Talk:Quality Management Systems

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Kristoffer Glahn)
(→‎=)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by one user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
 +
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Love Berger-Vieweg, s143883''==
 +
===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===
 +
LBV: The article is well scoped by defining first QMS and then focusing on PCDA and the five qualities of QMS.
 +
 +
 +
===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? It will.
 +
 +
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? -
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve? -
 +
 +
===Answer 2===
 +
LBV: The structure is good of the article, seemes to miss an discussion part that reflects on the theory. I would consider simplifying the five functions of QMS according to the EN-standard, the main chapther could be "Five functions of QMS according to EN-standards" and the subcategories should just be written in text.
 +
 +
===Question 3 · TEXT===
 +
'''Grammar and style:'''
 +
 +
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Yes, only one word change could be done. In the first sentence instead of externally-outside may fit better.
 +
 +
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?-
 +
 +
===Answer 3===
 +
LBV: Some spelling errors, but in general the articel uses good grammer.
 +
 +
===Question 4 · TEXT===
 +
'''Figures and tables:'''
 +
 +
Are figures and tables clear? Not added yet
 +
 +
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? -
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve? -
 +
 +
===Answer 4===
 +
 +
LBV: N/A
 +
 +
 +
===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? It would be interesting if there was a part about the influence of the different stakeholders, including the risks that could occur if one or more of the stages of the analysis did not give satisfying results. If there is also available some kind of importance hierarchy among the stakeholders, depending on the the kind of the project.
 +
 +
===Answer 5===
 +
LBV: Good choice of topic
 +
 +
 +
===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? It seems that it could, once finished.
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?-
 +
 +
===Answer 6===
 +
 +
LBV: I would considerd adding a Disscussion section and simplifing "the five functions of management" section.
 +
 +
 +
 +
===Question 7 · TEXT===
 +
'''Annotated bibliography:'''
 +
 +
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Not yet.
 +
 +
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? Not yet.
 +
 +
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve? When the text is finished and the corresponding references added, it will be easy to see the sources that support the article.
 +
 +
===Answer 7===
 +
 +
LBV: There is a significant need for refercend litterature.
 +
 +
 +
 
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Kristoffer Glahn''==
 
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Kristoffer Glahn''==
 
===Question 1===
 
===Question 1===
Line 9: Line 110:
 
===Answer 1===
 
===Answer 1===
 
''The key focus of the article is clear and well explained. However the purpose of the article and the insights gained from the article could be made more explicit. ''
 
''The key focus of the article is clear and well explained. However the purpose of the article and the insights gained from the article could be made more explicit. ''
−
LBV: The article is well scoped by defining first QMS and then focusing on PCDA and the five qualities of QMS.
 
  
 
===Question 2===
 
===Question 2===
Line 27: Line 127:
 
''The argument and the logic is clear. There also seems to be a logical flow in the article. However, the article seems to be missing some parts (discussion, pros and cons, conclusion) - it will therefore be important that the flow continuous throughout these sections. ''
 
''The argument and the logic is clear. There also seems to be a logical flow in the article. However, the article seems to be missing some parts (discussion, pros and cons, conclusion) - it will therefore be important that the flow continuous throughout these sections. ''
  
−
LBV: The structure is good of the article, seemes to miss an discussion part that reflects on the theory. I would consider simplifying the five functions of QMS according to the EN-standard, the main chapther could be "Five functions of QMS according to EN-standards" and the subcategories should just be written in text.
 
 
==Question 3===
 
==Question 3===
 
'''Grammar and style:'''  
 
'''Grammar and style:'''  
Line 40: Line 139:
 
''There are some grammatical and spelling errors in some of the sections.''
 
''There are some grammatical and spelling errors in some of the sections.''
  
−
LBV: Some spelling errors, but in general the articel uses good grammer.
+
 
===Question 4===
 
===Question 4===
 
'''Figures and tables:'''  
 
'''Figures and tables:'''  
Line 53: Line 152:
 
''There are no figures or tabels yet''
 
''There are no figures or tabels yet''
  
−
LBV: N/A
+
 
  
 
===Question 5===
 
===Question 5===
Line 67: Line 166:
 
''The article seems to be very relevant and it is made clear in the article why the topic is important for projects.''
 
''The article seems to be very relevant and it is made clear in the article why the topic is important for projects.''
  
−
LBV: Good choice of topic
+
 
  
 
===Question 6===
 
===Question 6===
Line 81: Line 180:
 
''It seems to be both very interesting and relevant, however it is still missing some parts/sections''
 
''It seems to be both very interesting and relevant, however it is still missing some parts/sections''
  
−
LBV: I would considerd adding a Disscussion section and simplifing "the five functions of management" section.
 
  
 
===Question 7===
 
===Question 7===
Line 96: Line 194:
 
===Answer 7===
 
===Answer 7===
 
''There is no "Annotated bibliography" or any "References" section and so there are no citations yet.''
 
''There is no "Annotated bibliography" or any "References" section and so there are no citations yet.''
−
 
−
LBV: There is a significant need for refercend litterature.
 

Latest revision as of 11:20, 26 February 2019

Contents

[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Love Berger-Vieweg, s143883

[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

LBV: The article is well scoped by defining first QMS and then focusing on PCDA and the five qualities of QMS.


[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? It will.

Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? -

What would you suggest to improve? -

[edit] Answer 2

LBV: The structure is good of the article, seemes to miss an discussion part that reflects on the theory. I would consider simplifying the five functions of QMS according to the EN-standard, the main chapther could be "Five functions of QMS according to EN-standards" and the subcategories should just be written in text.

[edit] Question 3 · TEXT

Grammar and style:

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Yes, only one word change could be done. In the first sentence instead of externally-outside may fit better.

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes

What would you suggest to improve?-

[edit] Answer 3

LBV: Some spelling errors, but in general the articel uses good grammer.

[edit] Question 4 · TEXT

Figures and tables:

Are figures and tables clear? Not added yet

Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? -

What would you suggest to improve? -

[edit] Answer 4

LBV: N/A


[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? It would be interesting if there was a part about the influence of the different stakeholders, including the risks that could occur if one or more of the stages of the analysis did not give satisfying results. If there is also available some kind of importance hierarchy among the stakeholders, depending on the the kind of the project.

[edit] Answer 5

LBV: Good choice of topic


[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? It seems that it could, once finished.

What would you suggest to improve?-

[edit] Answer 6

LBV: I would considerd adding a Disscussion section and simplifing "the five functions of management" section.


[edit] Question 7 · TEXT

Annotated bibliography:

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Not yet.

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? Not yet.

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes

What would you suggest to improve? When the text is finished and the corresponding references added, it will be easy to see the sources that support the article.

[edit] Answer 7

LBV: There is a significant need for refercend litterature.


[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Kristoffer Glahn

[edit] Question 1

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 key focus of the article is clear and well explained. However the purpose of the article and the insights gained from the article could be made more explicit.

[edit] Question 2

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 and the logic is clear. There also seems to be a logical flow in the article. However, the article seems to be missing some parts (discussion, pros and cons, conclusion) - it will therefore be important that the flow continuous throughout these sections.

[edit] Question 3=

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

There are some grammatical and spelling errors in some of the sections.


[edit] Question 4

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

There are no figures or tabels yet


[edit] Question 5

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 seems to be very relevant and it is made clear in the article why the topic is important for projects.


[edit] Question 6

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

It seems to be both very interesting and relevant, however it is still missing some parts/sections


[edit] Question 7

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

There is no "Annotated bibliography" or any "References" section and so there are no citations yet.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php?title=Talk:Quality_Management_Systems&oldid=67245"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox