Talk:Performance-based contracting

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| Good |- |'''Language'''|| Good |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Could be more clear |- |'''Purpose explan...")
 
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 16: Line 16:
 
|'''References'''|| Remember to make correct references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references
 
|'''References'''|| Remember to make correct references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references
 
|-
 
|-
−
|'''Other'''|| Make sure not to follow the same structure as the Wikipedia article about the same subject
+
|'''Other'''|| Make sure not to follow the same structure as the Wikipedia article about the same topic
 
|}
 
|}
 +
 +
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Sofie Martinussen''==
 +
===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 is good, it highlights the main differences in performance-based contracting compared to other types. As the Sourcing Businuss models are the main focus, I wold perhaps suggest to present this earlier on.''
 +
 +
===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 flow in the article is good, and the one part builds upon the next, however, I am not completely aware of why performance-based contracting is better (or not) than others as well as the advantages of the model, and how to actually do this or shift from one model to performance-based. - perhaps specific suggestions on how to motivative contactors to perform better could be presented.''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Generally, the spelling and grammar are good. However, a few places singular and pluralism are wrong - I would suggest a read-through ideally by someone else.''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Figures are good and well described and incorporated in the text.''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''I think it is relevant, however, it is not directly stated why it is relevant other than it is different from the traditional methods.''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''I believe it is if it is clearly stated what the advantages of this model is.''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''The sources are properly cited, however, the summary of sources are yet to be conducted.''
 +
 +
==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Simone Bruhn''==
 +
===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===
 +
''Yes - the key focus of your article is very clear - good job! - Maybe try to construct your abstract according to the content structure - maybe you should mention the limitations in the end instead of the Sourcing Business Models etc.''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Good that you start explaining the topic more overall and ends with the limitations.
 +
The flow of the article is good.
 +
I think you will explain the Key Performance Indicators and Limitations more?''
 +
 +
===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 text is clair and the langues good''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''You have some good pictures/figures explaining the topics (which I can see you will replace with own figures - good!)
 +
It is good you explain each step in figure 2 - maybe provide the new figure 2 with numbers so the reader easily can find the topics in the boxes in figure 2, example:
 +
1. Basic Transaction Provider
 +
2. Approved Provider
 +
etc. ''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Maybe be more clair in the beginning of the article why it is an important tool and maybe what happens if you do not use it?''
 +
 +
===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. It covers the relevance of the topic, and it is readable and easy to follow.''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Remeber to make proper citation in all the section (I think it should be for every 100 words).l''

Latest revision as of 17:06, 25 February 2019

Contents

[edit] Feedback on Abstract:

Text clarity Good
Language Good
Description of the tool/theory/concept Could be more clear
Purpose explanation OK
Title of the Wiki Good
Relevance to curriculum Remember to make it clear that it is related to project, program or portfolio management
References Remember to make correct references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references
Other Make sure not to follow the same structure as the Wikipedia article about the same topic

[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Sofie Martinussen

[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 is good, it highlights the main differences in performance-based contracting compared to other types. As the Sourcing Businuss models are the main focus, I wold perhaps suggest to present this earlier on.

[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 flow in the article is good, and the one part builds upon the next, however, I am not completely aware of why performance-based contracting is better (or not) than others as well as the advantages of the model, and how to actually do this or shift from one model to performance-based. - perhaps specific suggestions on how to motivative contactors to perform better could be presented.

[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

Generally, the spelling and grammar are good. However, a few places singular and pluralism are wrong - I would suggest a read-through ideally by someone else.

[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

Figures are good and well described and incorporated in the text.

[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

I think it is relevant, however, it is not directly stated why it is relevant other than it is different from the traditional methods.

[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

I believe it is if it is clearly stated what the advantages of this model is.

[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

The sources are properly cited, however, the summary of sources are yet to be conducted.

[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Simone Bruhn

[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

Yes - the key focus of your article is very clear - good job! - Maybe try to construct your abstract according to the content structure - maybe you should mention the limitations in the end instead of the Sourcing Business Models etc.

[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

Good that you start explaining the topic more overall and ends with the limitations. The flow of the article is good. I think you will explain the Key Performance Indicators and Limitations more?

[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 text is clair and the langues good

[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

You have some good pictures/figures explaining the topics (which I can see you will replace with own figures - good!) It is good you explain each step in figure 2 - maybe provide the new figure 2 with numbers so the reader easily can find the topics in the boxes in figure 2, example: 1. Basic Transaction Provider 2. Approved Provider etc.

[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

Maybe be more clair in the beginning of the article why it is an important tool and maybe what happens if you do not use it?

[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. It covers the relevance of the topic, and it is readable and easy to follow.

[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

Remeber to make proper citation in all the section (I think it should be for every 100 words).l

Retrieved from "http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php?title=Talk:Performance-based_contracting&oldid=66797"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox