Talk:Value Canvas in Projects
(Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| Good but could be more concise |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Ok |- |'''Explanation of the purpose of th...") |
(→Feedback on Abstract) |
||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
|} | |} | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Signe Bjerrum''== | ||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | '' | ||
| + | Short and precise and sums up what the article is about - However I would suggest to be more specific about how this relates to PPP-management? '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''The logic and flow makes sense. A headline like "About Value canvas" or something like that would be great and then have the two subsections about "Customer Map" and "Value Map" included in that. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Make the numbers in section "How to create Value" as a list - would make it way more readable | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Could use a read through in terms og spelling and gramma but the text is clear and precise'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 figures yet. Figures would improve the readers understanding of the subject and how to use the map as a project manager '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | '' The article is relevant but it is really missing references and use of different literature " | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | " See answer to question 6. It is also very short/probably not done yet. Way more energy should be used on the discussion/limitation section. More energy could also be used to discuss what does the standards say about the topic? " | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | '' Very few references. Annotated bibliography. '' | ||
Revision as of 15:00, 25 February 2019
Contents |
Feedback on Abstract
| Text clarity | Good but could be more concise |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Ok |
| Explanation of the purpose of the article | Needs to be elaborated and needs to be related to project management. |
| Relevance to curriculum | At the moment it is not related to project management. Make sure you state how can the Value Canvas be relevant/important for project management and not just a design tool |
| References | Missing references. Here are the guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references |
| Other | It lacks a bit of context. |
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Signe Bjerrum
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
Short and precise and sums up what the article is about - However I would suggest to be more specific about how this relates to PPP-management?
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
The logic and flow makes sense. A headline like "About Value canvas" or something like that would be great and then have the two subsections about "Customer Map" and "Value Map" included in that.
Make the numbers in section "How to create Value" as a list - would make it way more readable
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
Could use a read through in terms og spelling and gramma but the text is clear and precise
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 figures yet. Figures would improve the readers understanding of the subject and how to use the map as a project manager
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
The article is relevant but it is really missing references and use of different literature "
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
" See answer to question 6. It is also very short/probably not done yet. Way more energy should be used on the discussion/limitation section. More energy could also be used to discuss what does the standards say about the topic? "
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
Very few references. Annotated bibliography.
