Talk:Value proposition canvas - Revision history

S176504 at 17:38, 19 February 2018

2018-02-19T17:38:00Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:38, 19 February 2018
Line 122:		Line 122:
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''Answer here''		''Answer here''

			==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: Mehdi==
			NOTE: only abstract was visible when giving feedback on Monday 19th.
			===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 summary is very clear and straightforward.
			I would add a brief summary of how the article will unfold.

			===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 abstract is clear and understandable.

			===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 would avoid using the word "pain" and find a more professionnal word.

			===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 figure illustrates clearly the canvas.

			===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===
			With few knowledge on the subject, it seems to me to be relevant and could be used by professionals.

			===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===


			===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===
			References are cited

Julie: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Julie */

2018-02-19T08:11:03Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Julie

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:11, 19 February 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Julie''==		==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Julie''==
	===Question 1 · TEXT===		===Question 1 · TEXT===

			NOTE: only abstract was visible when giving feedback on Monday 19th.


	'''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?
			What would you suggest to improve?

			Key focus is clearly on value proposition canvas. However, the 2nd part of summary begins to describe the canvas into detail.
			Maybe this part should move a little further down in article? Instead, a suggestion is to be more general, summarizing points/insights in this part.

	~~What would you suggest to improve?~~

	===Answer 1===		===Answer 1===
Line 13:		Line 20:
	'''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?
			Yes

	Does one part build upon the other?		Does one part build upon the other?
			N/A

	Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?		Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?
			Yes

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?
			- Make a part early in the article explaining the whole canvas
			- Use examples to bridge the gap between theory and practice
			- Be critical towards the method and look into who/what kind of project this is really valuable for

	===Answer 2===		===Answer 2===
Line 29:		Line 43:
	'''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?
			I would avoid using "pain" and "gain". If you want to include this, then I suggest to elaborate this. What is it that a customer avoids when "how the products aid their customers and relieve them of their ‘pain’"?

	===Answer 3===		===Answer 3===
Line 42:		Line 59:

	Are figures and tables clear?		Are figures and tables clear?
			Yes

	Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?		Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?
			Yes

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?
			The figure in text now is as it should be :-)

	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===
Line 54:		Line 74:

	Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?		Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?
			Yes especially if it bridges the gap between practical and academics, then it could be useful in a project.

	Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?		Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?
			Not yet.

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?
			Write the rest of the article.

	===Answer 5===		===Answer 5===
Line 66:		Line 89:

	Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?		Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?
			Yes

	Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?		Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?
			Not yet.

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?
			As mentioned before:
			- bridge gap between practical and academics
			- be critical

			And
			- focus on management

	===Answer 6===		===Answer 6===
Line 78:		Line 109:

	Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?		Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?
			No

	Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?		Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?
			Yes

	Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?		Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?
			Yes

	What would you suggest to improve?		What would you suggest to improve?
			Look at slides regarding annotated bibliograpy

	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	''Answer here''		''Answer here''

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

2018-02-19T07:43:46Z

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

New page

==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Julie''==
===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''