Talk:Value Proposition Canvas
(→Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Christopher Emil Søndergaard) |
(→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Julianna Apli) |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | ''The article has a nice description about the tool and the relevance of it, however the how-to-use part is a bit unclear. In the abstract it has been mentioned how is it relevant for the project manager, but later in the article it is not elaborated further on. The application chapter is more about what it is and when it is used. Elaborate on these points, and the article will be a lot better for it.'' | + | ''The article has a nice description about the tool and the relevance of it, however the how-to-use part is a bit unclear. In the abstract it has been mentioned how is it relevant for the project manager, but later in the article it is not elaborated further on. The application chapter is more about what it is and when it is used, describe the create value canvas point more thoroughly. Elaborate on these points, and the article will be a lot better for it.'' |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | ''The summary makes it clear why this is important. You should make it more clear what the article | + | ''The summary makes it clear why this is important. You should make it more clear what sections the article consist of by briefly summerizing it.'' |
===Question 2=== | ===Question 2=== | ||
| Line 150: | Line 150: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '''' | + | ''It is well-based why the tool is important to have in mind as a project manager. I would like you to follow more up on the case study.'' |
===Question 6=== | ===Question 6=== | ||
| Line 162: | Line 162: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '''' | + | ''I agree with Juliana that you need to explain more concrete how to use the tool so it will be more manageable. This will make the article even more interesting.'' |
===Question 7=== | ===Question 7=== | ||
| Line 176: | Line 176: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | '''' | + | ''There is a good use of references. Be aware of that the references aren't set up in different ways. It has to be in the same way.'' |
==Abstract Feedback== | ==Abstract Feedback== | ||
Latest revision as of 09:32, 20 February 2018
Contents |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Julianna Apli
[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
Clear summary, it explains the necessity of the tool and the example illustrates really nicely the topic and that why is it needed. However, it would be nice to have at least one more reference in the abstract that is related to the topic (Value Proposition Canvas and not just management in general) and add a short overview to the summary so it would make it easier to understand the structure of 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 is clear and justified about the usage of the tool, but I would suggest to make clearer subtitles (visually not grammatically). In the application chapter there is a lot of equal subtitles which makes it difficult to understand the logical flow of the article. In the big idea chapter a case study is mentioned and is really nice that later it has several reference to it and use it for explanation. However, it would be nice to know a bit more about the case study and add a reference to it. It would make the understanding of the article clearer. In some places the text refers to “Alexander Osterwalder”, I would suggest to make a short introduction about him when you first mention his name. In the limitation chapter, I think the first two point in more like a misuse of the tool than a limitation or maybe it just not formulated clearly enough.
[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
Apart from a few minor grammatical and spelling mistakes, the article is well written and has a good flow. Some sentences feel a bit Danglish, I would suggest to look a bit into phrasing and correct words.
[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 figures are nice and clearly help in the understanding of the context. An improvement could be to add figure text and reference to it.
[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 why and when is the tool relevant in project management. If the case study was elaborated, the connection would be even better and could be referenced throughout the article.
[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 has a nice description about the tool and the relevance of it, however the how-to-use part is a bit unclear. In the abstract it has been mentioned how is it relevant for the project manager, but later in the article it is not elaborated further on. The application chapter is more about what it is and when it is used, describe the create value canvas point more thoroughly. Elaborate on these points, and the article will be a lot better for it.
[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
Throughout the article the references are correct and regularly used. Maybe it would be nice to add a few more and a few citations to confirm the article. The annotated bibliography is incomplete, two of the references have a short summary, but it is a bit too short. I would recommend to write a bit longer descriptions about the key references.
[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 why this is important. You should make it more clear what sections the article consist of by briefly summerizing it.
[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
I like the way the article is built up. The section "Application" isn't readable since there are a lot of subtitles. You should make a list og use fonts and space in a better way.
[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 som minor grammatical and spelling errors.
[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 look good and support your messages in a meaningful way. You should reconsider how they are set up by centre them and add some descriptive 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 well-based why the tool is important to have in mind as a project manager. I would like you to follow more up on the case study.
[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
I agree with Juliana that you need to explain more concrete how to use the tool so it will be more manageable. This will make the article even more interesting.
[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. Be aware of that the references aren't set up in different ways. It has to be in the same way.
[edit] Abstract Feedback
Text Clarity; Ok.
Language; Ok.
References; missing references related to the topic
In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget to elaborate and describe the relevance for a Project Manager.
Try to connect the topic with "stakeholder management" aspects.
