Talk:Cash flow & payment milestones
(→Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Alice Allouche) |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
</ol> | </ol> | ||
| − | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Marianne Delp''== | + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Marianne Delp (reviewed 18/02)''== |
| − | ===Question 1 | + | ===Question 1 === |
'''Quality of the summary:''' | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===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 | + | ===Question 2 === |
'''Structure and logic of the article:''' | '''Structure and logic of the article:''' | ||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===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 | + | ===Question 3 === |
'''Grammar and style:''' | '''Grammar and style:''' | ||
| Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Good and precise written, with no significant errors.'' |
| − | ===Question 4 | + | ===Question 4 === |
'''Figures and tables:''' | '''Figures and tables:''' | ||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===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 | + | ===Question 5 === |
'''Interest and relevance:''' | '''Interest and relevance:''' | ||
| Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===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 | + | ===Question 6 === |
'''Depth of treatment:''' | '''Depth of treatment:''' | ||
| Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''I belive this article are interesting for practitioner and academic to read. '' |
| − | ===Question 7 | + | ===Question 7 === |
'''Annotated bibliography:''' | '''Annotated bibliography:''' | ||
| Line 106: | Line 106: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===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. '' |
| Line 114: | Line 114: | ||
| − | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: '' | + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Alice Allouche (Reviewed 19/02)''== |
| − | ===Question 1 | + | ===Question 1=== |
'''Quality of the summary:''' | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| Line 123: | Line 123: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===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=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 139: | Line 139: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===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=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 151: | Line 151: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Sentences are precise and well written, and little to no writing mistakes.'' |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 163: | Line 163: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The figures are nicely integrated and relevant. As Marianne said, maybe you should re-draw them yourself (or not?)'' |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 175: | Line 175: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===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=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 187: | Line 187: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===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=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 201: | Line 201: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===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:
- Explain the link between cash flow and payment milestones to Project Cost Management
- Who is the reader? Project Manager or Sponsor etc?
- 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.
