Talk:Risk identification methods
(→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Alberto Tognon) |
(→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Alberto Tognon) |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | The | + | The argument is quite clear although it is not finished, I guess. The flow is not smooth though: you started talking about risk management and I think you can link it better with risk identification. Maybe emphasise a bit more that is a step of the risk management. |
| + | |||
| + | It is not clear for me the processes you have to go through for the risk identification - does it have a framework? | ||
| + | Maybe explain a bit more in details the methods you listed for the risk identification. | ||
| + | |||
| + | There are some repetition related to the definition of risks, you mention more than 2 times in the introduction part. Maybe it is not necessary..? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Last part needs more development. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I really like the topic and I think it is really relevant and inherent to the project management. | ||
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 63: | Line 72: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | + | As I said before, some sentences are too complex and need to be easier to read. I would recommend to avoid to use the commas and just cut the sentences instead. | |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 76: | Line 85: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | + | Missing - I had the same problem and I did not know how to add them. ;) | |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 88: | Line 97: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | + | The article and topic are good and relevant to the course, in my opinion. It is clear the aim of the article even though it still needs some further developments. | |
| − | The | + | |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 101: | Line 109: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | + | With a more clear framework of the risk identification it would definitely be interesting and make a significant contribution. | |
| − | + | ||
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 117: | Line 124: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | + | Good but they need to be in the "Wiki"-way | |
Latest revision as of 22:29, 25 February 2019
Contents |
[edit] Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity | Good |
| Language | Good |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | OK but could be a bit more clear |
| Purpose explanation | Good but you switch from focusing on risks in projects to focus on programs afterwards its a bit confusing. Is the article about both or one of them? |
| Title of the Wiki | Good but could also be Risk Identification Methods in Project Management if that's your focus |
| Relevance to curriculum | Relevant |
| References | Remember to make correct references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references
If you are in doubt about how to make them in the wiki then have a look at the "Help" function in the side of the page or look at previous years articles. If you click "edit" in one of the old ones you can see how it is done but please do not change anything. |
| Other | Abstract should be the first. Consider only writing about risk identification methods in either project, program or portfolio management. |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Alberto Tognon
[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 summary is good overall. There is maybe a bit of confusion because you first talk about risks in project and then you talk about risks identification in programs. Some sentences are maybe too complex. I would recommend to short them down and make them a bit easier to read - sometimes commas might mislead and you have to read the sentences couple of times to understand the general content.
But anyway good job, these are just minor adjustments.
[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 quite clear although it is not finished, I guess. The flow is not smooth though: you started talking about risk management and I think you can link it better with risk identification. Maybe emphasise a bit more that is a step of the risk management.
It is not clear for me the processes you have to go through for the risk identification - does it have a framework? Maybe explain a bit more in details the methods you listed for the risk identification.
There are some repetition related to the definition of risks, you mention more than 2 times in the introduction part. Maybe it is not necessary..?
Last part needs more development.
I really like the topic and I think it is really relevant and inherent to the project management.
[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
As I said before, some sentences are too complex and need to be easier to read. I would recommend to avoid to use the commas and just cut the sentences 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
Missing - I had the same problem and I did not know how to add 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
The article and topic are good and relevant to the course, in my opinion. It is clear the aim of the article even though it still needs some further developments.
[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
With a more clear framework of the risk identification it would definitely be interesting and make a significant contribution.
[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 but they need to be in the "Wiki"-way
