Talk:Why, How, What (The Golden Circle Model)

From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "==Abstract Feedback== Text Clarity; Ok. Language; Ok. References; missing references related to the standards The abstract describes the use of the golden circle in organiz...")
 
(→‎Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Baptiste Hubert)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 9: Line 9:
  
 
Annotated bibliography is a list of articles, books or documents followed by a briefly descriptive and evaluative paragraph, what you have under your ''annotated bibliography'' section are ''references''.
 
Annotated bibliography is a list of articles, books or documents followed by a briefly descriptive and evaluative paragraph, what you have under your ''annotated bibliography'' section are ''references''.
 +
 +
 +
==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Baptiste Hubert''==
 +
===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 abstract is clearly, you can improve it to put the fisrt picture in the "abstract section" instead of the "big idea" section''
 +
 +
===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 argument is  clear, there is a logical flow in the artcicle, there are link between the parties, there are not contradictions ine the article ''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''I don't see grammatical and spelling errors''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''The figures are clear, we can understand them easily''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''You can developped the sections of "applications" and "limiations", in order to understand in details how and when we can use this models''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''I think the article is interesting for both, practitioner  and academic. ''
 +
 +
===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===
 +
''The article cite and acknowledge previous work but it doesn't briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article. It's based on opinion''
 +
 +
==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Seyed (Habib) Bahrami''==
 +
===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===
 +
Overall, yes. The abstract is clear, concise and summarises the focus of the article. I like the three bullet points. However, you could shortly add the relationship between the Golden Circle Model and the human brain in here as well, because that is really exciting. 
 +
 +
===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 argument is clear, and there is a logical flow and good setup to the article (assuming that the application and limitation will also be considered). One part does build upon another, especially the comparison of the Golden Circle Model and the human brain. The article (as it is now) is consistent in its argument and does not have contradictions.
 +
 +
===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===
 +
A small typo in the section Big Idea: "In his model, SInek explains something he...", you mean Sinek.
 +
 +
Apart from that I found no grammatical and spelling errors. There were places where I would place an extra comma, but that does not necessarily make the text incorrect. The language is clear, concise and comprehensible. I have no further improvements.
 +
 +
===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===
 +
The two figures are good to have in order to understand the points that you make, but figures should be self-explanatory. Explain in the figure text what the figure represents.
 +
 +
 +
===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 topic that the article discusses is not a topic that all Project managers (assuming the topic is written in the project level, and not program or portefolio level) MUST know, and even though many project managers do not necessarily use the modelthey complete the project successfully. However, it is a very exciting topic, and a knowledge in this matter will undeniably be interesting and relevant for a project manager, because, as stated in the article, having a strong WHY helps establishing a strong vision, which can help with the motivation of the project team.
 +
 +
===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===
 +
Yes, the article is very interesting for a practitioner or academic to read. Since it is a topic that is not included in many project, program or portfolio textbooks it will make a significant contribution to have it explained here. However, the depth of treatment could be better if the topic revolved more about project management. Perhaps include more examples.
 +
 +
===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===
 +
The annotated bibliography is empty, but in references the article proporly cite and acknowledge previous work.
 +
 +
If you could find more relevant references, aside from Simon Sinek, it would be more empirical and better.

Latest revision as of 19:14, 19 February 2018

Contents

[edit] Abstract Feedback

Text Clarity; Ok.

Language; Ok.

References; missing references related to the standards

The abstract describes the use of the golden circle in organizations, try to develop the article thinking in the project organization and find relevant literature.

Annotated bibliography is a list of articles, books or documents followed by a briefly descriptive and evaluative paragraph, what you have under your annotated bibliography section are references.


[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Baptiste Hubert

[edit] 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?

[edit] Answer 1

The abstract is clearly, you can improve it to put the fisrt picture in the "abstract section" instead of the "big idea" section

[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

The argument is clear, there is a logical flow in the artcicle, there are link between the parties, there are not contradictions ine the article

[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

I don't see grammatical and spelling errors

[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

The figures are clear, we can understand them easily

[edit] 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?

[edit] Answer 5

You can developped the sections of "applications" and "limiations", in order to understand in details how and when we can use this models

[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

I think the article is interesting for both, practitioner and academic.

[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

The article cite and acknowledge previous work but it doesn't briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article. It's based on opinion

[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Seyed (Habib) Bahrami

[edit] 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?

[edit] Answer 1

Overall, yes. The abstract is clear, concise and summarises the focus of the article. I like the three bullet points. However, you could shortly add the relationship between the Golden Circle Model and the human brain in here as well, because that is really exciting.

[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

The argument is clear, and there is a logical flow and good setup to the article (assuming that the application and limitation will also be considered). One part does build upon another, especially the comparison of the Golden Circle Model and the human brain. The article (as it is now) is consistent in its argument and does not have contradictions.

[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

A small typo in the section Big Idea: "In his model, SInek explains something he...", you mean Sinek.

Apart from that I found no grammatical and spelling errors. There were places where I would place an extra comma, but that does not necessarily make the text incorrect. The language is clear, concise and comprehensible. I have no further improvements.

[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

The two figures are good to have in order to understand the points that you make, but figures should be self-explanatory. Explain in the figure text what the figure represents.


[edit] 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?

[edit] Answer 5

The topic that the article discusses is not a topic that all Project managers (assuming the topic is written in the project level, and not program or portefolio level) MUST know, and even though many project managers do not necessarily use the modelthey complete the project successfully. However, it is a very exciting topic, and a knowledge in this matter will undeniably be interesting and relevant for a project manager, because, as stated in the article, having a strong WHY helps establishing a strong vision, which can help with the motivation of the project team.

[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

Yes, the article is very interesting for a practitioner or academic to read. Since it is a topic that is not included in many project, program or portfolio textbooks it will make a significant contribution to have it explained here. However, the depth of treatment could be better if the topic revolved more about project management. Perhaps include more examples.

[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

The annotated bibliography is empty, but in references the article proporly cite and acknowledge previous work.

If you could find more relevant references, aside from Simon Sinek, it would be more empirical and better.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.doing-projects.org/index.php?title=Talk:Why,_How,_What_(The_Golden_Circle_Model)&oldid=51590"
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Toolbox