Talk:Use of Business Model Canvas to Kickstart the project management
Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity | Good |
| Language | Good |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good |
| Purpose explanation | Good |
| Title of the Wiki | Good |
| Relevance to curriculum | Relevant as long as the focus is how BMC is used in project management |
| References | Really good that you reference to other wikis! For the other references here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references |
| Other | Be careful not trying to cover too much but consider only mentioning BMC for kickstarting one of the project management methods |
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Jonina Thora Einarsdottir
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 quality of the summary is very good and it gives a clear insight to the article's content. Good job.
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 argument is pretty clear and the structure of the article is good and how the same example is implemented in several chapters (the designer clothes and fast food) makes it very clear. I am just a little bit confused with the chapter "Importance of business model for waterfall method compared to agile method"...maybe it fits better somewhere else in the article or can be better linked into the article with just modification in rephrasing the text a bit.
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:
There are several sentences that I suggest that should be rephrased and some words are misspelled. It is just minor mistakes but overall the language is good.
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 or tables in the article so far so not possible to make judgement.
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:
I would say that the article is of high practical relevance and it is pretty clear how it is relevant. I just suggest including some tables or figures to make it more interesting.
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:
I think the article is interesting for a practitioner and it makes a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search as a lot of information is included in it. I guess it is not completely done but it looks good so far.
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:
No annotated bibliography has been made.
