Talk:Integrated Concurrent Engineering

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== '''Text clarity''' Text is coherent '''Language''' Good, although be careful when using "are" and "is" appropriately '''Description of the too...")
 
(→‎Answer 4)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 14: Line 14:
  
 
<ol>
 
<ol>
−
   <li> Who is the reader? Project Manager or Sponsor ect?
+
   <li> Who is the reader? Project Manager or Sponsor etc?
 
   <li> Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project management community more than a normal web search
 
   <li> Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project management community more than a normal web search
 
</ol>
 
</ol>
 +
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Davide Sartori''==
 +
===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 quality of the summary is good but not enough clear. About the key concept, I would explain more what really is the ICE method because so far you described only how to implement it. ''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Is the argument clear? no
 +
 +
Is there a logical flow to the article? yes
 +
 +
Does one part build upon the other? yes
 +
 +
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? yes
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve? the cohesion between the part
 +
''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? no
 +
 +
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? no
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve? pay attention to the grammar and to the cohesion of the phrases''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''there are no pictures''
 +
 +
===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 tool would be relevant if  explained more deeply''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''AIs the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? yes
 +
 +
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? not yet
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve? develop more the key concept ICE
 +
''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''
 +
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? yes
 +
 +
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?no
 +
 +
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? I do not have many proofs
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve? more references''

Latest revision as of 18:05, 19 February 2018

Contents

[edit] Abstract Feedback

Text clarity Text is coherent

Language Good, although be careful when using "are" and "is" appropriately

Description of the tool/theory/concept Explain what ICE is. The abstract can be slightly more elaborated

Purpose explanation Okay, but what purpose does this article serve in terms of project management? How do you measure "efficiency could increase?" Does efficiency increase as a result of better communication (as in better Project Communications Management)? This needs to clarified in the article

References Missing appropriate references to mandatory list of references

Relevance of article Consider the following:

  1. Who is the reader? Project Manager or Sponsor etc?
  2. Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project management community more than a normal web search

[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Davide Sartori

[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 quality of the summary is good but not enough clear. About the key concept, I would explain more what really is the ICE method because so far you described only how to implement it.

[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

Is the argument clear? no

Is there a logical flow to the article? yes

Does one part build upon the other? yes

Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? yes

What would you suggest to improve? the cohesion between the part

[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

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? no

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? no

What would you suggest to improve? pay attention to the grammar and to the cohesion of the phrases

[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

there are no pictures

[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 tool would be relevant if explained more deeply

[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

AIs the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? yes

Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? not yet

What would you suggest to improve? develop more the key concept ICE

[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

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? yes

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?no

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? I do not have many proofs

What would you suggest to improve? more references

Retrieved from "http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php?title=Talk:Integrated_Concurrent_Engineering&oldid=51587"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox