Talk:Business Case
From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
(→Feedback to first version of Wiki article) |
(→Feedback to first version of Wiki article) |
||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
Note: since the article only contains abstract and headings, I will focus on what is there and recommendations for reading material. :) | Note: since the article only contains abstract and headings, I will focus on what is there and recommendations for reading material. :) | ||
*'''Grammar and spelling: Is the text readable and free of formal errors?''' | *'''Grammar and spelling: Is the text readable and free of formal errors?''' | ||
| − | ** | + | **The grammar and spelling are overall good and very readable, however, I made some minor corrections to the following sentences: |
| + | ***The definitions of Business Case are discussed with its limitiations. -> The definitions of Business Case are discussed with its limitations. | ||
| + | ***The Business Case is evaluated through a cost benefit -> The Business Case is evaluated through a cost-benefit | ||
| + | ***justification for undertaking a project, in terms of -> the justification for undertaking a project, in terms of | ||
| + | ***the benefits, cost and risk of alternative options and rationale for -> the benefits, cost, and risk of alternative options and rationale f | ||
*'''Structure and logical flow: Is every part of the article informative and necessary to communicate the core message? What do you like? What should be improved, and how?''' | *'''Structure and logical flow: Is every part of the article informative and necessary to communicate the core message? What do you like? What should be improved, and how?''' | ||
** | ** | ||
*'''Content: Is the article convincing? Is it complete? Is it relevant an “deep” enough? What parts do you like? What parts need to be improved?''' | *'''Content: Is the article convincing? Is it complete? Is it relevant an “deep” enough? What parts do you like? What parts need to be improved?''' | ||
** | ** | ||
Revision as of 12:53, 17 February 2018
Abstract Feedback
Text clarity Text is coherent
Language Good
Description of the tool/theory/concept Good, consider elaborating the tools for making a business case mentioned in the abstract
Purpose explanation Good, but consider who your reader is - is the project manager? project sponsor?
References Good
Relevance of article Very relevant. Perhaps consider, when writing the article, expanding on what the governance is around who decides/approves a business case in a project management organization?
Feedback to first version of Wiki article
Note: since the article only contains abstract and headings, I will focus on what is there and recommendations for reading material. :)
- Grammar and spelling: Is the text readable and free of formal errors?
- The grammar and spelling are overall good and very readable, however, I made some minor corrections to the following sentences:
- The definitions of Business Case are discussed with its limitiations. -> The definitions of Business Case are discussed with its limitations.
- The Business Case is evaluated through a cost benefit -> The Business Case is evaluated through a cost-benefit
- justification for undertaking a project, in terms of -> the justification for undertaking a project, in terms of
- the benefits, cost and risk of alternative options and rationale for -> the benefits, cost, and risk of alternative options and rationale f
- The grammar and spelling are overall good and very readable, however, I made some minor corrections to the following sentences:
- Structure and logical flow: Is every part of the article informative and necessary to communicate the core message? What do you like? What should be improved, and how?
- Content: Is the article convincing? Is it complete? Is it relevant an “deep” enough? What parts do you like? What parts need to be improved?
