Talk:Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs and Project Management - Revision history

OliwiaLubiarz: /* Answer 5 */

2019-02-25T16:13:33Z

Answer 5

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:13, 25 February 2019
Line 160:		Line 160:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	''The article can be used for both, practical and academic relevance. The explanation of the linkage ~~wit~~ APPPM is well explained. ''		''The article can be used for both, practical and academic relevance. The explanation of the linkage with APPPM is well explained. ''

	===Question 6 · TEXT===		===Question 6 · TEXT===

OliwiaLubiarz at 16:13, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T16:13:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:13, 25 February 2019
Line 98:		Line 98:
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''''The article cites and acknowledges previous work and presents annotated bibliography. I think that References 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 are similar in terms of Authors, “Journal”, pages and year. Should it be separately given if they are different paragraphs of the same technical report? ''		''''The article cites and acknowledges previous work and presents annotated bibliography. I think that References 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 are similar in terms of Authors, “Journal”, pages and year. Should it be separately given if they are different paragraphs of the same technical report? ''

			==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Oliwia Sonia Lubiarz''==
			===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 mentions all aspects that are considered in the article. Well explained the purpose of the article. I would suggest adding something about limitations. Try to avoid using “I” form, “I wrote the hierarchy of needs for …”.''

			===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===
			''Article is clear to understand, very nice logical flow. One-part builds another, a good example for that is explaining the hierarchy with random examples and then matching that part with explaining them in Projects. ''

			===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===
			''No noticeable grammatical and spelling errors. As I mentioned in the first question, avoid using “I” form and no more suggestions from my side. ''

			===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===
			''You added nice pictures, but no word is mentioned in the article about them. I would suggest making a small linkage to them in the article. One more thing, maybe you can make them a little bit smaller. There are no tables, but probably no need to add any. ''

			===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===
			''The article can be used for both, practical and academic relevance. The explanation of the linkage wit APPPM is well explained. ''

			===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 good, quite interesting that Maslow´s hierarchy of needs could be that well linkage to Project Management.''

			===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===
			''The article properly cites and acknowledges previous work, the annotated bibliography is included, however, some more words could be said about each of the used books. Nice idea with the reading suggestions related to Wiki Articles. One more thing that I have noticed “Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, Project management Institute (PMBOK® Guide) (6th Edition) shouldn´t you start with Project Management Institute, which is, in that case, the author of the book? ''

PanosVoun: /* Answer 4 */

2019-02-24T13:13:24Z

Answer 4

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:13, 24 February 2019
Line 59:		Line 59:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	''Figures are clearly shown, and properly referenced. There are not any tables in this text.''		''Figures are clearly shown, and properly referenced. However, should they have been recreated and not copied as is? There are not any tables in this text.''

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===

PanosVoun: /* Feedback on Abstract: */

2019-02-24T13:03:58Z

Feedback on Abstract:

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:03, 24 February 2019
Line 15:		Line 15:

	\|}		\|}


			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Panagiotis Vounatsos''==
			===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 is clear and concise, and it presents where the wiki article stands in terms of use for the project manager. The summary could also refer to the perspective of Project Manager and the limitations.''

			===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 structure and logic of the article are nice, and the article is of good length. I cannot think of any improvement for this question.''

			===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 grammar is clear and understandable''

			===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===
			''Figures are clearly shown, and properly referenced. There are not any tables in this text.''

			===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===
			''The present article can be used both for academic and practical reasons. Both, the theoretical background and the application in project management, are given. Limitations section could be added. ''

			===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 because it provides insight as of how Maslow’s hierarchy of needs can be applied for team management. There is an analysis of all the needs and how project/program/portfolio managers should act for each need. From what I understood from the article, the higher the need in the pyramid it is, the more difficult it is to provide from the perspective of the project manager. I think it would be nice to comment regarding the level of need, up to which a project manager and a company usually tend to cover for their employees ''

			===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===
			''''The article cites and acknowledges previous work and presents annotated bibliography. I think that References 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 are similar in terms of Authors, “Journal”, pages and year. Should it be separately given if they are different paragraphs of the same technical report? ''

Raquel Valente: Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity & language'''|| Ok |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| The tool/theory/concept is not enough described |- |'''Art..."

2019-02-19T10:25:14Z

Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity & language'''|| Ok |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| The tool/theory/concept is not enough described |- |'''Art..."

New page

==Feedback on Abstract:==

{|
|'''Text clarity & language'''|| Ok
|-
|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| The tool/theory/concept is not enough described
|-
|'''Article purpose explanation'''|| There is no explanation of the purpose of the article
|-
|'''Relevance to curriculum '''|| Make sure you clearly relate it to project, program or portfolio management
|-
|'''References'''|| Missing references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references
|-
|'''Other'''|| The abstract should be a summary of your article. It should combine a description of the tool/theory/concept, its relation to project, program or portfolio management and a clear statement of the purpose of the article.

|}