Talk:Dealing with conflict in project management

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Abstract Feedback)
Line 22: Line 22:
 
   <li> Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project/program/portfolio management community more than a normal web search
 
   <li> Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project/program/portfolio management community more than a normal web search
 
</ol>
 
</ol>
 +
 +
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Piotr''==
 +
===Question 1 · TEXT===
 +
'''Quality of the summary:''' Good
 +
 +
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
===Answer 1===
 +
Yes, nothing.
 +
 +
===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===
 +
Yes, Yes the flow is very logical. Yes and yes.
 +
 +
===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===
 +
I haven't spot any errors and I believe that its pretty precise. I don't believe there is much room for improvement.
 +
 +
===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===
 +
Yes, Yes, the figures give a ver good insight on what the article will handle and what are the relationships between different sections.
 +
Nothing to improve
 +
 +
===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===
 +
I believe it is relevant, especially  for our group project.
 +
Yes, it is made in the abstract.
 +
Nothing
 +
 +
===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===
 +
Yes, yes, nothing.
 +
 +
===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===
 +
Yes, yes, yes
 +
I think you should try to add some references to the compulsory readings.
 +
 +
==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Place your name here''==
 +
===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===
 +
''Answer here''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Answer here''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Answer here''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Answer here''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Answer here''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Answer here''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Answer here''

Revision as of 15:17, 18 February 2018

Contents

Abstract Feedback

Text clarity Good

Language Good

Description of the tool/theory/concept Relatively easy to grasp, but work still needs to be done to explain conflict in the context of project management to ensure reader understanding

Purpose explanation Abstract is too short and can be improved:

  1. Who is the reader? Project manager or any project team member?
  2. What will the reader learn/get out of reading the article?
  3. Briefly describe the structure of the article in the abstract to set reader expectations once there is a clearer picture of the article content

References Missing appropriate references to mandatory list of references

Relevance of article It is relevant. Consider the following:

  1. Try to link it to a knowledge area of project management (if that is the direction) e.g. Project Human Resource Management
  2. Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project/program/portfolio management community more than a normal web search

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Piotr

Question 1 · TEXT

Quality of the summary: Good

Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 1

Yes, nothing.

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

Yes, Yes the flow is very logical. Yes and yes.

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

I haven't spot any errors and I believe that its pretty precise. I don't believe there is much room for improvement.

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

Yes, Yes, the figures give a ver good insight on what the article will handle and what are the relationships between different sections. Nothing to improve

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

I believe it is relevant, especially for our group project. Yes, it is made in the abstract. Nothing

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

Yes, yes, nothing.

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

Yes, yes, yes I think you should try to add some references to the compulsory readings.

Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Place your name here

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

Answer here

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

Answer here

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

Answer here

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

Answer here

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

Answer here

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

Answer here

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

Answer here

Retrieved from "http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php?title=Talk:Dealing_with_conflict_in_project_management&oldid=50536"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox