Talk:Stakeholder Analysis
From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Murcs== | ==Murcs== | ||
| − | + | ==General== | |
* I can see that you are well on your way and that the content is interesting, but that there is still some work to do. | * I can see that you are well on your way and that the content is interesting, but that there is still some work to do. | ||
| − | + | '''Formal:''' | |
* I can see that you have been using the referencing correctly, but you are still missing some references to other peoples wiki articles for example SWOT | * I can see that you have been using the referencing correctly, but you are still missing some references to other peoples wiki articles for example SWOT | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
* You have only used around 1500 words so you still have plenty to finish your article | * You have only used around 1500 words so you still have plenty to finish your article | ||
| − | + | '''Content:''' | |
| + | |||
* You can maybe make clear what shareholder, key stakeholder or CSR is either by referencing to it somewhere else or maybe writing about it. | * You can maybe make clear what shareholder, key stakeholder or CSR is either by referencing to it somewhere else or maybe writing about it. | ||
* I think that you have made some good visualizations that are coherent in color and are well described, do you maybe have a suggestion on a way of vizualizing a 2D mapping? Or a reference? | * I think that you have made some good visualizations that are coherent in color and are well described, do you maybe have a suggestion on a way of vizualizing a 2D mapping? Or a reference? | ||
Revision as of 16:57, 25 November 2014
Contents |
Murcs
General
- I can see that you are well on your way and that the content is interesting, but that there is still some work to do.
Formal:
- I can see that you have been using the referencing correctly, but you are still missing some references to other peoples wiki articles for example SWOT
- There are some spelling mistakes and some grammar mistakes, maybe by adding your text to word you can find some of them
- I think the structure looks pretty good but maybe you should have the introduction above the content list and background inbetween introduction and process and move the benefits down?
- You have only used around 1500 words so you still have plenty to finish your article
Content:
- You can maybe make clear what shareholder, key stakeholder or CSR is either by referencing to it somewhere else or maybe writing about it.
- I think that you have made some good visualizations that are coherent in color and are well described, do you maybe have a suggestion on a way of vizualizing a 2D mapping? Or a reference?
- I like that yo have used some examples like the metro station, maybe you have some more
- Should possibly specify if stakeholder analysis can be used for project, program and portfolio.
- I think you are on your way to creating an informative wiki article, if there is time and you would like then I can maybe have a look at it again when you are done. I will come back and check the discussion to see what you think, hope some of the feedback was useful.
fra johnjohn
General comments
Content:
- Interesting content, as a practitioner it is interesting to get an overview of the concept.
- The relation to project management could be underlined. Maybe discuss its relevance relative to project, program and portfolio management?
- References seem substantiated by relevant literature? I does not seem like copy paste
Formal:
- Spelling is overall ok
- References are ok and relevant, and the formatting of them complies with the wiki standards.
- I like the precise language and short sentences, but language could be more engaging.
- Figures are ok and especially in the Mapping section should the support the explanation of the methods.
Comments for content in each section
Content:
- I like that you try to keep it short and precise, but I do miss that the parts are writing in a more fluent language. I could also miss the red thread in the article, and what it actually aims for. I summary in the beginning stating aim and type of article could help this..
Introduction:
- You say that it is important to distinguish stakeholder and shareholder. Make you could explain the difference?
- Nice with the stakeholder definition from the standard. Maybe you could give examples of a stakeholder, and link it to your figure? Maybe simply say, that a stakeholder can be ”customer”, ”employee”. I know you do this under the process section, so maybe you can just refer to that section.
Benefits:
- Who is Zhang? And why are his opinion especially important?
- What you state here is why you should make a stakeholder analysis
- I think it is a good idea to give a teaser to why a stakeholder analysis are relevant to you. I however find it a bit distracting from the flow in the article that it is in the begining.. maybe you could sum it up later in the article..
- Maybe the headline should be ”Why do a stakeholder analysis?”
Background
- I am wondering who Dodd is, and why he is important?
- Maybe you could mention the theorists background, that you refer to?
- I really like the coca-cola reference.
- This section is a bit abrupt and short, I miss the language her to be more fluent.. even though I like that you keep it shout and keep to the facts.
Process
- I like the point wise go-through and the process
- The concept of ”key stakeholder” could be elaborated on.
- Maybe the SWOT-analysis should have its own sub-headline? Just a suggestion for intriguing the reader
Mapping stakeholders:
- I like the why section
- You give a good overview of power/interest diagram
- The other topics of the mapping diagrams seems interesting and relevant. Will you compare them and make recommendations on when to use what diagram?
Challenges and uncertainty
- I like the points you state in this section, they are highly relevant.
- Maybe you could also conclude consideration on how to scope your stakeholder analysis. How to frame it? Maybe demarcation of what stakeholders to include? And non the less you to exclude/leave out?
