Talk:Lean 6 Sigma in project management
From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
(→Feedback) |
|||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
==Jejenji - REVIEW 1== | ==Jejenji - REVIEW 1== | ||
| − | *Clear introduction. You highlighted the poit —>waste reduction and high quality control <— | + | *Clear introduction. You highlighted the poit —>waste reduction and high quality control <— '''Answer''': Good |
| − | *Background gives a perfect idea of how the topic is correlated with nowadays firms. | + | *Background gives a perfect idea of how the topic is correlated with nowadays firms. '''Answer''': Good |
| − | *Great connection with Toyata (JIT philosophy) | + | *Great connection with Toyata (JIT philosophy). '''Answer''': Good |
| − | *A paragraph regarding WIND INDUSTRY EXAMPLE could be done | + | *A paragraph regarding WIND INDUSTRY EXAMPLE could be done. '''Answer''': New paragraph of the Wind Industry example done. |
| − | *Detailed explanation of the tool but lack of illustrations (from my point of view imagines of the tools could help a straight forward understanding) | + | *Detailed explanation of the tool but lack of illustrations (from my point of view imagines of the tools could help a straight forward understanding). '''Answer''': Two more figures shown. |
| − | *The Chapter (Example: The multi-objective case) suits perfectly for the description of big scale (portfolio). | + | *The Chapter (Example: The multi-objective case) suits perfectly for the description of big scale (portfolio). '''Answer''': Good. |
| − | *Conclusions are a bit confused and don’t really conclude the article. Maybe a more detailed discussion is needed to increase the score of the article. | + | *Conclusions are a bit confused and don’t really conclude the article. Maybe a more detailed discussion is needed to increase the score of the article. '''Answer''': Conclusion changed. |
| − | *Overall the article is well implemented and the topic is totally interesting. | + | *Overall the article is well implemented and the topic is totally interesting. '''Answer''': Good |
FORMAL ASPECTS | FORMAL ASPECTS | ||
| − | *Overall the article follows the case method structure | + | *Overall the article follows the case method structure. '''Answer''': Good |
| − | *Grammar wise is correct | + | *Grammar wise is correct. '''Answer''': Good |
| − | *Lack of figures and visual illustrations for the tool part | + | *Lack of figures and visual illustrations for the tool part. '''Answer''': Two more figures shown. |
| − | *Formatted Properly | + | *Formatted Properly. '''Answer''': Good |
CONTENT ASPECTS | CONTENT ASPECTS | ||
| − | *The article is totally interesting | + | *The article is totally interesting. '''Answer''': Good |
| − | *It does relate to PPPM | + | *It does relate to PPPM. '''Answer''': Good |
| − | *Appropriate length | + | *Appropriate length. '''Answer''': Good |
| − | *Flow is great | + | *Flow is great. '''Answer''': Good |
| − | *Reference materials are great but absence of annotated bibliography | + | *Reference materials are great but absence of annotated bibliography. '''Answer''': Annotated bibliography added. |
| − | *It seems well elaborated and it’s definitely not a copy paste | + | *It seems well elaborated and it’s definitely not a copy paste. '''Answer''': Good |
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==Reviewer 2, S150931== | ||
| + | |||
| + | *General suggestions | ||
| + | |||
| + | **Very interesting topic. '''Answer''': Good | ||
| + | **Interesting use of “Background” to position the reader. '''Answer''': Good | ||
| + | **Long paragraphs, could be more concise. '''Answer''': Shorter paragraphs with new revision. | ||
| + | **Could use more figures. '''Answer''': Two more figures shown. | ||
| + | **Conclusion could be better explained. '''Answer''': Conclusion changed. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | *Formal aspects: | ||
| + | |||
| + | **It follows the methods structure '''Answer''':Good | ||
| + | **The article could have a better formatting with titles and subtitles '''Answer''':Formatting changed. Now with subtitles as well. | ||
| + | **Figures used are useful, but some explanations could have illustrations as well '''Answer''': Incrementation on explanation about figures. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | *Content aspects: | ||
| + | |||
| + | **The article is interesting and related to the course topic. '''Answer''':Good | ||
| + | **The length is appropriate. '''Answer''':Good | ||
| + | **The sources have titles but lack summaries. '''Answer''': Summaries added | ||
| + | **Not copy paste. '''Answer''':Good | ||
| Line 32: | Line 58: | ||
==Reviewer 3, DI2009== | ==Reviewer 3, DI2009== | ||
| − | *Summary; I the beginning of your article however I see it more as an introduction than a summary of the article. A summary should give the reader an overview and make it easy for the reader to know what he should expect when reading the article | + | *Summary; I like the beginning of your article however I see it more as an introduction than a summary of the article. A summary should give the reader an overview and make it easy for the reader to know what he should expect when reading the article. '''Answer''':Summary changed. |
| − | *Formatted: I think the text get a bit “heavy” maybe with a better use of the Wiki-features such as sub-headings, proper bullet-point will help giving a better overview. | + | *Formatted: I think the text get a bit “heavy” maybe with a better use of the Wiki-features such as sub-headings, proper bullet-point will help giving a better overview. '''Answer''':Format changed. Now bullet and subtitles. |
*Structure: | *Structure: | ||
| − | **I like the structure and I think it is nice to wrap up the article with a discussion of the drawbacks/”cons”. | + | **I like the structure and I think it is nice to wrap up the article with a discussion of the drawbacks/”cons”. '''Answer''':Good |
| − | **As well I think you introduce every section well (very short and precise) | + | **As well I think you introduce every section well (very short and precise) '''Answer''': Good |
*Figures: | *Figures: | ||
| − | **Nice with many relevant figures that match the content of the text. | + | **Nice with many relevant figures that match the content of the text. '''Answer''':Good |
| − | **Remember to refer to the figures in the text | + | **Remember to refer to the figures in the text. '''Answer''':Figure reference done. |
| − | **Some figures are unnecessary big (e.g. Pareto boundaries), some are very small and hard to read (e.g. Simplified Value Mapping Tool. [7]) | + | **Some figures are unnecessary big (e.g. Pareto boundaries), some are very small and hard to read (e.g. Simplified Value Mapping Tool. [7]) '''Answer''': Size adjusted. |
| − | **As well I believe you have copied the figures from some textbooks of websites, remember the reference and make sure you are allowed to use it (no copyright) | + | **As well I believe you have copied the figures from some textbooks of websites, remember the reference and make sure you are allowed to use it (no copyright) '''Answer''': No copyrigth. Changed figures and made on my own the ones that had copyrigth. |
*References: | *References: | ||
| − | **Remember we are supposed to make an annotated biography, meaning a reference list with a short description. | + | **Remember we are supposed to make an annotated biography, meaning a reference list with a short description. '''Answer''': Annotated bibliography added. |
Latest revision as of 18:22, 28 September 2015
Anna: I like your topic and the direction it is headed with the focus on the tool within program management. Remember to follow to requirements for the structure once you continue with your article.
Contents |
[edit] Feedback
[edit] Jejenji - REVIEW 1
- Clear introduction. You highlighted the poit —>waste reduction and high quality control <— Answer: Good
- Background gives a perfect idea of how the topic is correlated with nowadays firms. Answer: Good
- Great connection with Toyata (JIT philosophy). Answer: Good
- A paragraph regarding WIND INDUSTRY EXAMPLE could be done. Answer: New paragraph of the Wind Industry example done.
- Detailed explanation of the tool but lack of illustrations (from my point of view imagines of the tools could help a straight forward understanding). Answer: Two more figures shown.
- The Chapter (Example: The multi-objective case) suits perfectly for the description of big scale (portfolio). Answer: Good.
- Conclusions are a bit confused and don’t really conclude the article. Maybe a more detailed discussion is needed to increase the score of the article. Answer: Conclusion changed.
- Overall the article is well implemented and the topic is totally interesting. Answer: Good
FORMAL ASPECTS
- Overall the article follows the case method structure. Answer: Good
- Grammar wise is correct. Answer: Good
- Lack of figures and visual illustrations for the tool part. Answer: Two more figures shown.
- Formatted Properly. Answer: Good
CONTENT ASPECTS
- The article is totally interesting. Answer: Good
- It does relate to PPPM. Answer: Good
- Appropriate length. Answer: Good
- Flow is great. Answer: Good
- Reference materials are great but absence of annotated bibliography. Answer: Annotated bibliography added.
- It seems well elaborated and it’s definitely not a copy paste. Answer: Good
[edit] Reviewer 2, S150931
- General suggestions
- Very interesting topic. Answer: Good
- Interesting use of “Background” to position the reader. Answer: Good
- Long paragraphs, could be more concise. Answer: Shorter paragraphs with new revision.
- Could use more figures. Answer: Two more figures shown.
- Conclusion could be better explained. Answer: Conclusion changed.
- Formal aspects:
- It follows the methods structure Answer:Good
- The article could have a better formatting with titles and subtitles Answer:Formatting changed. Now with subtitles as well.
- Figures used are useful, but some explanations could have illustrations as well Answer: Incrementation on explanation about figures.
- Content aspects:
- The article is interesting and related to the course topic. Answer:Good
- The length is appropriate. Answer:Good
- The sources have titles but lack summaries. Answer: Summaries added
- Not copy paste. Answer:Good
[edit] Reviewer 3, DI2009
- Summary; I like the beginning of your article however I see it more as an introduction than a summary of the article. A summary should give the reader an overview and make it easy for the reader to know what he should expect when reading the article. Answer:Summary changed.
- Formatted: I think the text get a bit “heavy” maybe with a better use of the Wiki-features such as sub-headings, proper bullet-point will help giving a better overview. Answer:Format changed. Now bullet and subtitles.
- Structure:
- I like the structure and I think it is nice to wrap up the article with a discussion of the drawbacks/”cons”. Answer:Good
- As well I think you introduce every section well (very short and precise) Answer: Good
- Figures:
- Nice with many relevant figures that match the content of the text. Answer:Good
- Remember to refer to the figures in the text. Answer:Figure reference done.
- Some figures are unnecessary big (e.g. Pareto boundaries), some are very small and hard to read (e.g. Simplified Value Mapping Tool. [7]) Answer: Size adjusted.
- As well I believe you have copied the figures from some textbooks of websites, remember the reference and make sure you are allowed to use it (no copyright) Answer: No copyrigth. Changed figures and made on my own the ones that had copyrigth.
- References:
- Remember we are supposed to make an annotated biography, meaning a reference list with a short description. Answer: Annotated bibliography added.
