Talk:Project Team Roles and Responsibilities

Revision as of 23:00, 19 February 2018

Text clarity The text sounds coherent, but there's room for improvement (see below)

Language Can be improved - e.g. "Hiring and involving in a project a right people..." should be changed to "Hiring and involving the right people in a project..." Try to read the abstract over again

Description of the tool/theory/concept Good, but correcting the language will enhance understanding of the theory/concept

Purpose explanation Well addressed (e.g. industry), but who is your reader? Is it the project manager? Does this apply to small, medium or large projects? (see section under "General")

Title of the Wiki Good title

References Good reference to PMBOK. Try to think of other relevant mandatory references that are appropriate to use here (but only if it makes sense to do so)

General I like the experimentation with the Youtube video, however I personally wouldn't recommend using them. They're something that can easily be searched online. The article should make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search. Also, does the article apply for small, medium or large project? E.g. for larger projects it would be relevant to discuss project team organizational chart (as also mentioned in the video). May be consider writing about work package owners too under "Standard Project Team roles and responsibilities?"

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Susan Tyrell

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 abstract is clear and marks the boundaries that the article is going to address. I recommend to explain a bit more about, why is importance thought the project life cycle?

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 logic and cover the main idea of the article, I will suggest maybe to eliminate the summary. The discussion section, maybe will be enough to understand the overall purpose for the article

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

The grammar is clear and understandable

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

Figure 1, it needs to be referenced in the text (Introduction to Project Human Resource Management)

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 has a practical and academic relevance, since it talks about the human factor and how it affects this role and refers to tools and techniques that support this behavior in a project

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

It is an interesting article and understanding the Project Team roles and responsibilities it will add value to the upcoming team work.

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

Background section: I recommend to add the references for the Total Project Cost, since is referring to amounts and I will add the Project Team definition