Talk:Lean Project Management tools
(→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Rikke) |
|||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
Since Lean approaches are related with different management styles from the recommended literature, please find more relevant literature. | Since Lean approaches are related with different management styles from the recommended literature, please find more relevant literature. | ||
| − | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Rikke''== | + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Rikke - giver feedback i eftermiddag mellem 16:00-17:45 eller 22:30-23:59''== |
Giver feedback i eftermiddag mellem 16:00 - 17:45 | Giver feedback i eftermiddag mellem 16:00 - 17:45 | ||
===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ||
Revision as of 10:02, 19 February 2018
Contents |
Abstract Feedback
Text Clarity; need some clarification, check comments below
Language; Ok, minor gramar mistakes
References; Ok.
The abstract mentions Lean tools, how many tools you will compare?, the content table list 3 tools, and then text says that two tools will be compared.
There are many lean tools, why and how you decide the tools to compare, try to find references that classify this tools.
You have a typo with the word "Murda" is MUDA, do not forget to add the definition of Muda and the importance of this word in the article.
Six sigma is an statistical tool/technique developed by motorola for manufacturing processes focused to reduce defects, why is considered a lean tool?, try find a reference that support this.
Since Lean approaches are related with different management styles from the recommended literature, please find more relevant literature.
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Rikke - giver feedback i eftermiddag mellem 16:00-17:45 eller 22:30-23:59
Giver feedback i eftermiddag mellem 16:00 - 17:45
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
Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Place your name here
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
