Talk:Project governance framework

Revision as of 11:30, 19 February 2018

Abstract Feedback

Text clarity Text is coherent

Language Good

Description of the tool/theory/concept Great and easy to follow

Purpose explanation Well addressed and particularly like the comparison of the different perspectives of a framework. Consider briefly explaining the structure of the article in the abstract

References Good

Relevance of article Relevant and good structure so far. Don't forget to include a section on "limitations" of the framework

Feedback 1| Reviewer name: Julia Hösel

Question 1

Quality of the summary:

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 1

The abstract summarizes the article well. It is good to get an overview of the article and about the content. I would only add one little thing. You are talking about a guide of APM and also a paper. I would also put in the title of these sources to give some background information.

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?

Answer 2

What is written until now, the structure and the flow make sense to me. You guide the reader through the aspects of project governance. The point I am missing are examples of how project governance could look like. Until now it's a lot of theories which you put together and which you reflect - what is also quite interesting - but still, I don't know how it is implemented into the company. Which roles are involved? Is there any specific department that defines. implements and controls project governance?

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?

Answer 3

I really like your style of writing. You use appropriate language. There are some little grammar mistakes and word repetitions in the sentences which can easily be solved.

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?

Answer 4

The pictured added into the article matches with the discussed topic. It's not clear to which chapter it contributes. You should refer to it.

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?

Answer 5

Until this state of the article, it is difficult to say. In my opinion, it gives a good overview of the topic itself but it also depends on how it is further written. I would support to go into one special direction. I saw your bullet points and it seems you want to reflect all project governance theories? Maybe I would select two and compare them with each other more detailed.

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?

Answer 6

The article is useful for academic reasons because there are no processes or practicable guidelines mentioned. As I was mentioning before I would go more in detail.

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?

Answer 7

All of them give valid sources and in my opinion no need to change.