Talk:Roadmapping
JensMoller (Talk | contribs) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | |||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
Nice summary - you state the areas you want to examine, thats good - the quote from PMI is a bit difficult for me to really get the relevance of in the summary but if it works for you its fine ;) - maybe be more specific which kind of roadmap is the focus? strategic, technological? | Nice summary - you state the areas you want to examine, thats good - the quote from PMI is a bit difficult for me to really get the relevance of in the summary but if it works for you its fine ;) - maybe be more specific which kind of roadmap is the focus? strategic, technological? | ||
| Line 98: | Line 97: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
you need to briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article - and yes i think you try to cover the article nicely with theory instead of opinion | you need to briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article - and yes i think you try to cover the article nicely with theory instead of opinion | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Jens Esben Okholm Møller''== | ||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? | ||
| + | I really like the bullet points in the end. It makes it very easy to see the big picture. It makes the reader more interested in the article. | ||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | I don't have anything at the moment, I might come up with something. | ||
| + | '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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? | ||
| + | I like the introduction to the roadmapping, obviously it is difficult to say anything about the a clear argument, but it seems like the framework opens up for a good clear argument. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is there a logical flow to the article? | ||
| + | Yes, indtroduction, guide, limitations. | ||
| + | I think you should write a conclusion in the guide ( It is properly already your plan ;) ) | ||
| + | I hope you will do reflections about the tools in the guide beside the limitations. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Does one part build upon the other? | ||
| + | Depending on how you will do your guide, I would like some more theory/introduction before the guide, if the guide is a short bulletpoint guide. I like your critical reflection on the methods, tools and techniques. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? | ||
| + | Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | You might want to reflect on when to use the guide on describe to which specific situations the different tools should be used. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '' | ||
| + | ===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? | ||
| + | Minor errors, but definitely understandable. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? | ||
| + | Some sentences could be more precise, but in the whole pretty good | ||
| + | |||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | I'm sure when you have more time you will find the minor errors.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Gives a good overview of the context.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''it is definitely a good clear idea. It is nice to have a go to guide for program management!'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Like the rest of us you have bin on a huge time pressure, so some in depth text is needed'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Good references. Especially the one with Josef! ;) | ||
| + | I guess, that it's always nice with more references.'' | ||
Latest revision as of 11:33, 19 February 2018
Contents |
[edit] Abstract Feedback
Text Clarity; Ok.
Language; Ok.
References; Ok.
In general the abstract is ok, nice that you already established the points you want to examine in the article when developing the article don't forget to elaborate and describe the relevance for a Program Manager.
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Joachim Schou Larsen
[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
Nice summary - you state the areas you want to examine, thats good - the quote from PMI is a bit difficult for me to really get the relevance of in the summary but if it works for you its fine ;) - maybe be more specific which kind of roadmap is the focus? strategic, technological?
[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
General there is a nice structure and flow in the article where the different parts is going to build upon each other when its alle done :) - there is no contradictions no - i would maybe suggest to do a more thorough explanation of how to do the roadmap so you understand the technicalities you talk about in the limitation section
the 6 benefits of roadmap you mention is maybe a bit out of context when we haven't been introduced to the roadmap yet?
[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
You have a very nice language - some writing mistakes in the limitations section just check it out (y)
[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
Yes a good picture, don't know if you should make it yourself? perhaps you should talk a bit about "strategic alignment" as a concept/theory before diving into the specific section of roadmapping?
[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
Yes i think it will be of high practical relevance when the application section is complete - maybe it will be stated a bit more why it is PM relevant when you talk more about the strategic alignment?
[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
yes the abstract was creating some interest - so i think it will be interesting when it is completed
[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
you need to briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article - and yes i think you try to cover the article nicely with theory instead of opinion
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Jens Esben Okholm Møller
[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
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? I really like the bullet points in the end. It makes it very easy to see the big picture. It makes the reader more interested in the article. What would you suggest to improve? I don't have anything at the moment, I might come up with something.
[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? I like the introduction to the roadmapping, obviously it is difficult to say anything about the a clear argument, but it seems like the framework opens up for a good clear argument.
Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes, indtroduction, guide, limitations. I think you should write a conclusion in the guide ( It is properly already your plan ;) ) I hope you will do reflections about the tools in the guide beside the limitations.
Does one part build upon the other? Depending on how you will do your guide, I would like some more theory/introduction before the guide, if the guide is a short bulletpoint guide. I like your critical reflection on the methods, tools and techniques.
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? Yes
What would you suggest to improve? You might want to reflect on when to use the guide on describe to which specific situations the different tools should be used.
[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? Minor errors, but definitely understandable.
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Some sentences could be more precise, but in the whole pretty good
What would you suggest to improve? I'm sure when you have more time you will find the minor errors.
[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
Gives a good overview of the context.
[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
it is definitely a good clear idea. It is nice to have a go to guide for program management!
[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
Like the rest of us you have bin on a huge time pressure, so some in depth text is needed
[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
Good references. Especially the one with Josef! ;) I guess, that it's always nice with more references.
