Talk:Value Analysis
| Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
''Answer here'' | ''Answer here'' | ||
| − | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: '' | + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Emma B. K. Hansen''== |
===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Quality of the summary:''' | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| − | Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? | + | Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Yes |
| − | What would you suggest to improve? | + | What would you suggest to improve? Develop further |
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| Line 110: | Line 110: | ||
'''Structure and logic of the article:''' | '''Structure and logic of the article:''' | ||
| − | Is the argument clear? | + | Is the argument clear? Yes |
Is there a logical flow to the article? | Is there a logical flow to the article? | ||
| Line 126: | Line 126: | ||
'''Grammar and style:''' | '''Grammar and style:''' | ||
| − | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? | + | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Yes |
| − | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? | + | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| Line 150: | Line 150: | ||
'''Interest and relevance:''' | '''Interest and relevance:''' | ||
| − | Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? | + | Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? So far - yes |
| − | Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? | + | Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? No it's not clear. |
| − | What would you suggest to improve? | + | What would you suggest to improve? Relate it to ppp |
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
Latest revision as of 21:28, 19 February 2018
Contents |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Ida Smidt
[edit] Question 1 · TEXT
Quality of the summary:
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
Key focus - yes
What would you suggest to improve?
Insights and contribution of the article
[edit] Answer 1
Answer here
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 2
Answer here
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 3
Answer here
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 4
Answer here
[edit] Question 5 · TEXT
Interest and relevance:
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?
Yes
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?
Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 5
Answer here
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 6
Answer here
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 7
Answer here
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Emma B. K. Hansen
[edit] Question 1 · TEXT
Quality of the summary:
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Yes
What would you suggest to improve? Develop further
[edit] Answer 1
Answer here
[edit] Question 2 · TEXT
Structure and logic of the article:
Is the argument clear? Yes
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?
[edit] Answer 2
Answer here
[edit] Question 3 · TEXT
Grammar and style:
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Yes
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 3
Answer here
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 4
Answer here
[edit] Question 5 · TEXT
Interest and relevance:
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? So far - yes
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? No it's not clear.
What would you suggest to improve? Relate it to ppp
[edit] Answer 5
Answer here
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 6
Answer here
[edit] 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?
[edit] Answer 7
Answer here
[edit] Abstract Feedback
Text Clarity; Ok.
Language; Ok.
References; missing references related to the standards
In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget to connect the topic with the standards for example with the "cost" subject group of the ISO 21500 or the equivalent of he PMBOK.
Value Engineering is associated commonly in Lean projects.
