Talk:The implementation of KPIs - Revision history

Sebastian: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Signe Bjerrum */

2019-02-25T22:13:47Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Signe Bjerrum

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:13, 25 February 2019
Line 105:		Line 105:
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''In general quite few references in the text. Annotated bibliography not finished but space is allocated. In terms of references you could look for additional literature or articles/research that reflects on KPIs and include that in your discussion in order to make it more interesting and relevant. ''		''In general quite few references in the text. Annotated bibliography not finished but space is allocated. In terms of references you could look for additional literature or articles/research that reflects on KPIs and include that in your discussion in order to make it more interesting and relevant. ''

			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Sebastian Walther''==

			===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 Abstract is written very well! The key focus is explained shortly, but very precise. Good summary in this section! No points for improvements."

			===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===
			''A very clear structure through the text. The table of content provides a good overview and you never get lost in the text. Structure is good (I like the short summary of the history as well). Furthermore I like the listings with the bullet points. It makes it very clear and easy to understand."

			===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 text is written very well. I was not able to spot any spelling/grammar mistakes when i read through the text. Good job!"

			===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===
			"Figure 1 could be a bit more sharper?! Maybe its my eyes, but I thought it is quite blurry to read the bottom boxes. Apart from that, I think the figures help to understand the 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===
			''As already mentioned before, the article is well written. The style is good, also from an academic perspective. I did not have any problems reading the text and I also think it provides some valuable insides on a high practical level. In my opinion other readers can easily understand and keep track of the text.
			===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 like that you compare the PMBOK, PMI and Prince 2 definitions. It clearly shows that you put some effort into this section. Overall, the text is written very well and easy to understand. My suggestions, can you find any concrete examples for the KPIs? Like a real event? Apart from that, you're talking about the limitations, maybe you also have some benefits of the KPIs?


			===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 referencing and annotated bibliography is provided! Well done!"

S141886: /* Answer 3 */

2019-02-25T14:03:30Z

Answer 3

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:03, 25 February 2019
Line 54:		Line 54:

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	''In general ok. ~~It could use a read through by the author. There are examples of some sentences that do not make sense and sometimes the meaning is lost/a bit unclear. ''~~		''In general ok."

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

S141886: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Signe Bjerrum */

2019-02-25T13:20:34Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Signe Bjerrum

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:20, 25 February 2019
Line 66:		Line 66:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	''Missing reference of figure 1 and 2 who made it?. In general if you use a figure in an article you must refer to it in the text and use it. The figures are good but they should be more included in the text. ''		''Missing reference for figure 1 and 2 who made it?. In general if you use a figure in an article you must refer to it in the text and use it. The figures are good but they should be more included in the text. ''

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===
Line 78:		Line 78:

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
	''~~Answer here''~~		''In order to make it a bit more relevant it would be a good idea to be critical on the implementation of KPIs and include different perspectives in the article (include research articles). What does the newest research say about KPIs?"

	===Question 6 · TEXT===		===Question 6 · TEXT===
Line 90:		Line 90:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	'See answer to question 7 - additional ~~litteratur~~ references research articles would make it more interesting ''		'See answer to question 7 - additional literature references research articles would make it more interesting ''

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===
Line 104:		Line 104:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''In general quite few references in the text. Annotated bibliography not finished but space is allocated. In terms of references you could look for additional ~~litteratur~~ or articles/research that reflects on KPIs and include that in your discussion in order to make it more interesting and relevant. ''		''In general quite few references in the text. Annotated bibliography not finished but space is allocated. In terms of references you could look for additional literature or articles/research that reflects on KPIs and include that in your discussion in order to make it more interesting and relevant. ''

S141886: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Signe Bjerrum */

2019-02-25T13:10:42Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Signe Bjerrum

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:10, 25 February 2019
Line 42:		Line 42:

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''The logical flow works well for the reader. Because the article is quite short (approx. 2000 words) i would suggest using a bit more energy on describe what KPIs are and why they are important to ppp-management. More energy could also be used on the discussion part where additional views and approaches could be discussed see answer to question 7. ''

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

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''In general ok. It could use a read through by the author. There are examples of some sentences that do not make sense and sometimes the meaning is lost/a bit unclear. ''

	===Question 4 · TEXT===		===Question 4 · TEXT===
Line 66:		Line 66:

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''Missing reference of figure 1 and 2 who made it?. In general if you use a figure in an article you must refer to it in the text and use it. The figures are good but they should be more included in the text. ''

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===
Line 90:		Line 90:

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
	'~~'Answer here~~''		'See answer to question 7 - additional litteratur references research articles would make it more interesting ''

	===Question 7 · TEXT===		===Question 7 · TEXT===
Line 104:		Line 104:

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''In general quite few references in the text. Annotated bibliography not finished but space is allocated. In terms of references you could look for additional litteratur or articles/research that reflects on KPIs and include that in your discussion in order to make it more interesting and relevant. ''

S141886: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Signe Bjerrum */

2019-02-25T12:38:03Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Signe Bjerrum

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:38, 25 February 2019
Line 26:		Line 26:

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
	''~~Answer here~~''		''The first part of the abstract is good. It describes the topic briefly and how it is being presented in the article and how the topic relates to PPP-management. I would suggest to move the part of the abstract with the bullet points ("A KPI can be dissected as the following:......") to another section. In this part you are being more specific about what KPIs are and the abstract should only be a brief summary of what to expect reading the article.''

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

S141886: /* Feedback on Abstract */

2019-02-25T12:25:13Z

Feedback on Abstract

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:25, 25 February 2019
Line 14:		Line 14:

	\|}		\|}



			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Signe Bjerrum''==
			===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''

			===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''

			===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''

			===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''

			===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''

			===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''

			===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''

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

2019-02-19T01:37:48Z

Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| Good |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| It needs to be described |- |'''Explanation of the purpose of the ar..."

New page

==Feedback on Abstract==

{|
|'''Text clarity'''|| Good
|-
|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| It needs to be described
|-
|'''Explanation of the purpose of the article'''|| Needs to be elaborated
|-
|'''Relevance to curriculum'''|| Good
|-
|'''References'''|| Missing references. Here are the guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references
|-

|}