Talk:Kotter's 8- Step Change Model
(→Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Place your name here) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: '' | + | ==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? | ||
| + | Yes, very clear. | ||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | PMI-reference - also a way of linking to program management | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| Line 13: | Line 15: | ||
'''Structure and logic of the article:''' | '''Structure and logic of the article:''' | ||
| − | Is the argument clear? | + | Is the argument clear? |
Is there a logical flow to the article? | Is there a logical flow to the article? | ||
| + | Yes (from what is written) | ||
Does one part build upon the other? | Does one part build upon the other? | ||
| Line 54: | Line 57: | ||
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, if linked to program management | ||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| Line 88: | Line 93: | ||
''Answer here'' | ''Answer here'' | ||
| − | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: '' | + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Mads Grøndal''== |
===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? | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''I am not sure that Kotter's change model is out of scope for this course'' |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 118: | Line 123: | ||
'''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 130: | Line 135: | ||
'''Figures and tables:''' | '''Figures and tables:''' | ||
| − | Are figures and tables clear? | + | Are figures and tables clear? n/a |
| − | 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? n/a |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| Line 142: | Line 147: | ||
'''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? Can be |
| − | 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 |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | '''' |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 166: | Line 171: | ||
'''Annotated bibliography:''' | '''Annotated bibliography:''' | ||
| − | Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? | + | Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? n/a |
| − | 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? n/a |
| − | Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? | + | Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? n/a |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| Line 176: | Line 181: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
''Answer here'' | ''Answer here'' | ||
| − | |||
==Abstract Feedback== | ==Abstract Feedback== | ||
Latest revision as of 17:29, 19 February 2018
Contents |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Ida Smidt
[edit] Question 1 · TEXT
Quality of the summary:
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Yes, very clear.
What would you suggest to improve? PMI-reference - also a way of linking to program management
[edit] Answer 1
Answer here
[edit] Question 2 · TEXT
Structure and logic of the article:
Is the argument clear?
Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes (from what is written)
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
Answer here
[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
Answer here
[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
Answer here
[edit] Question 5 · TEXT
Interest and relevance:
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? Yes
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? Yes, if linked to program management
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 5
Answer here
[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
Answer here
[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
Answer here
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Mads Grøndal
[edit] Question 1 · TEXT
Quality of the summary:
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 1
I am not sure that Kotter's change model is out of scope for this course
[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
Answer here
[edit] Question 3 · TEXT
Grammar and style:
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? yes
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 3
Answer here
[edit] Question 4 · TEXT
Figures and tables:
Are figures and tables clear? n/a
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? n/a
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 4
Answer here
[edit] Question 5 · TEXT
Interest and relevance:
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? Can be
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? No
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 5
'
[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
Answer here
[edit] Question 7 · TEXT
Annotated bibliography:
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? n/a
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? n/a
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? n/a
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 7
Answer here
[edit] Abstract Feedback
Text Clarity; Ok.
Language; Ok.
References; missing references related to the standards
The abstract sounds well, but the topic is out of scope, you are describing the model from a pure organizational point of view in a organizational environment, try to relate the topic within a project/program/portfolio environment.
If you want to continue with the topic, try to find relevant literature that shows this model in the course context.
Please check again the point 5, Individual Assignment of the Course handbook and Reference Reading material for the Wiki Assignment and Project Work.
