow is very logical. Yes and yes.		Yes, Yes the flow is very logical. Yes and yes.

Line 61:		Line 59:

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	~~''Answer here''~~
	I haven't spot any errors and I believe that its pretty precise. I don't believe there is much room for improvement.		I haven't spot any errors and I believe that its pretty precise. I don't believe there is much room for improvement.

Line 74:		Line 71:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	~~''Answer here''~~
	Yes, Yes, the figures give a ver good insight on what the article will handle and what are the relationships between different sections.		Yes, Yes, the figures give a ver good insight on what the article will handle and what are the relationships between different sections.
	Nothing to improve		Nothing to improve
Line 88:		Line 84:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	~~''Answer here''~~
	I believe it is relevant, especially for our group project.		I believe it is relevant, especially for our group project.
	Yes, it is made in the abstract.		Yes, it is made in the abstract.
Line 103:		Line 98:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	~~''Answer here''~~
	Yes, yes, nothing.		Yes, yes, nothing.

Line 117:		Line 111:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	~~''Answer here''~~
	Yes, yes, yes		Yes, yes, yes
	I think you should try to add some references to the compulsory readings.		I think you should try to add some references to the compulsory readings.

PiotrMieszalo at 14:05, 18 February 2018

2018-02-18T14:05:34Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:05, 18 February 2018
Line 26:		Line 26:
	'''Quality of the summary:''' Good		'''Quality of the summary:''' Good

	Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? ~~Yes~~		Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?

	What would you suggest to improve? ~~Nothing~~		What would you suggest to improve?

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	''Answer here''		''Answer here''
			Yes, nothing.
	-

	===Question 2 · TEXT===		===Question 2 · TEXT===
	'''Structure and logic of the article:'''		'''Structure and logic of the article:'''

	Is the argument clear? ~~Yes~~		Is the argument clear?

	Is there a logical flow to the article? ~~Yes, very~~		Is there a logical flow to the article?

	Does one part build upon the other? ~~Yes~~		Does one part build upon the other?

	Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?		Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?
Line 50:		Line 49:
	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	''Answer here''		''Answer here''
			Yes, Yes the flow is very logical. Yes and yes.

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

	Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? ~~I haven't spot any.~~		Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?

	Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? ~~Yes~~		Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?

	What would you suggest to improve? ~~Nothing~~		What would you suggest to improve?

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	''Answer here''		''Answer here''
	-		I haven't spot any errors and I believe that its pretty precise. I don't believe there is much room for improvement.

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

	Are figures and tables clear? ~~Yes~~		Are figures and tables clear?

	Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? ~~Yes, they give a fine summary on what the article will handle and what are the relationships between different sections~~		Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?

	What would you suggest to improve? ~~Nothing~~		What would you suggest to improve?

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	''Answer here''		''Answer here''
	-		Yes, Yes, the figures give a ver good insight on what the article will handle and what are the relationships between different sections.
			Nothing to improve

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

	Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? ~~I believe it is~~		Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?

	Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? ~~Yes~~		Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?

	What would you suggest to improve? ~~Nothing~~		What would you suggest to improve?

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	''Answer here''		''Answer here''
	-		I believe it is relevant, especially for our group project.
			Yes, it is made in the abstract.
			Nothing

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

	Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? ~~Yes~~		Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?

	Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? ~~Yes~~		Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?

	What would you suggest to improve? ~~Nothing~~		What would you suggest to improve?

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	''Answer here''		''Answer here''
	-		Yes, yes, nothing.

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===
	'''Annotated bibliography:'''		'''Annotated bibliography:'''

	Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? ~~Yes~~		Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?

	Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?		Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?

	Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? ~~Yes~~		Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?

	~~What would you suggest to improve? I think you should try to add some references to the compulsory readings~~

			What would you suggest to improve?
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''Answer here''		''Answer here''
	-		Yes, yes, yes
			I think you should try to add some references to the compulsory readings.

	==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Place your name here''==		==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Place your name here''==
	===Question 1 · TEXT===		===Question 1 · TEXT===

PiotrMieszalo at 13:57, 18 February 2018

2018-02-18T13:57:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:57, 18 February 2018
Line 26:		Line 26:
	'''Quality of the summary:''' Good		'''Quality of the summary:''' Good

	Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?		Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Yes

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve? Nothing

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	''Answer here''		''Answer here''

			-

	===Question 2 · TEXT===		===Question 2 · TEXT===
	'''Structure and logic of the article:'''		'''Structure and logic of the article:'''

	Is the argument clear?		Is the argument clear? Yes

	Is there a logical flow to the article?		Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes, very

	Does one part build upon the other?		Does one part build upon the other? Yes

	Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?		Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?
Line 52:		Line 54:
	'''Grammar and style:'''		'''Grammar and style:'''

	Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?		Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? I haven't spot any.

	Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?		Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve? Nothing

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	''Answer here''		''Answer here''
			-
	===Question 4 · TEXT===		===Question 4 · TEXT===
	'''Figures and tables:'''		'''Figures and tables:'''

	Are figures and tables clear?		Are figures and tables clear? Yes

	Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?		Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? Yes, they give a fine summary on what the article will handle and what are the relationships between different sections

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve? Nothing

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	''Answer here''		''Answer here''
			-
	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===
	'''Interest and relevance:'''		'''Interest and relevance:'''

	Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?		Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? I believe it is

	Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?		Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? Yes

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve? Nothing

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	''Answer here''		''Answer here''
			-

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

	Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?		Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes

	Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?		Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? Yes

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve? Nothing

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	''Answer here''		''Answer here''
			-
	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===
	'''Annotated bibliography:'''		'''Annotated bibliography:'''

	Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?		Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Yes

	Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?		Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?

	Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?		Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve? I think you should try to add some references to the compulsory readings

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''Answer here''		''Answer here''
			-
	==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Place your name here''==		==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Place your name here''==
	===Question 1 · TEXT===		===Question 1 · TEXT===

PiotrMieszalo at 13:43, 18 February 2018

2018-02-18T13:43:33Z

Show changes

Hani Mike Rae Selim: /* Abstract Feedback */

2018-02-14T07:34:14Z

Abstract Feedback

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:34, 14 February 2018
Line 7:		Line 7:
	'''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Easy to follow, but the image is too small to read. In most cases, I would personally recommend to not use diagrams in abstracts, but rather move them to a "background" section where the tool is more thoroughly explained		'''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Easy to follow, but the image is too small to read. In most cases, I would personally recommend to not use diagrams in abstracts, but rather move them to a "background" section where the tool is more thoroughly explained

	'''Purpose explanation''' Good, but consider: ~~is this tool primarily applied for portfolio or program management?~~		'''Purpose explanation''' Good, but consider:
	<ol>		<ol>
	<li> Is this tool primarily applied for portfolio or program management?		<li> Is this tool primarily applied for portfolio or program management?

Hani Mike Rae Selim: Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== '''Text clarity''' Coherent '''Language''' Good, with some minor errors e.g. write "to evaluate" instead of "to evaluates." Re-read the abstrac..."

2018-02-14T07:33:41Z

Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== '''Text clarity''' Coherent '''Language''' Good, with some minor errors e.g. write "to evaluate" instead of "to evaluates." Re-read the abstrac..."

New page

==Abstract Feedback==

'''Text clarity''' Coherent

'''Language''' Good, with some minor errors e.g. write "to evaluate" instead of "to evaluates." Re-read the abstract

'''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Easy to follow, but the image is too small to read. In most cases, I would personally recommend to not use diagrams in abstracts, but rather move them to a "background" section where the tool is more thoroughly explained

'''Purpose explanation''' Good, but consider: is this tool primarily applied for portfolio or program management?
<ol>
<li> Is this tool primarily applied for portfolio or program management?
<li> Who is the reader? Project or Program manager or any project team member?
</ol>

'''References''' Missing appropriate references to mandatory list of references

'''Relevance of article''' It is relevant. Consider the following:

<ol>
<li> Try to link it to a knowledge area of project/program/portfolio management
<li> Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project/program/portfolio management community more than a normal web search
</ol>