Steffen Hansen at 16:43, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T16:43:18Z

@@ Line 81: / Line 81: @@
 ===Answer 5===
 The concept of risk management in Industry 4.0 is definitely relevant, but the vast amount of explanation of Industry 4.0 seems a little off, for both professionals and academics, since it is assumable that they know about it. It kinda drags away the focus from the risk management-part that is the super interesting part.
@@ Line 115: / Line 114: @@
 I would definitely make a bibliography. I do not suppose you disagree with me.

Sunebaldus: Created page with "==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Sune Baldus''== ===Question 1 · TEXT=== '''Quality of the summary:''' Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of th..."

2019-02-25T13:09:45Z

Created page with "==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Sune Baldus''== ===Question 1 · TEXT=== '''Quality of the summary:''' Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of th..."

New page

==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Sune Baldus''==
===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===
''Answer here''

To some extent. It revolves mainly around Industry 4.0, leaving two lines on what risk management is, and what the article is about.
I would elaborate more on the Risk management itself, and the insights gained from the article. Also, I would make some references.

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

First, the background-section is very elaborative of Industry 4.0. It refers to non-existing figures (suppose they will come later).

Then the article changes it focus to risk management, but only four bullets are used to explain risk management, and then eight lines are used to criticize an ISO-standard of some kind.

The Structure-chapter could need some refining. It is very densely written with a lot of data and expressions – it suffers a lot from the lack of elaboration in the background section. Also, the bullet-points does not work in the formatting. Figures would create some sort of overview.

Ironically, the chapter does not present a clear structure of how to implement risk management, but I do see that it is where you are heading. you could make it a short action-plan, with the steps in the process.

Add references as well.

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

Well, the bullet points do not work in this formatting.
The language is very precise, without severe spelling errors.

Use this page to find the codes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Cheatsheet

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

Figures and table could for sure be used to summarize key points – especially in the structure-chapter, a graphical presentation could be useful.

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

The concept of risk management in Industry 4.0 is definitely relevant, but the vast amount of explanation of Industry 4.0 seems a little off, for both professionals and academics, since it is assumable that they know about it. It kinda drags away the focus from the risk management-part that is the super interesting part.

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

A hands-on guideline and structure would improve the article.
Since there is no figures and references now, it does not contribute with a lot, but it is an interesting topic for a manager within the Risk-area, so consider add a focus on what makes risk management in Industry 4.0 unique compared to risk management in general.

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

I would definitely make a bibliography. I do not suppose you disagree with me.

Talk:Risk management in industry 4.0 - Revision history

Steffen Hansen at 16:43, 25 February 2019

Sunebaldus: Created page with "==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Sune Baldus''== ===Question 1 · TEXT=== '''Quality of the summary:''' Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of th..."