Talk:Brainstorming technique
(→Abstract Feedback) |
(→Abstract Feedback) |
||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
<li> Consider alternatives of brainstorming - e.g. "silent brainstorming" in your discussion | <li> Consider alternatives of brainstorming - e.g. "silent brainstorming" in your discussion | ||
</ol> | </ol> | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Hildur Gudmundsdottir''== | ||
| + | ===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 like the abstract, as it sums up all under chapters that come after, without going to deep into them. I also like that it is stated how the article will be built and what will be introduced and discussed throughout. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 clear, the description of brainstorming is very straight forward and easily understood. The flow and build up are really good, and all parts compliment each other well. The article is consistent and free of contradictions. The benefits could be better, I do not think you should leave it out, but there are many other benefits to brainstorming, such as that it is an open floor for all ideas, stupid or brilliant, so everyone can bring something to the table in a judge free environment. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 language is good, there are a couple of words I do not understand, but might just be my lack of knowledge. The word virtually is used more than once in the context that brainstorming is used virtually, not sure what that means. And then that one idea begets another one... not sure what begets means. But like I said these might both be a lack of knowledge on my side. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | Yes both pictures are good, and the methods that the pictures should represent are well described in the text. Not sure if maybe they could be explained a little better in the text below the pictures?? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 the article is practical and relevant, and this tool is very effective to use within project teams. It has been stated in the article how it can be used by the project manager, but maybe it could also be explained a little better that the project manager can use this tool to keep his team members on their toes and active in the team. It can also be beneficial as it makes people feel like their ideas and opinions matter, even though they are not the project manager. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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 the article is interesting and explains it very clearly, and should be easily understood and read by people with different backgrounds. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===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=== | ||
| + | Missing bibliography, but I'm assuming you should put PMBOK there as it is stated multiple times in the article that it was used a lot. I like the fact that it is stated where these facts were taken from and that makes the article more believable if you can say so :) | ||
Revision as of 22:47, 19 February 2018
Contents |
Abstract Feedback
Text clarity Text is coherent
Language Good
Description of the tool/theory/concept Easy to follow, but see "relevance of article"
Purpose explanation Good structure, but who is your reader? Is it a project/program/portfolio manager or is the team? Are you focusing on project/program/portfolio management?
References Good. Try adding appropriate references from mandatory list of references, if it makes sense
Relevance of article Needs work. Consider to:
- Elaborate how brainstorming is relevant to project/program/portfolio management and not brainstorming in organizational management in general
- Focus on a particular aspect of project/program/portfolio management e.g. when making a business case
- Get a clear understanding of who your reader is
- Consider alternatives of brainstorming - e.g. "silent brainstorming" in your discussion
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Hildur Gudmundsdottir
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 like the abstract, as it sums up all under chapters that come after, without going to deep into them. I also like that it is stated how the article will be built and what will be introduced and discussed throughout.
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 clear, the description of brainstorming is very straight forward and easily understood. The flow and build up are really good, and all parts compliment each other well. The article is consistent and free of contradictions. The benefits could be better, I do not think you should leave it out, but there are many other benefits to brainstorming, such as that it is an open floor for all ideas, stupid or brilliant, so everyone can bring something to the table in a judge free environment.
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 language is good, there are a couple of words I do not understand, but might just be my lack of knowledge. The word virtually is used more than once in the context that brainstorming is used virtually, not sure what that means. And then that one idea begets another one... not sure what begets means. But like I said these might both be a lack of knowledge on my side.
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
Yes both pictures are good, and the methods that the pictures should represent are well described in the text. Not sure if maybe they could be explained a little better in the text below the pictures??
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 the article is practical and relevant, and this tool is very effective to use within project teams. It has been stated in the article how it can be used by the project manager, but maybe it could also be explained a little better that the project manager can use this tool to keep his team members on their toes and active in the team. It can also be beneficial as it makes people feel like their ideas and opinions matter, even though they are not the project manager.
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 the article is interesting and explains it very clearly, and should be easily understood and read by people with different backgrounds.
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
Missing bibliography, but I'm assuming you should put PMBOK there as it is stated multiple times in the article that it was used a lot. I like the fact that it is stated where these facts were taken from and that makes the article more believable if you can say so :)
