Talk:Ideation tools
| Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
| − | ==Feedback | + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Christopher Emil Søndergaard''== |
| − | ===Question 1 | + | ===Question 1=== |
'''Quality of the summary:''' | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
'''' | '''' | ||
| − | ===Question 2 | + | ===Question 2=== |
'''Structure and logic of the article:''' | '''Structure and logic of the article:''' | ||
| Line 116: | Line 116: | ||
'''' | '''' | ||
| − | ===Question 3 | + | ===Question 3=== |
'''Grammar and style:''' | '''Grammar and style:''' | ||
| Line 128: | Line 128: | ||
'''' | '''' | ||
| − | ===Question 4 | + | ===Question 4=== |
'''Figures and tables:''' | '''Figures and tables:''' | ||
| Line 140: | Line 140: | ||
'''' | '''' | ||
| − | ===Question 5 | + | ===Question 5=== |
'''Interest and relevance:''' | '''Interest and relevance:''' | ||
| Line 152: | Line 152: | ||
'''' | '''' | ||
| − | ===Question 6 | + | ===Question 6=== |
'''Depth of treatment:''' | '''Depth of treatment:''' | ||
| Line 164: | Line 164: | ||
'''' | '''' | ||
| − | ===Question 7 | + | ===Question 7=== |
'''Annotated bibliography:''' | '''Annotated bibliography:''' | ||
Revision as of 14:01, 19 February 2018
Contents |
Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Walther Emil Eriksen
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
The summary is overall clear. It is however not clear what the argument is towards brainstorming versus the mentioned ideation tools. An improvement could be stating what the article wants to do with brainstorming; are the tools a replacement for brainstorming or just structured ways of brainstorming?
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 consists of many short descriptions of ideation tools, but does not compare them. An improvement could be stating when a tool would be chosen instead of the others and/or stating the limitations and advantages of each tool. The article is apart from this easy to read with a good flow.
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
There are minor grammatical errors, but overall a well written article with a good flow in the language
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
The tables are used as thumbs, which makes them unclear while reading. It is also not precisely stated why the tables are relevant in the article. An outlining of their relevance and context would be an improvement. I also think you have to make your own figures to avoid copyright issues?
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
It is made very clear in the article why ideation tools are relevant for the initiation phase of any project.
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
The article outlies some tools, but does not precisely outline what the tools means for a project manager. An improvement could be outlining which tools are relevant in certain situations, and what they mean for a the work as a project manager. Real-life case examples could help practitioners understand the relevance of the tools
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
There are missing references in the annotated bibliography and errors in the references part. The article does however make good use of references and citations in the arguments, as well as references to the historic background of ideation tools. The one reference in the annotated bibliography part is well described.
Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Christopher Emil Søndergaard
Question 1
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
'
Question 2
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
'
Question 3
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
'
Question 4
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
'
Question 5
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
'
Question 6
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
'
Question 7
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
'
Abstract Feedback
Text Clarity; Ok.
Language; Ok.
References; missing references related to the standards
The abstract is vague, I cannot see how its related with projects, programs or portfolios, and the relevance for project managers. The title mentions tool, but what is the purpose of the this tool?, Can be incorporated in PM processes? How?
Please elaborate how you can connect with the mentioned aspects, also try to see under which perspective (purpose, people, complexity, uncertainty) you can allocate the article.
Look also in the Mandatory References in the listed Reading material of the course.
