Talk:Belbin Team Roles
(→Abstract Feedback) |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget to elaborate and describe the relevance for a Project Manager. | In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget to elaborate and describe the relevance for a Project Manager. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Christian Deverell Pedersen''== | ||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''The summary is not long enough. Assuming it will be elaborated once the article is completed, you should try to answer the following questions; 1. Purpose of the article should be more concrete than: describe and discuss. The purpose is to explain the importance of team roles and how to apply them in project management. 2. Explain the problem, why do we need this? 3. Your methods. Relating the problem to course material. 4. The results. Does this article help managers?'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 structure is the recommended one. The argument is clear about creating or picking an optimal team. Are we assigning team roles to a given set of people? Are we creating a team from a large pool of people? Are we recruiting people externally, i.e. job opening for resource investigator? Try to answer all the questions who, when, where, why, how? This should help your article to remain cohesive. There may be one contradiction in that my understanding is that Belbin is NOT a personality test, only a behavioral one. This distinction is important, as most of the criticism of Belbin relates to how the roles simply do not coincide with The Big Five personality theory. The leading theory in the field. Also mentioned is that personality is expected to remain constant which I do not agree with, so please explain this more in depth.” | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''There are several typos. You should have me correct your article once it’s finished. The price is one beer. Also, you shouldn’t write most optimal. The word optimal already implies it’s the best, so most is redundant. Otherwise you have a precise and easy to read writing style.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''The figures and tables are clear. However, each figure should be numbered and captioned as well as cited in the text. It’s easy to see how by looking at some other articles.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''The article needs much more depth currently. It is mentioned but not clear why the article is relevant. Why do we need Belbin? Please mention alternative team role inventories as well. Also, I am looking forward to reading about limitations because I believe Belbin to be an outdated and super expensive product. Yes, teams are important, but looking at teambuilding as a whole, there is much more to it, than Belbin’s simple test.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''No significant contribution yet. I think if you could relate Belbin to the reference material it will be a great article. I assume this is where you are stuck in writing your article. If you look at the PRINCE2 reference material, and search for team structure, you should find a lot of information about roles and whatnot. You’ve got to be able to link that somehow.” | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''The references do not contain enough information. The annotated bibliography is coming later. I would be careful citing too much from Belbin’s website as they are trying to sell a product and are therefore not really academic. Finally, you can refer to the same reference multiple times so you don’t have duplicates in your references. Good luck Chuck!'' | ||
Latest revision as of 21:10, 19 February 2018
Contents |
[edit] Abstract Feedback
Text Clarity; Ok.
Language; Ok, try to use more an academic language.
References; missing one more reference
In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget to elaborate and describe the relevance for a Project Manager.
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Christian Deverell Pedersen
[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 not long enough. Assuming it will be elaborated once the article is completed, you should try to answer the following questions; 1. Purpose of the article should be more concrete than: describe and discuss. The purpose is to explain the importance of team roles and how to apply them in project management. 2. Explain the problem, why do we need this? 3. Your methods. Relating the problem to course material. 4. The results. Does this article help managers?
[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 structure is the recommended one. The argument is clear about creating or picking an optimal team. Are we assigning team roles to a given set of people? Are we creating a team from a large pool of people? Are we recruiting people externally, i.e. job opening for resource investigator? Try to answer all the questions who, when, where, why, how? This should help your article to remain cohesive. There may be one contradiction in that my understanding is that Belbin is NOT a personality test, only a behavioral one. This distinction is important, as most of the criticism of Belbin relates to how the roles simply do not coincide with The Big Five personality theory. The leading theory in the field. Also mentioned is that personality is expected to remain constant which I do not agree with, so please explain this more in depth.”
[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
There are several typos. You should have me correct your article once it’s finished. The price is one beer. Also, you shouldn’t write most optimal. The word optimal already implies it’s the best, so most is redundant. Otherwise you have a precise and easy to read writing style.
[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
The figures and tables are clear. However, each figure should be numbered and captioned as well as cited in the text. It’s easy to see how by looking at some other articles.
[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 needs much more depth currently. It is mentioned but not clear why the article is relevant. Why do we need Belbin? Please mention alternative team role inventories as well. Also, I am looking forward to reading about limitations because I believe Belbin to be an outdated and super expensive product. Yes, teams are important, but looking at teambuilding as a whole, there is much more to it, than Belbin’s simple test.
[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
No significant contribution yet. I think if you could relate Belbin to the reference material it will be a great article. I assume this is where you are stuck in writing your article. If you look at the PRINCE2 reference material, and search for team structure, you should find a lot of information about roles and whatnot. You’ve got to be able to link that somehow.”
[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
The references do not contain enough information. The annotated bibliography is coming later. I would be careful citing too much from Belbin’s website as they are trying to sell a product and are therefore not really academic. Finally, you can refer to the same reference multiple times so you don’t have duplicates in your references. Good luck Chuck!
