Week 1:
Joan Wildenberg:
I can see that you put a lot of thought and effort into this segment. I really like the way you explain the model. By providing the reader with definitions, you make it easy for everyone to understand the correlation and to relate to what you are trying to say.
Overall, the puzzle is well chosen and you do a very good job of providing the reader with well chosen explanations. Well done.
Side note:
-A puzzle (not an puzzle) → use an only if it is followed by a word that begins with a vowel
-If something increases it is a growth in demand, not a grow
Business (profits):
-In general, I like the short, poignant blog post. In terms of structure, I would maybe rearrange the paragraphs in order to give them more structure.
-Now you start with:
-Business may also have personal goals → not only profit
-Business is there to provide for society
-Sustainable character
Why don’t you start with the last two paragraphs and then use the last paragraph to close the blog entry? I like the idea of putting in your personal motivations. I do believe though that you should start more generally and then maybe end with your personal motivations.
Also (some short notes):
Maybe it would be helpful to have an example of a business that makes “the overall good” of society their mission and also makes high profits with that?! That way you make a bridge between the CSR aspect and that businesses can still exist. Maybe use B-corporations?!
Raissa:
In general, I really like your writing style. It is concise,
to the point and is very convincing.
Business of business:
-Sentence: Thus, after all, no matter what?! Rework, missing word!
-So you’re arguing in favor of the statement?
-The way I
understand it, you’re in favor. Profit = Revenue – Costs
-since efficiency is a cost
reduction, it is also a method of profit maximization.
-If you add a final concluding sentence in which you voice
your opinion, your post will be much easier to understand. As a reader, I just
had the feeling that it needed to be wrapped up better.
Puzzle:
I really like your puzzle and the explanations that you were
able to provide for them. I believe that they are well thought of. Especially
your last argument is very plausible and convincing. I personally don’t think
that you have to change anything about this part of your blog entry. Good job.
Week 2:
Suzanne:
Hi Suzanne,
This is concerning your post about the IS in Iraq. Correct me if I am wrong, but I understood our assignment as explaining a decision from a viewpoint of full rationality and bounded rationality. The way that I read your post, makes it seem as if you are merely analyzing the decision and then drawing conclusions on the rationale behind it. So, maybe take a second look at that.
Furthermore, I would appreciate it if you would structure the post a bit better by using more paragraphs etc. Other than that I think you outline the problem swiftly and accurately. Content wise I would only maybe like for you to hear maybe how the decision is also boundedly rational. Do we really have all the information? Do we know what the outcome of our actions are? Maybe comparing it to past conflicts in the region isn't a bad idea.
Thank you though for an enjoyable read. Well done. If you have any further questions, let me know!
Best,
Carl
This is concerning your post about the IS in Iraq. Correct me if I am wrong, but I understood our assignment as explaining a decision from a viewpoint of full rationality and bounded rationality. The way that I read your post, makes it seem as if you are merely analyzing the decision and then drawing conclusions on the rationale behind it. So, maybe take a second look at that.
Furthermore, I would appreciate it if you would structure the post a bit better by using more paragraphs etc. Other than that I think you outline the problem swiftly and accurately. Content wise I would only maybe like for you to hear maybe how the decision is also boundedly rational. Do we really have all the information? Do we know what the outcome of our actions are? Maybe comparing it to past conflicts in the region isn't a bad idea.
Thank you though for an enjoyable read. Well done. If you have any further questions, let me know!
Best,
Carl
Cenyang:
Hi, first of all. Make sure to follow English grammar and spelling
rules. You were already informed by the other comments. Make sure to
change these mistakes, they divert the intention away from your content.
Regarding content, I would appreciate it if there were more information. Outline in a brief case description, where it is located, who us in charge of the project, when it was constructed, what were the alternatives, why was the decision made to locate it where it was. Try to use these questions as the skeleton of your post. Go through it step by step.
You do a nice job of explaining what the theory is, but I would like a better application. Make sure to really explain how and why the decision is made.
In case you have troubles with writing, don't worry. No one is perfect! I would suggest reading through the posts of the others, get a feeling for how they structure their posts and then go from there. Good luck! If you want any feedback on changes that you made, let me know!
Best,
Carl
Week 3:
Koen:
Regarding content, I would appreciate it if there were more information. Outline in a brief case description, where it is located, who us in charge of the project, when it was constructed, what were the alternatives, why was the decision made to locate it where it was. Try to use these questions as the skeleton of your post. Go through it step by step.
You do a nice job of explaining what the theory is, but I would like a better application. Make sure to really explain how and why the decision is made.
In case you have troubles with writing, don't worry. No one is perfect! I would suggest reading through the posts of the others, get a feeling for how they structure their posts and then go from there. Good luck! If you want any feedback on changes that you made, let me know!
Best,
Carl
Week 3:
Koen:
Dear Koen,
1st part:
You frame your post very well by meticulously outlining the
problem that you are focusing on and giving boundaries to your analysis. That
way the reader can follow your argumentation better. In your analysis, you
refer back to the idea of self-organization, which is in line with the text
from Ostrom. After reading through your post I actually feel like I have to go
back in order to change mine again, so thanks.
Maybe it would be helpful to outline self-organization and its hallmarks again for the reader to fully understand your criteria. I would recommend of course either the Ostrom paper or the one by Boons on “Self-organizing and Sustainability”. Furthermore, I felt that you could possibly talk about the problem of self-organization in your example by referring your argumentation to the paper of Hardin. I think the tragedy of the commons could be used very well in your argumentation and could even further solidify your point.
Otherwise, I have to say that I really enjoyed reading this post. It is clearly structured and very easy to follow. Good and solid argumentation.
Maybe it would be helpful to outline self-organization and its hallmarks again for the reader to fully understand your criteria. I would recommend of course either the Ostrom paper or the one by Boons on “Self-organizing and Sustainability”. Furthermore, I felt that you could possibly talk about the problem of self-organization in your example by referring your argumentation to the paper of Hardin. I think the tragedy of the commons could be used very well in your argumentation and could even further solidify your point.
Otherwise, I have to say that I really enjoyed reading this post. It is clearly structured and very easy to follow. Good and solid argumentation.
2nd part:
Good argumentation. By referring to Friedman, you give your
analysis more depth. Your argumentation is logical and in my opinion needs no
further improvement.
Best,
Carl
Weiwen:
Dear Weiwen,
For the assignment on the SES, in general, I like your case.
It is not a very usual example. In terms of the structure, I would maybe try to
really identify the actors, the problem and the system. That way you would give
your post more structure. Right now, you dive directly into the different
subsystems (RS6, etc) without first identifying the main actor groups.
Furthermore, I think that we had to relate this also to self-organization and how that can be attained within the system. I have also made that mistake of not centering my blogpost around that idea. Take a look at the post of Koen, I think he does a very good job of incorporating that premise into his post!
Furthermore, I think that we had to relate this also to self-organization and how that can be attained within the system. I have also made that mistake of not centering my blogpost around that idea. Take a look at the post of Koen, I think he does a very good job of incorporating that premise into his post!
Lastly, I was a bit confused because I didn’t find the
additional question about Friedman. Make sure to look into that and add that.
Best,
Carl
Week 4:
Bob Dubbeldam:
30.12.2014 - No post available
Ozkan:
Dear Ozkan,
Dear Ozkan,
You review the movie very well and in general make it easy
for the reader to imagine what happened in the movie. Also, I appreciated the
several summaries within the text that help direct the reader and create
structure.
If I remember correctly, the supplier was actually a German
company producing in China. Shouldn’t then their company “ethos” as you call it
be more western as well?
The rhetorical questions that you pose are all interesting,
but it is hard to come up on a sound judgment. Maybe you could go back to the
Powell paper and outline the different kinds of ways that legitimacy can be
obtained. I think that doing that would give your post more direction and would
make it more substantive.
The part about power has good thoughts in it. I would maybe
like some more substantive argumentation. Again, the paper will be a valuable
resource for that.
Best,
Carl
Elke:
No post available - 30.12.2014
Week 5:
Stephany Lie:
Dear Stephany,
I think that you apply the theory very well to the case. Your outline of the network lays a strong foundation for your following analysis and helps, especially in the resource dependency part of your blog. In general, I find your writing style very clear and would tend to agree with your use of Gordon's classification. Nothing else to add.
Best,
Carl
Anne van Bruggen:
Dear Anne,
your analysis is very in-depth and rigourous. Your application of the theory is on point and very clear. I have no ideas for changes on this blog post concerning the Maasvlakte network.
Best,
Carl
Week 6:
Jason Kiem:
Dear Jason,
Strong introduction. By giving the reader an outline of the problem and setting the context with the case example of overfishing in the Ijsselmeer you visualize the tragedy of the commons and what its impact is. Also, you did a good job of summarizing the original game. Nevertheless, I miss concrete game rules. You describe the problem well and also how it could be solved in theory, however, I would appreciate concrete game rules. I still have to go back to my own game design to come up with concrete rules, so I know that this is not particularly easy. Nevertheless, I think that your ideas would gain clarity by doing so. I hope that this helps!
Best,
Carl
Kjell Wansleeben
Dear Kjell,
I have to say that I am very impressed with the amount of thought and insight that has gone into your post. You reflected well upon the game and what its problems were when we played it. Furthermore, you offer three concrete changes to what should be done to solve the tragedy of the commons. Nevertheless, I miss concrete game rules where you outline exactly how the new organization will be structured and what rules for punishment there will be. In general, it would be great if you could also provide actual game rules (just like in risk or monopoly). That way you could go even further in-depth and add to the ideas that you already had. Good luck!
Best,
Carl
Week 7:
Hans-Peter:
Dear Hans-Peter,
Good idea for the game. I can see that you put some thought into the game and how it could possibly help explain the creation of industrial symbiosis. In general, I find the instructions to be very well structured. You explain everything in a crisp and clear manner so that the instructions actually read like an actual game manual. The two phases are very well thought out, but I think a slightly more detailed "step by step" outline will help users actually play the game. Nevertheless though, well done!
Best,
Carl
Elke:
No post available - 30.12.2014
Week 5:
Stephany Lie:
Dear Stephany,
I think that you apply the theory very well to the case. Your outline of the network lays a strong foundation for your following analysis and helps, especially in the resource dependency part of your blog. In general, I find your writing style very clear and would tend to agree with your use of Gordon's classification. Nothing else to add.
Best,
Carl
Anne van Bruggen:
Dear Anne,
your analysis is very in-depth and rigourous. Your application of the theory is on point and very clear. I have no ideas for changes on this blog post concerning the Maasvlakte network.
Best,
Carl
Week 6:
Jason Kiem:
Dear Jason,
Strong introduction. By giving the reader an outline of the problem and setting the context with the case example of overfishing in the Ijsselmeer you visualize the tragedy of the commons and what its impact is. Also, you did a good job of summarizing the original game. Nevertheless, I miss concrete game rules. You describe the problem well and also how it could be solved in theory, however, I would appreciate concrete game rules. I still have to go back to my own game design to come up with concrete rules, so I know that this is not particularly easy. Nevertheless, I think that your ideas would gain clarity by doing so. I hope that this helps!
Best,
Carl
Kjell Wansleeben
Dear Kjell,
I have to say that I am very impressed with the amount of thought and insight that has gone into your post. You reflected well upon the game and what its problems were when we played it. Furthermore, you offer three concrete changes to what should be done to solve the tragedy of the commons. Nevertheless, I miss concrete game rules where you outline exactly how the new organization will be structured and what rules for punishment there will be. In general, it would be great if you could also provide actual game rules (just like in risk or monopoly). That way you could go even further in-depth and add to the ideas that you already had. Good luck!
Best,
Carl
Week 7:
Hans-Peter:
Dear Hans-Peter,
Good idea for the game. I can see that you put some thought into the game and how it could possibly help explain the creation of industrial symbiosis. In general, I find the instructions to be very well structured. You explain everything in a crisp and clear manner so that the instructions actually read like an actual game manual. The two phases are very well thought out, but I think a slightly more detailed "step by step" outline will help users actually play the game. Nevertheless though, well done!
Best,
Carl
Bob Dubbeldam:
30.12.2014 - No post available
No comments:
Post a Comment