Talk:Opportunity research
m |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Please check again the point 5, Individual Assignment of the Course handbook and Reference Reading material for the Wiki Assignment and Project Work. | Please check again the point 5, Individual Assignment of the Course handbook and Reference Reading material for the Wiki Assignment and Project Work. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''David Moya Perrino''== | ||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''It is interesting, clear and relevant but language could be improved in some part in order to get a more formal and academical writing.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Structure and logic of the article is ok'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''There are some parts that could be more formal and a better style could be used. I would revise the text in order to include some changes in grammar. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Spelling errors: | ||
| + | Affect organizations as a whole and entire GROUP of stakeholders might be in favor or against taking it | ||
| + | non-beneficial | ||
| + | Each of them HAS different interests that might differ and contradict from the others. | ||
| + | THESE steps are carried out by different people according to in which level the opportunity is. | ||
| + | It is carried out by the ?¿adecuad?¿ team at the ?¿adecuad?¿ step as not all opportunities are the same (see types of opportunities) | ||
| + | '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''They are clear and relevant. | ||
| + | I would include the example table before the references | ||
| + | Maybe, it would be relevant include in some sections a table or a picture to sumarize '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''It is interesting and clear. Some sub-parts are too short and more infomation would complete the article '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''It is relevant. | ||
| + | More insight could be done in order to add relevance to the text'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 bibliography. | ||
| + | My recommendation is include more PMI and mandatory bibliography because this issue is further discussed in some of the books and would be a good point include them in the article'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Argyro Soumpourlou''== | ||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''It is clear and the reader understands the topic of the article. The mandatory references are included. '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 argument of the article is clearly stated and the structure is logical. In the paragraph opportunities as risks, a conclusion is needed. Overall, the article is analyzed from the project, program and portfolio management point of view as it is needed.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''In general language is good, but in some sentences the meaning is a bit unclear. For example: the last sentence of Opportunities as Risks. Maybe a different punctuation can help the reader to understand.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Figures are clear and explanatory.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''The article could be useful for managers to identify and manage opportunities in a project, program or portfolio.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''The article summarizes the material from the references and it is easy to be understood.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''In the article relevant and scientific references are included.'' | ||
Latest revision as of 11:11, 19 February 2018
Contents |
[edit] Abstract Feedback
Text Clarity; is not clear enough, check my comments below.
Language; Ok.
References; missing references.
The abstract describes the need to look for opportunities, however is not clear who is in charge to look for this opportunities, the abstract is more related within an organization environment than a Project/Program/Portfolio environment.
However you can investigate what is this process to validate/accept a project into a program/portfolio what will be the role of a Program/Portfolio manager in this process.
Please check again the point 5, Individual Assignment of the Course handbook and Reference Reading material for the Wiki Assignment and Project Work.
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: David Moya Perrino
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 1
It is interesting, clear and relevant but language could be improved in some part in order to get a more formal and academical writing.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 2
Structure and logic of the article is ok
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 3
There are some parts that could be more formal and a better style could be used. I would revise the text in order to include some changes in grammar.
Spelling errors: Affect organizations as a whole and entire GROUP of stakeholders might be in favor or against taking it non-beneficial Each of them HAS different interests that might differ and contradict from the others. THESE steps are carried out by different people according to in which level the opportunity is. It is carried out by the ?¿adecuad?¿ team at the ?¿adecuad?¿ step as not all opportunities are the same (see types of opportunities)
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 4
They are clear and relevant. I would include the example table before the references Maybe, it would be relevant include in some sections a table or a picture to sumarize
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 5
It is interesting and clear. Some sub-parts are too short and more infomation would complete the article
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 6
It is relevant. More insight could be done in order to add relevance to the text
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 7
Good bibliography. My recommendation is include more PMI and mandatory bibliography because this issue is further discussed in some of the books and would be a good point include them in the article
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Argyro Soumpourlou
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 1
It is clear and the reader understands the topic of the article. The mandatory references are included.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 2
The argument of the article is clearly stated and the structure is logical. In the paragraph opportunities as risks, a conclusion is needed. Overall, the article is analyzed from the project, program and portfolio management point of view as it is needed.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 3
In general language is good, but in some sentences the meaning is a bit unclear. For example: the last sentence of Opportunities as Risks. Maybe a different punctuation can help the reader to understand.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 4
Figures are clear and explanatory.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 5
The article could be useful for managers to identify and manage opportunities in a project, program or portfolio.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 6
The article summarizes the material from the references and it is easy to be understood.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 7
In the article relevant and scientific references are included.
