Talk:Risk management in industry 4.0
Sunebaldus (Talk | contribs) (Created page with "==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Sune Baldus''== ===Question 1 · TEXT=== '''Quality of the summary:''' Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of th...") |
|||
| Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | |||
The concept of risk management in Industry 4.0 is definitely relevant, but the vast amount of explanation of Industry 4.0 seems a little off, for both professionals and academics, since it is assumable that they know about it. It kinda drags away the focus from the risk management-part that is the super interesting part. | The concept of risk management in Industry 4.0 is definitely relevant, but the vast amount of explanation of Industry 4.0 seems a little off, for both professionals and academics, since it is assumable that they know about it. It kinda drags away the focus from the risk management-part that is the super interesting part. | ||
| Line 115: | Line 114: | ||
I would definitely make a bibliography. I do not suppose you disagree with me. | I would definitely make a bibliography. I do not suppose you disagree with me. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Steffen Hansen''== | ||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Pretty good summary of whats in the article. I do feel that the article needs some key things (references, more focus on risk in a project context e.g)'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 really think you should be aware that the article needs to be about a project management aspect. You are talking a lot about general management enterprises and risk management in enterprises.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''The article doesn't seem to follow the structure the teacher presented, maybe that's okay maybe not. I would ask the teacher if you're not already sure it's ok.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 some grammatical errors, and every-day language. Also spelling mistakes here and there. Otherwise excellent english'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Cant see the figures and tables'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Again, not a single reference, which gives it no academic relevance. It's a good article but i think this is really a problem in the teachers eyes.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''"First, a considerable amount of scientific literature arguing for the ISO 31000 is outdated" should really gives some source to back this up. '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''I would have more focus on finding other peoples research on the topic and then present that to the reader with careful citation. That's how Wiki articles are made.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''No annotated bibliography'' | ||
Latest revision as of 17:43, 25 February 2019
Contents |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Sune Baldus
[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
Answer here
To some extent. It revolves mainly around Industry 4.0, leaving two lines on what risk management is, and what the article is about. I would elaborate more on the Risk management itself, and the insights gained from the article. Also, I would make some references.
[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
Answer here
First, the background-section is very elaborative of Industry 4.0. It refers to non-existing figures (suppose they will come later).
Then the article changes it focus to risk management, but only four bullets are used to explain risk management, and then eight lines are used to criticize an ISO-standard of some kind.
The Structure-chapter could need some refining. It is very densely written with a lot of data and expressions – it suffers a lot from the lack of elaboration in the background section. Also, the bullet-points does not work in the formatting. Figures would create some sort of overview.
Ironically, the chapter does not present a clear structure of how to implement risk management, but I do see that it is where you are heading. you could make it a short action-plan, with the steps in the process.
Add references as well.
[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
Answer here
Well, the bullet points do not work in this formatting. The language is very precise, without severe spelling errors.
Use this page to find the codes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Cheatsheet
[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
Answer here
Figures and table could for sure be used to summarize key points – especially in the structure-chapter, a graphical presentation could be useful.
[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 concept of risk management in Industry 4.0 is definitely relevant, but the vast amount of explanation of Industry 4.0 seems a little off, for both professionals and academics, since it is assumable that they know about it. It kinda drags away the focus from the risk management-part that is the super interesting part.
[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
Answer here
A hands-on guideline and structure would improve the article. Since there is no figures and references now, it does not contribute with a lot, but it is an interesting topic for a manager within the Risk-area, so consider add a focus on what makes risk management in Industry 4.0 unique compared to risk management in general.
[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
Answer here
I would definitely make a bibliography. I do not suppose you disagree with me.
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Steffen Hansen
[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
Pretty good summary of whats in the article. I do feel that the article needs some key things (references, more focus on risk in a project context e.g)
[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
I really think you should be aware that the article needs to be about a project management aspect. You are talking a lot about general management enterprises and risk management in enterprises.
The article doesn't seem to follow the structure the teacher presented, maybe that's okay maybe not. I would ask the teacher if you're not already sure it's ok.
[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 some grammatical errors, and every-day language. Also spelling mistakes here and there. Otherwise excellent english
[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
Cant see the figures and tables
[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
Again, not a single reference, which gives it no academic relevance. It's a good article but i think this is really a problem in the teachers eyes.
[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
"First, a considerable amount of scientific literature arguing for the ISO 31000 is outdated" should really gives some source to back this up.
I would have more focus on finding other peoples research on the topic and then present that to the reader with careful citation. That's how Wiki articles are made.
[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
No annotated bibliography
