Talk:Need-Based Theories of Motivation

Revision as of 17:53, 19 February 2018

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Julianna Apli

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 abstract is a bit unclear and too wild. I would suggest to look into how is it connected to project/program/portfolio management, how can it be incorporated to project management processes and how can it be useful for a project manager. I would suggest to elaborate on the structure of the article a bit more so it would be easier to understand the article flow.

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 article parts do not really build upon each other. I would suggest to follow the recommended structure for the article and move the draft chapter under big idea. It nice to start with the background/history and maybe add some more explanation about the usage and the relevance of the theories under this chapter. The list of the theories could be moved under application, with adding how is it used and why is it relevant. It would be nice to additionally compare the theories to each other.

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

Grammar is okay apart from a few spelling mistakes.

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 figures are not really illustrative, it would make more sense to either make your own tables or write down the content of the tables in the text. I would suggest to add figure text and references to every figure/table.

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 is need to elaborate further on why and how is the theories relevant. I would suggest to find a case study and illustrate the theories with the help of it.

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 is very general, right now is more like a description of the theories. An improvement could be to make it more precise, connect it more to project management and explain step by step how they could be used by project managers for example.

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

The article is missing all the references. Remember to find reference related to the topic and use the mandatory references too.

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Walther Emil Eriksen

Question 1 · TEXT

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

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?

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.

Answer 1

Answer here

Question 2 · TEXT

Structure and logic of the article:

Is the argument clear? Yes

Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes

Does one part build upon the other? N/A

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

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 here

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? 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 here

Question 4 · TEXT

Figures and tables:

Are figures and tables clear? Yes

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

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

Answer 4

Answer here

Question 5 · TEXT

Interest and 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? Not yet.

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

Answer 5

Answer here

Question 6 · TEXT

Depth of treatment:

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

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

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

And - focus on management

Answer 6

Answer here

Question 7 · TEXT

Annotated bibliography:

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? No

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

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes

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

Answer 7

Answer here