Talk:Line Balancing - Yamazumi Chart Method

Latest revision as of 13:44, 21 February 2018

[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Ellen Trovåg Amundsen

[edit] Question 1

[edit] 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 objective of the article is clear from the summary, and the text is coherent.

[edit] Question 2

[edit] 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

I will review the article when it's finished. But the current structure looks good, and for the "methodology" part it is easy to understand the concept (well explained through tables and examples). Add more to "benefits"

[edit] Question 3

[edit] 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

Some spelling errors, but as this is a draft, I will skip this question.

[edit] Question 4

[edit] 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

Figures and tables are good, and they make it easy to understand what is explained in the text.

[edit] Question 5

[edit] 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

I guess you will include some more about this

[edit] Question 6

[edit] 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

[edit] Question 7

[edit] 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:

[edit] Question 1

[edit] 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

Great overview of the topic.

[edit] Question 2

[edit] 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 argumentation is clear and the structure is logical. Would recommend you to also look into some restrictions with the method.

[edit] Question 3

[edit] 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

Some grammatical errors and some fill sentences.

[edit] Question 4

[edit] 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

Very good use of tables.

[edit] Question 5

[edit] 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 step-by-step procedure provides the user with an clear guide on how to apply the method. The topic is of academic relevance.

[edit] Question 6

[edit] 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

There are several articles covering this topic online, however, none quite as thorough as this article will be when finished.

[edit] Question 7

[edit] 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] Abstract Feedback

Text clarity Good

Language Okay

Description of the tool/theory/concept Interesting topic, but where is this used in project/program/portfolio management? This concept is explained in an operations management context

Purpose explanation Okay, but what is a project manager/team going to achieve from reading this?

References Missing appropriate references to mandatory list of references

Relevance of article Consider reframing the article to fit the project management community or consider your alternative idea. Keep in mind the following:

1. Who is the reader? Project Manager or Sponsor etc?
2. Try linking the topic to a knowledge area of project management - e.g. project resources