Talk:Benefits Realisation Management (BRM)
(→Answer 1) |
(→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: "Dimitrios Kokkinopoulos": new section) |
||
| (17 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | I would | + | I would sugget a more coherent text. Some topics are just presented only as sentences and not elaborated enough. But as an overall is a really good abstract which helps the reader to understand the main points. |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Structure and logic of the article:''' | '''Structure and logic of the article:''' | ||
| − | Is the argument clear? | + | Is the argument clear? Yes |
| − | Is there a logical flow to the article? | + | Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes |
| − | Does one part build upon the other? | + | Does one part build upon the other? Yes |
| − | Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? | + | Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? Yes |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | + | Well organised and oriented text. | |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Grammar and style:''' | '''Grammar and style:''' | ||
| − | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? | + | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Mostly |
| − | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? | + | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | + | - | |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Figures and tables:''' | '''Figures and tables:''' | ||
| − | Are figures and tables clear? | + | Are figures and tables clear? Yes |
| − | Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? | + | Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? Yes |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | + | Figures are really analytical and helpful for the reader to understand the point. It is also good that the key subjects of each paragraph are illustrated in clear and big figures. I would only suggest a short description under each one, to make it look more complete and\or a reference. | |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Interest and relevance:''' | '''Interest and relevance:''' | ||
| − | Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? | + | Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? Yes |
| − | Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? | + | Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? Yes |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | + | I would suggest to contribute more on the relation between benefits and success of a program and maybe state some differences between them | |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Depth of treatment:''' | '''Depth of treatment:''' | ||
| − | Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? | + | Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes |
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? | Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? | ||
| Line 180: | Line 180: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | + | - | |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Annotated bibliography:''' | '''Annotated bibliography:''' | ||
| − | Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? | + | Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Yes |
| − | Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? | + | Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? Yes |
| − | Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? | + | Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | ''Answer | + | I suggest to link the references with text |
| + | |||
| + | == Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: "Dimitrios Kokkinopoulos" == | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| + | Representative, personally I would more paragraph structure. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Structure and logic of the article:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is the argument clear? Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | Does one part build upon the other? Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| + | Good logical flow and broad coverage. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Grammar and style:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Mostly | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| + | Some repetitive phrases and the usage of word "wether" should be limited and fixed. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Figures and tables:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Are figures and tables clear? Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| + | Clarifying figures, would fix a little bit the visual siting of them (size and captions). | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Interest and relevance:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| + | Very analytical but some more practical approach should be included to avoid repeating the key points of BRM. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Depth of treatment:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? No | ||
| + | |||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| + | The concept by its nature seems to be shallow and easily understood. Deeper treatment would include hands-on approach | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Annotated bibliography:''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes | ||
| + | |||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| + | According to the standards. | ||
Latest revision as of 13:53, 26 February 2019
| Text clarity | OK |
| Language | Some mistakes. Avoid writing his or hers about the method. |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good |
| Purpose explanation | Good |
| Title of the Wiki | Good |
| 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 |
| Other | I am not sure if you focus on program management or it will be about project, program and portfolio management. |
Contents |
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Dimitrios Kokkinopoulos
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 Answer here
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 Answer here
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 Answer here
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 Answer here
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 Answer here
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 Answer here
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 Answer here
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Evgenia Chatzivasileiou
[edit] Question 1 · TEXT
Quality of the summary:
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 1
I would sugget a more coherent text. Some topics are just presented only as sentences and not elaborated enough. But as an overall is a really good abstract which helps the reader to understand the main points.
[edit] Question 2 · TEXT
Structure and logic of the article:
Is the argument clear? Yes
Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes
Does one part build upon the other? Yes
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 2
Well organised and oriented text.
[edit] Question 3 · TEXT
Grammar and style:
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Mostly
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 3
-
[edit] Question 4 · TEXT
Figures and tables:
Are figures and tables clear? Yes
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 4
Figures are really analytical and helpful for the reader to understand the point. It is also good that the key subjects of each paragraph are illustrated in clear and big figures. I would only suggest a short description under each one, to make it look more complete and\or a reference.
[edit] Question 5 · TEXT
Interest and relevance:
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? Yes
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 5
I would suggest to contribute more on the relation between benefits and success of a program and maybe state some differences between them
[edit] Question 6 · TEXT
Depth of treatment:
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 6
-
[edit] Question 7 · TEXT
Annotated bibliography:
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Yes
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? Yes
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 7
I suggest to link the references with text
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: "Dimitrios Kokkinopoulos"
[edit] Question 1 · TEXT
Quality of the summary:
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 1
Representative, personally I would more paragraph structure.
[edit] Question 2 · TEXT
Structure and logic of the article:
Is the argument clear? Yes
Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes
Does one part build upon the other? Yes
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 2
Good logical flow and broad coverage.
[edit] Question 3 · TEXT
Grammar and style:
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Mostly
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 3
Some repetitive phrases and the usage of word "wether" should be limited and fixed.
[edit] Question 4 · TEXT
Figures and tables:
Are figures and tables clear? Yes
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 4
Clarifying figures, would fix a little bit the visual siting of them (size and captions).
[edit] Question 5 · TEXT
Interest and relevance:
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? Yes
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 5
Very analytical but some more practical approach should be included to avoid repeating the key points of BRM.
[edit] Question 6 · TEXT
Depth of treatment:
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? No
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 6
The concept by its nature seems to be shallow and easily understood. Deeper treatment would include hands-on approach
[edit] Question 7 · TEXT
Annotated bibliography:
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Yes
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? Yes
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 7
According to the standards.
