Talk:Roles and responsibilities
(→Question 1 · TEXT) |
|||
| (15 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | ===Answer 1=== | ||
The abstract presents with sufficient clarity the key points of the article. Moreover, it clearly defines the reader audience of the article. The field of application is a bit generic. | The abstract presents with sufficient clarity the key points of the article. Moreover, it clearly defines the reader audience of the article. The field of application is a bit generic. | ||
| − | + | ''Suggestion'': Focus on a particular industrial sector for your analysis. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 43: | Line 41: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | + | To begin with, the argument is quite unambiguous. Furthermore, the article is characterised by a logical flow so far. Specifically, it begins with the cite of the definitions that are associated with the topic and continues with mentioning the importance of the specific model. Consequently, an extensive description of the different kinds of team structures is presented. You skipped the selection of a particular project team structure that will be analyzed. Moreover, a decent sequence can be observed among the individual parts. Finally, the article is really consistent in its arguments and free of contradictions. | |
| + | |||
| + | ''Suggestion'': Choose a specific project team structure through which you can analyze the particular roles and responsibilities. | ||
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | + | There are no grammatical or spelling errors and the language is quite precise. | |
| + | |||
| + | ''Suggestions'': None | ||
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 67: | Line 69: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | + | There are currently no tables or figures. | |
| + | |||
| + | ''Suggestions'': None | ||
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 79: | Line 83: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | + | The article is characterized by practical relevance and the reader can easily understand the grade of relevance. | |
| + | |||
| + | ''Suggestion'': Select a distinct industrial sector and a specific team structure that the model can be applied to. | ||
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 91: | Line 97: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | + | The benefits of this article for the members of a project team are beyond dispute. Also, the knowledge that is provided regarding the topic is much more advanced than the findings of a cursory web search. | |
| + | |||
| + | ''Suggestion'': An implementation of the model within a specific team structure would be very helpful. | ||
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 105: | Line 113: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | Answer | + | The article cites and acknowledges appropriately any previous work and also summarizes correctly the key references. |
| + | |||
| + | ''Suggestions'': None | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Kevinth Balasubramaniam''== | ||
| + | ===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 summary gives a good impression of what the article is about. States well the differences between roles and responsibilities. Furthermore, it includes the PMBOK process groups, and relates it to people perspective. Lacks, description of what to expect from article. Should be provided when finalising 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 structure and logic of the article is good and coherent. The flow is natural, and it provides the information that is expected. I like that it is referred to the standards instantly, meaning that the reader has a clear understanding of what the differences of roles and responsibilities are. The bullet point are giving clear information and the "project team structure" gives a good overview of what to consider of the team. A suggestion is maybe that there are statements that require reference, depends on which referencing-style that is followed. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | Grammatically good. Language is coherent and easy to understand. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | No figures or table used. Could be interesting if done, makes it easier and more exciting to read. A suggested figure would be to see the structure of the roles and responsibilities, maybe in a branch-chart. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 made clear and is clearly connected to project management, with the people perspective in mind. Really like that it is strictly defined and the mandatory references backs these statements. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | It is interesting to get insight on the differences, and what they are providing in a project. Clearly an underestimated topic within the domain of project management | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | Not yet. Suggest that 3-4 recognised articles are annotated. Gives your article more credibility. | ||
Latest revision as of 18:18, 19 February 2018
Contents |
[edit] Abstract Feedback
Text clarity The text sounds coherent
Language Can be improved. I did not understand this for example: "Project manager and team with structure, processes, models and tools represent the core from which the project grows."
Description of the tool/theory/concept OK
Purpose explanation Missing - What is the purpose of the article? What aspect of project management are you trying to address? Who is your reader? Are you focusing on a particular industry e.g. construction? How is this relevant for the project manager?
Title of the Wiki Can be more specific - this depends on the focus of your article
References Good reference to PMBOK. Be cautious when addressing websites. I would never reference blogs. Use the PMI (Project Management Institute) site instead for example.
General Remember when writing the article, that it needs to be in the right depth and not too generic
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Ioannis Papadantonakis
[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 presents with sufficient clarity the key points of the article. Moreover, it clearly defines the reader audience of the article. The field of application is a bit generic.
Suggestion: Focus on a particular industrial sector for your analysis.
[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
To begin with, the argument is quite unambiguous. Furthermore, the article is characterised by a logical flow so far. Specifically, it begins with the cite of the definitions that are associated with the topic and continues with mentioning the importance of the specific model. Consequently, an extensive description of the different kinds of team structures is presented. You skipped the selection of a particular project team structure that will be analyzed. Moreover, a decent sequence can be observed among the individual parts. Finally, the article is really consistent in its arguments and free of contradictions.
Suggestion: Choose a specific project team structure through which you can analyze the particular roles and responsibilities.
[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
There are no grammatical or spelling errors and the language is quite precise.
Suggestions: None
[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 currently no tables or figures.
Suggestions: None
[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 characterized by practical relevance and the reader can easily understand the grade of relevance.
Suggestion: Select a distinct industrial sector and a specific team structure that the model can be applied to.
[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 benefits of this article for the members of a project team are beyond dispute. Also, the knowledge that is provided regarding the topic is much more advanced than the findings of a cursory web search.
Suggestion: An implementation of the model within a specific team structure would be very helpful.
[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 cites and acknowledges appropriately any previous work and also summarizes correctly the key references.
Suggestions: None
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Kevinth Balasubramaniam
[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 summary gives a good impression of what the article is about. States well the differences between roles and responsibilities. Furthermore, it includes the PMBOK process groups, and relates it to people perspective. Lacks, description of what to expect from article. Should be provided when finalising 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 structure and logic of the article is good and coherent. The flow is natural, and it provides the information that is expected. I like that it is referred to the standards instantly, meaning that the reader has a clear understanding of what the differences of roles and responsibilities are. The bullet point are giving clear information and the "project team structure" gives a good overview of what to consider of the team. A suggestion is maybe that there are statements that require reference, depends on which referencing-style that is followed.
[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
Grammatically good. Language is coherent and easy to understand.
[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
No figures or table used. Could be interesting if done, makes it easier and more exciting to read. A suggested figure would be to see the structure of the roles and responsibilities, maybe in a branch-chart.
[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 made clear and is clearly connected to project management, with the people perspective in mind. Really like that it is strictly defined and the mandatory references backs these statements.
[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
It is interesting to get insight on the differences, and what they are providing in a project. Clearly an underestimated topic within the domain of project management
[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
Not yet. Suggest that 3-4 recognised articles are annotated. Gives your article more credibility.
