Talk:Cash flow & payment milestones

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Alice Allouche)
 
(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 18: Line 18:
 
   <li> Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project management community more than a normal web search
 
   <li> Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project management community more than a normal web search
 
</ol>
 
</ol>
 +
 +
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Marianne Delp (reviewed 18/02)''==
 +
===Question 1 ===
 +
'''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===
 +
''Article is not finished and only includes a abstract and short introduction. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude if the abstract is good or not and to make suggestion on improvements.''
 +
 +
===Question 2 ===
 +
'''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===
 +
'Same answer as question 1. In addition, the introduction is well written with good contents in regard to the article's focus.''
 +
 +
===Question 3 ===
 +
'''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 and precise written, with no significant errors.''
 +
 +
===Question 4 ===
 +
'''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 two figures are very good where they are easy to understand and are relevant to the text. Remember that the professor said you can't copy-paste figures from a webpage etc., but that we had to make our own based on the figures. ''
 +
 +
===Question 5 ===
 +
'''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===
 +
''This article is of relevance more towards a practical relevance. One improvement could maybe be to specify directly how this article relate to project, program and/or portfolio management in one sentence.''
 +
 +
===Question 6 ===
 +
'''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===
 +
''I belive this article are interesting for practitioner and academic to read. ''
 +
 +
===Question 7 ===
 +
'''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 sources seems reliable. One of the sources refers to empirical data from Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s in 2015. Note: One of the sources are not correctly cited in text as the others.  ''
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Alice Allouche (Reviewed 19/02)''==
 +
===Question 1===
 +
'''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 well written and concise, but maybe you should develop a bit more on the concepts of cash flow and payment milestones. I know there is a definition paragraph just below, but maybe add how it contributes to project management, or the precise goal of those 2 concepts.''
 +
 +
===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 argument is clear. The tools are well described, and the structure announced in the abstract is folllowed. I think you could go into more depth regarding the definitions and usefulness of the methods: how they are implemented, if there are any challenges, what is the current use of these methods, etc. It is the same for the Gantt and Pert examples, maybe you should explain a bit more in detail how they are used concretely, and how they help project management. On the whole, maybe you should be a bit critical of the tools you are talking about. But your article is not finished yet, so maybe you planned on developing all that! ''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Sentences are precise and well written, and little to no writing 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 nicely integrated and relevant. As Marianne said, maybe you should re-draw them yourself (or not?)''
 +
 +
===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 subject is relevant to project management, but maybe you could emphasize that link (maybe find some data about how many people use it, or the amount of money such planning can save, etc). Also, what about program and portfolio management?''
 +
 +
===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 presents usefool tools that are difficult to use, so it good to explain the clearly, which is the case. Some analysis and criticism of it could add some added value''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Many varied references, good! Don't forget the annotated bibliography where you have to describe your sources.''

Latest revision as of 22:28, 19 February 2018

Contents

[edit] Abstract Feedback

Text clarity Text is coherent, although this can be improved

Language Some spelling mistakes e.g. "technics" where it is meant "techniques"

Description of the tool/theory/concept Can be elaborated - e.g. what is a payment milestone?

Purpose explanation The abstract needs further elaboration - it is on the short side in terms of content

References Missing appropriate references to mandatory list of references

Relevance of article Consider the following:

  1. Explain the link between cash flow and payment milestones to Project Cost Management
  2. Who is the reader? Project Manager or Sponsor etc?
  3. Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project management community more than a normal web search

[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Marianne Delp (reviewed 18/02)

[edit] Question 1

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

Article is not finished and only includes a abstract and short introduction. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude if the abstract is good or not and to make suggestion on improvements.

[edit] Question 2

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

'Same answer as question 1. In addition, the introduction is well written with good contents in regard to the article's focus.

[edit] Question 3

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 and precise written, with no significant errors.

[edit] Question 4

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

The two figures are very good where they are easy to understand and are relevant to the text. Remember that the professor said you can't copy-paste figures from a webpage etc., but that we had to make our own based on the figures.

[edit] Question 5

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

This article is of relevance more towards a practical relevance. One improvement could maybe be to specify directly how this article relate to project, program and/or portfolio management in one sentence.

[edit] Question 6

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

I belive this article are interesting for practitioner and academic to read.

[edit] Question 7

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

The sources seems reliable. One of the sources refers to empirical data from Wal-Mart Stores Inc.'s in 2015. Note: One of the sources are not correctly cited in text as the others.




[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Alice Allouche (Reviewed 19/02)

[edit] Question 1

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

The abstract is well written and concise, but maybe you should develop a bit more on the concepts of cash flow and payment milestones. I know there is a definition paragraph just below, but maybe add how it contributes to project management, or the precise goal of those 2 concepts.

[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

The argument is clear. The tools are well described, and the structure announced in the abstract is folllowed. I think you could go into more depth regarding the definitions and usefulness of the methods: how they are implemented, if there are any challenges, what is the current use of these methods, etc. It is the same for the Gantt and Pert examples, maybe you should explain a bit more in detail how they are used concretely, and how they help project management. On the whole, maybe you should be a bit critical of the tools you are talking about. But your article is not finished yet, so maybe you planned on developing all that!

[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

Sentences are precise and well written, and little to no writing mistakes.

[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

The figures are nicely integrated and relevant. As Marianne said, maybe you should re-draw them yourself (or not?)

[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

The subject is relevant to project management, but maybe you could emphasize that link (maybe find some data about how many people use it, or the amount of money such planning can save, etc). Also, what about program and portfolio management?

[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

The article presents usefool tools that are difficult to use, so it good to explain the clearly, which is the case. Some analysis and criticism of it could add some added value

[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

Many varied references, good! Don't forget the annotated bibliography where you have to describe your sources.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php?title=Talk:Cash_flow_%26_payment_milestones&oldid=51832"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox