Talk:Project Management Success Factors
Jonina Thora (Talk | contribs) (→Answer 3) |
|||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
{| | {| | ||
| − | |'''Text clarity & language'''|| The text is good, however there's a few grammatical mistakes (e.g. read "Project management success may be defined as if an intersection of..." again). It could also be more concise. | + | |'''Text clarity & language'''|| The text is good, however there's a few grammatical mistakes (e.g. read "Project management success may be defined as if an intersection of..." again). It could also be more concise. '''//Solved: Some sentences have been rephrased to make it more''' '''understandable.''' |
|- | |- | ||
|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Well elaborated. | |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Well elaborated. | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | ''The abstract is good, but there are many long sentences and no breaks so it can make it a bit hard to read. It does make clarify the focus of the article, but I had to read the abstract three times to makes sure word information it gave.'' | + | ''The abstract is good, but there are many long sentences and no breaks so it can make it a bit hard to read. It does make clarify the focus of the article, but I had to read the abstract three times to makes sure word information it gave.'' '''//Solved: many sentences have been rephrased or made shorter. |
| − | + | ''' | |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Structure and logic of the article:''' | '''Structure and logic of the article:''' | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | ''The article is very clear and the flow of the information is good, though I don't think the headlines match the sections well or at least they do not help the flow of the article(in my opinion). The article is very true to the abstract.'' | + | ''The article is very clear and the flow of the information is good, though I don't think the headlines match the sections well or at least they do not help the flow of the article(in my opinion). The article is very true to the abstract.'''''//Solved: I kept the main headlines as they made sense for me but added sub-chapter headlines to make it more clean.''' |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | ''Overall the language is fine. In my opinion some refinement of sentences could help, but I don't see any actual mistakes. When PRINCE2 is desribed, the shortcut is explained twice right after each other.'' | + | ''Overall the language is fine. In my opinion some refinement of sentences could help, but I don't see any actual mistakes. When PRINCE2 is desribed, the shortcut is explained twice right after each other.'''''//Solved: Fixed sentences and erased the duplication of the same information.''' |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 76: | Line 76: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | ''We have project manager to ensure succes, so to define the factors of succes and the difference in project succes and project management succes is highly relevant. It is also of high practice relative to the length of the article. Maybe it could be relevant to include a section about how these informations are relevant for project managers or how they can use the information when managing.'' | + | ''We have project manager to ensure succes, so to define the factors of succes and the difference in project succes and project management succes is highly relevant. It is also of high practice relative to the length of the article. Maybe it could be relevant to include a section about how these informations are relevant for project managers or how they can use the information when managing.'' '''//Solved: In the end of application chapter, I added a section on how a PM manager can reach success in managing a project.''' |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 103: | Line 103: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
''The annotated bibliography is good.'' | ''The annotated bibliography is good.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Karina Sviland Kindingstad''== | ||
| + | ===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 it does, I think it is good that you present what project management success is, and that you at the end state what the article will discuss. '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 is clear and the flow is good. '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 language is fine, and there are not too many fil words. However, I think there are some long sentences. More breaks would be good. When you write, “One of them and probably the most widely used is the PRINCE2 (Projects IN Controlled Environments) method. It stands for projects in a controlled environment.” Maybe you can take away the last part, because it is already stated. '' '''//Solved: Fixed long sentences and also fixed the twice mentioned part in PRINCE2 method. | ||
| + | ''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Good figures and tables. Good that you comment the table and explained. I think the table is meaningful because it summarize important facts in the article. '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Yes it is relevant. Relevant because it is important to know how good project management can lead to success, and this is what the article explains. It is made clear when the explaining the difference in project success and project management success. '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Yes it is interesting for a practitioner, because a practitioner would like to know how to manage a good project. Good that there are some tables and bullet point for this. Maybe have more of a discussion around the topic. How can it be done in practise and when is the different methods good to use? '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 annotated bibliography is good. '' | ||
Latest revision as of 19:29, 2 March 2019
Contents |
[edit] Feedback on Abstract:
Great to see your'e ahead of the game! Please find my feedback below:
| Text clarity & language | The text is good, however there's a few grammatical mistakes (e.g. read "Project management success may be defined as if an intersection of..." again). It could also be more concise. //Solved: Some sentences have been rephrased to make it more understandable. |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Well elaborated. |
| Article purpose explanation | Well elaborated. |
| Relevance to curriculum | Relevant |
| References | Good references. |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Julie Andersen
[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 is good, but there are many long sentences and no breaks so it can make it a bit hard to read. It does make clarify the focus of the article, but I had to read the abstract three times to makes sure word information it gave. //Solved: many sentences have been rephrased or made shorter.
[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 is very clear and the flow of the information is good, though I don't think the headlines match the sections well or at least they do not help the flow of the article(in my opinion). The article is very true to the abstract.//Solved: I kept the main headlines as they made sense for me but added sub-chapter headlines to make it more clean.
[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
Overall the language is fine. In my opinion some refinement of sentences could help, but I don't see any actual mistakes. When PRINCE2 is desribed, the shortcut is explained twice right after each other.//Solved: Fixed sentences and erased the duplication of the same information.
[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
I find the figure very helpfull and they do support the text very 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
We have project manager to ensure succes, so to define the factors of succes and the difference in project succes and project management succes is highly relevant. It is also of high practice relative to the length of the article. Maybe it could be relevant to include a section about how these informations are relevant for project managers or how they can use the information when managing. //Solved: In the end of application chapter, I added a section on how a PM manager can reach success in managing a project.
[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 does have a significant contributions beyond a cursory web search. The interest for a practioner will be higher if n explanation on how to use this information was a part 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
The annotated bibliography is good.
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Karina Sviland Kindingstad
[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 it does, I think it is good that you present what project management success is, and that you at the end state what the article will discuss.
[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 is clear and the flow is good.
[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 language is fine, and there are not too many fil words. However, I think there are some long sentences. More breaks would be good. When you write, “One of them and probably the most widely used is the PRINCE2 (Projects IN Controlled Environments) method. It stands for projects in a controlled environment.” Maybe you can take away the last part, because it is already stated. //Solved: Fixed long sentences and also fixed the twice mentioned part in PRINCE2 method.
[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
Good figures and tables. Good that you comment the table and explained. I think the table is meaningful because it summarize important facts in the article.
[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
Yes it is relevant. Relevant because it is important to know how good project management can lead to success, and this is what the article explains. It is made clear when the explaining the difference in project success and project management success.
[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
Yes it is interesting for a practitioner, because a practitioner would like to know how to manage a good project. Good that there are some tables and bullet point for this. Maybe have more of a discussion around the topic. How can it be done in practise and when is the different methods good to use?
[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 annotated bibliography is good.
