Talk:Risk Management Overview
| Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | + | Very good writing! I noticed some minor spelling errors and few examples of unnecessary fill words. See here below some examples: | |
"Naturally the Impact/Probability for the inherent risk should be '''grater''' or equal to the ratings in the residual" -> Naturally''',''' the Impact/Probability for the inherent risk should be '''greater''' or equal to the ratings in the residual" | "Naturally the Impact/Probability for the inherent risk should be '''grater''' or equal to the ratings in the residual" -> Naturally''',''' the Impact/Probability for the inherent risk should be '''greater''' or equal to the ratings in the residual" | ||
| Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
" however, some '''matrices''' also have a 4. level very high" -> " however, some '''matrixes''' also have a 4. level very high" | " however, some '''matrices''' also have a 4. level very high" -> " however, some '''matrixes''' also have a 4. level very high" | ||
| + | |||
| + | "the cost of treating the risk should be evaluated and compared '''whit potentially''' loss by risk." -> "the cost of treating the risk should be evaluated and compared '''with a potential''' loss by risk." | ||
| + | |||
| + | "'''Enventhoug''' risk management naturally" ->"'''Even though''' risk management naturally" | ||
In few cases, you write "a risk" when it's supposed to be just "risk". I would suggest that you look into that :) | In few cases, you write "a risk" when it's supposed to be just "risk". I would suggest that you look into that :) | ||
| Line 83: | Line 87: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | + | The figures are very good and I think they are well described and supported by the text. One idea is to add one extra figure, which you create yourself, in the "Risk Management" section relating to the bullets listed in the "Risk management in different industries" section. Just an idea :) | |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
Revision as of 21:03, 19 February 2018
Contents |
Abstract Feedback
Text clarity Text is coherent
Language Good
Description of the tool/theory/concept Very thoroughly explained and good momentum
Purpose explanation Well addressed, perhaps expand on whether or not the Risk Management Process applies more to a specific industry? E.g. Oil and Gas where risk is a serious topic (DONE)
References Good references. Look at chapter 11 in PMBOK to include further references related to risk in project management context (DONE)
Relevance of article Very relevant but consider to:
- Ensure that the risk management process concept explanation is embedded in a project management context
- Avoid focusing too much on risk management from an organizational/operational perspective, but more project managerial, e.g. don't talk about carrying out a risk assessment for operating an oil rig (DONE?)
- Consult chapter 11 in PMBOK for inspiration (DONE)
- Consult with Josef if in doubt as he is very knowledgeable about project risk management
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Briet
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
The abstract is very clear and concise. I like the fact that you mentioned that the article would only focus on the risks/threats and not the opportunities, which makes the direction of the article clear. I would maybe suggest that you move this last sentence higher in the paragraph just to make it transparent from the beginning what direction you are going for.
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
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
Very good writing! I noticed some minor spelling errors and few examples of unnecessary fill words. See here below some examples:
"Naturally the Impact/Probability for the inherent risk should be grater or equal to the ratings in the residual" -> Naturally, the Impact/Probability for the inherent risk should be greater or equal to the ratings in the residual"
"The treatment of risks can consist of adding additional resources (manpower, budget) into the schedule." -> "The treatment of risks can consist of adding additional resources (workforce, budget) into the schedule."
"The identification of risk is a repeatable process since new risks can change through its life or new risks are discovered." ->"The identification of risk is a repeatable process since new risks can change its life or new risks are discovered."
"making contracts with service providers or buying a insurance that covers that risk." -> "making contracts with service providers or buying insurance that covers that risk."
"However identifications are only the first step" -> "However identifications are only the first steps"
" however, some matrices also have a 4. level very high" -> " however, some matrixes also have a 4. level very high"
"the cost of treating the risk should be evaluated and compared whit potentially loss by risk." -> "the cost of treating the risk should be evaluated and compared with a potential loss by risk."
"Enventhoug risk management naturally" ->"Even though risk management naturally"
In few cases, you write "a risk" when it's supposed to be just "risk". I would suggest that you look into that :)
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
The figures are very good and I think they are well described and supported by the text. One idea is to add one extra figure, which you create yourself, in the "Risk Management" section relating to the bullets listed in the "Risk management in different industries" section. Just an idea :)
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
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
The Literature including the references is very good and organized. I don't have any suggestions for improvements. Although, I think Literature is spelled like this rather than Litterature :)
