Talk:Quality Management Systems

From apppm
Revision as of 12:15, 26 February 2019 by LBV (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search



Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Kristoffer Glahn

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

The key focus of the article is clear and well explained. However the purpose of the article and the insights gained from the article could be made more explicit.

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

The argument and the logic is clear. There also seems to be a logical flow in the article. However, the article seems to be missing some parts (discussion, pros and cons, conclusion) - it will therefore be important that the flow continuous throughout these sections.

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

There are some grammatical and spelling errors in some of the sections.

LBV: Some spelling errors, but in general the articel uses good grammer.

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

There are no figures or tabels yet


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

The article seems to be very relevant and it is made clear in the article why the topic is important for projects.

LBV: Good choice of topic

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

It seems to be both very interesting and relevant, however it is still missing some parts/sections

LBV: I would considerd adding a Disscussion section and simplifing "the five functions of management" section.

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

There is no "Annotated bibliography" or any "References" section and so there are no citations yet.

LBV: There is a significant need for refercend litterature.

Personal tools