Assessment of Master Thesis – Academic Consultant
Study programme:Applied Informatics
Field of study:Information Systems Management Academic year:2020/2021
Master Thesis Topic:Choosing project management tool for telecommunication company Author’s name:Farrukh Sadikbaev, BS
Ac. Consultant’s Name:Ing. Jan Kučera, Ph.D.
Opponent:Ing. Dušan Chlapek, Ph.D.
Criterion Mark
(1–4)
1. Clarity and comprehensibility of the thesis topic and aims 1
2. The extent and relevance of the description of the current state of knowledge 3
3. The complexity of the thesis topic 3
4. Method adequeteness for solving the given issue, correctness of the choice and use 2
5. The extent, quality and precision of the result description 3
6. Relevance and correctness of the result discussion 3
7. Factual contribution of the thesis result 3
8. Information source relevance and citation correctness 3
9. Logical structure and cohesion among individual parts 2
10. Grammar, linguistic style, terminology and overall arrangement 2
11. Student’s initiative and cooperation with the supervisor 2
12. The use of analytical and data processing methods 3
13. Meeting the principles of ethics and sustainability 2
14. Critical and creative thinking 2
Comments and Questions:
The aim of the diploma thesis was to select a project management tool for a telecommunication company.
The motivation driving this aim was the author’s experience he had gained over six years working for several telecommunication companies that management of projects often suffered from poor support by appropriate software tools. Since the thesis was aimed at selecting a suitable tool for a particular
telecommunication company, for that company the results of the master thesis could be useful despite the shortcomings of the analysis described below. However, the diploma thesis did not fulfil its potential as a case study valuable to a wider audience because the analysis lacks the necessary rigour.
Although the chapters are sequenced in a logical order and reflect a reasonable selection process, the text is not always easy to follow. Some information is placed in annexes, however the text in the main body of the thesis sometimes just references the annexes without providing a summary of the referenced
information which, at some points, makes tracking of the selection process a challenging task.
The weak point of the selection process is the identification of requirements. Only a limited amount of information about the projects of the company and the processes of their delivery was provided. As a result, the requirements described in the table 8 do not seem to be fully supported by what the thesis describes. There is also a second set of requirements described in the table 9 which were derived from the information provided by the interviewed expert of the company. However, the two sets of requirements seem to be at least partly overlapping. Also, the description of the requirements in the table 9 does not adhere to the declared structure of the user story.
The requirements have been described with only very short descriptions and in some cases with vague or ambiguous language. No specific criteria for evaluation of the requirements were set. Therefore, it is not clear to what extent the evaluated project management tools satisfy the requirements.
Assessing the GDPR compliance of the analysed project management tools by reviewing the privacy policy available at the vendor’s web site is a questionable approach because the web site’s privacy policy might not reflect the features of the analysed tools. The available documentations should have been studied instead or the vendors should have been asked about the features of the tools. This approach could have led to an incorrect assessment of the analysed tools.
Originality of the work
Originality of the master thesis was automatically checked. The similarity score determined by the iThenticate service is 12 %. Although the materials used are cited throughout the text, there are some paragraphs that should have been marked as quotations rather than an author’s own summary of the cited material. Also, some of the referenced materials listed in the list of references have obviously incorrect titles.
Suggested question to be discussed at the defence:
• How do the representatives of the company consider the applicability of the results of the thesis?
Conclusion: The Master Thesis is recommended for the defence.
Suggested Grade: 3
Date: 10/08/2021 Ing. Jan Kučera, Ph.D.
Academic Consultant
