Talk:Feasibility Analysis
From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
(Created page with "=Abstract Feedback== '''Text clarity''' Text is coherent '''Language''' Minor errors e.g. writing "kids" instead of "kinds" '''Description of the tool/theory/conce...") |
(→Abstract Feedback=) |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
'''Language''' Minor errors e.g. writing "kids" instead of "kinds" | '''Language''' Minor errors e.g. writing "kids" instead of "kinds" | ||
| − | '''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Okay, but | + | '''Description of the tool/theory/concept''' Okay, but add references to increase credibility. The abstract can be expanded |
'''Purpose explanation''' Good, but can be improved: | '''Purpose explanation''' Good, but can be improved: | ||
Revision as of 11:18, 14 February 2018
Abstract Feedback=
Text clarity Text is coherent
Language Minor errors e.g. writing "kids" instead of "kinds"
Description of the tool/theory/concept Okay, but add references to increase credibility. The abstract can be expanded
Purpose explanation Good, but can be improved:
- Consider explaining the structure and content of the article to align reader expectations
References Missing appropriate references to mandatory list of references
Relevance of article Good, but consider the following:
- Who is the reader? Project Manager or Sponsor etc?
- Try linking the topic to a project life cycle (check PMBOK)
- Consider linking this to creating a business case?
