Talk:Financial appraisal of project proposals
(→Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Place your name here) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | + | Yes, nothing. | |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Structure and logic of the article:''' | '''Structure and logic of the article:''' | ||
| − | Is the argument clear? | + | Is the argument clear? |
| − | Is there a logical flow to the article? | + | Is there a logical flow to the article? |
| − | Does one part build upon the other? | + | Does one part build upon the other? |
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? | Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? | ||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | + | Yes, Yes the flow is very logical. Yes and yes. | |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Grammar and style:''' | '''Grammar and style:''' | ||
| − | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? | + | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? |
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? | ||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | I haven't spot any errors and I believe that its pretty precise. I don't believe there is much room for improvement. |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Figures and tables:''' | '''Figures and tables:''' | ||
| − | Are figures and tables clear? | + | Are figures and tables clear? |
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? | ||
| Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | + | Yes, Yes, the figures give a ver good insight on what the article will handle and what are the relationships between different sections. | |
| + | Nothing to improve | ||
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Interest and relevance:''' | '''Interest and relevance:''' | ||
| − | Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? | + | Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? |
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? | Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? | ||
| Line 83: | Line 84: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | + | I believe it is relevant, especially for our group project. | |
| + | Yes, it is made in the abstract. | ||
| + | Nothing | ||
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Depth of treatment:''' | '''Depth of treatment:''' | ||
| − | Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? | + | Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? |
| − | 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? | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | + | Yes, yes, nothing. | |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Annotated bibliography:''' | '''Annotated bibliography:''' | ||
| − | Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? | + | Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? |
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? | ||
| − | Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion | + | Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | + | Yes, yes, yes | |
| + | I think you should try to add some references to the compulsory readings. | ||
| − | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: '' | + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Sebastian Daugaard''== |
===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Quality of the summary:''' | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| Line 120: | Line 123: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | + | The purpose of the article is clear. I think that the scope of the article may not be related to project management, but more to program or portfolio management, as the project manager is often introduced after doing the initial comparisons of projects. Potentially validate this with a TA. | |
| − | + | ||
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Structure and logic of the article:''' | '''Structure and logic of the article:''' | ||
| Line 136: | Line 138: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | + | I like the flow of the article and the similarity in how the methods are explained. I would like to see references to articles talking about uncertainty management, or some kind of disclaimer addressing it, as the world may not always be that tangible. | |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 148: | Line 150: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | + | I like the language. Some sentences drag on for a while with an abundance of commas. | |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 160: | Line 162: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | + | The figure in the abstract could be tied more into the writing (and be enlarged a bit). The other figures provide an excellent overview of the examples. It might be interesting with a pros-cons table of the different cost-estimation techniques. | |
| − | + | ||
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Interest and relevance:''' | '''Interest and relevance:''' | ||
| Line 172: | Line 173: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | + | I would certainly polish the connection to the course a bit i.e. whether this tool is for the project, program or portfolio manager. | |
| − | + | ||
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Depth of treatment:''' | '''Depth of treatment:''' | ||
| Line 184: | Line 184: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | + | At the time, I feel like the article is similar to what you could find by googling different ECON definitions. So I would focus on establishing a strong connection to the course. Potentially you could discuss when it makes sense to use the different tools. | |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 198: | Line 198: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | + | No annotated bibliography yet. 1 source is not a lot for such a long text. I can imagine that the economics is difficult to find in the course-litterature, but you could talk about risk analysis e.g. the severity/probability matrix. | |
Latest revision as of 17:37, 18 February 2018
Contents |
[edit] Abstract Feedback
Text clarity Coherent
Language Good, with some minor errors e.g. write "to evaluate" instead of "to evaluates." Re-read the abstract
Description of the tool/theory/concept Easy to follow, but the image is too small to read. In most cases, I would personally recommend to not use diagrams in abstracts, but rather move them to a "background" section where the tool is more thoroughly explained
Purpose explanation Good, but consider:
- Is this tool primarily applied for portfolio or program management?
- Who is the reader? Project or Program manager or any project team member?
References Missing appropriate references to mandatory list of references
Relevance of article It is relevant. Consider the following:
- Try to link it to a knowledge area of project/program/portfolio management
- Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project/program/portfolio management community more than a normal web search
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Piotr
[edit] Question 1 · TEXT
Quality of the summary: Good
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 1
Yes, nothing.
[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
Yes, Yes the flow is very logical. Yes and yes.
[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
I haven't spot any errors and I believe that its pretty precise. I don't believe there is much room for improvement.
[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
Yes, Yes, the figures give a ver good insight on what the article will handle and what are the relationships between different sections. Nothing to improve
[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 believe it is relevant, especially for our group project. Yes, it is made in the abstract. Nothing
[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
Yes, yes, nothing.
[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, yes, yes I think you should try to add some references to the compulsory readings.
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Sebastian Daugaard
[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
The purpose of the article is clear. I think that the scope of the article may not be related to project management, but more to program or portfolio management, as the project manager is often introduced after doing the initial comparisons of projects. Potentially validate this with a TA.
[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
I like the flow of the article and the similarity in how the methods are explained. I would like to see references to articles talking about uncertainty management, or some kind of disclaimer addressing it, as the world may not always be that tangible.
[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
I like the language. Some sentences drag on for a while with an abundance of commas.
[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 figure in the abstract could be tied more into the writing (and be enlarged a bit). The other figures provide an excellent overview of the examples. It might be interesting with a pros-cons table of the different cost-estimation techniques.
[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 would certainly polish the connection to the course a bit i.e. whether this tool is for the project, program or portfolio manager.
[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
At the time, I feel like the article is similar to what you could find by googling different ECON definitions. So I would focus on establishing a strong connection to the course. Potentially you could discuss when it makes sense to use the different tools.
[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
No annotated bibliography yet. 1 source is not a lot for such a long text. I can imagine that the economics is difficult to find in the course-litterature, but you could talk about risk analysis e.g. the severity/probability matrix.
