Talk:SMART goals - A Project Manager Tool

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity & language'''|| Good |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good |- |'''Article purpose explanation'''|| Could be el...")
 
(→‎Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ...)
 
(One intermediate revision by one user not shown)
Line 13: Line 13:
  
 
|}
 
|}
 +
 +
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Moritz Gutheil''==
 +
===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 gives a good overview. Its relevant to the extent that you want to describe the process of developing relevant goals. Maybe one or two more sentences on that. ''
 +
 +
===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 structure makes sense. You clearly separate the theory from the application part. I like that you mention the two interpretations of the SMART acronym. Maybe argue why you stick with the original definition/ why it is more relevant. Make sure you stay coherent in phrasing, there seems to bee a mismatch between how you define in "What does it stand for?" and "How to apply". Good idea that you will include examples.''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Mostly coherent. Only minor mistakes. Reading it over at the end, or having somebody else check-reading it, should do.''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''No figures yet. Might still follow.''
 +
 +
===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 its relevant. I like the set of questions for every letter. Examples in the application part will be helpful.''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Maybe include some hand-on theories or models in the application part (e.g. roadmaps and milestones in the Time domain.''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Fair amount of sources, maybe more in the application part. I like that you include a Bibliography''
 +
 +
==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Mie Anker''==
 +
===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===
 +
''Good''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Great. The first part "SMART goals” is defiantly he weakest. I will admit that you lost me a bit and I was not sure where you were going. ''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Some grammar errors spread all over the article and the word order – or sentences being a bit cramped, for example “SMART goals are applicable without the use of specialist tools or years of education to everything from your life goals to the creation of a new opera house.”. But all over a good article, nice to read and with well-formed sentences. ''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''No figures were used, but I did not miss any illustrations. ''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''It is very clear that it is relevant. Maybe use a specific example from a project that used SMART goals? Or didn't and something went wrong''
 +
 +
===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 does not make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search, but the Limitation part sounds like it has the potential of doing so. If the program and portfolio managers are included I don’t know about the title of the article? ''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Good and briefly explains each reference. A bit too subjective with the words “good” and “great”''

Latest revision as of 20:46, 25 February 2019

Contents

[edit] Feedback on Abstract:

Text clarity & language Good
Description of the tool/theory/concept Good
Article purpose explanation Could be elaborated
Relevance to curriculum Relevant. Make sure you clearly relate it to project management and its relevance
References Don't forget to add the bibliography. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references

[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Moritz Gutheil

[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 gives a good overview. Its relevant to the extent that you want to describe the process of developing relevant goals. Maybe one or two more sentences on that.

[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 structure makes sense. You clearly separate the theory from the application part. I like that you mention the two interpretations of the SMART acronym. Maybe argue why you stick with the original definition/ why it is more relevant. Make sure you stay coherent in phrasing, there seems to bee a mismatch between how you define in "What does it stand for?" and "How to apply". Good idea that you will include examples.

[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

Mostly coherent. Only minor mistakes. Reading it over at the end, or having somebody else check-reading it, should do.

[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

No figures yet. Might still follow.

[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 its relevant. I like the set of questions for every letter. Examples in the application part will be helpful.

[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

Maybe include some hand-on theories or models in the application part (e.g. roadmaps and milestones in the Time domain.

[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

Fair amount of sources, maybe more in the application part. I like that you include a Bibliography

[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Mie Anker

[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

Good

[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

Great. The first part "SMART goals” is defiantly he weakest. I will admit that you lost me a bit and I was not sure where you were going.

[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

Some grammar errors spread all over the article and the word order – or sentences being a bit cramped, for example “SMART goals are applicable without the use of specialist tools or years of education to everything from your life goals to the creation of a new opera house.”. But all over a good article, nice to read and with well-formed sentences.

[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

No figures were used, but I did not miss any illustrations.

[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

It is very clear that it is relevant. Maybe use a specific example from a project that used SMART goals? Or didn't and something went wrong

[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 does not make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search, but the Limitation part sounds like it has the potential of doing so. If the program and portfolio managers are included I don’t know about the title of the article?

[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

Good and briefly explains each reference. A bit too subjective with the words “good” and “great”

Retrieved from "http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php?title=Talk:SMART_goals_-_A_Project_Manager_Tool&oldid=66933"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox