Talk:Benefits Realisation Management (BRM)

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Answer 4)
(→‎Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: "Dimitrios Kokkinopoulos": new section)
 
(11 intermediate revisions by one user not shown)
Line 116: Line 116:
  
 
===Answer 1===
 
===Answer 1===
−
I would prefer a more coherent text. Some topics are just presented only as sentences and not elaborated enough. But as an overall is a really good abstract which helps the reader to understand the main points.
+
I would sugget a more coherent text. Some topics are just presented only as sentences and not elaborated enough. But as an overall is a really good abstract which helps the reader to understand the main points.
  
 
===Question 2 · TEXT===
 
===Question 2 · TEXT===
Line 156: Line 156:
  
 
===Answer 4===
 
===Answer 4===
−
Figures are really analytical and helpful for the reader to understand the point. It is also good that the key sunjects of each paragraph are illustrated in clear and big figures. I would only suggest a short description under each one, to make it look more complete and\or a reference.
+
Figures are really analytical and helpful for the reader to understand the point. It is also good that the key subjects of each paragraph are illustrated in clear and big figures. I would only suggest a short description under each one, to make it look more complete and\or a reference.
  
 
===Question 5 · TEXT===
 
===Question 5 · TEXT===
 
'''Interest and relevance:'''  
 
'''Interest and relevance:'''  
  
−
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?  
+
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? Yes
  
−
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?  
+
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? Yes
  
 
What would you suggest to improve?
 
What would you suggest to improve?
  
 
===Answer 5===
 
===Answer 5===
−
''Answer here''
+
I would suggest to contribute more on the relation between benefits and success of a program and maybe state some differences between them
  
 
===Question 6 · TEXT===
 
===Question 6 · TEXT===
 
'''Depth of treatment:'''  
 
'''Depth of treatment:'''  
  
−
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?  
+
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes
  
 
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?  
 
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?  
Line 180: Line 180:
  
 
===Answer 6===
 
===Answer 6===
−
''Answer here''
+
-
 +
 
 +
===Question 7 · TEXT===
 +
'''Annotated bibliography:'''
 +
 
 +
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Yes
 +
 
 +
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? Yes
 +
 
 +
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes
 +
 
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 
 +
===Answer 7===
 +
I suggest to link the references with text
 +
 
 +
== Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: "Dimitrios Kokkinopoulos" ==
 +
 
 +
===Question 1 · TEXT===
 +
'''Quality of the summary:'''
 +
 
 +
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Yes
 +
 
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 
 +
===Answer 1===
 +
Representative, personally I would more paragraph structure.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
===Question 2 · TEXT===
 +
'''Structure and logic of the article:'''
 +
 
 +
Is the argument clear? Yes
 +
 
 +
Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes
 +
 
 +
Does one part build upon the other? Yes
 +
 
 +
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? Yes
 +
 
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 
 +
===Answer 2===
 +
Good logical flow  and broad coverage.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
===Question 3 · TEXT===
 +
'''Grammar and style:'''
 +
 
 +
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Mostly
 +
 
 +
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes
 +
 
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 
 +
===Answer 3===
 +
Some repetitive phrases and the usage of word "wether" should be limited and fixed.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
===Question 4 · TEXT===
 +
'''Figures and tables:'''
 +
 
 +
Are figures and tables clear? Yes
 +
 
 +
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? Yes
 +
 
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 
 +
===Answer 4===
 +
Clarifying figures, would fix a little bit the visual siting of them (size and captions).
 +
 
 +
 
 +
===Question 5 · TEXT===
 +
'''Interest and relevance:'''
 +
 
 +
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? Yes
 +
 
 +
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? Yes
 +
 
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 
 +
===Answer 5===
 +
Very analytical but some more practical approach should be included to avoid repeating the key points of BRM.
 +
 
 +
 
 +
===Question 6 · TEXT===
 +
'''Depth of treatment:'''
 +
 
 +
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes
 +
 
 +
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? No
 +
 
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 
 +
===Answer 6===
 +
The concept by its nature seems to be shallow and easily understood. Deeper treatment would include hands-on approach
 +
 
  
 
===Question 7 · TEXT===
 
===Question 7 · TEXT===
 
'''Annotated bibliography:'''  
 
'''Annotated bibliography:'''  
  
−
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?  
+
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Yes
  
−
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?  
+
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? Yes
  
−
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?  
+
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes
  
 
What would you suggest to improve?
 
What would you suggest to improve?
  
 
===Answer 7===
 
===Answer 7===
−
''Answer here''
+
According to the standards.

Latest revision as of 13:53, 26 February 2019

Text clarity OK
Language Some mistakes. Avoid writing his or hers about the method.
Description of the tool/theory/concept Good
Purpose explanation Good
Title of the Wiki Good
Relevance to curriculum Relevant
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 I am not sure if you focus on program management or it will be about project, program and portfolio management.

Contents

[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Dimitrios Kokkinopoulos

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 Answer here

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 Answer here

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 Answer here

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 Answer here

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 Answer here

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 Answer here

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 Answer here

[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Evgenia Chatzivasileiou

[edit] Question 1 · TEXT

Quality of the summary:

Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 1

I would sugget a more coherent text. Some topics are just presented only as sentences and not elaborated enough. But as an overall is a really good abstract which helps the reader to understand the main points.

[edit] Question 2 · TEXT

Structure and logic of the article:

Is the argument clear? Yes

Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes

Does one part build upon the other? Yes

Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 2

Well organised and oriented text.

[edit] Question 3 · TEXT

Grammar and style:

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Mostly

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 3

-

[edit] Question 4 · TEXT

Figures and tables:

Are figures and tables clear? Yes

Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 4

Figures are really analytical and helpful for the reader to understand the point. It is also good that the key subjects of each paragraph are illustrated in clear and big figures. I would only suggest a short description under each one, to make it look more complete and\or a reference.

[edit] Question 5 · TEXT

Interest and relevance:

Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? Yes

Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 5

I would suggest to contribute more on the relation between benefits and success of a program and maybe state some differences between them

[edit] Question 6 · TEXT

Depth of treatment:

Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes

Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 6

-

[edit] Question 7 · TEXT

Annotated bibliography:

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Yes

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? Yes

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 7

I suggest to link the references with text

[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: "Dimitrios Kokkinopoulos"

[edit] Question 1 · TEXT

Quality of the summary:

Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 1

Representative, personally I would more paragraph structure.


[edit] Question 2 · TEXT

Structure and logic of the article:

Is the argument clear? Yes

Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes

Does one part build upon the other? Yes

Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 2

Good logical flow and broad coverage.


[edit] Question 3 · TEXT

Grammar and style:

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Mostly

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 3

Some repetitive phrases and the usage of word "wether" should be limited and fixed.


[edit] Question 4 · TEXT

Figures and tables:

Are figures and tables clear? Yes

Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 4

Clarifying figures, would fix a little bit the visual siting of them (size and captions).


[edit] Question 5 · TEXT

Interest and relevance:

Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? Yes

Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 5

Very analytical but some more practical approach should be included to avoid repeating the key points of BRM.


[edit] Question 6 · TEXT

Depth of treatment:

Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes

Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? No

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 6

The concept by its nature seems to be shallow and easily understood. Deeper treatment would include hands-on approach


[edit] Question 7 · TEXT

Annotated bibliography:

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Yes

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? Yes

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 7

According to the standards.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php?title=Talk:Benefits_Realisation_Management_(BRM)&oldid=67319"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox