Talk:Stakeholder Analysis
From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
(→General) |
|||
| (12 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
* I can see that you are well on your way and that the content is interesting, but that there is still some work to do. | * I can see that you are well on your way and that the content is interesting, but that there is still some work to do. | ||
| + | * ''Nemo respons: Thanks. I agree that the article was not fully completed. I have especially improved the section regarding mapping and worked on the general flow in the article.'' | ||
'''Formal:''' | '''Formal:''' | ||
* I can see that you have been using the referencing correctly, but you are still missing some references to other peoples wiki articles for example SWOT | * I can see that you have been using the referencing correctly, but you are still missing some references to other peoples wiki articles for example SWOT | ||
| + | * ''Nemo respons: I have now added link to SWOT and Stakeholder Mapping. I also add some categories and key words for making the article more visible and better integrated in the Wiki structure.'' | ||
* There are some spelling mistakes and some grammar mistakes, maybe by adding your text to word you can find some of them | * There are some spelling mistakes and some grammar mistakes, maybe by adding your text to word you can find some of them | ||
| + | * ''Nemo respons: I have done some reading focus on spelling and grammar in the article, and also used some spelling check on the computer<nowiki>;-)</nowiki>'' | ||
* I think the structure looks pretty good but maybe you should have the introduction above the content list and background inbetween introduction and process and move the benefits down? | * I think the structure looks pretty good but maybe you should have the introduction above the content list and background inbetween introduction and process and move the benefits down? | ||
| + | * ''Nemo respons: Background is already in between introduction and process. I have moved the Benefits down. I don´t think I´m able to move around with the content list, since it auto-generated.'' | ||
* You have only used around 1500 words so you still have plenty to finish your article | * You have only used around 1500 words so you still have plenty to finish your article | ||
| + | * ''Nemo respons: I wrote some more about mapping, which was not completed, and also add some to the introduction.'' | ||
'''Content:''' | '''Content:''' | ||
| − | * You can maybe make clear what shareholder, key stakeholder or CSR is either by referencing to it somewhere else or maybe writing about it. | + | * You can maybe make clear what shareholder, key stakeholder or CSR is either by referencing to it somewhere else or maybe writing about it. |
| + | * ''Nemo respons: I have elaborated a bit on that in the text now.'' | ||
* I think that you have made some good visualizations that are coherent in color and are well described, do you maybe have a suggestion on a way of vizualizing a 2D mapping? Or a reference? | * I think that you have made some good visualizations that are coherent in color and are well described, do you maybe have a suggestion on a way of vizualizing a 2D mapping? Or a reference? | ||
| + | * ''Nemo respons: I have extended the section regarding mapping and also described 2D mapping further.'' | ||
* I like that yo have used some examples like the metro station, maybe you have some more | * I like that yo have used some examples like the metro station, maybe you have some more | ||
| + | * ''Nemo respons: More minor examples has been included.'' | ||
* Should possibly specify if stakeholder analysis can be used for project, program and portfolio. | * Should possibly specify if stakeholder analysis can be used for project, program and portfolio. | ||
| − | * You could possibly add some more headlines under the process, for example by using the 7 steps and then describing them, since you already describe the first step in very clear detail. | + | * ''Nemo respons: Stakeholder analysis can be used for both projects, programs and portfolios. I have add that in the introduction.'' |
| + | * You could possibly add some more headlines under the process, for example by using the 7 steps and then describing them, since you already describe the first step in very clear detail. | ||
| + | * ''Nemo respons: Ok - implemented.'' | ||
* I think you are on your way to creating an informative wiki article, if there is time and you would like then I can maybe have a look at it again when you are done. I will come back and check the discussion to see what you think, hope some of the feedback was useful. | * I think you are on your way to creating an informative wiki article, if there is time and you would like then I can maybe have a look at it again when you are done. I will come back and check the discussion to see what you think, hope some of the feedback was useful. | ||
| + | * ''Nemo respons: Thanks for the response - it has resulted in a handful of improvements <nowiki>;-)</nowiki>'' | ||
== fra johnjohn == | == fra johnjohn == | ||
| Line 28: | Line 39: | ||
Content: | Content: | ||
* Interesting content, as a practitioner it is interesting to get an overview of the concept. | * Interesting content, as a practitioner it is interesting to get an overview of the concept. | ||
| + | * ''Nemo respons: Thanks.'' | ||
* The relation to project management could be underlined. Maybe discuss its relevance relative to project, program and portfolio management? | * The relation to project management could be underlined. Maybe discuss its relevance relative to project, program and portfolio management? | ||
- References seem substantiated by relevant literature? I does not seem like copy paste | - References seem substantiated by relevant literature? I does not seem like copy paste | ||
| + | * ''Nemo respons: I have improved the introduction regarding this.'' | ||
Formal: | Formal: | ||
* Spelling is overall ok | * Spelling is overall ok | ||
| + | * ''Nemo respons: Thanks. I have however tried to improve a bit.'' | ||
* References are ok and relevant, and the formatting of them complies with the wiki standards. | * References are ok and relevant, and the formatting of them complies with the wiki standards. | ||
| + | * ''Nemo respons: Thanks.'' | ||
* I like the precise language and short sentences, but language could be more engaging. | * I like the precise language and short sentences, but language could be more engaging. | ||
| + | * ''Nemo respons: I have tried to improve the language and flow in the article in general.'' | ||
* Figures are ok and especially in the Mapping section should the support the explanation of the methods. | * Figures are ok and especially in the Mapping section should the support the explanation of the methods. | ||
| + | * ''Nemo respons: Thanks. I have added and improved the mapping section in general.'' | ||
=== Comments for content in each section === | === Comments for content in each section === | ||
| Line 42: | Line 59: | ||
Content: | Content: | ||
* I like that you try to keep it short and precise, but I do miss that the parts are writing in a more fluent language. I could also miss the red thread in the article, and what it actually aims for. I summary in the beginning stating aim and type of article could help this.. | * I like that you try to keep it short and precise, but I do miss that the parts are writing in a more fluent language. I could also miss the red thread in the article, and what it actually aims for. I summary in the beginning stating aim and type of article could help this.. | ||
| + | * ''Nemo respons: I have improved the flow in the article in general and implemented a better introduction. I have also included a summary. I was bit confused on whether it should be a summary or an abstract since I have heard different from fellow student depending on which teacher they spoke with. But I ended up with a summary <nowiki>;-)</nowiki>'' | ||
Introduction: | Introduction: | ||
* You say that it is important to distinguish stakeholder and shareholder. Make you could explain the difference? | * You say that it is important to distinguish stakeholder and shareholder. Make you could explain the difference? | ||
| + | * ''Nemo respons: I see this distinction as a very essential point of my argument, so I am very glad that you pointet out that this was not clear enough. I have improved my argumentation regarding this.'' | ||
* Nice with the stakeholder definition from the standard. Maybe you could give examples of a stakeholder, and link it to your figure? Maybe simply say, that a stakeholder can be ”customer”, ”employee”. I know you do this under the process section, so maybe you can just refer to that section. | * Nice with the stakeholder definition from the standard. Maybe you could give examples of a stakeholder, and link it to your figure? Maybe simply say, that a stakeholder can be ”customer”, ”employee”. I know you do this under the process section, so maybe you can just refer to that section. | ||
| + | * ''Nemo respons: This should be more clear in the improved introduction.'' | ||
Benefits: | Benefits: | ||
* Who is Zhang? And why are his opinion especially important? | * Who is Zhang? And why are his opinion especially important? | ||
| + | * ''Nemo respons: I don´t see it as essential for this type of article'' | ||
* What you state here is why you should make a stakeholder analysis | * What you state here is why you should make a stakeholder analysis | ||
| + | * ''Nemo respons: I agree. But I still think it make sense to title this section "Benefits".'' | ||
* I think it is a good idea to give a teaser to why a stakeholder analysis are relevant to you. I however find it a bit distracting from the flow in the article that it is in the begining.. maybe you could sum it up later in the article.. | * I think it is a good idea to give a teaser to why a stakeholder analysis are relevant to you. I however find it a bit distracting from the flow in the article that it is in the begining.. maybe you could sum it up later in the article.. | ||
| + | * ''Nemo respons: Ok, I moved it to later in the article <nowiki>;-)</nowiki>'' | ||
* Maybe the headline should be ”Why do a stakeholder analysis?” | * Maybe the headline should be ”Why do a stakeholder analysis?” | ||
| + | * ''Nemo respons: I think both headlines cover the content. But I think "Benefits" fits better to the language in the article.'' | ||
Background | Background | ||
* I am wondering who Dodd is, and why he is important? | * I am wondering who Dodd is, and why he is important? | ||
| + | * ''Nemo respons: I don´t see it as essential for this type of article'' | ||
* Maybe you could mention the theorists background, that you refer to? | * Maybe you could mention the theorists background, that you refer to? | ||
| + | * ''Nemo respons: I don´t see it as essential for this type of article'' | ||
* I really like the coca-cola reference. | * I really like the coca-cola reference. | ||
| + | * ''Nemo respons: Thanks.'' | ||
* This section is a bit abrupt and short, I miss the language her to be more fluent.. even though I like that you keep it shout and keep to the facts. | * This section is a bit abrupt and short, I miss the language her to be more fluent.. even though I like that you keep it shout and keep to the facts. | ||
| + | * ''Nemo respons: I have improved language and flow in general.'' | ||
Process | Process | ||
* I like the point wise go-through and the process | * I like the point wise go-through and the process | ||
| + | * ''Nemo respons: Thanks.'' | ||
* The concept of ”key stakeholder” could be elaborated on. | * The concept of ”key stakeholder” could be elaborated on. | ||
| + | * ''Nemo respons: Yes, implemented <nowiki>;-)</nowiki>'' | ||
* Maybe the SWOT-analysis should have its own sub-headline? Just a suggestion for intriguing the reader | * Maybe the SWOT-analysis should have its own sub-headline? Just a suggestion for intriguing the reader | ||
| + | * ''Nemo respons: I do not want to give too much attention to the SWOT, since I am afraid the readers will mainly focus on what they are familiar with already, and I do not see the SWOT as crucial.'' | ||
Mapping stakeholders: | Mapping stakeholders: | ||
* I like the why section | * I like the why section | ||
| + | * ''Nemo respons: Thanks.'' | ||
* You give a good overview of power/interest diagram | * You give a good overview of power/interest diagram | ||
| + | * ''Nemo respons: Thanks'' | ||
* The other topics of the mapping diagrams seems interesting and relevant. Will you compare them and make recommendations on when to use what diagram? | * The other topics of the mapping diagrams seems interesting and relevant. Will you compare them and make recommendations on when to use what diagram? | ||
| + | * ''Nemo respons: Yes, I have extended and improved the mapping section in general.'' | ||
Challenges and uncertainty | Challenges and uncertainty | ||
| − | * I like the points you state in this section, they are highly relevant. | + | * I like the points you state in this section, they are highly relevant. |
| + | * ''Nemo respons: Thanks.'' | ||
* Maybe you could also conclude consideration on how to scope your stakeholder analysis. How to frame it? Maybe demarcation of what stakeholders to include? And non the less you to exclude/leave out? | * Maybe you could also conclude consideration on how to scope your stakeholder analysis. How to frame it? Maybe demarcation of what stakeholders to include? And non the less you to exclude/leave out? | ||
| + | * ''Nemo respons: A conclusion is added.'' | ||
== reviewed by $Young-Money$ == | == reviewed by $Young-Money$ == | ||
| Line 78: | Line 114: | ||
* I like the way that you are straight forward with your points thus using your 3500 words efficiently | * I like the way that you are straight forward with your points thus using your 3500 words efficiently | ||
| − | + | * ''Nemo respons: Thanks. I have extended the introduction and mapping section and improved the general flow in the article.'' | |
* Good English formulation, but i suggest you write "in literature" and NOT "in the literature" | * Good English formulation, but i suggest you write "in literature" and NOT "in the literature" | ||
| − | + | * ''Nemo respons: Thanks - I have changed to "in literature" now <nowiki>;-)</nowiki>'' | |
| − | * Like how you started by defining what a stakeholder is and differentiating its meaning from shareholder, so you have the reader clear on what it is that you exactly mean. | + | * Like how you started by defining what a stakeholder is and differentiating its meaning from shareholder, so you have the reader clear on what it is that you exactly mean. |
| − | + | * ''Nemo respons: Thanks. I have added some more to this part of the article since I think it is crucial element of understanding the stakeholder analsis.'' | |
* There is a good flow in the article, but i suggest that you move the benefit aspect to the bottom for discussion. you could maybe add a table showing an overview over the advantages and disadvantages. This could be used to emphasize that even though there are disadvantages, the advantages outweigh them. | * There is a good flow in the article, but i suggest that you move the benefit aspect to the bottom for discussion. you could maybe add a table showing an overview over the advantages and disadvantages. This could be used to emphasize that even though there are disadvantages, the advantages outweigh them. | ||
| − | + | * ''Nemo respons: xxx'' | |
* The typical type of stakeholder list is too long, see if it is possible to break it into half i.e. writing them besides each other to use less space | * The typical type of stakeholder list is too long, see if it is possible to break it into half i.e. writing them besides each other to use less space | ||
| − | + | * ''Nemo respons: Implemented <nowiki>;-)</nowiki>'' | |
* Remember to include an Abstract. | * Remember to include an Abstract. | ||
| + | * ''Nemo respons: I was bit confused on whether it should be a summary or an abstract since I have heard different from fellow student depending on which teacher they spoke with. But I ended up with a summary <nowiki>;-)</nowiki> '' | ||
All in all, i think you have written a really good article that is straight forward and specific, good English, and interesting to read since there is a flow in your structure thus making it pleasant to read. None the less consider moving the benefit aspect to the bottom for discussion and remember an abstract. | All in all, i think you have written a really good article that is straight forward and specific, good English, and interesting to read since there is a flow in your structure thus making it pleasant to read. None the less consider moving the benefit aspect to the bottom for discussion and remember an abstract. | ||
Good job :) | Good job :) | ||
| + | * ''Nemo respons: Thanks <nowiki>;-)</nowiki>'' | ||
Latest revision as of 22:56, 1 December 2014
Contents |
[edit] Murcs
[edit] General
- I can see that you are well on your way and that the content is interesting, but that there is still some work to do.
- Nemo respons: Thanks. I agree that the article was not fully completed. I have especially improved the section regarding mapping and worked on the general flow in the article.
Formal:
- I can see that you have been using the referencing correctly, but you are still missing some references to other peoples wiki articles for example SWOT
- Nemo respons: I have now added link to SWOT and Stakeholder Mapping. I also add some categories and key words for making the article more visible and better integrated in the Wiki structure.
- There are some spelling mistakes and some grammar mistakes, maybe by adding your text to word you can find some of them
- Nemo respons: I have done some reading focus on spelling and grammar in the article, and also used some spelling check on the computer;-)
- I think the structure looks pretty good but maybe you should have the introduction above the content list and background inbetween introduction and process and move the benefits down?
- Nemo respons: Background is already in between introduction and process. I have moved the Benefits down. I don´t think I´m able to move around with the content list, since it auto-generated.
- You have only used around 1500 words so you still have plenty to finish your article
- Nemo respons: I wrote some more about mapping, which was not completed, and also add some to the introduction.
Content:
- You can maybe make clear what shareholder, key stakeholder or CSR is either by referencing to it somewhere else or maybe writing about it.
- Nemo respons: I have elaborated a bit on that in the text now.
- I think that you have made some good visualizations that are coherent in color and are well described, do you maybe have a suggestion on a way of vizualizing a 2D mapping? Or a reference?
- Nemo respons: I have extended the section regarding mapping and also described 2D mapping further.
- I like that yo have used some examples like the metro station, maybe you have some more
- Nemo respons: More minor examples has been included.
- Should possibly specify if stakeholder analysis can be used for project, program and portfolio.
- Nemo respons: Stakeholder analysis can be used for both projects, programs and portfolios. I have add that in the introduction.
- You could possibly add some more headlines under the process, for example by using the 7 steps and then describing them, since you already describe the first step in very clear detail.
- Nemo respons: Ok - implemented.
- I think you are on your way to creating an informative wiki article, if there is time and you would like then I can maybe have a look at it again when you are done. I will come back and check the discussion to see what you think, hope some of the feedback was useful.
- Nemo respons: Thanks for the response - it has resulted in a handful of improvements ;-)
[edit] fra johnjohn
[edit] General comments
Content:
- Interesting content, as a practitioner it is interesting to get an overview of the concept.
- Nemo respons: Thanks.
- The relation to project management could be underlined. Maybe discuss its relevance relative to project, program and portfolio management?
- References seem substantiated by relevant literature? I does not seem like copy paste
- Nemo respons: I have improved the introduction regarding this.
Formal:
- Spelling is overall ok
- Nemo respons: Thanks. I have however tried to improve a bit.
- References are ok and relevant, and the formatting of them complies with the wiki standards.
- Nemo respons: Thanks.
- I like the precise language and short sentences, but language could be more engaging.
- Nemo respons: I have tried to improve the language and flow in the article in general.
- Figures are ok and especially in the Mapping section should the support the explanation of the methods.
- Nemo respons: Thanks. I have added and improved the mapping section in general.
[edit] Comments for content in each section
Content:
- I like that you try to keep it short and precise, but I do miss that the parts are writing in a more fluent language. I could also miss the red thread in the article, and what it actually aims for. I summary in the beginning stating aim and type of article could help this..
- Nemo respons: I have improved the flow in the article in general and implemented a better introduction. I have also included a summary. I was bit confused on whether it should be a summary or an abstract since I have heard different from fellow student depending on which teacher they spoke with. But I ended up with a summary ;-)
Introduction:
- You say that it is important to distinguish stakeholder and shareholder. Make you could explain the difference?
- Nemo respons: I see this distinction as a very essential point of my argument, so I am very glad that you pointet out that this was not clear enough. I have improved my argumentation regarding this.
- Nice with the stakeholder definition from the standard. Maybe you could give examples of a stakeholder, and link it to your figure? Maybe simply say, that a stakeholder can be ”customer”, ”employee”. I know you do this under the process section, so maybe you can just refer to that section.
- Nemo respons: This should be more clear in the improved introduction.
Benefits:
- Who is Zhang? And why are his opinion especially important?
- Nemo respons: I don´t see it as essential for this type of article
- What you state here is why you should make a stakeholder analysis
- Nemo respons: I agree. But I still think it make sense to title this section "Benefits".
- I think it is a good idea to give a teaser to why a stakeholder analysis are relevant to you. I however find it a bit distracting from the flow in the article that it is in the begining.. maybe you could sum it up later in the article..
- Nemo respons: Ok, I moved it to later in the article ;-)
- Maybe the headline should be ”Why do a stakeholder analysis?”
- Nemo respons: I think both headlines cover the content. But I think "Benefits" fits better to the language in the article.
Background
- I am wondering who Dodd is, and why he is important?
- Nemo respons: I don´t see it as essential for this type of article
- Maybe you could mention the theorists background, that you refer to?
- Nemo respons: I don´t see it as essential for this type of article
- I really like the coca-cola reference.
- Nemo respons: Thanks.
- This section is a bit abrupt and short, I miss the language her to be more fluent.. even though I like that you keep it shout and keep to the facts.
- Nemo respons: I have improved language and flow in general.
Process
- I like the point wise go-through and the process
- Nemo respons: Thanks.
- The concept of ”key stakeholder” could be elaborated on.
- Nemo respons: Yes, implemented ;-)
- Maybe the SWOT-analysis should have its own sub-headline? Just a suggestion for intriguing the reader
- Nemo respons: I do not want to give too much attention to the SWOT, since I am afraid the readers will mainly focus on what they are familiar with already, and I do not see the SWOT as crucial.
Mapping stakeholders:
- I like the why section
- Nemo respons: Thanks.
- You give a good overview of power/interest diagram
- Nemo respons: Thanks
- The other topics of the mapping diagrams seems interesting and relevant. Will you compare them and make recommendations on when to use what diagram?
- Nemo respons: Yes, I have extended and improved the mapping section in general.
Challenges and uncertainty
- I like the points you state in this section, they are highly relevant.
- Nemo respons: Thanks.
- Maybe you could also conclude consideration on how to scope your stakeholder analysis. How to frame it? Maybe demarcation of what stakeholders to include? And non the less you to exclude/leave out?
- Nemo respons: A conclusion is added.
[edit] reviewed by $Young-Money$
- I like the way that you are straight forward with your points thus using your 3500 words efficiently
- Nemo respons: Thanks. I have extended the introduction and mapping section and improved the general flow in the article.
- Good English formulation, but i suggest you write "in literature" and NOT "in the literature"
- Nemo respons: Thanks - I have changed to "in literature" now ;-)
- Like how you started by defining what a stakeholder is and differentiating its meaning from shareholder, so you have the reader clear on what it is that you exactly mean.
- Nemo respons: Thanks. I have added some more to this part of the article since I think it is crucial element of understanding the stakeholder analsis.
- There is a good flow in the article, but i suggest that you move the benefit aspect to the bottom for discussion. you could maybe add a table showing an overview over the advantages and disadvantages. This could be used to emphasize that even though there are disadvantages, the advantages outweigh them.
- Nemo respons: xxx
- The typical type of stakeholder list is too long, see if it is possible to break it into half i.e. writing them besides each other to use less space
- Nemo respons: Implemented ;-)
- Remember to include an Abstract.
- Nemo respons: I was bit confused on whether it should be a summary or an abstract since I have heard different from fellow student depending on which teacher they spoke with. But I ended up with a summary ;-)
All in all, i think you have written a really good article that is straight forward and specific, good English, and interesting to read since there is a flow in your structure thus making it pleasant to read. None the less consider moving the benefit aspect to the bottom for discussion and remember an abstract.
Good job :)
- Nemo respons: Thanks ;-)
