Talk:E. Pihl & Søn A/S from a management perspective
From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
*The historical part seems poorly re-elaborated | *The historical part seems poorly re-elaborated | ||
==Reviewer 2, s121408== | ==Reviewer 2, s121408== | ||
| − | + | Formal: | |
*The grammar and flow of the article was correct from my point of view. | *The grammar and flow of the article was correct from my point of view. | ||
*Pictures are well allocated. | *Pictures are well allocated. | ||
*It is well documented from bibliography from what I have seen. | *It is well documented from bibliography from what I have seen. | ||
| + | Content: | ||
| + | *Good starting. | ||
*I understand that to evaluate a case you need to present it. But I think there has been put so much effort in describing the history and situation of the firm (nearly half of the article), something that someone could just read in the book you referred or elsewhere. | *I understand that to evaluate a case you need to present it. But I think there has been put so much effort in describing the history and situation of the firm (nearly half of the article), something that someone could just read in the book you referred or elsewhere. | ||
*The flow of the article is very good, but I see the topic away from the concepts used in the course. I do not clearly see how the concepts explained in the slides are implemented in the article. There are some concepts of Project and Portfolio management in the article but it could be enlarged. | *The flow of the article is very good, but I see the topic away from the concepts used in the course. I do not clearly see how the concepts explained in the slides are implemented in the article. There are some concepts of Project and Portfolio management in the article but it could be enlarged. | ||
* I do not clearly see the personal contribution of the author. I have the impression there is a lot of paraphrase coming from literature but correct if I am wrong. I would recommend to talk with the professor, because the article is very illustrative but maybe he wants something else. | * I do not clearly see the personal contribution of the author. I have the impression there is a lot of paraphrase coming from literature but correct if I am wrong. I would recommend to talk with the professor, because the article is very illustrative but maybe he wants something else. | ||
Revision as of 19:11, 22 September 2015
UserName:Jejenji - REVIEW 3
- Great intro to describe the whole picture
- The chapters regarding the history are a bit long. From my point of view it would be useful to make a table or describe the most important events through bullet points.
- Interesting to know which constructions they built in DK
- According to me it would be more important to highlight the MANAGEMENT part instead of the HISTORY. Maybe shorten a bit the history part and expand more the Management paragraph. It could be useful to consult more sources about these part and insert a little bit of theory.
- Detailed conclusion that underlines who took decisions
- Adding a sort of hierarchy picture of the company would help to understand how’s the power distributed
- It could be useful to divide the conclusions and implications in subchapter to analyse more into details each part (example: leadership,“enlightened despotism”…. )
- Nice point the “enlightened despotism”
FORMAL ASPECTS
- Overall the article follows the case study structure
- Grammar wise is correct
- Lack of figures and visual illustrations
- Formatted Properly
CONTENT ASPECTS
- The article is interesting
- It does relate to PPPM
- Appropriate length
- Logic flow between HISTORY _ MANAGEMENT _ CONCLUSION
- Reference materials are a bit poor
- Great annotated bibliography
- The historical part seems poorly re-elaborated
Reviewer 2, s121408
Formal:
- The grammar and flow of the article was correct from my point of view.
- Pictures are well allocated.
- It is well documented from bibliography from what I have seen.
Content:
- Good starting.
- I understand that to evaluate a case you need to present it. But I think there has been put so much effort in describing the history and situation of the firm (nearly half of the article), something that someone could just read in the book you referred or elsewhere.
- The flow of the article is very good, but I see the topic away from the concepts used in the course. I do not clearly see how the concepts explained in the slides are implemented in the article. There are some concepts of Project and Portfolio management in the article but it could be enlarged.
- I do not clearly see the personal contribution of the author. I have the impression there is a lot of paraphrase coming from literature but correct if I am wrong. I would recommend to talk with the professor, because the article is very illustrative but maybe he wants something else.
