Talk:Agile Project Management with SCRUM
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 63: | Line 63: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | + | It is very nice that the author build his own tables and figures. Unfortunately the figure seems to be a little blurred. | |
Further i would maybe implement the table also as a jpeg file which maybe was created by word or excel which would give a nicer look. | Further i would maybe implement the table also as a jpeg file which maybe was created by word or excel which would give a nicer look. | ||
| − | I would also put in the missing source of the information provided in the table. | + | I would also put in the missing source of the information provided in the table. |
===Question 5=== | ===Question 5=== | ||
| Line 107: | Line 107: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
Good use of date and citations. Quotes inside the article strengthen the authors logic. | Good use of date and citations. Quotes inside the article strengthen the authors logic. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer Name: Lars From-Hansen == | ||
| + | |||
| + | Quality of the summary: | ||
| + | Very good and well annotated. | ||
| + | Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? | ||
| + | Yes | ||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | I have no suggestions for improvement. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Question 2 · TEXT | ||
| + | Structure and logic of the article: | ||
| + | Good structure that is easy to follow. | ||
| + | Is the argument clear? | ||
| + | Yes | ||
| + | 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? | ||
| + | In the part about SCRUM meetings it would be nice to clarify who attends the Product planning meeting - only the project team or are stakeholders like the customer attending too? | ||
| + | Answer 2 | ||
| + | Answer here | ||
| + | |||
| + | Question 3 · TEXT | ||
| + | Grammar and style: | ||
| + | Good | ||
| + | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? | ||
| + | Yes | ||
| + | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? | ||
| + | Yes | ||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | In the first sentence of the SCRUM Process paragraph it says sprinG backlog instead of sprint backlog. | ||
| + | Answer 3 | ||
| + | Answer here | ||
| + | |||
| + | Question 4 · TEXT | ||
| + | Figures and tables: | ||
| + | Good | ||
| + | Are figures and tables clear? | ||
| + | Yes | ||
| + | Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? | ||
| + | Yes | ||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | Nothing. | ||
| + | Answer 4 | ||
| + | Answer here | ||
| + | |||
| + | Question 5 · TEXT | ||
| + | Interest and relevance: | ||
| + | Good. | ||
| + | Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? | ||
| + | Yes | ||
| + | Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? | ||
| + | Yes | ||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Answer 5 | ||
| + | Answer here | ||
| + | |||
| + | Question 6 · TEXT | ||
| + | Depth of treatment: | ||
| + | Good | ||
| + | Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? | ||
| + | Yes | ||
| + | Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? | ||
| + | Yes | ||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Answer 6 | ||
| + | Answer here | ||
| + | |||
| + | Question 7 · TEXT | ||
| + | Annotated bibliography: | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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? | ||
| + | Yes | ||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | Summarize the references | ||
| + | Answer 7 | ||
| + | Answer here | ||
Latest revision as of 11:10, 21 February 2018
Contents |
[edit] Abstract Feedback
Text Clarity; Ok.
Language; Ok.
References; missing references related to the standards.
In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget to elaborate the article based in the sections recomended in the point 5, Individual Assignment of the Course handbook and check the Reference Reading material for the Wiki Assignment and Project Work.
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer Name: Cetin Arslan
[edit] Question 1
Quality of the summary:
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 1
Firstly, there are some minor spelling errors all over the text, which can be easily improved e.g. includes instead include or "new product development Game". Secondly, while reading the section to Scrum Process, although the process itself is well described, it would make it understandable of the process itself would be connected to an "example project" in order to give a better description. Third, for me as reader it would be interesting which old-school' project management approaches are meant and described. Fourth, I dont know whether it is necessary to describe the given table again, as all the information is clearly understandable. Fifth, it would be interesting to know, whether the approach is still used in todays industries or was changed and improved for todays needs as it was defined in the 1990s.
[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
The article has a understandable structure and logic. In some points in the article it would be better to implement small examples in order to make it easier for an unexperienced user. The arguments itself are clear as the process itself, also the benefits und limitations of the tool are explained. Further suggestions are given under Question 1.
[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
The article itself contains of small spelling errors in nearly every chapter, which the author will surely correct in the second phase. The grammar is nearly without any mistake, and the language used is professional.
[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
It is very nice that the author build his own tables and figures. Unfortunately the figure seems to be a little blurred. Further i would maybe implement the table also as a jpeg file which maybe was created by word or excel which would give a nicer look. I would also put in the missing source of the information provided in the table.
[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
The article provides a practical relevance due to its connections to businesses. Examples from businesses using it today would make it even more relevant. Also academic examples would strengthen the article.
[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
The article gives a good understandable read. As it is written in a quite professional way it may be to difficult to read for somebody not related to this field. Beyond a normal google reason it provides all nearly all necessary information a article with max 3000 words can provide. Suggestions of Question 1 can still further improve it.
[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
Good use of date and citations. Quotes inside the article strengthen the authors logic.
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer Name: Lars From-Hansen
Quality of the summary: Very good and well annotated. Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Yes What would you suggest to improve? I have no suggestions for improvement.
Question 2 · TEXT Structure and logic of the article: Good structure that is easy to follow. Is the argument clear? Yes 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? In the part about SCRUM meetings it would be nice to clarify who attends the Product planning meeting - only the project team or are stakeholders like the customer attending too? Answer 2 Answer here
Question 3 · TEXT Grammar and style: Good Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Yes Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes What would you suggest to improve? In the first sentence of the SCRUM Process paragraph it says sprinG backlog instead of sprint backlog. Answer 3 Answer here
Question 4 · TEXT Figures and tables: Good Are figures and tables clear? Yes Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? Yes What would you suggest to improve? Nothing. Answer 4 Answer here
Question 5 · TEXT Interest and relevance: Good. Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? Yes Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? Yes What would you suggest to improve?
Answer 5 Answer here
Question 6 · TEXT Depth of treatment: Good Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? Yes What would you suggest to improve?
Answer 6 Answer here
Question 7 · TEXT Annotated bibliography:
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? Yes What would you suggest to improve? Summarize the references Answer 7 Answer here
