Talk:Project Management: Cost vs. Price - Revision history

S145320 at 18:19, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T18:19:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:19, 25 February 2019
Line 117:		Line 117:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	Answer 1		Answer 1:The summery are good, and the language is good.
	The summery are good, and the language is good.

	===Question 2===		===Question 2===
Line 128:		Line 127:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	Answer 2		Answer 2: The article is very good and the division of the article is good. The sections have good headlines and the writer makes the topic easy to understand.
	The article is very good and the division of the article is good. The sections have good headlines and the writer makes the topic easy to understand.

	===Question 3===		===Question 3===
Line 137:		Line 135:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	Answer 3		Answer 3: As a starting point the whole text is good. There are just few grammatical errors.
	As a starting point the whole text is good. There are just few grammatical errors.

	===Question 4===		===Question 4===
Line 146:		Line 143:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	Answer 4		Answer 4: Figures are placed well on the right side.
	Figures are placed well on the right side.

	===Question 5===		===Question 5===
Line 155:		Line 151:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	Answer 5		Answer 5: I think the topic of choice is good and relevant.
	I think the topic of choice is good and relevant.

	===Question 6===		===Question 6===
Line 164:		Line 159:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	Answer 6		Answer 6: I think the article and topic are good - I have no objections to this.
	I think the article and topic are good - I have no objections to this.

	===Question 7===		===Question 7===
Line 174:		Line 168:
	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

	Answer 7		Answer 7: I think the article and topic are good - I have no objections to this.
	I think the article and topic are good - I have no objections to this.

S145320 at 18:18, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T18:18:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:18, 25 February 2019
Line 112:		Line 112:
	==Feedback 2\| Reviewer name: ''Rasmine Søgren''==		==Feedback 2\| Reviewer name: ''Rasmine Søgren''==

	==Question 1 ==		===Question 1 ===
	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?
Line 120:		Line 120:
	The summery are good, and the language is good.		The summery are good, and the language is good.

	==Question 2==		===Question 2===
	Structure and logic of the article:		Structure and logic of the article:
	Is the argument clear?		Is the argument clear?
Line 131:		Line 131:
	The article is very good and the division of the article is good. The sections have good headlines and the writer makes the topic easy to understand.		The article is very good and the division of the article is good. The sections have good headlines and the writer makes the topic easy to understand.

	==Question 3==		===Question 3===
	Grammar and style:		Grammar and style:
	Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?		Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?
Line 140:		Line 140:
	As a starting point the whole text is good. There are just few grammatical errors.		As a starting point the whole text is good. There are just few grammatical errors.

	==Question 4==		===Question 4===
	Figures and tables:		Figures and tables:
	Are figures and tables clear?		Are figures and tables clear?
Line 149:		Line 149:
	Figures are placed well on the right side.		Figures are placed well on the right side.

	==Question 5==		===Question 5===
	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?
Line 158:		Line 158:
	I think the topic of choice is good and relevant.		I think the topic of choice is good and relevant.

	==Question 6==		===Question 6===
	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?
Line 167:		Line 167:
	I think the article and topic are good - I have no objections to this.		I think the article and topic are good - I have no objections to this.

	==Question 7==		===Question 7===
	Annotated bibliography:		Annotated bibliography:
	Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?		Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?

S145320 at 18:16, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T18:16:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:16, 25 February 2019
Line 108:		Line 108:
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	the article is very well summarized with proper citations		the article is very well summarized with proper citations


			==Feedback 2\| Reviewer name: ''Rasmine Søgren''==

			==Question 1 ==
			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 summery are good, and the language is good.

			==Question 2==
			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 article is very good and the division of the article is good. The sections have good headlines and the writer makes the topic easy to understand.

			==Question 3==
			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
			As a starting point the whole text is good. There are just few grammatical errors.

			==Question 4==
			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 placed well on the right side.

			==Question 5==
			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
			I think the topic of choice is good and relevant.

			==Question 6==
			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 the article and topic are good - I have no objections to this.

			==Question 7==
			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
			I think the article and topic are good - I have no objections to this.

S181289: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Rajat Kumar */

2019-02-25T10:15:38Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Rajat Kumar

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:15, 25 February 2019
Line 81:		Line 81:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	~~The article and the theme is interesting,~~ has ~~strong~~ academic relevance~~, and~~ it ~~is clear in~~ the ~~text why. As it is said~~ in ~~the abstract all the projects are exposed to a certain level~~ of ~~uncertainty and the managers need support to overcome the obstacles - these articles can play a big role in helping the managers.~~		It has high academic relevance as it makes you understand the cost parameters in terms of pro

	===Question 6 · TEXT===		===Question 6 · TEXT===
Line 93:		Line 93:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	~~Like said above, the article has~~ a ~~strong real life application and~~ for this ~~reason~~ should ~~be further developed deeper~~. At the ~~moment doesn't add any value to what can be found online.~~		"Setting a price for a project is usually done by the company’s marketing department" in this line it is confusing as I think you should talk about deliverables/product, not about the project. Everything is relevant in the article except in some points it makes confusion in Project / Product

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===
Line 107:		Line 107:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	~~The conclusion must be finished, must conclude and summarize all the key points from all~~ the article.		the article is very well summarized with proper citations

S181289: /* Feedback on Abstract: */

2019-02-25T09:54:10Z

Feedback on Abstract:

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:54, 25 February 2019
Line 18:		Line 18:
	\|'''Other'''\|\| The abstract is a bit short so if you want to be a bit more specific you have space.		\|'''Other'''\|\| The abstract is a bit short so if you want to be a bit more specific you have space.
	\|}		\|}


			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Rajat Kumar''==
			===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 content in the summary is clearly described and illustrates the idea in whole article.
			===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===
			Nicely structured in the proper lexical sense and this makes very easy to understand and interesting to read.

			===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 waste words have been used and language used precisely describes the topic.

			===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===
			Excellent correlation between the content and figures. Figures in the article make it easy to understand what the authors want to say.

			===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 and the theme is interesting, has strong academic relevance, and it is clear in the text why. As it is said in the abstract all the projects are exposed to a certain level of uncertainty and the managers need support to overcome the obstacles - these articles can play a big role in helping the managers.

			===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===
			Like said above, the article has a strong real life application and for this reason should be further developed deeper. At the moment doesn't add any value to what can be found online.

			===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 conclusion must be finished, must conclude and summarize all the key points from all the article.

Ebkh: /* Feedback on Abstract: */

2019-02-19T08:50:16Z

Feedback on Abstract:

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:50, 19 February 2019
Line 10:		Line 10:
	\|'''Purpose explanation'''\|\| Good		\|'''Purpose explanation'''\|\| Good
	\|-		\|-
	\|'''Title of the Wiki'''\|\| Good		\|'''Title of the Wiki'''\|\| Good but could also be cost and price in project management
	\|-		\|-
	\|'''Relevance to curriculum'''\|\| Relevant		\|'''Relevance to curriculum'''\|\| Relevant

Ebkh: Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| Good |- |'''Language'''|| Good |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good |- |'''Purpose explanation'''|| Good..."

2019-02-19T08:49:27Z

Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| Good |- |'''Language'''|| Good |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good |- |'''Purpose explanation'''|| Good..."

New page

==Feedback on Abstract:==

{|
|'''Text clarity'''|| Good
|-
|'''Language'''|| Good
|-
|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good
|-
|'''Purpose explanation'''|| Good
|-
|'''Title of the Wiki'''|| Good
|-
|'''Relevance to curriculum'''|| Relevant
|-
|'''References'''|| Remember to make correct references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references
|-
|'''Other'''|| The abstract is a bit short so if you want to be a bit more specific you have space.
|}