Talk:Automated project monitoring methods
(→Answer 6) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? | Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? | ||
| + | |||
Yes. Key focus is automated project monitoring. | Yes. Key focus is automated project monitoring. | ||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
Write a line or two with background info about monitoring. Who does it? When is it relevant in a project? How is it relevant to the project manager? | Write a line or two with background info about monitoring. Who does it? When is it relevant in a project? How is it relevant to the project manager? | ||
| Line 18: | Line 20: | ||
Is the argument clear? | Is the argument clear? | ||
| + | |||
Yes if the argument is to encourage to automated project monitoring methods by introducing the reader to various methods. | Yes if the argument is to encourage to automated project monitoring methods by introducing the reader to various methods. | ||
Is there a logical flow to the article? | Is there a logical flow to the article? | ||
| + | |||
I was a little confused reading the "monitoring in project management"-part. How is the information about monitoring related to PM? And why is it important for us to know that US construction projects don't use any software besides MS Office? | I was a little confused reading the "monitoring in project management"-part. How is the information about monitoring related to PM? And why is it important for us to know that US construction projects don't use any software besides MS Office? | ||
Does one part build upon the other? | Does one part build upon the other? | ||
| + | |||
Maybe you could work a little on this. Now the reader gets a lot of methods introduced, are they related? If yes, show it. If not - is there a structure you can use in all methods for the information? | Maybe you could work a little on this. Now the reader gets a lot of methods introduced, are they related? If yes, show it. If not - is there a structure you can use in all methods for the information? | ||
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? | Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? | ||
| + | |||
Yes | Yes | ||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
Method-part could be a little more coherent. | Method-part could be a little more coherent. | ||
| Line 39: | Line 46: | ||
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? | ||
| + | |||
Not entirely. Look it over one more time. | Not entirely. Look it over one more time. | ||
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? | ||
| + | |||
Not entirely. But language is overall pretty good. | Not entirely. But language is overall pretty good. | ||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
Go through commas, they confused me a little while reading it through. | Go through commas, they confused me a little while reading it through. | ||
| Line 54: | Line 64: | ||
Are figures and tables clear? | Are figures and tables clear? | ||
| + | |||
I couldn't see the text on several of the pictures. | I couldn't see the text on several of the pictures. | ||
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? | Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? | ||
| + | |||
I couldn't see the text on several of the pictures. | I couldn't see the text on several of the pictures. | ||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
Make figures bigger, so reader can view these, while reading text. | Make figures bigger, so reader can view these, while reading text. | ||
| Line 69: | Line 82: | ||
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? | Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? | ||
| + | |||
Yes. | Yes. | ||
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? What would you suggest to improve? | Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
You mention some arguments in the abstract for why monitoring and control is important, which is very good. I wouldn't mind hearing more about this. | You mention some arguments in the abstract for why monitoring and control is important, which is very good. I wouldn't mind hearing more about this. | ||
| Line 86: | Line 101: | ||
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? | Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? | ||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
I would like to hear a little more about when which methods are applicable? who is set to do it? And also what impact does the monitoring activities have in a project when choosing a method? If I were to choose a method out of the described ones, I would like to know how it would affect the project. | I would like to hear a little more about when which methods are applicable? who is set to do it? And also what impact does the monitoring activities have in a project when choosing a method? If I were to choose a method out of the described ones, I would like to know how it would affect the project. | ||
Can you say how WBS etc. Can be used for monitoring? | Can you say how WBS etc. Can be used for monitoring? | ||
| Line 97: | Line 113: | ||
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? | Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? | ||
| + | |||
Yes. But I had trouble opening a few of the links. | Yes. But I had trouble opening a few of the links. | ||
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? | Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? | ||
| + | |||
Yes. | Yes. | ||
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? | Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? | ||
| + | |||
Yes. | Yes. | ||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
Don't forget the annotated bibliography (you can find a description in the course group on DTU inside). | Don't forget the annotated bibliography (you can find a description in the course group on DTU inside). | ||
Remeber to include mandatory references from course material. | Remeber to include mandatory references from course material. | ||
| Line 113: | Line 133: | ||
Final comment: | Final comment: | ||
| + | |||
GPS and sensors: couldn't get access to the source used here, but can't help but question the idea of tracking project participants via GPS or over video. Who is being tracked? Is it legal (for a PM) to do so? Should one apply for consent at first? | GPS and sensors: couldn't get access to the source used here, but can't help but question the idea of tracking project participants via GPS or over video. Who is being tracked? Is it legal (for a PM) to do so? Should one apply for consent at first? | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Lima''== | ||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Automated project monitoring is presented as the key focus.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Many methods are presented in the article and the structure (headlines) and flow seems seems logical. However it is difficult to determine whether the parts build upon each other as there are so many methods. The connection/link between the methods could be clarified. '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Your language is fine and you don't have unnecessary fill words. There are commas in your sentences that seem confusing.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 summarize your key points. Your second figure is a bit blurry but the others are good. Maybe some of your figures should be bigger? It can disturb the reader to have to open every image in order to see the text.'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 think that the article is relevant as automated monitoring is an important part of projects. However, while you mention that monitoring is an important part in project management, it could be interesting to elaborate on the role of the PM in monitoring projects and how the PM (or other project participants) apply these methods in projects. You present the methods well but it's unclear who applies the methods in projects. '' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''It is interesting to read the article. As mentioned above it could be nice if the methods and the role of the PM were connected. You should elaborate on how these methods play a role in project management. Who else can apply these methods and what will happen if the methods aren't used? I also think you should elaborate on the link between planning and monitoring. While the methods are well-explained then the connection and relevance of planning in regard to monitoring is a bit difficult to understand. Maybe you could also compare the quantitative and qualitative methods?'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | ''Yes it properly cites previous work. Empirical data. I think you're missing one of the mandatory references.'' | ||
Latest revision as of 23:44, 19 February 2018
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Julie
Question 1 · TEXT Quality of the summary:
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
Yes. Key focus is automated project monitoring.
What would you suggest to improve?
Write a line or two with background info about monitoring. Who does it? When is it relevant in a project? How is it relevant to the project manager?
[edit]Answer 1 Answer here
[edit]Question 2 · TEXT Structure and logic of the article:
Is the argument clear?
Yes if the argument is to encourage to automated project monitoring methods by introducing the reader to various methods.
Is there a logical flow to the article?
I was a little confused reading the "monitoring in project management"-part. How is the information about monitoring related to PM? And why is it important for us to know that US construction projects don't use any software besides MS Office?
Does one part build upon the other?
Maybe you could work a little on this. Now the reader gets a lot of methods introduced, are they related? If yes, show it. If not - is there a structure you can use in all methods for the information?
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?
Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
Method-part could be a little more coherent.
[edit]Answer 2 Answer here
[edit]Question 3 · TEXT Grammar and style:
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?
Not entirely. Look it over one more time.
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?
Not entirely. But language is overall pretty good.
What would you suggest to improve?
Go through commas, they confused me a little while reading it through.
[edit]Answer 3 Answer here
[edit]Question 4 · TEXT Figures and tables:
Are figures and tables clear?
I couldn't see the text on several of the pictures.
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?
I couldn't see the text on several of the pictures.
What would you suggest to improve?
Make figures bigger, so reader can view these, while reading text.
[edit]Answer 4 Answer here
[edit]Question 5 · TEXT Interest and relevance:
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?
Yes.
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? What would you suggest to improve?
You mention some arguments in the abstract for why monitoring and control is important, which is very good. I wouldn't mind hearing more about this.
Not completely sure how the planning and monitoring part is related to the main theme - is it that one uses planning tools as templates for monitoring? Maybe the introducing part (in planning and monitoring) can specify this. Otherwise the various planning methods are well described. Do you use the various methods for different monitoring tasks in a single project or do you choose one method to monitor? Would be very interesting to hear how you think they are applicable and what the relationship is towards the rest of the project, both on terms of people: who are the monitoring group and also in terms of tasks.
[edit]Answer 5 Answer here
[edit]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?
I would like to hear a little more about when which methods are applicable? who is set to do it? And also what impact does the monitoring activities have in a project when choosing a method? If I were to choose a method out of the described ones, I would like to know how it would affect the project. Can you say how WBS etc. Can be used for monitoring? Is WBS automatic? And are indicators automatic processes?
[edit]Answer 6 Answer here
[edit]Question 7 · TEXT Annotated bibliography:
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?
Yes. But I had trouble opening a few of the links.
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?
Yes.
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?
Yes.
What would you suggest to improve?
Don't forget the annotated bibliography (you can find a description in the course group on DTU inside). Remeber to include mandatory references from course material.
[edit]Answer 7 Answer here
Final comment:
GPS and sensors: couldn't get access to the source used here, but can't help but question the idea of tracking project participants via GPS or over video. Who is being tracked? Is it legal (for a PM) to do so? Should one apply for consent at first?
Contents |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Lima
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 1
Automated project monitoring is presented as the key focus.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 2
Many methods are presented in the article and the structure (headlines) and flow seems seems logical. However it is difficult to determine whether the parts build upon each other as there are so many methods. The connection/link between the methods could be clarified.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 3
Your language is fine and you don't have unnecessary fill words. There are commas in your sentences that seem confusing.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 4
The figures summarize your key points. Your second figure is a bit blurry but the others are good. Maybe some of your figures should be bigger? It can disturb the reader to have to open every image in order to see the text.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 5
I think that the article is relevant as automated monitoring is an important part of projects. However, while you mention that monitoring is an important part in project management, it could be interesting to elaborate on the role of the PM in monitoring projects and how the PM (or other project participants) apply these methods in projects. You present the methods well but it's unclear who applies the methods in projects.
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 6
It is interesting to read the article. As mentioned above it could be nice if the methods and the role of the PM were connected. You should elaborate on how these methods play a role in project management. Who else can apply these methods and what will happen if the methods aren't used? I also think you should elaborate on the link between planning and monitoring. While the methods are well-explained then the connection and relevance of planning in regard to monitoring is a bit difficult to understand. Maybe you could also compare the quantitative and qualitative methods?
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 7
Yes it properly cites previous work. Empirical data. I think you're missing one of the mandatory references.
