Talk:Resource allocation and crashing

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| Ok but could be more clear |- |'''Language'''|| OK but a few misspellings. |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''...")
 
Line 19: Line 19:
 
You mention that you will describe three techniques. Remember it is better to describe fewer things in depth than a lot superficially.  
 
You mention that you will describe three techniques. Remember it is better to describe fewer things in depth than a lot superficially.  
 
|}
 
|}
 +
 +
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Jack Frain''==
 +
===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===
 +
'Well written article and I enjoyed reading the abstract. Not very long but concise. You have not finished the article yet so I cannot comment too much. I would add a few more sections especially with crashing the project, explain the limitations of doing so and of each step. Figure 6 could also be more concise 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===
 +
Good structure and easy to read. Has a good logical flow with no contradictions as far as I could see. Not a lot to improve here apart from adding a few more sections.
 +
 +
===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 grammar, apart from a few instances where you write 'she' for the project manager such as 'For a project manager to crash a project most efficiently, she can follow the steps shown below '. Remember it can be a he or she.
 +
 +
===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===
 +
Figures are clear but they need to have a little more explanation of each one along with a reference and a little longer caption. Figure 1, 2 and 3 probably could be put into one image or have text in-between them all. Hard to understand why you need them all.
 +
 +
===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===
 +
Interesting topic with a high academic relevance but I think that you could have explained in more detail why resource allocation and crashing is important within projects, programs or portfolios.
 +
 +
===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===
 +
Not sure that you have gone into depth enough with a lot of the topics. The article is clearly not finished but I would add more to the Steps section to summarise why it is useful to have and a better introduction too.
 +
 +
===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===
 +
A good comprehensive annotated bibliography although the second one needs to be referenced instead of linked. Do not think you need to add anything here, just a couple more if possible.

Revision as of 18:22, 23 February 2019

Contents

Feedback on Abstract:

Text clarity Ok but could be more clear
Language OK but a few misspellings.
Description of the tool/theory/concept Could be more clear
Purpose explanation Good
Title of the Wiki Good
Relevance to curriculum Relevant
References Remember to make correct references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references
Other It is good that you limit to project management.

You mention that you will describe three techniques. Remember it is better to describe fewer things in depth than a lot superficially.

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Jack Frain

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

'Well written article and I enjoyed reading the abstract. Not very long but concise. You have not finished the article yet so I cannot comment too much. I would add a few more sections especially with crashing the project, explain the limitations of doing so and of each step. Figure 6 could also be more concise 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

Good structure and easy to read. Has a good logical flow with no contradictions as far as I could see. Not a lot to improve here apart from adding a few more sections.

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 grammar, apart from a few instances where you write 'she' for the project manager such as 'For a project manager to crash a project most efficiently, she can follow the steps shown below '. Remember it can be a he or she.

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

Figures are clear but they need to have a little more explanation of each one along with a reference and a little longer caption. Figure 1, 2 and 3 probably could be put into one image or have text in-between them all. Hard to understand why you need them all.

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

Interesting topic with a high academic relevance but I think that you could have explained in more detail why resource allocation and crashing is important within projects, programs or portfolios.

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

Not sure that you have gone into depth enough with a lot of the topics. The article is clearly not finished but I would add more to the Steps section to summarise why it is useful to have and a better introduction too.

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

A good comprehensive annotated bibliography although the second one needs to be referenced instead of linked. Do not think you need to add anything here, just a couple more if possible.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php?title=Talk:Resource_allocation_and_crashing&oldid=65995"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox