Talk:Kotter's 8- Step Change Model

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok. References; missing references related to the standards The abstract sounds well, but the topic is out of scope, you a...")
 
(→‎Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Place your name here)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Ida Smidt''==
 +
===Question 1 · TEXT===
 +
'''Quality of the summary:'''
 +
 +
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
 +
Yes, very clear.
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
PMI-reference - also a way of linking to program management
 +
 +
===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?
 +
Yes (from what is written)
 +
 +
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?
 +
Yes
 +
 +
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?
 +
Yes, if linked to program management
 +
 +
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''
 +
 +
==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Mads Grøndal''==
 +
===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===
 +
''I am not sure that Kotter's change model is out of scope for this course''
 +
 +
===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? yes
 +
 +
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? yes
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
===Answer 3===
 +
''Answer here''
 +
 +
===Question 4 · TEXT===
 +
'''Figures and tables:'''
 +
 +
Are figures and tables clear? n/a
 +
 +
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? n/a
 +
 +
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? Can be
 +
 +
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? No
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
===Answer 5===
 +
''''
 +
 +
===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? n/a
 +
 +
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? n/a
 +
 +
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? n/a
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
===Answer 7===
 +
''Answer here''
 +
 
==Abstract Feedback==
 
==Abstract Feedback==
 
Text Clarity; Ok.
 
Text Clarity; Ok.

Latest revision as of 17:29, 19 February 2018

Contents

[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Ida Smidt

[edit] Question 1 · TEXT

Quality of the summary:

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

What would you suggest to improve? PMI-reference - also a way of linking to program management

[edit] Answer 1

Answer here

[edit] Question 2 · TEXT

Structure and logic of the article:

Is the argument clear?

Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes (from what is written)

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

Answer here

[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

Answer here

[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

Answer here

[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, if linked to program management

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 5

Answer here

[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

Answer here

[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

Answer here

[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Mads Grøndal

[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 am not sure that Kotter's change model is out of scope for this course

[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

Answer here

[edit] Question 3 · TEXT

Grammar and style:

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? yes

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? yes

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 3

Answer here

[edit] Question 4 · TEXT

Figures and tables:

Are figures and tables clear? n/a

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

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 4

Answer here

[edit] Question 5 · TEXT

Interest and relevance:

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

Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? No

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 5

'

[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

Answer here

[edit] Question 7 · TEXT

Annotated bibliography:

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? n/a

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? n/a

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? n/a

What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 7

Answer here

[edit] Abstract Feedback

Text Clarity; Ok.

Language; Ok.

References; missing references related to the standards

The abstract sounds well, but the topic is out of scope, you are describing the model from a pure organizational point of view in a organizational environment, try to relate the topic within a project/program/portfolio environment.

If you want to continue with the topic, try to find relevant literature that shows this model in the course context.

Please check again the point 5, Individual Assignment of the Course handbook and Reference Reading material for the Wiki Assignment and Project Work.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php?title=Talk:Kotter%27s_8-_Step_Change_Model&oldid=51564"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox