Talk:Planning Poker for Improved Project Delivery - Revision history

Kristbk at 19:52, 24 February 2019

2019-02-24T19:52:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:52, 24 February 2019
Line 124:		Line 124:
	It is based on data instead of opinion yes.		It is based on data instead of opinion yes.
	I guess if you should REALLY be going for a 12+ then maybe page and line? (I did not even do this myself)		I guess if you should REALLY be going for a 12+ then maybe page and line? (I did not even do this myself)


			==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Kristine Kaulberg''==
			===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===
			Good to start with an introduction of what a project is in relation to the chosen topic, and then explain what the topic is about. I think it would be a good idea to revisit the abstract again, when you have finished the article completely.

			===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===
			Try to come up with more relevant or descriptive headlines, and try to include subtitles within the sections to break up the large text parts and make the article flow. Bullet points (e.g. for Planning Poker estimates or the seven steps of Planning Poker), figures and tables will do that as well. Otherwise the content flow of the article is very good and straight forward – there is a good connection between the parts.

			===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===
			Overall good spelling and grammar. I found a few sentences with incorrect phrasing and some words that should be deleted. But I think reading through the article when it is done will catch these mistakes.
			Also try to divide some of the sentences into two, which will again make the article more straight forward and readable.

			===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===
			Since there are no figures or tables in the article, I’m unable to answer this question. But I do suggest to include them, since they would illustrate the content in an interesting way, making the article more interesting and welcoming/inviting.

			===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 topic is very interesting and I think the relevance of it is made clear in the article. I’m not sure about the academic relevance, maybe it could be supported by some examples of the use of Planning Poker.

			===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===
			I think it is of most interest for a practitioner to read since it is very tool based described. Furthermore, the article is critical of the tool and provided limitations as well as benefits.

			===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===
			Good work with the referencing and the use of studies related to the topic. Still missing the summary of the key references.

Keegan: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Keegan van Kooten */

2019-02-24T16:54:03Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Keegan van Kooten

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:54, 24 February 2019
Line 124:		Line 124:
	It is based on data instead of opinion yes.		It is based on data instead of opinion yes.
	I guess if you should REALLY be going for a 12+ then maybe page and line? (I did not even do this myself)		I guess if you should REALLY be going for a 12+ then maybe page and line? (I did not even do this myself)





	~~==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Keegan van Kooten''==~~
	~~===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===~~
	I think the abstract starts off very strong, by stating the problem, and that it is likely due to ambiguity regarding the lack of a universal definition of project governance. Then the focus of the article is stated very well, but then I feel the abstract goes too much into to detail explaining the levels of governance. It's very good information, I'm just not sure it belongs in the abstract as such. Maybe it needs to be shortened and made more factually, rather than explaining it step by step.

	~~===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===~~
	You cover a lot of material, and many terms. I can tell that there are many factors to take into account when trying to write an article about project management governance. You do a good job of explaining when you talk about 'project' then 'program' then portfolio' so be sure to keep that in mind as you continue writing the article. There are sections which are not really refined yet and there isn't too much flow (such as the end of Project Governance Framework, but I'm sure this will come as you add more to the article. There are no major contradictions in the article.

	~~The 13 principles should also be explained (but I assume that will come in the future).~~


	~~===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 article overall is well written, with good terminology and grammar. There are a few grammatical errors, but these do not take away from the understanding. You should try not to use the word 'talking' as this is a written article. Try 'when considering governance...' instead.

	~~===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===~~
	Your figures (and figure references) need to be incorporated in your text, but you are already aware of that. A little more explanation (likely through the figure text) for the first figure (under Project Governance Organisation) should be included as it is otherwise a little difficult to understand.

	~~===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===~~
	You make your article's intent very clear in the beginning, but likely as it is not finished just yet, it is difficult to understand how exactly the problem is solved (you explain it all very well, but try include text that shows how this should be understood in your context). With these changes, there is very good academic relevance

	~~===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 raises some very interesting points, and ways of solving them. As mentioned in previous question, if you can write some more sentences on how these points should be incorporated in a project, or how the theory should be understood and worked with, that would help its contribution to people interested in project management governance.

	~~===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===~~
	Information throughout the article is well referenced, and reference list is well set up. You haven't necessarily described the key references (but neither have I in my article), so I am sure that will come soon. There is very little data, but this is likely due to the nature of the topic (there likely aren't many facts to include).

Keegan: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Kevin Lim */

2019-02-24T16:52:53Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Kevin Lim

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:52, 24 February 2019
Line 124:		Line 124:
	It is based on data instead of opinion yes.		It is based on data instead of opinion yes.
	I guess if you should REALLY be going for a 12+ then maybe page and line? (I did not even do this myself)		I guess if you should REALLY be going for a 12+ then maybe page and line? (I did not even do this myself)





			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Keegan van Kooten''==
			===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===
			I think the abstract starts off very strong, by stating the problem, and that it is likely due to ambiguity regarding the lack of a universal definition of project governance. Then the focus of the article is stated very well, but then I feel the abstract goes too much into to detail explaining the levels of governance. It's very good information, I'm just not sure it belongs in the abstract as such. Maybe it needs to be shortened and made more factually, rather than explaining it step by step.

			===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===
			You cover a lot of material, and many terms. I can tell that there are many factors to take into account when trying to write an article about project management governance. You do a good job of explaining when you talk about 'project' then 'program' then portfolio' so be sure to keep that in mind as you continue writing the article. There are sections which are not really refined yet and there isn't too much flow (such as the end of Project Governance Framework, but I'm sure this will come as you add more to the article. There are no major contradictions in the article.

			The 13 principles should also be explained (but I assume that will come in the future).


			===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 article overall is well written, with good terminology and grammar. There are a few grammatical errors, but these do not take away from the understanding. You should try not to use the word 'talking' as this is a written article. Try 'when considering governance...' instead.

			===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===
			Your figures (and figure references) need to be incorporated in your text, but you are already aware of that. A little more explanation (likely through the figure text) for the first figure (under Project Governance Organisation) should be included as it is otherwise a little difficult to understand.

			===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===
			You make your article's intent very clear in the beginning, but likely as it is not finished just yet, it is difficult to understand how exactly the problem is solved (you explain it all very well, but try include text that shows how this should be understood in your context). With these changes, there is very good academic relevance

			===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 raises some very interesting points, and ways of solving them. As mentioned in previous question, if you can write some more sentences on how these points should be incorporated in a project, or how the theory should be understood and worked with, that would help its contribution to people interested in project management governance.

			===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===
			Information throughout the article is well referenced, and reference list is well set up. You haven't necessarily described the key references (but neither have I in my article), so I am sure that will come soon. There is very little data, but this is likely due to the nature of the topic (there likely aren't many facts to include).

S123368 at 12:26, 24 February 2019

2019-02-24T12:26:22Z

Show changes

S123368: /* Feedback on Abstract */

2019-02-24T12:23:52Z

Feedback on Abstract

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:23, 24 February 2019
Line 15:		Line 15:

	\|}		\|}

			\| Reviewer name:Kevin Lim [edit]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?
			[edit]Answer 1 The summary gives a good introduction alongside with the key focuses the article is going to talk about. It sets you off to a good start of knowing what you will be reading, while it also gives you a short description of what a project is.
			[edit]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?
			[edit]Answer 2 The argumentation is clear and the explanation of the concepts are fine, although it can be quite hard to read in the sea of texts, it would be much easier if there were bullet points.
			The flow runs quite well, it describes one thing and then the other things, it does not go back and forth while trying to explain too much. It feels like you go from A to B to C etc. so it is quite good.
			It definitely does, I do not feel confused at any point.
			It is consistent as it has to go good with the flow, therefore I do not think it is not consistent, furthermore I do not think there are any contradictions as the article very plainly explain what the concept is, and how it is applied.
			A suggestion would be, make bullet points, try to make some points, divide it up so it would be easier to read and try maybe make some visualization, it will help on the understanding.
			[edit]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?
			[edit]Answer 3 There are some minor grammatical errors, but it is not so it is not understandable.
			I personally think, writing such a long article without fill words, would be a challenge. I do not think though, there are fill words, just to fill the word count in this case.
			Just a double check on the grammar, and about spelling error, there will be a underlined red line, when you write here in Wiki, so it will be avoided automatically.
			[edit]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?
			[edit]Answer 4
			There are no figures, which I miss.
			I think the conclusion is short and precise, nothing you would ask questions about or think that, you did not read about that in the article.
			I do not think I have any suggestions for the conclusion part.
			[edit]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?
			[edit]Answer 5 I think it has both, it tells you how it can be used in real life, but it also tells you how it works, so I think this article is one of the articles, where you can look up, and think oh I can do it like what this article is telling me and actually use it.
			It is, but I mean, as a reader, you should also know yourself if it is relevant or not, you cannot expect the article to lead you, if you have -10 knowledge in project management, which does not make sense to me. If you google a certain topic, you are typically working about a topic, and hence researching about a topic. So you know what you are doing so to speak.
			I think it would be very cool again if it is illustrated, but otherwise it is good.
			[edit]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?
			[edit]Answer 6 I would say the article is most interesting for a practitioner, because there are not deep and heavy theory about the tool itself, if you want for academic read, it definitely needs some more theory, history, background and more. Nevertheless, I think the article is a good starting point for a practice.
			No, not a significant contribution, I guess it can be called a normal contribution. If it should be significant, then in my opinion it should be much longer, and a topic that is not really written about. So it is not because it is a bad article, it is just so much of this already exist.
			Regarding the questions asked, there are no improvement from my side, because it depends on what your focus point is. Practice or academic.
			[edit]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?
			[edit]Answer 7
			It does, but I am not sure if you need to include which page and line. Personally I did not do that, just the name and not even the date visited.
			Yes, you can see the links, and the dates.
			It is based on data instead of opinion yes.
			I guess if you should REALLY be going for a 12+ then maybe page and line? (I did not even do this myself)

Raquel Valente: Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| Good |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good |- |'''Explanation of the purpose of the article'''|| Good |- ..."

2019-02-19T01:25:59Z

Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| Good |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good |- |'''Explanation of the purpose of the article'''|| Good |- ..."

New page

==Feedback on Abstract==

{|
|'''Text clarity'''|| Good
|-
|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good
|-
|'''Explanation of the purpose of the article'''|| Good
|-
|'''Relevance to curriculum'''|| Relevant
|-
|'''References'''|| Good
|-
|'''Other'''|| It lacks a bit of context. Try to specify where this agile approach would more beneficial and its limitations

|}