Talk:The Framework of Project Governance
Contents |
Abstract Feedback
Text clarity Coherent
Language Good
Description of the tool/theory/concept Easy to follow.
Purpose explanation Well addressed, however what is the main theme of the article? Is it the bottom-up approach? Needs further clarification
References Try to add appropriate references to mandatory list of references
Relevance of article Very relevant and good structure
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Jonas
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 think the abstract is good and finds the key focus. The structure is good and easy to follow. Maby you could add some of the conclusions or advantages of Project Governance to the abstract.
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 is very well written and have a good logical flow. The parts lead up to each other and are free of contradictions. You can consider the following improvements:
- Discuss the used reference and sources, and be critical about this.
- Adding a conclusion
- Adding a section explaining how Project Governance can be implemented in projects.
- Explaining if PG can be used in all industries and all projects
- Add some pictures which could be used to support arguments.
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
The grammar and spelling are very good and readable, and I wasn't able to find any grammar corrections :)
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
Right now there are no pictures, I would, therefore, suggest that one or more pictures added to the article. (Remeber to reference where the picture is from)
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 very academic relevant, and I think the practical guidelines gives a great practical view to the article.
- I think it could be stated more clearly why Project Governance is relevant: Ex examples of good and bad Project Governance from real projects.
- If you could use more sources (articles, newspapers, books) it would get an even higher academic degree.
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
The article is interesting to read and is more than just a web search. However, consider the following:
- Using more reference material as Harvard Business Review, PMI standards, and the book Project Management Institute, "A guide to the project management body of knowledge: PMBOK Guide", Project Management Institute, (2000) can help the academic level of the article.
- It would be nice if you could make a case analysis, or show the effect of the tool on a real project.
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 article uses some material as references, the books are properly cited, and is based on empirical data. However, consider the following:
- Find more sources and articles
- When using web pages remember to make a section where the credibility is discussed.
- Remember to add a section with the further reading material.
