Talk:Human resource management
(→Abstract Feedback) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
There were none | There were none | ||
| − | Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: | + | Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Rasmus Østerlund |
Question 1 · TEXT | Question 1 · TEXT | ||
| Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
Answer 1 | Answer 1 | ||
| − | + | Abstract is a but confusing in the end ".. not only short term, but also long term. Long term and short term do not necesasarily align, there are..." Bit messy, needs a pause. Good part about the levels | |
Question 2 · TEXT | Question 2 · TEXT | ||
| Line 132: | Line 132: | ||
Answer 2 | Answer 2 | ||
| − | + | The introduction mention McKinsey and Kotters models, will these be added later on or why are they there? | |
| + | |||
| + | The "Big Idea" title, is there a better title for the section explaining the 4 levels of HRM? | ||
| + | |||
| + | The structure is good | ||
Question 3 · TEXT | Question 3 · TEXT | ||
| Line 144: | Line 148: | ||
Answer 3 | Answer 3 | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | There are some sentences that is confusing to me, in general it is okay but a second read will probably give you more to work with, an example is given below | ||
| + | |||
| + | input 3. - "The Human resources that are within the organization and the geographical position of these members. if the right man for the job, in a department in another country, some issues could occur" what does that mean? | ||
Question 4 · TEXT | Question 4 · TEXT | ||
| Line 156: | Line 163: | ||
Answer 4 | Answer 4 | ||
| − | + | No figures or tables | |
Question 5 · TEXT | Question 5 · TEXT | ||
| Line 168: | Line 175: | ||
Answer 5 | Answer 5 | ||
| − | + | small reflections are fine and provides relevance to each technique | |
Question 6 · TEXT | Question 6 · TEXT | ||
| Line 180: | Line 187: | ||
Answer 6 | Answer 6 | ||
| − | + | In structure, explain why different countries prefer different formatting in structure, maybe include "Hofstede" for culture differences. | |
Question 7 · TEXT | Question 7 · TEXT | ||
| Line 194: | Line 201: | ||
Answer 7 | Answer 7 | ||
| − | + | Every part is cited to where the context is from, seems OK to me. | |
Latest revision as of 19:27, 19 February 2018
[edit] Abstract Feedback
Text Clarity; not clear
Language; Some grammar mistakes.
References; Ok.
Is nice that you already established the structure of the article, however the text is not clear enough, I get your idea, try to rewrite the abstract.
You already related with an specific aspect of Project Management Standards, but don't forget to elaborate and describe the relevance for a Project Manager.
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Jonas Samuelsen
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 I understand what you would like to discuss with your abstract. I do not understand what you mean by the sentence "This includes human resources as it is an aspect that has not fully been mastered yet". Is it because you mean that managers, in general, do not know how to manage their employees? Also, I do not understand what you would like to say with the sentence "All these things create a complex web of just some of the important identifiable when managing human resource" I think that your introduction should have a "softer" start. I am not sure what you are introducing me to because you describe another model(McKinsey's 7S model) and Kotter's Integrative model of organizational dynamics.
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 I find it hard to se the silver lining in the article. If the introduction had elaborated on the coming structure and content, then it would have been easier to follow. I did not find any contradictions.
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 grammatical errors. These will be elaborated in the peer review discussion at DTU.
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 There were no figures or tables. I would like to see an illustration of the planning chart
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 needs elaborate on the techniques normally used to create the management plan. With adjustments, the article will be highly relevant. 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 needs more context to reach state of the art. At the moment a web search results in a more clear overview. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_resource_management) 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 There were none
Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Rasmus Østerlund
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 Abstract is a but confusing in the end ".. not only short term, but also long term. Long term and short term do not necesasarily align, there are..." Bit messy, needs a pause. Good part about the levels
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 introduction mention McKinsey and Kotters models, will these be added later on or why are they there?
The "Big Idea" title, is there a better title for the section explaining the 4 levels of HRM?
The structure is good
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 sentences that is confusing to me, in general it is okay but a second read will probably give you more to work with, an example is given below
input 3. - "The Human resources that are within the organization and the geographical position of these members. if the right man for the job, in a department in another country, some issues could occur" what does that mean?
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 No figures or tables
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 small reflections are fine and provides relevance to each technique
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 In structure, explain why different countries prefer different formatting in structure, maybe include "Hofstede" for culture differences.
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 Every part is cited to where the context is from, seems OK to me.
