Talk:Stakeholder Management Processes in Projects - Revision history

Isabel.w: /* Answer 3 */

2019-02-25T23:29:35Z

Answer 3

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:29, 25 February 2019
Line 152:		Line 152:
	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===

	I didn’t find any errors ~~expect~~ for ~~maybe~~ neutured instead of what I believe is meant to be nurtured (Stakeholder Engagement section). I’m fairly sure it’s just a typo though. Again, I enjoyed how easily understood your descriptions are. No unnecessary fill words but I would consider keeping it a bit more formal in the stakeholder management key principle process section (plan, it plan it plan and communicate, communicate, communicate) although I do understand that it underlines your point.		I didn’t find any errors except for "neutured" instead of what I believe is meant to be nurtured (Stakeholder Engagement section). I’m fairly sure it’s just a typo though. Again, I enjoyed how easily understood your descriptions are. No unnecessary fill words but I would consider keeping it a bit more formal in the stakeholder management key principle process section (plan, it plan it plan and communicate, communicate, communicate) although I do understand that it underlines your point.

	===Question 4 · TEXT===		===Question 4 · TEXT===

Isabel.w: /* Feedback 2| Reviewer name: Isabel Wang */

2019-02-25T23:29:06Z

Feedback 2| Reviewer name: Isabel Wang

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:29, 25 February 2019
Line 111:		Line 111:


	==Feedback 2\| Reviewer name: ''Isabel Wang''==		==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Isabel Wang''==
	===Question 1 · TEXT===		===Question 1 · TEXT===
	'''Quality of the summary:'''		'''Quality of the summary:'''
Line 121:		Line 121:
	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===

	I quite ~~liked~~ the abstract because it is concise and gives a clear intro to stakeholder management processes. I really liked how you mentioned specific improvements of stakeholder management in the stakeholder engagement section. Maybe you could include some of it in the abstract when you talk about the improvement of projects through stakeholder management as this is the opening of your ~~argumentation~~ for stakeholder management~~. Could~~ make your argument on the relevance of Stakeholder Management even stronger. I don’t believe it would be redundant. The last thing you could do is to guide through the structure of your article a little bit more regarding the chapters after the stakeholder analysis instead of referring to them as “all topics regarding Stakeholder Management”. Other than that, I think it’s good as is!!		I quite enjoyed the abstract because it is concise and gives a clear intro to stakeholder management processes. I really liked how you mentioned specific improvements of stakeholder management in the stakeholder engagement section. Maybe you could include some of it in the abstract when you talk about the improvement of projects through stakeholder management as this is the opening of your argument for stakeholder management and could make your argument on the relevance of Stakeholder Management even stronger. I don’t believe it would be redundant. The last thing you could do is to guide through the structure of your article a little bit more regarding the chapters after the stakeholder analysis instead of referring to them as “all topics regarding Stakeholder Management”. Other than that, I think it’s good as is!!

	===Question 2 · TEXT===		===Question 2 · TEXT===

Isabel.w at 23:27, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T23:27:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:27, 25 February 2019
Line 109:		Line 109:
	There are proper citations throughout the article as well as a good annotated bibliography which credits previous work.		There are proper citations throughout the article as well as a good annotated bibliography which credits previous work.
	There is also an extra annotated figure list which clearly indicates where figures have been inspired from.		There is also an extra annotated figure list which clearly indicates where figures have been inspired from.


			==Feedback 2\| Reviewer name: ''Isabel Wang''==
			===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 quite liked the abstract because it is concise and gives a clear intro to stakeholder management processes. I really liked how you mentioned specific improvements of stakeholder management in the stakeholder engagement section. Maybe you could include some of it in the abstract when you talk about the improvement of projects through stakeholder management as this is the opening of your argumentation for stakeholder management. Could make your argument on the relevance of Stakeholder Management even stronger. I don’t believe it would be redundant. The last thing you could do is to guide through the structure of your article a little bit more regarding the chapters after the stakeholder analysis instead of referring to them as “all topics regarding Stakeholder Management”. Other than that, I think it’s good as is!!

			===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 article has a nice structure and is well-argued. I especially enjoyed how easily understood the description of the models are!!
			For the last chapter about stakeholder effective teamwork you could maybe add a sentence explaining why effective teamwork is important in stakeholder management to make the chapter more relevant.

			===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===

			I didn’t find any errors expect for maybe neutured instead of what I believe is meant to be nurtured (Stakeholder Engagement section). I’m fairly sure it’s just a typo though. Again, I enjoyed how easily understood your descriptions are. No unnecessary fill words but I would consider keeping it a bit more formal in the stakeholder management key principle process section (plan, it plan it plan and communicate, communicate, communicate) although I do understand that it underlines your point.

			===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===

			The figures are supportive of your argumentation and well explained. It might be interesting to include a figure that illustrates the range of possible stakeholders instead of the first figure that emphasizes the high number of potential stakeholders identified. Maybe you can modify figure one. Other than that, nothing to add here.

			===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’ve made it clear as to why Stakeholder management is relevant within the domain of project management. I really liked the practical, hands-on approach providing the reader with concrete guidelines on how to conduct stakeholder management. So, I don’t think you have to make any further changes.


			===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===

			Gives a good overview of stakeholder management processes that definitely goes beyond a cursory web search and relevant for any practitioner. So, nothing to add here either.


			===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 annotated bibliography as well as the annotated figures look good to me!! =) Referenced the figures correctly as instructed during the lecture.

Wolters at 22:14, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T22:14:58Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:14, 25 February 2019
Line 107:		Line 107:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	There are proper citations throughout the article as well as a good annotated bibliography which credits previous work.		There are proper citations throughout the article as well as a good annotated bibliography which credits previous work.
			There is also an extra annotated figure list which clearly indicates where figures have been inspired from.

Wolters at 22:12, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T22:12:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:12, 25 February 2019
Line 54:		Line 54:
	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===

	Overall the grammar is fine, there are some grammatical errors and locations where future and past tense is interchanged, e.g. in the summary.		Overall the grammar is fine, there are some grammatical errors and locations where future and past tense is interchanged, e.g. in the summary.
			Some places is written in a way that would be appropriate if spoken, however repeating something 3 times is not really for an article.

	===Question 4 · TEXT===		===Question 4 · TEXT===
Line 67:		Line 68:
	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===

	As said there are plenty of figures to support the points being made which helps the reader. it is also clearly indicated where the figures have been inspired from and who has made them.		As said there are plenty of figures to support the points being made which helps the reader. It is also clearly indicated where the figures have been inspired from and who has made them. Some figures/tables are very large, could easily be smaller, maybe rearranged to be positioned next to the text instead of blocking of text entirely.

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===
Line 79:		Line 80:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	The article ~~has~~ a ~~high level of as well practical as academic relevance today. Besides from what~~ is ~~mentioned earlier I do not have something to suggest to improve~~.		The article is highly relevant when dealing with project, programs and portfolios. Without stakeholders or with negative stakeholders projects are in jeopardy. Some guidelines for a stakehold manager is also outlined.

	===Question 6 · TEXT===		===Question 6 · TEXT===
Line 92:		Line 93:
	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===

	For ~~anyone~~ interested in management, the article is interesting. ~~The topic~~ is ~~well defined and the author has gone in depth~~ with ~~the article. Noted that most references are made to source 1 (PMI) which are beyond~~ a ~~cursory~~ web search.		For someone interested in management the article is interesting. Some of the article is very similar too what one can find with a simple web search, but most of it has been treated thoroughly through several well defined sources.

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===
Line 106:		Line 107:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	~~Annotated~~ bibliography ~~has not been finished and can thus not be commented. Source 1 seems to be the most relevant to acknowledge~~.		There are proper citations throughout the article as well as a good annotated bibliography which credits previous work.

Wolters at 21:59, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T21:59:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:59, 25 February 2019
Line 41:		Line 41:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	The different parts of the article are well connected. A good introduction which leads to the main content of the article which is the well rounded off. There are plenty of figures to support the information written in the article.		The different parts of the article are well connected. A good introduction which leads to the main content of the article which is the well rounded off. There are plenty of figures to support the information written in the article. Figure 1 seems like a bit of an overkill given what it represents, is it needed to show 20 stakeholders.

	===Question 3 · TEXT===		===Question 3 · TEXT===
Line 54:		Line 54:
	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===

	~~The overall~~ grammar is fine, ~~but with~~ some errors and ~~some sentences that had to be read twice~~, ~~could be rewritten for better understanding~~. ~~Not any fill words~~.		Overall the grammar is fine, there are some grammatical errors and locations where future and past tense is interchanged, e.g. in the summary.

	===Question 4 · TEXT===		===Question 4 · TEXT===
Line 67:		Line 67:
	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===

	~~There~~ are plenty of figures to support the ~~arguments~~ made~~, figures that are very good for~~ the reader ~~to get a better understanding while reading~~ the ~~article. As written before, some~~ have ~~very long captions, which could be~~ made ~~shorter~~.		As said there are plenty of figures to support the points being made which helps the reader. it is also clearly indicated where the figures have been inspired from and who has made them.

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

Wolters at 21:55, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T21:55:35Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:55, 25 February 2019
Line 41:		Line 41:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	The different parts of the article are well connected. A good introduction leads to ~~4 processes~~ which ~~leads~~ to ~~a conclusion~~.		The different parts of the article are well connected. A good introduction which leads to the main content of the article which is the well rounded off. There are plenty of figures to support the information written in the article.

	===Question 3 · TEXT===		===Question 3 · TEXT===

Wolters at 21:54, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T21:54:02Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:54, 25 February 2019
Line 25:		Line 25:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	A comprehensive summary that is precise and not too long. It makes it clear for the reader what the topic is about and what the article will go in depth with.		A comprehensive summary that is precise and not too long. It makes it clear for the reader what the topic is about and what the article will go in depth with, e.g. that 4 processes will be covered. There might be a paragraph or 2 that could be cut shorter.

	===Question 2 · TEXT===		===Question 2 · TEXT===
Line 41:		Line 41:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	The article is well ~~written with a clear argumentation~~ to ~~why BRM is important to consider. There are plenty of figures~~ which ~~clearly illustrates the point that is made. Good~~ to first introduce the reader well to deliverables and benefits and afterwards discuss about BRM. The figures have very long captions which could be made shorter. For example write in the end of the article where figures have been inspired/taken from.		The different parts of the article are well connected. A good introduction leads to 4 processes which leads to a conclusion.

	===Question 3 · TEXT===		===Question 3 · TEXT===

Wolters at 21:51, 25 February 2019

2019-02-25T21:51:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:51, 25 February 2019
Line 25:		Line 25:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	~~The~~ summary is ~~well written, very comprehensive~~ and ~~gives~~ the reader ~~a clear idea of~~ what the ~~article~~ is about.		A comprehensive summary that is precise and not too long. It makes it clear for the reader what the topic is about and what the article will go in depth with.
	~~It could be made a bit shorter by including only~~ the ~~most relevant information, as it is a bit long for a summary~~.

	===Question 2 · TEXT===		===Question 2 · TEXT===

Wolters: /* Peer review by Jesper Antonius Wolters */

2019-02-25T21:15:17Z

Peer review by Jesper Antonius Wolters

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 |}
-== Peer review by Jesper Antonius Wolters ==
+==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Jesper Antonius Wolters''==
-* The article is very relevant to use for project managers
+===Question 1 · TEXT===
-• Does it address a topic that is relevant for project managers?
+'''Quality of the summary:'''
-• Is the purpose clearly articulated, i.e. what kind of problem the article addresses (and solves)?
- Is the Wiki article usable?
+Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
-• Does the article provide hands on guidance? Can the reader (at least prototypically) apply the method after reading the article?
-• 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?
-• Quality of the summary: Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
-• Formal aspects:
+===Answer 1===
- Figures and tables: Are figures and tables clear and provide meaningful support? Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?
+The summary is well written, very comprehensive and gives the reader a clear idea of what the article is about.
- 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?
+It could be made a bit shorter by including only the most relevant information, as it is a bit long for a summary.
- Grammar and style: Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?
- Is the Wiki article credible?
+===Question 2 · TEXT===
-• Critical reflection on status quo of standards: To what degree are the core arguments of your wiki article covered by the P/P/P standards and literature? To what degree does your article extend (or maybe contradict) the status quo?
+'''Structure and logic of the article:'''
-• Use of reference material provided in class: Elements from the reference material were appropriately incorporated into the article.
-• Annotated bibliography: Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work (reference material provided, and appropriate other sources where necessary)? Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?
+Is the argument clear?