Talk:Project Execution Model (PEM)
From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Reviewer 1:Andkamp | Reviewer 1:Andkamp | ||
| − | + | *Describes an interesting method developed by Novo Nordisk, a nice blend between case study and method description | |
| − | + | *Minor English mistakes, that can be corrected through second time reading | |
| − | + | *Good presentation of the topics, however some minor grammar mistakes make it a little more difficult to be read | |
| − | + | *Nice figures, but missing captions and misplacement could provide a better outlook. | |
| − | + | *Main points are clear but not extensively described, in order the reader to get a better understanding of the topic. | |
| − | + | *No figure reference | |
| − | + | *More effort in inter-wiki links and hyperlinks in the text should be done | |
| − | + | *Better matrix of plan communication of stakeholders | |
| − | + | *Missing references and bibliography | |
| − | + | *Interesting subject with various aspects | |
| − | + | *Length of the article is small, as probably it is unfinished, but there is a clear enthusiasm on that subject | |
| − | + | *Phases makes a concrete structure of the article but the sections should be better presented in the table of contents. | |
| − | + | *It would be nice to see implementations on other business, as well as the pros and cons of this method | |
| − | + | *All in all, a nice subject that needs more effort in order to be useful and be connected with subjects such as Project Evaluation and Selection for the Formation of the Optimal Portfolio | |
Revision as of 16:37, 22 September 2015
Mette: Very nice topic choice that fits the requirements for the type of article. Remember the structure of a "method article". Look forward to reading more about this tool.
Reviewer 1:Andkamp
- Describes an interesting method developed by Novo Nordisk, a nice blend between case study and method description
- Minor English mistakes, that can be corrected through second time reading
- Good presentation of the topics, however some minor grammar mistakes make it a little more difficult to be read
- Nice figures, but missing captions and misplacement could provide a better outlook.
- Main points are clear but not extensively described, in order the reader to get a better understanding of the topic.
- No figure reference
- More effort in inter-wiki links and hyperlinks in the text should be done
- Better matrix of plan communication of stakeholders
- Missing references and bibliography
- Interesting subject with various aspects
- Length of the article is small, as probably it is unfinished, but there is a clear enthusiasm on that subject
- Phases makes a concrete structure of the article but the sections should be better presented in the table of contents.
- It would be nice to see implementations on other business, as well as the pros and cons of this method
- All in all, a nice subject that needs more effort in order to be useful and be connected with subjects such as Project Evaluation and Selection for the Formation of the Optimal Portfolio
