Talk:Risk Register Analysis

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok. References; missing references Can you elaborate more the abstract. what is the relevance for Project Managers? Missin...")
 
 
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 7: Line 7:
  
 
Can you elaborate more the abstract. what is the relevance for Project Managers?
 
Can you elaborate more the abstract. what is the relevance for Project Managers?
 +
 
Missing references, please review the Mandatory References in the listed Reading material of the course.
 
Missing references, please review the Mandatory References in the listed Reading material of the course.
 +
 +
 +
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Rasmus Østerlund''==
 +
===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===
 +
''Great abstract and introduction, there is a minor typo in "projectmanager" (project manager), the picture in the abstract is not really doing anything good in the abstract and should probably be moved to the introduction instead of the abstract. The "Project, program or portfolio" should probably lose the "", i dont know if its just me :)''
 +
 +
===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 flow in the article, you talk about known and unknown risks, maybe you should consider "Rumfeld's unknown knowns" to elaborate a bit more on that subject.
 +
 +
For "Risk identification techniques", could you list the different techniques instead of burring the m in a wall of text
 +
 +
For "Assess", show a graph of a scenario, maybe continue on metro example with the Risk/probability chart, could boost that section a bit ''
 +
 +
===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 article is well articulated''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''See ans 1''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''A small conclusion in each part would give a good idea of why each part is necessary''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''good article that explains the subject well.''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Citations in the text is needed.''
 +
 +
==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Harald Hersted''==
 +
===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===
 +
''fine summary''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''fine structure, it makes sens, but i would Break up the sentences more so there are no longer big chunks that has to be read, but something nice for the eyes to look at.
 +
Remember reference to your picture ''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''it's nice''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Use references, and get a matrix graph for assess and the tool you describe.''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''very relevant, and i just think if you spent a little more time on layout, it would be perfect, just have conclusion/summary at the end''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''You have just the amount of needed references, and i think you describe the tool well, just work with the layout''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Fine''

Latest revision as of 22:54, 19 February 2018

Contents

[edit] Abstract Feedback

Text Clarity; Ok.

Language; Ok.

References; missing references

Can you elaborate more the abstract. what is the relevance for Project Managers?

Missing references, please review the Mandatory References in the listed Reading material of the course.


[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Rasmus Østerlund

[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

Great abstract and introduction, there is a minor typo in "projectmanager" (project manager), the picture in the abstract is not really doing anything good in the abstract and should probably be moved to the introduction instead of the abstract. The "Project, program or portfolio" should probably lose the "", i dont know if its just me :)

[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 flow in the article, you talk about known and unknown risks, maybe you should consider "Rumfeld's unknown knowns" to elaborate a bit more on that subject.

For "Risk identification techniques", could you list the different techniques instead of burring the m in a wall of text

For "Assess", show a graph of a scenario, maybe continue on metro example with the Risk/probability chart, could boost that section a bit

[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 article is well articulated

[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

See ans 1

[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

A small conclusion in each part would give a good idea of why each part is necessary

[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

good article that explains the subject well.

[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

Citations in the text is needed.

[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Harald Hersted

[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

fine summary

[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

fine structure, it makes sens, but i would Break up the sentences more so there are no longer big chunks that has to be read, but something nice for the eyes to look at. Remember reference to your picture

[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

it's nice

[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

Use references, and get a matrix graph for assess and the tool you describe.

[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

very relevant, and i just think if you spent a little more time on layout, it would be perfect, just have conclusion/summary at the end

[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

You have just the amount of needed references, and i think you describe the tool well, just work with the layout

[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

Fine

Retrieved from "http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php?title=Talk:Risk_Register_Analysis&oldid=51864"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox