Talk:Coaching - Project Manager as Change Agent
Malthemuff (Talk | contribs) (→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Place your name here) |
|||
| Line 109: | Line 109: | ||
''As mentioned above, I am not sure if you should refer to a book in the text. If you wish you wish to do this, I suggest you refer to the Project Management Institute instead or find an article stating the same and then refer to the author of the article '' | ''As mentioned above, I am not sure if you should refer to a book in the text. If you wish you wish to do this, I suggest you refer to the Project Management Institute instead or find an article stating the same and then refer to the author of the article '' | ||
| − | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: '' | + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Nina Bernhoft''== |
===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Quality of the summary:''' | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| Line 118: | Line 118: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The introduction/abstract sets a good frame for the subject, but there could be a more direct "tone" as "this article will investigate" or "this focus will be discussed" so that you as a reader knows the key focus in the article'' |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 134: | Line 134: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''There is good logic through the article, but it can be a little confusing with limitations placed twice in the article.'' |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 146: | Line 146: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Good language. Be careful with long sentences and with making some text bold, because it can be a little confusing for the reader.'' |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 158: | Line 158: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Figures are fine, but I think you should comment/ connect your text a little more to them if possible (as you have done with figure 2 "Apply Change Agent mindset ")'' |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 170: | Line 170: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''A very interesting topic to choose! It also addresses a topic that academically discusses the different methods and approaches. It could be more clear who you as the writer want to write this for (if that makes sense)'' |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 182: | Line 182: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''In the first section "Interpersonal skills and competencies of a Project Manager" you put some words in the end in '''bold''', which can confuse the reader (are whose key-words, are they going to be explained further). |
| + | |||
| + | You are very critical and discuss along the way in the article which for me defines depth, so that I think you succeed very well with.'' | ||
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 196: | Line 198: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Very nice!'' |
Latest revision as of 16:43, 19 February 2018
Contents |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Malthe Muff
[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
The summary covers the content of the article and gives a good understanding of the what to expect in the article. It is, however, a rather long text, breaking it down into smaller text pieces with some bullet points or adding some small headlines, could improve the reading experience. The need/ importance of coahing, could be a bit more explicit to get the readers attention from the start.
[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 don't have much to say about the logic of the article, it makes good sense to first introduce all the different concepts and end by discussing, what to consider when coaching its weaknesses.
In the beginning of the article, it would make sense to have a small definition of a project manager and the project managers role/ responsibility to ensure the reader is correctly informed about this.
[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
The language in the text is good. Below are some suggestions for improvements.
Instead of writing his/ her, replace it by "project manager" or rephrase the sentence so writing his/ her is not necessary. This will also make it more explicit who you are referring to. In the lack of attention part. It would make sense to use the word risk rather than possibility, to imprecise mismatch of expectations is a negative thing.
In the longer segments such as "Apply different intervening modes for facilitating change" try to use the level headlines, I think it will improve the structure of the text. See the help phane for tips.
I am not sure about this, so maybe ask the Ta's, but hence it is a Wiki article, I don't know if it makes sense to refer to the PMBOK in the text. This could be replaced by using additional references. Instead, I would just write the statements and put in references where it is necessary, as the reader of a wiki article most likely is not familiar with our curriculum.
In the "In a specific context" section, there are three sentences in a row starting with "In a business context", it could improve the lanauage to change this
Try to remove all neccessary fill words. Example: "Due to the fact that coaching in its origin was applied in a personal context..." Could just be "Coaching in its origin was applied in a personal context.." I also think this makes the formulation stronger.
[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
Figures are nice and it is good they have the same style the whole way through. You could consider making a figure for the "Apply different intervening modes for facilitating change" part as wel or breake it into some bullets.
[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
Highly relevant topic and the theoretical content is explained nicely and supported by giving it context to a specific situation.
If you make an intro to the project managers role and responsibility, it would make sense to link this to the relevance of this topic.
[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
The article covers a lot in regards to coaching and I would say it is aimed towards the academic reader, as a lot of concepts are used without being introduced. This makes it possible to cover a lot of stuff in the article, but it will also make it difficult for a person without prior knowledge about projects and project management to follow the article. In this context, where the receivers are university students, I think it is fine not to explain every single technical term/ concept used in the article.
[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
As mentioned above, I am not sure if you should refer to a book in the text. If you wish you wish to do this, I suggest you refer to the Project Management Institute instead or find an article stating the same and then refer to the author of the article
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Nina Bernhoft
[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
The introduction/abstract sets a good frame for the subject, but there could be a more direct "tone" as "this article will investigate" or "this focus will be discussed" so that you as a reader knows the key focus in the article
[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
There is good logic through the article, but it can be a little confusing with limitations placed twice in the article.
[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
Good language. Be careful with long sentences and with making some text bold, because it can be a little confusing for the reader.
[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
Figures are fine, but I think you should comment/ connect your text a little more to them if possible (as you have done with figure 2 "Apply Change Agent mindset ")
[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
A very interesting topic to choose! It also addresses a topic that academically discusses the different methods and approaches. It could be more clear who you as the writer want to write this for (if that makes sense)
[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
In the first section "Interpersonal skills and competencies of a Project Manager" you put some words in the end in bold, which can confuse the reader (are whose key-words, are they going to be explained further).
You are very critical and discuss along the way in the article which for me defines depth, so that I think you succeed very well with.
[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
Very nice!
[edit] Abstract Feedback
Text Clarity; Ok.
Language; Ok.
References; Ok.
The abstract sounds suggestive.
As it is mentioned in the abstract it will be interesting to revise other aspects different from the "traditional skills" and explore this other "soft skills", since the objective of a PM is to achieve high performance of their teams, I would like to suggest you to check some ideas that I think are all related:(1) High Performance Teams, (2) Project governance, (3) Self-manged work teams, (4) Teams motivation.
When developing the article don't forget to elaborate and emphasize the relevance for a Project Manager.
