Talk:Analytic Hierarchy Process
(→Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Klaudia Edyta Onyszkiewicz) |
(→Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Klaudia Edyta Onyszkiewicz) |
||
| (13 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Abstract and Summary are not finished yet, but while doing so please remember to define who is the final (target) reader of the article, which area does it apply to (Project/Program/Portfolio Management) and why is it so relevant there.'' |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 114: | Line 114: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | ''It is clear that the author wants to present to a reader how practical and powerful the AHP is. Each part of the article builds upon the other which makes it easy to follow. The article is organized in a logical, reader- | + | ''It is clear that the author wants to present to a reader how practical and powerful the AHP is. Each part of the article builds upon the other which makes it easy to follow. The article is organized in a logical, reader-friendly way - it guides the reader step-by-step through the theory and provides with a transparent, easy to follow example afterwards. I like this order, but I would just suggest considering merging the theory with the example (also with a step-by-step approach preserved). Having both at one place could improve the transparency even more.'' |
| + | |||
| + | ''''Make sure you are consist with the steps numeration. E.g. I can see you added "iv, v, vi" respectively to "Calculate the Goal Priority", "Consider how consistent the ratings are" and "Perform a Sensitivity Analysis" but there are no "i, ii, iii" before.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''In terms of the article consistency: Agree upon using AHP either as "Analytic hierarchy process" or whole starting with capital letters "Analytic Hierarchy Process". So far you use both of them. Also, sometimes you say "Analytic Hierarchy Process", another time "Analytic Hierarchy Method" - just please ensure if you can use this terms interchangeably.''' | ||
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 126: | Line 130: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The writing is to a very high quality. Highly professional language. Just please remember to do a proof-reading before handing the article to make sure you will get rid of the minor 'mistakes' such as:'' |
| + | * ''Repetition: under "Example of utilizing the Analytical Hierarchy Process" the first sentence: "For better understanding of the Analytical Hierarchy Process an example has been made for better understanding of the practical usage of the method."'' | ||
| + | * ''Words confusion: under "Decision background" there is a sentence: "An all new ERP solution (...)"'' | ||
| + | * ''Lost words: under "Limitations" point a is missing a verb: "It quite qualitative and subjective".'' | ||
| + | * ''Write "seven criteria" instead of "7 criteria"'' | ||
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 138: | Line 146: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Figures and tables properly summarize the key points of the article and by providing the reader with these visualizations it makes it even more transparent.'' |
| + | |||
| + | ''I would just suggest to provide each figure/table with a number and adequate reference (what is it inspired by) and enlarge two of them: the one under "Define the Problem Hierarchy" and "The Pairwise Comparison".'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''I would also consider presenting the criteria from the example (a-g) in a table for even better transparency.'' | ||
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 150: | Line 162: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The article and the topic itself are both of high practical and academic relevance. It is clearly explained in the article that AHP is very powerful process as it is highly relevant to support the decision-making process.'' |
| + | ''I would just include the relevance of AHP in Project/Portfolio/Program Management and who is intended to be the final reader of the article - who could benefit the most in applying this process into practice (a steering committee? a project manager?)'' | ||
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 162: | Line 175: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The article is undoubtedly very interesting for both practitioner and academic to read. It makes a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search by providing explanation of why is AHP so important and a clear guidance of how to follow the process supported with a transparent example.'' |
| + | ''I would just suggest one more thing. Once you define who is the final reader of the article and which scope does it cover (Project/Program/Portfolio Management) also try to narrow it down a bit more by discussing whether usage of the process is the same within different Project/Program/Portfolio levels of complexity.'' | ||
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 176: | Line 190: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The article refers to various scientific positions. "References" and "Annotated bibliography" (short description of the importance and usefulness of the scientific positions you are referring to) would need to be included. I would also consider including "Glossary" if you think some terminology could be shortly explained to the reader on side. Remember to include at least one position recommended from the course (PMBOOK, "Systematic Problem Analysis").'' |
Latest revision as of 01:26, 20 February 2018
Contents |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Susan Tyrell
[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
It is clear, moreover I will talk more about the history and background and I will define the Analytic Hierarchy Process
[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 of the table of content is logic and and I think it will cover the main idea of the article
[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
The grammar is clear and understandable
[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
Remember to write the reference for tables and Pictures. It is also important make the reference for the table or picture in the text
[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 clear that has an academic relevance but I need a better picture for a practical relevance, maybe you can add some examples?
[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
So far it is an interesting article, but I still think that you need to explain specifically in what sector or how I can use this tool.
[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
I will add a glossary for this article and also a bibliography
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Klaudia Edyta Onyszkiewicz
[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
Abstract and Summary are not finished yet, but while doing so please remember to define who is the final (target) reader of the article, which area does it apply to (Project/Program/Portfolio Management) and why is it so relevant there.
[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
It is clear that the author wants to present to a reader how practical and powerful the AHP is. Each part of the article builds upon the other which makes it easy to follow. The article is organized in a logical, reader-friendly way - it guides the reader step-by-step through the theory and provides with a transparent, easy to follow example afterwards. I like this order, but I would just suggest considering merging the theory with the example (also with a step-by-step approach preserved). Having both at one place could improve the transparency even more.
''Make sure you are consist with the steps numeration. E.g. I can see you added "iv, v, vi" respectively to "Calculate the Goal Priority", "Consider how consistent the ratings are" and "Perform a Sensitivity Analysis" but there are no "i, ii, iii" before.
In terms of the article consistency: Agree upon using AHP either as "Analytic hierarchy process" or whole starting with capital letters "Analytic Hierarchy Process". So far you use both of them. Also, sometimes you say "Analytic Hierarchy Process", another time "Analytic Hierarchy Method" - just please ensure if you can use this terms interchangeably.'
[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
The writing is to a very high quality. Highly professional language. Just please remember to do a proof-reading before handing the article to make sure you will get rid of the minor 'mistakes' such as:
- Repetition: under "Example of utilizing the Analytical Hierarchy Process" the first sentence: "For better understanding of the Analytical Hierarchy Process an example has been made for better understanding of the practical usage of the method."
- Words confusion: under "Decision background" there is a sentence: "An all new ERP solution (...)"
- Lost words: under "Limitations" point a is missing a verb: "It quite qualitative and subjective".
- Write "seven criteria" instead of "7 criteria"
[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
Figures and tables properly summarize the key points of the article and by providing the reader with these visualizations it makes it even more transparent.
I would just suggest to provide each figure/table with a number and adequate reference (what is it inspired by) and enlarge two of them: the one under "Define the Problem Hierarchy" and "The Pairwise Comparison".
I would also consider presenting the criteria from the example (a-g) in a table for even better transparency.
[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 and the topic itself are both of high practical and academic relevance. It is clearly explained in the article that AHP is very powerful process as it is highly relevant to support the decision-making process. I would just include the relevance of AHP in Project/Portfolio/Program Management and who is intended to be the final reader of the article - who could benefit the most in applying this process into practice (a steering committee? a project manager?)
[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 is undoubtedly very interesting for both practitioner and academic to read. It makes a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search by providing explanation of why is AHP so important and a clear guidance of how to follow the process supported with a transparent example. I would just suggest one more thing. Once you define who is the final reader of the article and which scope does it cover (Project/Program/Portfolio Management) also try to narrow it down a bit more by discussing whether usage of the process is the same within different Project/Program/Portfolio levels of complexity.
[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 refers to various scientific positions. "References" and "Annotated bibliography" (short description of the importance and usefulness of the scientific positions you are referring to) would need to be included. I would also consider including "Glossary" if you think some terminology could be shortly explained to the reader on side. Remember to include at least one position recommended from the course (PMBOOK, "Systematic Problem Analysis").
