Talk:Value Analysis

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok. References; missing references related to the standards In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don...")
 
 
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Ida Smidt''==
 +
===Question 1 · TEXT===
 +
'''Quality of the summary:'''
 +
 +
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
 +
 +
Key focus - yes
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
Insights and contribution of the article
 +
 +
===Answer 1===
 +
''Answer here''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Answer here''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Answer here''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Answer here''
 +
 +
===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
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
===Answer 5===
 +
''Answer here''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Answer here''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Answer here''
 +
 +
==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Emma B. K. Hansen''==
 +
===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? Develop further
 +
 +
===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?
 +
 +
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===
 +
''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?
 +
 +
===Answer 3===
 +
''Answer here''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Answer here''
 +
 +
===Question 5 · TEXT===
 +
'''Interest and relevance:'''
 +
 +
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? So far - yes
 +
 +
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? No it's not clear.
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve? Relate it to ppp
 +
 +
===Answer 5===
 +
''Answer here''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Answer here''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Answer here''
 +
 +
 +
 
==Abstract Feedback==
 
==Abstract Feedback==
 
Text Clarity; Ok.
 
Text Clarity; Ok.

Latest revision as of 20:28, 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?

Key focus - yes

What would you suggest to improve?

Insights and contribution of the article

[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?

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

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: Emma B. K. Hansen

[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? Develop further

[edit] Answer 1

Answer here

[edit] Question 2 · TEXT

Structure and logic of the article:

Is the argument clear? Yes

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?

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? So far - yes

Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? No it's not clear.

What would you suggest to improve? Relate it to ppp

[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] Abstract Feedback

Text Clarity; Ok.

Language; Ok.

References; missing references related to the standards

In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget to connect the topic with the standards for example with the "cost" subject group of the ISO 21500 or the equivalent of he PMBOK.

Value Engineering is associated commonly in Lean projects.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php?title=Talk:Value_Analysis&oldid=51694"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox