Talk:Waterfall vs. Lean Project Management

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; need some clarification, check comments below. Language; Ok. References; missing references related to the standards. As it is indicated...")
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 +
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer Name: Gudmundur Hermannsson==
 +
 +
===Question 1===
 +
 +
Quality of the summary:
 +
 +
 +
What would you suggest to improve?
 +
 +
===Answer 1===
 +
 +
Easily understandable, nothing to improve
 +
 +
===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 Abstract is the only thing uploaded.
 +
 +
===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===
 +
 +
The abstract is easy to read and no grammatical and spelling errors. 
 +
===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 and tables within the article 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 compares the Waterfall and Lean project management. It is easy to see the use for this article.
 +
 +
===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===
 +
 +
The abstract is the only thing uploaded so far, so it is not easy to say anything about this topic yet.
 +
 +
 +
===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===
 +
 +
The article cites some previous work. It is yet to briefly summarize the key reference.
 +
 
==Abstract Feedback==
 
==Abstract Feedback==
 
Text Clarity; need some clarification, check comments below.
 
Text Clarity; need some clarification, check comments below.

Latest revision as of 13:48, 21 February 2018

Contents

[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer Name: Gudmundur Hermannsson

[edit] Question 1

Quality of the summary:


What would you suggest to improve?

[edit] Answer 1

Easily understandable, nothing to improve

[edit] 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?

[edit] Answer 2

The Abstract is the only thing uploaded.

[edit] 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?

[edit] Answer 3

The abstract is easy to read and no grammatical and spelling errors.

[edit] 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?

[edit] Answer 4

There are no figures and tables within the article yet.

[edit] 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?

[edit] Answer 5

The article compares the Waterfall and Lean project management. It is easy to see the use for this article.

[edit] 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?

[edit] Answer 6

The abstract is the only thing uploaded so far, so it is not easy to say anything about this topic yet.


[edit] 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?

[edit] Answer 7

The article cites some previous work. It is yet to briefly summarize the key reference.

[edit] Abstract Feedback

Text Clarity; need some clarification, check comments below.

Language; Ok.

References; missing references related to the standards.

As it is indicated in the abstract, Waterfall is a sequential model but also is a process whereas Lean Project Management is a management style.

If you go for comparing processes compare waterfall vs. "pull processes" that are the ones common in Lean approach.

If you go for comparing management styles, check in which type of management styles are most common the waterfall model.

When developing the article don't forget to elaborate and describe the relevance for a Project Manager from both perspectives whenever you go for the processes aspects or the management styles.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php?title=Talk:Waterfall_vs._Lean_Project_Management&oldid=52509"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox