Talk:Ideation tools
(→Answer 6) |
|||
| (6 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
''There are missing references in the annotated bibliography and errors in the references part. The article does however make good use of references and citations in the arguments, as well as references to the historic background of ideation tools. The one reference in the annotated bibliography part is well described.'' | ''There are missing references in the annotated bibliography and errors in the references part. The article does however make good use of references and citations in the arguments, as well as references to the historic background of ideation tools. The one reference in the annotated bibliography part is well described.'' | ||
| − | |||
==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Christopher Emil Søndergaard''== | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Christopher Emil Søndergaard''== | ||
| Line 114: | Line 113: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | ''Generally the article has a common thread which makes it readable. As an improvement you could compare the different tools by explaining when and why to use the tools. Is it a good idea to use all the tools or do some of them fit better in some situations?'' | + | ''Generally the article has a common thread which makes it readable. As an improvement you could compare the different tools by explaining when and why to use the tools. Is it a good idea to use all the tools at same time or do some of them fit better in some situations?'' |
===Question 3=== | ===Question 3=== | ||
| Line 126: | Line 125: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | ''Overall the article is well-written even though there are some minor grammatical errors. Sometimes you repeat yourself, but this is also a way to underline the important points. | + | ''Overall the article is well-written even though there are some minor grammatical errors. Sometimes you repeat yourself, but this is also a way to underline the important points. In the section where you explain the different tools, an improvement could be to list the steps in another way which will make it more readable.'' |
| − | In the section where you explain the different tools, an improvement could be to list the steps in another way which | + | |
===Question 4=== | ===Question 4=== | ||
| Line 163: | Line 161: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | ''As mentioned in answer | + | ''As mentioned in answer 2, I would like to know when to use the different tools.'' |
===Question 7=== | ===Question 7=== | ||
| Line 177: | Line 175: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | ''There | + | ''There is a good use of references. The reference list has some errors which is because of the use (several times) of the same reference.'' |
==Abstract Feedback== | ==Abstract Feedback== | ||
Latest revision as of 22:33, 19 February 2018
Contents |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Walther Emil Eriksen
[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 is overall clear. It is however not clear what the argument is towards brainstorming versus the mentioned ideation tools. An improvement could be stating what the article wants to do with brainstorming; are the tools a replacement for brainstorming or just structured ways of brainstorming?
[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 consists of many short descriptions of ideation tools, but does not compare them. An improvement could be stating when a tool would be chosen instead of the others and/or stating the limitations and advantages of each tool. The article is apart from this easy to read with a good 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
There are minor grammatical errors, but overall a well written article with a good flow in the language
[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 tables are used as thumbs, which makes them unclear while reading. It is also not precisely stated why the tables are relevant in the article. An outlining of their relevance and context would be an improvement. I also think you have to make your own figures to avoid copyright issues?
[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 very clear in the article why ideation tools are relevant for the initiation phase of any project.
[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 outlies some tools, but does not precisely outline what the tools means for a project manager. An improvement could be outlining which tools are relevant in certain situations, and what they mean for a the work as a project manager. Real-life case examples could help practitioners understand the relevance of the tools
[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
There are missing references in the annotated bibliography and errors in the references part. The article does however make good use of references and citations in the arguments, as well as references to the historic background of ideation tools. The one reference in the annotated bibliography part is well described.
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Christopher Emil Søndergaard
[edit] Question 1
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 makes it clear what the article is about and why it has great importance in project management.
[edit] Question 2
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
Generally the article has a common thread which makes it readable. As an improvement you could compare the different tools by explaining when and why to use the tools. Is it a good idea to use all the tools at same time or do some of them fit better in some situations?
[edit] Question 3
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 the article is well-written even though there are some minor grammatical errors. Sometimes you repeat yourself, but this is also a way to underline the important points. In the section where you explain the different tools, an improvement could be to list the steps in another way which will make it more readable.
[edit] Question 4
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 are very small (thumb) which make them hard to see. I don't see any need for the first figure because the second one illustrate the same. I would like to get an explanation of the last figure in the text.
[edit] Question 5
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 very clear why Ideation Tools has great importance in project management.
[edit] Question 6
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
As mentioned in answer 2, I would like to know when to use the different tools.
[edit] Question 7
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
There is a good use of references. The reference list has some errors which is because of the use (several times) of the same reference.
[edit] Abstract Feedback
Text Clarity; Ok.
Language; Ok.
References; missing references related to the standards
The abstract is vague, I cannot see how its related with projects, programs or portfolios, and the relevance for project managers. The title mentions tool, but what is the purpose of the this tool?, Can be incorporated in PM processes? How?
Please elaborate how you can connect with the mentioned aspects, also try to see under which perspective (purpose, people, complexity, uncertainty) you can allocate the article.
Look also in the Mandatory References in the listed Reading material of the course.
