Talk:The implementation of KPIs

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| Good |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| It needs to be described |- |'''Explanation of the purpose of the ar...")
 
(→‎Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Signe Bjerrum)
 
(5 intermediate revisions by one user not shown)
Line 14: Line 14:
  
 
|}
 
|}
 +
 +
 +
 +
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Signe Bjerrum''==
 +
===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 first part of the abstract is good. It describes the topic briefly and how it is being presented in the article and how the topic relates to PPP-management. I would suggest to move the part of the abstract with the bullet points ("A KPI can be dissected as the following:......") to another section. In this part you are being more specific about what KPIs are and the abstract should only be a brief summary of what to expect reading the 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 logical flow works well for the reader. Because the article is quite short (approx. 2000 words) i would suggest using a bit more energy on describe what KPIs are and why they are important to ppp-management. More energy could also be used on the discussion part where additional views and approaches could be discussed see answer to question 7. ''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''In general ok."
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Missing reference for figure 1 and 2  who made it?. In general if you use a figure in an article you must refer to it in the text and use it. The figures are good but they should be more included in the text. ''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''In order to make it a bit more relevant it would be a good idea to be critical on the implementation of KPIs and include different perspectives in the article (include research articles). What does the newest research say about KPIs?"
 +
 +
===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===
 +
'See answer to question 7 - additional literature references research articles would make it more interesting ''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''In general quite few references in the text. Annotated bibliography not finished but space is allocated. In terms of references you could look for additional literature or articles/research that reflects on KPIs and include that in your discussion in order to make it more interesting and relevant.  ''
 +
 +
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Sebastian Walther''==
 +
 +
===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 Abstract is written very well! The key focus is explained shortly, but very precise. Good summary in this section! No points for improvements."
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''A very clear structure through the text. The table of content provides a good overview and you never get lost in the text. Structure is good (I like the short summary of the history as well). Furthermore I like the listings with the bullet points. It makes it very clear and easy to understand."
 +
 +
===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===
 +
"The text is written very well. I was not able to spot any spelling/grammar  mistakes when i read through the text. Good job!"
 +
 +
===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===
 +
"Figure 1 could be a bit more sharper?! Maybe its my eyes, but I thought it is quite blurry to read the bottom boxes. Apart from that, I think the figures help to understand the text!"
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''As already mentioned before, the article is well written. The style is good, also from an academic perspective. I did not have any problems reading the text and I also think it provides some valuable insides on a high practical level. In my opinion other readers can easily understand and keep track of the text.
 +
===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===
 +
"I like that you compare the PMBOK, PMI and Prince 2 definitions. It clearly shows that you put some effort into this section. Overall, the text is written very well and easy to understand. My suggestions, can you find any concrete examples for the KPIs? Like a real event? Apart from that, you're talking about the limitations, maybe you also have some benefits of the KPIs?
 +
 +
 +
===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===
 +
"Good referencing and annotated bibliography is provided! Well done!"

Latest revision as of 23:13, 25 February 2019

Contents

[edit] Feedback on Abstract

Text clarity Good
Description of the tool/theory/concept It needs to be described
Explanation of the purpose of the article Needs to be elaborated
Relevance to curriculum Good
References Missing references. Here are the guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references


[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Signe Bjerrum

[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 first part of the abstract is good. It describes the topic briefly and how it is being presented in the article and how the topic relates to PPP-management. I would suggest to move the part of the abstract with the bullet points ("A KPI can be dissected as the following:......") to another section. In this part you are being more specific about what KPIs are and the abstract should only be a brief summary of what to expect reading 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 logical flow works well for the reader. Because the article is quite short (approx. 2000 words) i would suggest using a bit more energy on describe what KPIs are and why they are important to ppp-management. More energy could also be used on the discussion part where additional views and approaches could be discussed see answer to question 7.

[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

In general ok."

[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

Missing reference for figure 1 and 2 who made it?. In general if you use a figure in an article you must refer to it in the text and use it. The figures are good but they should be more included 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

In order to make it a bit more relevant it would be a good idea to be critical on the implementation of KPIs and include different perspectives in the article (include research articles). What does the newest research say about KPIs?"

[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

'See answer to question 7 - additional literature references research articles would make it more interesting

[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

In general quite few references in the text. Annotated bibliography not finished but space is allocated. In terms of references you could look for additional literature or articles/research that reflects on KPIs and include that in your discussion in order to make it more interesting and relevant.

[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Sebastian Walther

[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 is written very well! The key focus is explained shortly, but very precise. Good summary in this section! No points for improvements."

[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

A very clear structure through the text. The table of content provides a good overview and you never get lost in the text. Structure is good (I like the short summary of the history as well). Furthermore I like the listings with the bullet points. It makes it very clear and easy to understand."

[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 text is written very well. I was not able to spot any spelling/grammar mistakes when i read through the text. Good job!"

[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

"Figure 1 could be a bit more sharper?! Maybe its my eyes, but I thought it is quite blurry to read the bottom boxes. Apart from that, I think the figures help to understand 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

As already mentioned before, the article is well written. The style is good, also from an academic perspective. I did not have any problems reading the text and I also think it provides some valuable insides on a high practical level. In my opinion other readers can easily understand and keep track of the text.

[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

"I like that you compare the PMBOK, PMI and Prince 2 definitions. It clearly shows that you put some effort into this section. Overall, the text is written very well and easy to understand. My suggestions, can you find any concrete examples for the KPIs? Like a real event? Apart from that, you're talking about the limitations, maybe you also have some benefits of the KPIs?


[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

"Good referencing and annotated bibliography is provided! Well done!"

Retrieved from "http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php?title=Talk:The_implementation_of_KPIs&oldid=67062"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox