Talk:Hoshin Kanri
(Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== '''Text clarity''' Text is coherent '''Language''' Good '''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' How does this relate to project managemen...") |
|||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
<li> Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project management community more than a normal web search | <li> Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project management community more than a normal web search | ||
</ol> | </ol> | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Simen M. D. Hjelseth== | ||
| + | ===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/abstract gives a lot of information on the topic. It mentions some other methods as well, so the article is for the practical. | ||
| + | The abstract gives good information on what is going to come in the article. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | I think the logical flow of the article so far is good, and things mentioned in the abstract is explained further down. The article is free of contredictions, and explains the method. The structure with the different chapters are good. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 a few spelling mistakes, and some long sentences. In some of the paragraphs there is also a little hard to read, because there are no breaks, and several subtopics. I would recommend to look at that. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | I can see that the text “figure” are placed in the text, so it is good that there is a plan for this. A figure would often explain the method easier. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 topic is old in Asia it seems, but it doesn’t say how implemented in Europe for example. Therefore the article can be highly relevant, since other companies have used it since 1950-1960. As I see it, the article is practical relevance, and can be a really good method. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | The article is for the practitioner. Hoshin kanri appears many times in a google search, and is a known model. Still, I haven’t heard about it, so it is not known for everybody. I have not many suggestions on improvement, but maybe try to difference from all the other articles online with a other of the subject? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 article have several references, and have acknowledge previous work by quotes for example. The references are basically in one paragraph of text, so I suggest to make more as a list. Maybe use APA or IEEE for example. | ||
Revision as of 23:42, 19 February 2018
Contents |
Abstract Feedback
Text clarity Text is coherent
Language Good
Description of the tool/theory/concept How does this relate to project management rather than just organizational management or a "TEMO-style" report? This should be emphasized and clarified in the abstract
Purpose explanation This needs improvement. Consider:
- Is this related to project/program/portfolio management?
- Who is the reader? Project Manager or Sponsor ect?
- Briefly explain the structure of the article and the points to be discussed to set the reader's expectations
References Missing appropriate references to mandatory list of references
Relevance of article The reader needs to be convinced this article is relevant. Consider the following:
- What kind of issues does this concept address?
- Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project management community more than a normal web search
Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Simen M. D. Hjelseth
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/abstract gives a lot of information on the topic. It mentions some other methods as well, so the article is for the practical. The abstract gives good information on what is going to come in the article.
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
I think the logical flow of the article so far is good, and things mentioned in the abstract is explained further down. The article is free of contredictions, and explains the method. The structure with the different chapters are good.
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 a few spelling mistakes, and some long sentences. In some of the paragraphs there is also a little hard to read, because there are no breaks, and several subtopics. I would recommend to look at that.
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
I can see that the text “figure” are placed in the text, so it is good that there is a plan for this. A figure would often explain the method easier.
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 topic is old in Asia it seems, but it doesn’t say how implemented in Europe for example. Therefore the article can be highly relevant, since other companies have used it since 1950-1960. As I see it, the article is practical relevance, and can be a really good method.
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
The article is for the practitioner. Hoshin kanri appears many times in a google search, and is a known model. Still, I haven’t heard about it, so it is not known for everybody. I have not many suggestions on improvement, but maybe try to difference from all the other articles online with a other of the subject?
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 article have several references, and have acknowledge previous work by quotes for example. The references are basically in one paragraph of text, so I suggest to make more as a list. Maybe use APA or IEEE for example.
