Talk:Stakeholder Management Processes in Projects
Contents |
Feedback on Abstract
| Text clarity | Really good |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Stakeholder management is described but it is missing description of the specific process/method you are focusing on |
| Explanation of the purpose of the article | Really good |
| Relevance to curriculum | Good |
| References | References can be used in the beginning to back up the abstract (and don’t forget references for the images as well). |
| Other | Try to narrow down the focus. Perhaps choose a process/processes to do an in-depth description. Apart from that, good. |
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Jesper Antonius Wolters
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
A comprehensive summary that is precise and not too long. It makes it clear for the reader what the topic is about and what the article will go in depth with, e.g. that 4 processes will be covered. There might be a paragraph or 2 that could be cut shorter.
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 different parts of the article are well connected. A good introduction which leads to the main content of the article which is the well rounded off. There are plenty of figures to support the information written in the article. Figure 1 seems like a bit of an overkill given what it represents, is it needed to show 20 stakeholders.
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
Overall the grammar is fine, there are some grammatical errors and locations where future and past tense is interchanged, e.g. in the summary. Some places is written in a way that would be appropriate if spoken, however repeating something 3 times is not really for an article.
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
As said there are plenty of figures to support the points being made which helps the reader. It is also clearly indicated where the figures have been inspired from and who has made them. Some figures/tables are very large, could easily be smaller, maybe rearranged to be positioned next to the text instead of blocking of text entirely.
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 highly relevant when dealing with project, programs and portfolios. Without stakeholders or with negative stakeholders projects are in jeopardy. Some guidelines for a stakehold manager is also outlined.
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
For someone interested in management the article is interesting. Some of the article is very similar too what one can find with a simple web search, but most of it has been treated thoroughly through several well defined sources.
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
There are proper citations throughout the article as well as a good annotated bibliography which credits previous work. There is also an extra annotated figure list which clearly indicates where figures have been inspired from.
Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Isabel Wang
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
I quite enjoyed the abstract because it is concise and gives a clear intro to stakeholder management processes. I really liked how you mentioned specific improvements of stakeholder management in the stakeholder engagement section. Maybe you could include some of it in the abstract when you talk about the improvement of projects through stakeholder management as this is the opening of your argument for stakeholder management and could make your argument on the relevance of Stakeholder Management even stronger. I don’t believe it would be redundant. The last thing you could do is to guide through the structure of your article a little bit more regarding the chapters after the stakeholder analysis instead of referring to them as “all topics regarding Stakeholder Management”. Other than that, I think it’s good as is!!
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 article has a nice structure and is well-argued. I especially enjoyed how easily understood the description of the models are!! For the last chapter about stakeholder effective teamwork you could maybe add a sentence explaining why effective teamwork is important in stakeholder management to make the chapter more relevant.
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
I didn’t find any errors expect for maybe neutured instead of what I believe is meant to be nurtured (Stakeholder Engagement section). I’m fairly sure it’s just a typo though. Again, I enjoyed how easily understood your descriptions are. No unnecessary fill words but I would consider keeping it a bit more formal in the stakeholder management key principle process section (plan, it plan it plan and communicate, communicate, communicate) although I do understand that it underlines your point.
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 supportive of your argumentation and well explained. It might be interesting to include a figure that illustrates the range of possible stakeholders instead of the first figure that emphasizes the high number of potential stakeholders identified. Maybe you can modify figure one. Other than that, nothing to add here.
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
You’ve made it clear as to why Stakeholder management is relevant within the domain of project management. I really liked the practical, hands-on approach providing the reader with concrete guidelines on how to conduct stakeholder management. So, I don’t think you have to make any further changes.
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
Gives a good overview of stakeholder management processes that definitely goes beyond a cursory web search and relevant for any practitioner. So, nothing to add here either.
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 annotated bibliography as well as the annotated figures look good to me!! =) Referenced the figures correctly as instructed during the lecture.
