Talk:Project scope statement
(→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Nikolaj Justsen) |
(→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Nikolaj Justsen) |
||
| Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
'''Interest and relevance:''' | '''Interest and relevance:''' | ||
| − | Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? | + | Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? |
| + | |||
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? | Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? | ||
| Line 86: | Line 87: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| + | Very good relevance both for practical and acedemic relevance. | ||
| + | The article is clear on why this topic is so important when doing projects. | ||
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 98: | Line 101: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | + | ||
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
Revision as of 16:32, 19 February 2018
Contents |
Abstract Feedback
Text clarity Text is coherent
Language Good
Description of the tool/theory/concept Good, but I wouldn't say scope management is a tool. It's an output of scope planning and input to scope definition (look at chapter 5 in PMBOK). Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) is an example of a tool in scope definition
Purpose explanation Well addressed
References Good
Relevance of article Very relevant. I would keep in mind the following:
- Consider combining WBS with scope statement if it makes sense in the article
- Consider exploring the relationship between scope statement and scope creep if it makes sense in the article
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Nikolaj Justsen
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
Good summary, makes good focus on the key points. gives a good understanding of what the reader can expect through 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
- good and clear argument on why this i important
- Logical flow through the article, where each part build upon the other.
- consistent and good arguments.
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
Good language, small amount of fill words, makes it easy t read.
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
No tables. and the one figure that there is refered too, is not uploaded.
Mayby use some tables to list up some of your arguments. and figures to illustrate the flows yours are talking about.
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
Very good relevance both for practical and acedemic relevance.
The article is clear on why this topic is so important when doing projects.
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
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
