Talk:Project sponsor

Revision as of 22:54, 18 February 2018

Abstract Feedback

Text clarity This can be improved - the text needs to flow, especially after "Effective PM and BA role collaboration..."

Language

1. Spelling errors e.g. "Responsabilities"
2. Do not write in first person e.g. "we"
3. Do not use abbreviations e.g. PM and BA without spelling them out beforehand

Description of the tool/theory/concept Good, but apply the above changes to enhance understanding

Purpose explanation Well addressed (e.g. clear that the Project Owner is the reader), but briefly explain the content/structure of the points going to be addressed in the article in the abstract

References Good use of references, but make sure to specify page numbers and so on

Relevance of article Relevant. Consider to:

1. Narrow the role of a project sponsor to a specific phase of a project (e.g. in the initiation stage when creating a business case)
2. Explaining the differences between a project manager, project sponsor and project owner
3. Explaining the project sponsor's role in terms of project governance

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Ole Schwiethal

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

In the summary you are writing what each chapter is going to be about but you don't present that many key insights. Maybe instead of writing what is going to happen in the chapters, you could write the key insights of each chapter. Maybe you could directly link those key insights with the respective key sources.

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 with its argument and free of contradictions?

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 2

The link between the different chapters is not always clear and it seems as if the different chapters are not building upon each other. In the section "Role" you could try to define the roles of the project sponsor more clearly and really explain what he does and why he's necessary for the project. The chapter about "Responsibilities" is clear and good. "Relation with other stakeholders" could be more precise about the relationship with stakeholders.

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 some writing, grammatical and sentencing issues in the text. E.g. you are not strict about writing "Project Sponsor" or "project sponsor". Often you use a comma before "and" where it is not necessary to use.

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

Figures look good so far and are used in the right way. Maybe you could talk directly about those figures to explain them. The writing style is not always precise enough and you're using some unnecessary fill words or sentences.

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 clear how the article is relevant but in general you could try to write a little more precise.

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

A practitioner might need more detailed information on the roles and activities that he has to perform.

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

Yes, the bibliography is fine. Tres bien!

Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Julia Hösel

Question 1

Quality of the summary:

Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? The summary has tuned out well. I as a reader of the article know now what I need to expect from the following chapters. Especially mentioning the current problems of Project sponsoring catches my attention. Also, the distinction between

What would you suggest to improve?

Answer 1

Answer here

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

Answer here

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

Answer here

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

Answer here

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

Answer here

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

Answer here

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

Answer here