Talk:Project scope statement
(→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Nikolaj Justsen) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| + | - good and clear argument on why this i important | ||
| + | - Logical flow through the article, where each part build upon the other. | ||
| + | |||
| + | - consistent and good arguments. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | Good language, small amount of fill words, makes it easy t read. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 tables. and the one figure that there is refered too, is not uploaded. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Mayby use some tables to list up some of your arguments. and figures to illustrate the flows yours are talking about. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | Very good relevance both for practical and acedemic relevance. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The article is clear on why this topic is so important when doing projects. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | interesting for both pratitioners and academics to read. both parts can use this article to due projects. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: David Baldursson== | ||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | Well delivered summary. Gives you a feeling for the content of the article. Minor grammatic errors, “This statement of work documents ?also? the responsabilities…” | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | There is a good flow to the article. I feel that in the subchapter “The scope planning process” you could make bullets or try to separate somehow the sentences of the different techniques you explain. Otherwise it is fine and in the right direction. | ||
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 56: | Line 153: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | + | See answer 3. Just some minor changes to the layout would do this article only good. | |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 68: | Line 165: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | + | No figures available, or I don’t see the figures that you have uploaded. | |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 80: | Line 177: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | + | Article topic is practical. Gives a good reasoning for why it is of much importance. | |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 92: | Line 189: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | + | It helps understanding the process of the project scope statement. Article is still unfinished, and it will be interesting to read the missing chapters of the guidelines and limitations. Since it has not been completed it is difficult to review the article as one whole, but it seems to be good work so far. | |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 106: | Line 203: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | + | Needs some work on the references, they are not completely according to standards of referencing. I don’t know if it is relevant to your article, but I see you are using a rather old edition of the PMBOK guide (1996). There are newer versions available that might be of some help to you. In the filesharing section of the course there is the reference material for this course. There you can find 2013 edition of the book. | |
Latest revision as of 19:30, 19 February 2018
Contents |
[edit] Abstract Feedback
Text clarity Text is coherent
Language Good
Description of the tool/theory/concept Good, but I wouldn't say scope management is a tool. It's an output of scope planning and input to scope definition (look at chapter 5 in PMBOK). Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) is an example of a tool in scope definition
Purpose explanation Well addressed
References Good
Relevance of article Very relevant. I would keep in mind the following:
- Consider combining WBS with scope statement if it makes sense in the article
- Consider exploring the relationship between scope statement and scope creep if it makes sense in the article
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Nikolaj Justsen
[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
Good summary, makes good focus on the key points. gives a good understanding of what the reader can expect through the article.
[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
- good and clear argument on why this i important
- Logical flow through the article, where each part build upon the other.
- consistent and good arguments.
[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
Good language, small amount of fill words, makes it easy t read.
[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
No tables. and the one figure that there is refered too, is not uploaded.
Mayby use some tables to list up some of your arguments. and figures to illustrate the flows yours are talking about.
[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
Very good relevance both for practical and acedemic relevance.
The article is clear on why this topic is so important when doing projects.
[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
interesting for both pratitioners and academics to read. both parts can use this article to due projects.
[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
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: David Baldursson
[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
Well delivered summary. Gives you a feeling for the content of the article. Minor grammatic errors, “This statement of work documents ?also? the responsabilities…”
[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
There is a good flow to the article. I feel that in the subchapter “The scope planning process” you could make bullets or try to separate somehow the sentences of the different techniques you explain. Otherwise it is fine and in the right direction.
[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
See answer 3. Just some minor changes to the layout would do this article only good.
[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
No figures available, or I don’t see the figures that you have uploaded.
[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
Article topic is practical. Gives a good reasoning for why it is of much importance.
[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 helps understanding the process of the project scope statement. Article is still unfinished, and it will be interesting to read the missing chapters of the guidelines and limitations. Since it has not been completed it is difficult to review the article as one whole, but it seems to be good work so far.
[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
Needs some work on the references, they are not completely according to standards of referencing. I don’t know if it is relevant to your article, but I see you are using a rather old edition of the PMBOK guide (1996). There are newer versions available that might be of some help to you. In the filesharing section of the course there is the reference material for this course. There you can find 2013 edition of the book.
