Talk:Stakeholder Management Processes in Projects

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Peer review by Jesper Antonius Wolters)
Line 16: Line 16:
 
|}
 
|}
  
−
== Peer review by Jesper Antonius Wolters ==
+
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Jesper Antonius Wolters''==
−
* The article is very relevant to use for project managers
+
===Question 1 · TEXT===
−
• Does it address a topic that is relevant for project managers?
+
'''Quality of the summary:'''
−
• Is the purpose clearly articulated, i.e. what kind of problem the article addresses (and solves)?
+
 
−
 Is the Wiki article usable?
+
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?  
−
• Does the article provide hands on guidance? Can the reader (at least prototypically) apply the method after reading the article?
+
 
−
• 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?
−
• Quality of the summary: Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
+
 
−
• Formal aspects:
+
===Answer 1===
−
 Figures and tables: Are figures and tables clear and provide meaningful support? Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?
+
The summary is well written, very comprehensive and gives the reader a clear idea of what the article is about.
−
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?
+
It could be made a bit shorter by including only the most relevant information, as it is a bit long for a summary.   
−
Grammar and style: Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?
+
 
−
 Is the Wiki article credible?
+
===Question 2 · TEXT===
−
• Critical reflection on status quo of standards: To what degree are the core arguments of your wiki article covered by the P/P/P standards and literature? To what degree does your article extend (or maybe contradict) the status quo?
+
'''Structure and logic of the article:'''
−
• Use of reference material provided in class: Elements from the reference material were appropriately incorporated into the article.
+
 
−
• Annotated bibliography: Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work (reference material provided, and appropriate other sources where necessary)? Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end 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 is well written with a clear argumentation to why BRM is important to consider. There are plenty of figures which clearly illustrates the point that is made. Good to first introduce the reader well to deliverables and benefits and afterwards discuss about BRM. The figures have very long captions which could be made shorter. For example write in the end of the article where figures have been inspired/taken from.   
 +
 
 +
===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===
 +
 
 +
The overall grammar is fine, but with some errors and some sentences that had to be read twice, could be rewritten for better understanding. Not any fill words.
 +
 
 +
===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===
 +
 
 +
There are plenty of figures to support the arguments made, figures that are very good for the reader to get a better understanding while reading the article. As written before, some have very long captions, which could be made shorter.
 +
 
 +
===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===
 +
The article has a high level of as well practical as academic relevance today. Besides from what is mentioned earlier I do not have something to suggest to improve.
 +
 
 +
===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===
 +
 
 +
For anyone interested in management, the article is interesting. The topic is well defined and the author has gone in depth with the article. Noted that most references are made to source 1 (PMI) which are beyond a cursory web search.  
 +
 
 +
===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===
 +
Annotated bibliography has not been finished and can thus not be commented. Source 1 seems to be the most relevant to acknowledge.

Revision as of 23:15, 25 February 2019

Contents

Feedback on Abstract

Text clarity Really good
Description of the tool/theory/concept Stakeholder management is described but it is missing description of the specific process/method you are focusing on
Explanation of the purpose of the article Really good
Relevance to curriculum Good
References References can be used in the beginning to back up the abstract (and don’t forget references for the images as well).
Other Try to narrow down the focus. Perhaps choose a process/processes to do an in-depth description. Apart from that, good.

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Jesper Antonius Wolters

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 well written, very comprehensive and gives the reader a clear idea of what the article is about. It could be made a bit shorter by including only the most relevant information, as it is a bit long for a summary.

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 is well written with a clear argumentation to why BRM is important to consider. There are plenty of figures which clearly illustrates the point that is made. Good to first introduce the reader well to deliverables and benefits and afterwards discuss about BRM. The figures have very long captions which could be made shorter. For example write in the end of the article where figures have been inspired/taken from.

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

The overall grammar is fine, but with some errors and some sentences that had to be read twice, could be rewritten for better understanding. Not any fill words.

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

There are plenty of figures to support the arguments made, figures that are very good for the reader to get a better understanding while reading the article. As written before, some have very long captions, which could be made shorter.

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

The article has a high level of as well practical as academic relevance today. Besides from what is mentioned earlier I do not have something to suggest to improve.

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

For anyone interested in management, the article is interesting. The topic is well defined and the author has gone in depth with the article. Noted that most references are made to source 1 (PMI) which are beyond a cursory web search.

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

Annotated bibliography has not been finished and can thus not be commented. Source 1 seems to be the most relevant to acknowledge.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php?title=Talk:Stakeholder_Management_Processes_in_Projects&oldid=66996"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox