Talk:Governance of Project Management
(Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| Good but it can be more coherent in some of the parts |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Good |- |'''Explana...") |
(→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Kevin Lim) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
|} | |} | ||
| + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Kevin Lim''== | ||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | Yes, the summary gives you a good insight of what the article is about and furthermore it is going a bit into the topic itself already, giving you a taste of what you are going to read about more. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I think the references needs to be placed rightly, it is probably still under the work though. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 flow of the article is fine, it is taking a topic at a time, and it is going through the relevance of the different things in order to understand the concept. The argumentation is clear and flow is fine, there are also a consistency throughout it all. | ||
| + | |||
| + | It is free of contradictions too, but I think the article is not fully done, so there are parts missing. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | Minor grammatical errors, and spelling errors are majority been avoided, but the controls whether in word or here in wiki. | ||
| + | |||
| + | As I still think, there are generally not really fill words, but again, it depends on how you are good a describing something, you can think of it as a fill words, when in reality it is not. But there are no filling as such. | ||
| + | |||
| + | For the grammar and spelling, just a quick run through will be fine, to check for them again. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | They are very easy to understand, but the quality is a bit bad, without clicking on them, it is a bit hard to read them, but when they are clicked it is easy to read them, no problems there. | ||
| + | |||
| + | They do summarize the key points, it gives a good overview and understanding because of the figures. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Try to fix the quality of possible and maybe a bit bigger would be nice, without having to click on them. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 I said earlier there are some holes in the article, so it is a bit hard to define it one or the other, but if I absolutely must, I think it is more of a academic relevance, it is hard to actually try to implement it, based on what this article is describing the tools. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Again, I think the relevance is also depending on the researcher, but I would definitely think it is clear how it is relevant in project management. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Try to fill out the holes, then maybe things will be more clear if it is relevant and if it is practical or academical. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | Academic, because as I mentioned at the question before. But again it is a bit hard because of the missing texts. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I do not think it is a significant contribution at all, because of the missing holes. But if it is filled out, then it is no doubt a contribution, but not beyond at all. | ||
| + | |||
| + | You should have finish the work by the deadline, because it is hard to give a whole feedback at this point. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | It is not filled out yet, so I cannot comment on this. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Keegan van Kooten''== | ||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | I think the abstract starts off very strong, by stating the problem, and that it is likely due to ambiguity regarding the lack of a universal definition of project governance. Then the focus of the article is stated very well, but then I feel the abstract goes too much into to detail explaining the levels of governance. It's very good information, I'm just not sure it belongs in the abstract as such. Maybe it needs to be shortened and made more factually, rather than explaining it step by step. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | You cover a lot of material, and many terms. I can tell that there are many factors to take into account when trying to write an article about project management governance. You do a good job of explaining when you talk about 'project' then 'program' then portfolio' so be sure to keep that in mind as you continue writing the article. There are sections which are not really refined yet and there isn't too much flow (such as the end of Project Governance Framework, but I'm sure this will come as you add more to the article. There are no major contradictions in the article. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The 13 principles should also be explained (but I assume that will come in the future). | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 article overall is well written, with good terminology and grammar. There are a few grammatical errors, but these do not take away from the understanding. You should try not to use the word 'talking' as this is a written article. Try 'when considering governance...' instead. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | Your figures (and figure references) need to be incorporated in your text, but you are already aware of that. A little more explanation (likely through the figure text) for the first figure (under Project Governance Organisation) should be included as it is otherwise a little difficult to understand. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | You make your article's intent very clear in the beginning, but likely as it is not finished just yet, it is difficult to understand how exactly the problem is solved (you explain it all very well, but try include text that shows how this should be understood in your context). With these changes, there is very good academic relevance | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | The article raises some very interesting points, and ways of solving them. As mentioned in previous question, if you can write some more sentences on how these points should be incorporated in a project, or how the theory should be understood and worked with, that would help its contribution to people interested in project management governance. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | Information throughout the article is well referenced, and reference list is well set up. You haven't necessarily described the key references (but neither have I in my article), so I am sure that will come soon. There is very little data, but this is likely due to the nature of the topic (there likely aren't many facts to include). | ||
Latest revision as of 17:54, 24 February 2019
Contents |
[edit] Feedback on Abstract
| Text clarity | Good but it can be more coherent in some of the parts |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good |
| Explanation of the purpose of the article | Good |
| Relevance to curriculum | Make sure you keep it within project, program or portfolio and not about organizational management/theory. |
| References | Good |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Kevin Lim
[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
Yes, the summary gives you a good insight of what the article is about and furthermore it is going a bit into the topic itself already, giving you a taste of what you are going to read about more.
I think the references needs to be placed rightly, it is probably still under the work though.
[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 flow of the article is fine, it is taking a topic at a time, and it is going through the relevance of the different things in order to understand the concept. The argumentation is clear and flow is fine, there are also a consistency throughout it all.
It is free of contradictions too, but I think the article is not fully done, so there are parts missing.
[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
Minor grammatical errors, and spelling errors are majority been avoided, but the controls whether in word or here in wiki.
As I still think, there are generally not really fill words, but again, it depends on how you are good a describing something, you can think of it as a fill words, when in reality it is not. But there are no filling as such.
For the grammar and spelling, just a quick run through will be fine, to check for them again.
[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
They are very easy to understand, but the quality is a bit bad, without clicking on them, it is a bit hard to read them, but when they are clicked it is easy to read them, no problems there.
They do summarize the key points, it gives a good overview and understanding because of the figures.
Try to fix the quality of possible and maybe a bit bigger would be nice, without having to click on them.
[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 I said earlier there are some holes in the article, so it is a bit hard to define it one or the other, but if I absolutely must, I think it is more of a academic relevance, it is hard to actually try to implement it, based on what this article is describing the tools.
Again, I think the relevance is also depending on the researcher, but I would definitely think it is clear how it is relevant in project management.
Try to fill out the holes, then maybe things will be more clear if it is relevant and if it is practical or academical.
[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
Academic, because as I mentioned at the question before. But again it is a bit hard because of the missing texts.
I do not think it is a significant contribution at all, because of the missing holes. But if it is filled out, then it is no doubt a contribution, but not beyond at all.
You should have finish the work by the deadline, because it is hard to give a whole feedback at this point.
[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
It is not filled out yet, so I cannot comment on this.
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Keegan van Kooten
[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
I think the abstract starts off very strong, by stating the problem, and that it is likely due to ambiguity regarding the lack of a universal definition of project governance. Then the focus of the article is stated very well, but then I feel the abstract goes too much into to detail explaining the levels of governance. It's very good information, I'm just not sure it belongs in the abstract as such. Maybe it needs to be shortened and made more factually, rather than explaining it step by step.
[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
You cover a lot of material, and many terms. I can tell that there are many factors to take into account when trying to write an article about project management governance. You do a good job of explaining when you talk about 'project' then 'program' then portfolio' so be sure to keep that in mind as you continue writing the article. There are sections which are not really refined yet and there isn't too much flow (such as the end of Project Governance Framework, but I'm sure this will come as you add more to the article. There are no major contradictions in the article.
The 13 principles should also be explained (but I assume that will come in the future).
[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 article overall is well written, with good terminology and grammar. There are a few grammatical errors, but these do not take away from the understanding. You should try not to use the word 'talking' as this is a written article. Try 'when considering governance...' instead.
[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
Your figures (and figure references) need to be incorporated in your text, but you are already aware of that. A little more explanation (likely through the figure text) for the first figure (under Project Governance Organisation) should be included as it is otherwise a little difficult to understand.
[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
You make your article's intent very clear in the beginning, but likely as it is not finished just yet, it is difficult to understand how exactly the problem is solved (you explain it all very well, but try include text that shows how this should be understood in your context). With these changes, there is very good academic relevance
[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 raises some very interesting points, and ways of solving them. As mentioned in previous question, if you can write some more sentences on how these points should be incorporated in a project, or how the theory should be understood and worked with, that would help its contribution to people interested in project management governance.
[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
Information throughout the article is well referenced, and reference list is well set up. You haven't necessarily described the key references (but neither have I in my article), so I am sure that will come soon. There is very little data, but this is likely due to the nature of the topic (there likely aren't many facts to include).
