Talk:Application of Balanced Scorecard in Portfolio Management

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Feedback on Abstract)
Line 14: Line 14:
  
 
|}
 
|}
 +
 +
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Brynja Benediktsdóttir''==
 +
===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===
 +
''Very clear what the goal is and how it is going to be executed. ''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Of the 1st version uploaded it has a nice logical flow. The chapters on steps, strengths, weaknesses, and risks have not been uploaded and therefore, are the arguments not there yet, but the article is very promising. ''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Few minor errors, you just need to read it over when finished with it. ''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Nice, appropriate figures that help to understand the concepts used. ''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Yes, relevant for project portfolio management. The importance of BSC well explained. ''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Yes, interesting to read, and when finished I believe it will be practical reading. It goes beyond a web search with many references to books. ''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''Not applicable – has not been done. ''

Revision as of 16:29, 23 February 2019

Contents

Feedback on Abstract

Text clarity Good.
Description of the tool/theory/concept Good. However you could better described.
Explanation of the purpose of the article Needs to be more elaborated.
Relevance to curriculum Relevant but make sure you keep it within Portfolio Management.
References Missing references. Here are the guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Brynja Benediktsdóttir

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

Very clear what the goal is and how it is going to be executed.

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

Of the 1st version uploaded it has a nice logical flow. The chapters on steps, strengths, weaknesses, and risks have not been uploaded and therefore, are the arguments not there yet, but the article is very promising.

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

Few minor errors, you just need to read it over when finished with it.

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

Nice, appropriate figures that help to understand the concepts used.

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

Yes, relevant for project portfolio management. The importance of BSC well explained.

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

Yes, interesting to read, and when finished I believe it will be practical reading. It goes beyond a web search with many references to books.

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

Not applicable – has not been done.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php?title=Talk:Application_of_Balanced_Scorecard_in_Portfolio_Management&oldid=65843"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox