Talk:The Role of the Project Sponsor
| (5 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
'''General''' Interesting topic. Consider also comparing the Project Owner to the Project Sponsor and Project Manager. May be also briefly talk about project governance amongst the different stakeholders if it makes sense. | '''General''' Interesting topic. Consider also comparing the Project Owner to the Project Sponsor and Project Manager. May be also briefly talk about project governance amongst the different stakeholders if it makes sense. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Klaudia Edyta Onyszkiewicz''== | ||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Summary is not ready yet, but Abstract gives a very good introduction to the whole article. Just please make sure you clearly address the article's final reader: is it mostly applicable for a Project Manager? Maybe it is worth considering to mention it at the beginning of the article?'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 core issue has been clearly defined already in the Abstract and whole article is based on that. It looks very well so far. Just make sure you are constantly keeping the logical flow.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Overall impression is really good, professional use of language. Just minor suggestion for improvement as the following:'' | ||
| + | *''Try to keep being precise and avoid using unnecessary fill words, e.g. "in order to" replace with "to"'' | ||
| + | *''Make sure you use a proper prepositions, e.g. in sentence from Abstract: "(...) and controlling the project in a strategic level.": "in" replace with "on". Another example is the Figure 1 which should be "based on" not "based from" PMI Global Congress.'' | ||
| + | *''Make sure you use a proper articles, e.g. refer to "projects" or "a project" rather than "the project". E.g. Under "Definition and responsibilities", the first sentence says "(...) provides the financial resources, in cash or kind, for the project." - what project is this you are referring to?'' | ||
| + | *''Be careful not to use "I, we, etc.". E.g. before you list the responsibilities of the sponsor it is said "In dissecting this definition we can extract (...)" - try to change "we can extract" into "it can be extract".'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Figures are transparent, of a high quality and effectively help to visualize and understand the article discussion. Just please make sure if figures' numbers adequately correspond to its references in the text. I had a feeling that from "Role between the Project and the Organization" until the end of the article the figures' numbers in the text do not correspond to a proper figures, e.g. Figure 1 (in text) should actually be Figure 2, and respectively: Figure 2 - Figure 3, Figure 3 - Figure 4, Figure 4 - Figure 5.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''The article is very interesting and explicitly explains the importance of a Project Sponsor role and his responsibilities within the Project Management. The addressed topic is highly relevant both practically and academically. People do not often mention a Project Sponsor while discussing about a project and sometimes this important role can be underestimated and even omitted despite its high importance.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''I believe the article and topic it covers is very interesting to read for both an academic and a practitioner. I have just a small tip when you will be about to describe differences between a Project Sponsor and a Project Manager: Just try to think in terms of what a Project Manager would like to know more about him/herself when it comes to a comparison with another role, what can be especially interesting and practical for him/her? (of course if a Project Manager is a final reader of the article). I would also suggest to include a project size (low/medium/large complexity) you are focusing on. Is it applicable to every project size in general? Do the low-complexity projects also have its Project Sponsor? Maybe it can be a part of discussion or limitation.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 article is based on empirical data and refers to various scientific documents. I would just suggest to include "Annotated bibliography" with a key positions that you are referring to and a brief, general description of each of them.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Hafsteinn Thor Gudjonsson''== | ||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''The Abstract makes a good job introducting the article and what it is about. The abstract opens with "A sponsor" while the title states "Project Sponsor". Later you use Project Sponsor, consider if you should use the same term consistently for clarity (at least during the introduction) '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 argumentation for the project sponsor is very clear and highlighted well in the subsequent parts of the article. The switch from the Project Sponsor to the Project Stakeholders & Governance is a bit loose. Might consider to introduce the Stakeholders part or consider how you can implement/highlight the switch in the storyline '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Very well written grammatically, with good use of words and a good clear flow. There a few spelling mistakes or words like a/the/it/is missing, which is quite usual for a draft :) Could try to read the text upload for yourself, as it makes it easier to notice any spelling mistakes or missing words.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''The figures help a lot with the understanding, but you might consider referring to some of them directly in the text. There is some misalignment with the figure numbers (Figure 1, Figure 2, etc.) compared to the text.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''The article is very interesting and makes a good case of explaining what a project sponsor is and what its role is. You might consider discussing why the project sponsor is so important, that is, why couldn't the project manager for example take care of his job (or similar). I would consider the topic very relevant for someone that hasn't worked within a large project organisation before, where the topic and the explanation are quite practical''. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''I think the article makes a really good case of explaining what a Project Sponsor, and I think that a reader that has never worked with a Project Sponsor would learn quite a lot from it. It makes a good job of summarizing the main topics well which makes is therefor easy to read compared to a typical web search. As mentioned before, consider the flow from one topic to another, define the storyline of the article from top to bottom. What is the end message of the article, does is include everything that needs to be stated regarding the Project Sponsor.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 article seems to be properly cited and there is quite a large variation in references. It seems to be mainly based on empirical data. Consider to add key Bibliography references, to summarize'' | ||
Latest revision as of 00:14, 20 February 2018
Contents |
[edit] Abstract Feedback
Text clarity The text sounds coherent, but there's room for improvement (see below)
Language Can be improved - Remember to add "it" before "is" in some of your sentences
Description of the tool/theory/concept Good
Purpose explanation Good, but who is your reader? Is it the project manager? Is your article based on best practices from a particular industry?
Title of the Wiki Good title
References Good reference to PMBOK and KPMG survey. Are there other appropriate references you can make to the mandatory list?
General Interesting topic. Consider also comparing the Project Owner to the Project Sponsor and Project Manager. May be also briefly talk about project governance amongst the different stakeholders if it makes sense.
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Klaudia Edyta Onyszkiewicz
[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
Summary is not ready yet, but Abstract gives a very good introduction to the whole article. Just please make sure you clearly address the article's final reader: is it mostly applicable for a Project Manager? Maybe it is worth considering to mention it at the beginning of the article?
[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 core issue has been clearly defined already in the Abstract and whole article is based on that. It looks very well so far. Just make sure you are constantly keeping the logical flow.
[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 impression is really good, professional use of language. Just minor suggestion for improvement as the following:
- Try to keep being precise and avoid using unnecessary fill words, e.g. "in order to" replace with "to"
- Make sure you use a proper prepositions, e.g. in sentence from Abstract: "(...) and controlling the project in a strategic level.": "in" replace with "on". Another example is the Figure 1 which should be "based on" not "based from" PMI Global Congress.
- Make sure you use a proper articles, e.g. refer to "projects" or "a project" rather than "the project". E.g. Under "Definition and responsibilities", the first sentence says "(...) provides the financial resources, in cash or kind, for the project." - what project is this you are referring to?
- Be careful not to use "I, we, etc.". E.g. before you list the responsibilities of the sponsor it is said "In dissecting this definition we can extract (...)" - try to change "we can extract" into "it can be extract".
[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
Figures are transparent, of a high quality and effectively help to visualize and understand the article discussion. Just please make sure if figures' numbers adequately correspond to its references in the text. I had a feeling that from "Role between the Project and the Organization" until the end of the article the figures' numbers in the text do not correspond to a proper figures, e.g. Figure 1 (in text) should actually be Figure 2, and respectively: Figure 2 - Figure 3, Figure 3 - Figure 4, Figure 4 - Figure 5.
[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
The article is very interesting and explicitly explains the importance of a Project Sponsor role and his responsibilities within the Project Management. The addressed topic is highly relevant both practically and academically. People do not often mention a Project Sponsor while discussing about a project and sometimes this important role can be underestimated and even omitted despite its high importance.
[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
I believe the article and topic it covers is very interesting to read for both an academic and a practitioner. I have just a small tip when you will be about to describe differences between a Project Sponsor and a Project Manager: Just try to think in terms of what a Project Manager would like to know more about him/herself when it comes to a comparison with another role, what can be especially interesting and practical for him/her? (of course if a Project Manager is a final reader of the article). I would also suggest to include a project size (low/medium/large complexity) you are focusing on. Is it applicable to every project size in general? Do the low-complexity projects also have its Project Sponsor? Maybe it can be a part of discussion or limitation.
[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 article is based on empirical data and refers to various scientific documents. I would just suggest to include "Annotated bibliography" with a key positions that you are referring to and a brief, general description of each of them.
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Hafsteinn Thor Gudjonsson
[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 makes a good job introducting the article and what it is about. The abstract opens with "A sponsor" while the title states "Project Sponsor". Later you use Project Sponsor, consider if you should use the same term consistently for clarity (at least during the introduction)
[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 argumentation for the project sponsor is very clear and highlighted well in the subsequent parts of the article. The switch from the Project Sponsor to the Project Stakeholders & Governance is a bit loose. Might consider to introduce the Stakeholders part or consider how you can implement/highlight the switch in the storyline
[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
Very well written grammatically, with good use of words and a good clear flow. There a few spelling mistakes or words like a/the/it/is missing, which is quite usual for a draft :) Could try to read the text upload for yourself, as it makes it easier to notice any spelling mistakes or missing words.
[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
The figures help a lot with the understanding, but you might consider referring to some of them directly in the text. There is some misalignment with the figure numbers (Figure 1, Figure 2, etc.) compared to the text.
[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
The article is very interesting and makes a good case of explaining what a project sponsor is and what its role is. You might consider discussing why the project sponsor is so important, that is, why couldn't the project manager for example take care of his job (or similar). I would consider the topic very relevant for someone that hasn't worked within a large project organisation before, where the topic and the explanation are quite practical.
[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
I think the article makes a really good case of explaining what a Project Sponsor, and I think that a reader that has never worked with a Project Sponsor would learn quite a lot from it. It makes a good job of summarizing the main topics well which makes is therefor easy to read compared to a typical web search. As mentioned before, consider the flow from one topic to another, define the storyline of the article from top to bottom. What is the end message of the article, does is include everything that needs to be stated regarding the Project Sponsor.
[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 article seems to be properly cited and there is quite a large variation in references. It seems to be mainly based on empirical data. Consider to add key Bibliography references, to summarize
