Talk:Contracting and procurement
(→Abstract Feedback) |
|||
| (2 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
<li> Explaining how the procurement team fits into the project team | <li> Explaining how the procurement team fits into the project team | ||
</ol> | </ol> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Ragnhildur''== | ||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''The summary makes a very clear understanding of the key focus, insights and contribution of the article.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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, logical flow to the overall article and all sections build upon the other. | ||
| + | The only thing is in the explanation of "Procurement", you mention what the article will cover, which you had already done in the abstract. In "Contracting in Management" you talk about what steps will be explored in the article. I would suggest to have that text separated from the text about Contracting in Management." | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''The article is well written and understandable mostly free of grammatical and spelling errors. I would suggest though, to have a punctuation mark when you present the enumeration.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 only figure presents the five steps of the subject quite well.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 is of high relevance where it is stated clear how and why it is 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=== | ||
| + | ''It's a really interesting article for a practitioner to read. The only thing I think could be missing from the article is about the limitations, if there are any (where these are basically just steps).'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 is an extra dot after the references and all references are missing in the Contract Management chapter. Other than that it's fine.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Erna Gudny''== | ||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''The abstract/summary is good, it makes the key focus of the article clear and explains how the structure of the article will be.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 article overall looks good and is easy to read. The article is well structured and has a good flow where one thing leads to the next. Some suggestion for improvement: | ||
| + | * This is minor but as the title of the article and the title of the section is 'Contracting and procurement' I would explain it in that order as well in the previously mentioned section. | ||
| + | * Is it possible you forgot to put a reference after your quote in 'Contracting'? | ||
| + | * Is procurement and outsourcing the same? If not I would explain the difference a bit in the beginning. | ||
| + | * On a couple of occasions you state 'In this/the article...' within the article itself, in my opinion that should only be in the 'Abstract'/'Conclusion' section.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''The article is well written but has a few typos and some grammatical errors as well. The writing, for the most part, is concise and to the point without unnecessary fill words. I would suggest having someone proofread the final draft.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 only figure in the article is a nice addition to the text and visually shows the reader the five steps to be taken.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 has some relevance but I would suggest elaborating a bit more on why or how it is relevant to project management. I can see relevance that is both practical and academic.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 is interesting to read. Gathering information on this topic using a web search is harder than for many other topics we cover in the course. This article gives a good overview of how contracting and procurement works. There are no suggestions for improvement at this point as I think you cover the topic quite well.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''As I understand the section 'Annotated bibliography' is still in progress. This subject is covered in the PMBOK if you're unsure of how to do it.'' | ||
Latest revision as of 23:36, 19 February 2018
Contents |
[edit] Abstract Feedback
Text clarity Coherent
Language Good
Description of the tool/theory/concept Good - the words/terms "tendering" or "tendering phase" and "contract management" sum up what is written nicely, so consider adding them in the abstract
Purpose explanation Well addressed. Procurement is a large topic that occurs almost during the entire project life cycle. Therefore, narrow your focus, as you're doing, to the tender phase of the project
References Missing appropriate references to mandatory list of references - see chapter 12 in PMBOK
Relevance of article Relevant. when writing the article, consider:
- Are you looking at the problem from the client's perspective or supplier's perspective? E.g. Company A selecting a contractor from a list of contractors bidding for a contract
- Explaining how the procurement team fits into the project team
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Ragnhildur
[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
The summary makes a very clear understanding of the key focus, insights and contribution of 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
There is a good, logical flow to the overall article and all sections build upon the other. The only thing is in the explanation of "Procurement", you mention what the article will cover, which you had already done in the abstract. In "Contracting in Management" you talk about what steps will be explored in the article. I would suggest to have that text separated from the text about Contracting in Management."
[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
The article is well written and understandable mostly free of grammatical and spelling errors. I would suggest though, to have a punctuation mark when you present the enumeration.
[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 only figure presents the five steps of the subject quite well.
[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 article is of high relevance where it is stated clear how and why it is relevant.
[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's a really interesting article for a practitioner to read. The only thing I think could be missing from the article is about the limitations, if there are any (where these are basically just steps).
[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
There is an extra dot after the references and all references are missing in the Contract Management chapter. Other than that it's fine.
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Erna Gudny
[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
The abstract/summary is good, it makes the key focus of the article clear and explains how the structure of the article will be.
[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 article overall looks good and is easy to read. The article is well structured and has a good flow where one thing leads to the next. Some suggestion for improvement:
- This is minor but as the title of the article and the title of the section is 'Contracting and procurement' I would explain it in that order as well in the previously mentioned section.
- Is it possible you forgot to put a reference after your quote in 'Contracting'?
- Is procurement and outsourcing the same? If not I would explain the difference a bit in the beginning.
- On a couple of occasions you state 'In this/the article...' within the article itself, in my opinion that should only be in the 'Abstract'/'Conclusion' section.
[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
The article is well written but has a few typos and some grammatical errors as well. The writing, for the most part, is concise and to the point without unnecessary fill words. I would suggest having someone proofread the final draft.
[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 only figure in the article is a nice addition to the text and visually shows the reader the five steps to be taken.
[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 article has some relevance but I would suggest elaborating a bit more on why or how it is relevant to project management. I can see relevance that is both practical and academic.
[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 is interesting to read. Gathering information on this topic using a web search is harder than for many other topics we cover in the course. This article gives a good overview of how contracting and procurement works. There are no suggestions for improvement at this point as I think you cover the topic quite well.
[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
As I understand the section 'Annotated bibliography' is still in progress. This subject is covered in the PMBOK if you're unsure of how to do it.
