Talk:Kotter's 8- Step Change Model - Revision history

S123666: /* Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Place your name here */

2018-02-19T16:29:36Z

Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Place your name here

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:29, 19 February 2018
Line 93:		Line 93:
	''Answer here''		''Answer here''

	==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''~~Place your name here~~''==		==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Mads Grøndal''==
	===Question 1 · TEXT===		===Question 1 · TEXT===
	'''Quality of the summary:'''		'''Quality of the summary:'''

	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?

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''I am not sure that Kotter's change model is out of scope for this course''

	===Question 2 · TEXT===		===Question 2 · TEXT===
Line 123:		Line 123:
	'''Grammar and style:'''		'''Grammar and style:'''

	Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?		Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? yes

	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?
Line 135:		Line 135:
	'''Figures and tables:'''		'''Figures and tables:'''

	Are figures and tables clear?		Are figures and tables clear? n/a

	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? n/a

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?
Line 147:		Line 147:
	'''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? Can be

	Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?		Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? No

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''''

	===Question 6 · TEXT===		===Question 6 · TEXT===
Line 171:		Line 171:
	'''Annotated bibliography:'''		'''Annotated bibliography:'''

	Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?		Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? n/a

	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? n/a

	Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?		Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? n/a

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?
Line 181:		Line 181:
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''Answer here''		''Answer here''


	==Abstract Feedback==		==Abstract Feedback==

Idasmidt: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Place your name here */

2018-02-17T17:58:12Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Place your name here

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:58, 17 February 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''~~Place your name here~~''==		==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Ida Smidt''==
	===Question 1 · TEXT===		===Question 1 · TEXT===
	'''Quality of the summary:'''		'''Quality of the summary:'''

	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, very clear.

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?
			PMI-reference - also a way of linking to program management

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
Line 13:		Line 15:
	'''Structure and logic of the article:'''		'''Structure and logic of the article:'''

	Is the argument clear?		Is the argument clear?

	Is there a logical flow to the article?		Is there a logical flow to the article?
			Yes (from what is written)

	Does one part build upon the other?		Does one part build upon the other?
Line 54:		Line 57:

	Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?		Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?
			Yes

	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, if linked to program management

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

Rikke at 16:19, 16 February 2018

2018-02-16T16:19:10Z

Show changes

S122906: Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok. References; missing references related to the standards The abstract sounds well, but the topic is out of scope, you a..."

2018-02-12T21:40:45Z

Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok. References; missing references related to the standards The abstract sounds well, but the topic is out of scope, you a..."

New page

==Abstract Feedback==
Text Clarity; Ok.

Language; Ok.

References; missing references related to the standards

The abstract sounds well, but the topic is out of scope, you are describing the model from a pure organizational point of view in a organizational environment, try to relate the topic within a project/program/portfolio environment.

If you want to continue with the topic, try to find relevant literature that shows this model in the course context.

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