Talk:The Framework of Project Governance
(→Answer 1) |
|||
| (12 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | I think the abstract is good and finds the key focus. | + | I think the abstract is good and finds the key focus. The structure is good and easy to follow. |
| − | + | Maby you could add some of the conclusions or advantages of Project Governance to the abstract. | |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | + | The article is very well written and have a good logical flow. The parts lead up to each other and are free of contradictions. You can consider the following improvements: | |
| + | *Discuss the used reference and sources, and be critical about this. | ||
| + | *Adding a conclusion | ||
| + | *Adding a section explaining how Project Governance can be implemented in projects. | ||
| + | *Explaining if PG can be used in all industries and all projects | ||
| + | *Add some pictures which could be used to support arguments. | ||
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 52: | Line 57: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | ' | + | The grammar and spelling are very good and readable, and I wasn't able to find any grammar corrections :) |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 64: | Line 69: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | + | Right now there are no pictures, I would, therefore, suggest that one or more pictures added to the article. (Remeber to reference where the picture is from) | |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 76: | Line 81: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | + | *The article is very academic relevant, and I think the practical guidelines gives a great practical view to the article. | |
| + | *I think it could be stated more clearly why Project Governance is relevant: Ex examples of good and bad Project Governance from real projects. | ||
| + | *If you could use more sources (articles, newspapers, books) it would get an even higher academic degree. | ||
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 88: | Line 95: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '' | + | The article is interesting to read and is more than just a web search. However, consider the following: |
| + | * Using more reference material as Harvard Business Review, PMI standards, and the book ''Project Management Institute, "A guide to the project management body of knowledge: PMBOK Guide", Project Management Institute, (2000)'' can help the academic level of the article. | ||
| + | * It would be nice if you could make a case analysis, or show the effect of the tool on a real project. | ||
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 102: | Line 111: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | ''Answer | + | The article uses some material as references, the books are properly cited, and is based on empirical data. However, consider the following: |
| + | *Find more sources and articles | ||
| + | *When using web pages remember to make a section where the credibility is discussed. | ||
| + | *Remember to add a section with the further reading material. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Casper''== | ||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | Very clear and well written abstract. It would be good as a reader if you can include the findings from the analysis in the abstract. Consider the length of the sentences. for example: | ||
| + | |||
| + | *According to the research article "Project Governance – The Definition and Leadership Dilemma"; a majority of authors on project governance have a background in project management, where they attempt to create the project governance framework through a bottom-up approach. Due to a variety of projects in the industry, the range of stakeholders interest, different values and types, and complexity spectrum, the bottom-up strategy has its limitations when providing concise guidance to managers when executing and enforcing project governance.* | ||
| + | |||
| + | It is a matter of opinion but this sentences seemed a bit too long when I read 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 argument so far in the article is clear and it flows nicely. IF it is suitable it would be nice for the reader to include a practical example of project governance/ or examples of good and bad project governance. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | I only found one spelling error which I believe was a typo in the headline Practical Guidlines --> Practical Guidelines. | ||
| + | |||
| + | As mentioned the abstract sentences length could perhaps be a bit shorter. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Good use of synonyms and did not find any unnecessary fill words. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I assume it is on purpose you are using american english spelling z instead of s. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | Find tables and figures to back up the arguments and use them explain and elaborate on different points. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 of high relevance. | ||
| + | I found it clear why project governance is relevant. | ||
| + | You can strength the message of relevance if you can find either real life examples and describe discuss it prior to the conclusion. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | The article is interesting to read. It is very in depth and well described and make a significant contribution beyond a web search. To ensure you will get the best coverage on the subject. Ensure you will have a broad list of references and literature. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | Remember to summarise each references that is key. | ||
Latest revision as of 23:51, 19 February 2018
Contents |
[edit] Abstract Feedback
Text clarity Coherent
Language Good
Description of the tool/theory/concept Easy to follow.
Purpose explanation Well addressed, however what is the main theme of the article? Is it the bottom-up approach? Needs further clarification
References Try to add appropriate references to mandatory list of references
Relevance of article Very relevant and good structure
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Jonas
[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
I think the abstract is good and finds the key focus. The structure is good and easy to follow. Maby you could add some of the conclusions or advantages of Project Governance to the abstract.
[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 article is very well written and have a good logical flow. The parts lead up to each other and are free of contradictions. You can consider the following improvements:
- Discuss the used reference and sources, and be critical about this.
- Adding a conclusion
- Adding a section explaining how Project Governance can be implemented in projects.
- Explaining if PG can be used in all industries and all projects
- Add some pictures which could be used to support arguments.
[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 grammar and spelling are very good and readable, and I wasn't able to find any grammar corrections :)
[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
Right now there are no pictures, I would, therefore, suggest that one or more pictures added to the article. (Remeber to reference where the picture is from)
[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 academic relevant, and I think the practical guidelines gives a great practical view to the article.
- I think it could be stated more clearly why Project Governance is relevant: Ex examples of good and bad Project Governance from real projects.
- If you could use more sources (articles, newspapers, books) it would get an even higher academic degree.
[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
The article is interesting to read and is more than just a web search. However, consider the following:
- Using more reference material as Harvard Business Review, PMI standards, and the book Project Management Institute, "A guide to the project management body of knowledge: PMBOK Guide", Project Management Institute, (2000) can help the academic level of the article.
- It would be nice if you could make a case analysis, or show the effect of the tool on a real project.
[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 uses some material as references, the books are properly cited, and is based on empirical data. However, consider the following:
- Find more sources and articles
- When using web pages remember to make a section where the credibility is discussed.
- Remember to add a section with the further reading material.
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Casper
[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
Very clear and well written abstract. It would be good as a reader if you can include the findings from the analysis in the abstract. Consider the length of the sentences. for example:
- According to the research article "Project Governance – The Definition and Leadership Dilemma"; a majority of authors on project governance have a background in project management, where they attempt to create the project governance framework through a bottom-up approach. Due to a variety of projects in the industry, the range of stakeholders interest, different values and types, and complexity spectrum, the bottom-up strategy has its limitations when providing concise guidance to managers when executing and enforcing project governance.*
It is a matter of opinion but this sentences seemed a bit too long when I read 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 argument so far in the article is clear and it flows nicely. IF it is suitable it would be nice for the reader to include a practical example of project governance/ or examples of good and bad project governance.
[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
I only found one spelling error which I believe was a typo in the headline Practical Guidlines --> Practical Guidelines.
As mentioned the abstract sentences length could perhaps be a bit shorter.
Good use of synonyms and did not find any unnecessary fill words.
I assume it is on purpose you are using american english spelling z instead of s.
[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
Find tables and figures to back up the arguments and use them explain and elaborate on different points.
[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 of high relevance. I found it clear why project governance is relevant. You can strength the message of relevance if you can find either real life examples and describe discuss it prior to the conclusion.
[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
The article is interesting to read. It is very in depth and well described and make a significant contribution beyond a web search. To ensure you will get the best coverage on the subject. Ensure you will have a broad list of references and literature.
[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
Remember to summarise each references that is key.
