Talk:Value proposition canvas

Latest revision as of 18:38, 19 February 2018

[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Julie

[edit] Question 1 · TEXT

NOTE: only abstract was visible when giving feedback on Monday 19th.

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?

Key focus is clearly on value proposition canvas. However, the 2nd part of summary begins to describe the canvas into detail. Maybe this part should move a little further down in article? Instead, a suggestion is to be more general, summarizing points/insights in this part.

[edit] Answer 1

Answer here

[edit] Question 2 · TEXT

Structure and logic of the article:

Is the argument clear? Yes

Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes

Does one part build upon the other? N/A

Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? Yes

What would you suggest to improve? - Make a part early in the article explaining the whole canvas - Use examples to bridge the gap between theory and practice - Be critical towards the method and look into who/what kind of project this is really valuable for

[edit] Answer 2

Answer here

[edit] Question 3 · TEXT

Grammar and style:

Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Yes

Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes

What would you suggest to improve? I would avoid using "pain" and "gain". If you want to include this, then I suggest to elaborate this. What is it that a customer avoids when "how the products aid their customers and relieve them of their ‘pain’"?

[edit] Answer 3

Answer here

[edit] Question 4 · TEXT

Figures and tables:

Are figures and tables clear? Yes

Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? Yes

What would you suggest to improve? The figure in text now is as it should be :-)

[edit] Answer 4

Answer here

[edit] Question 5 · TEXT

Interest and relevance:

Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? Yes especially if it bridges the gap between practical and academics, then it could be useful in a project.

Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? Not yet.

What would you suggest to improve? Write the rest of the article.

[edit] Answer 5

Answer here

[edit] Question 6 · TEXT

Depth of treatment:

Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes

Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? Not yet.

What would you suggest to improve? As mentioned before: - bridge gap between practical and academics - be critical

And - focus on management

[edit] Answer 6

Answer here

[edit] Question 7 · TEXT

Annotated bibliography:

Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? No

Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? Yes

Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes

What would you suggest to improve? Look at slides regarding annotated bibliograpy

[edit] Answer 7

Answer here

[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Mehdi

NOTE: only abstract was visible when giving feedback on Monday 19th.

[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 is very clear and straightforward. I would add a brief summary of how the article will unfold.

[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

The abstract is clear and understandable.

[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

I would avoid using the word "pain" and find a more professionnal word.

[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

The figure illustrates clearly the canvas.

[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

With few knowledge on the subject, it seems to me to be relevant and could be used by professionals.

[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

[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

References are cited