Talk:Value Analysis - Revision history

S134181 at 19:28, 19 February 2018

2018-02-19T19:28:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:28, 19 February 2018
Line 96:		Line 96:
	''Answer here''		''Answer here''

	==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''~~Place your name here~~''==		==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Emma B. K. Hansen''==
	===Question 1 · TEXT===		===Question 1 · TEXT===
	'''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? Yes

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve? Develop further

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
Line 110:		Line 110:
	'''Structure and logic of the article:'''		'''Structure and logic of the article:'''

	Is the argument clear?		Is the argument clear? Yes

	Is there a logical flow to the article?		Is there a logical flow to the article?
Line 126:		Line 126:
	'''Grammar and style:'''		'''Grammar and style:'''

	Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?		Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Yes

	Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?		Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?
Line 150:		Line 150:
	'''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? So far - yes

	Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?		Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? No it's not clear.

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve? Relate it to ppp

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===

Idasmidt at 18:06, 17 February 2018

2018-02-17T18:06:50Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:06, 17 February 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''~~Place your name here~~''==		==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Ida Smidt''==
	===Question 1 · TEXT===		===Question 1 · TEXT===
	'''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?

			Key focus - yes

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

			Insights and contribution of the article

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
Line 54:		Line 58:

	Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?		Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?

			Yes

	Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?		Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?

			Yes

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?

Rikke at 16:20, 16 February 2018

2018-02-16T16:20:32Z

Show changes

S122906: Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok. References; missing references related to the standards In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don..."

2018-02-12T20:41:38Z

Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok. References; missing references related to the standards In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don..."

New page

==Abstract Feedback==
Text Clarity; Ok.

Language; Ok.

References; missing references related to the standards

In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget to connect the topic with the standards for example with the "cost" subject group of the ISO 21500 or the equivalent of he PMBOK.

Value Engineering is associated commonly in Lean projects.