Foreword: She mentions a failure of the questionnaire in her foreword. This is
maybe more important to mention in the discussion of the thesis. Not very relevant
for the foreword since this maybe let the reader doubt the validity of the thesis.
Introduction: Problem is described well, explaining of real estate office market, why
there is vacancy and numbers. Going from Dutch trend to Europe trends is not
necessary in my perspective but confuses the reader. What are the 4 main urban
regions in the Netherlands is not explained here (see page 8). Also missing some
real-life examples on page 8. Page 9 the last Alinea could be aligned with the other
information better, since now it is vague and detached.
Literature review: The first three types in the first Alinea, maybe some more
elaboration on the definition of those 3 types. Why she chooses the 3 subquestions
is not very elaborated, why is location, building characteristics important and why is it
much related to her main question is not defined much. The relation with why the LQ
is important for vacant offices or offices is not clear mentioned. Lost track of the total
numbers of side questions, since they are divided over different Alinea’s.
Research objective and questions: Subquestions not explained properly why she
choose it and they are previously mentioned in the literature review but formulated
different, this is confusing to the reader. Seems too many questions.
Research methods: In the literature she is mentioning the users of the serviced
offices, yet she does not take this group into account when conduction the semi
structured interview. So, her response will be from the CEOs of serviced offices and
realtors, more the investor side and one-sided perspective. Yet she did not define
these as the users in her literature review. Her approach is deduction, and not
qualitative of quantitative, not very well elaborated why deduction and not qualitative
or quantitative. What are SOC’s is not defined here. Yet she talks about doing
quantitative methods, and before she said this was not the research method, this
creates confusion. She is doubting if the overview was complete on page 21, not
being sure says she is doubting while doing research, a bad sign to the reader.
This resulted in a qualitative interpretation of data. From a quantitative viewpoint, the
coding tables were designed to display the number of participants that elaborated on
a certain element
The person (CEO/Realtor) characteristics was not mentioned here, man or female.
Age segmentation, She only mentioned geographical segmentation. Also, which
companies would she segment on is not mentioned. Therefore, repeating that
interview is very difficult, because there is not much accurate data available.
Results: The table measurements on the left are not explained before, so this is new
information and why is it put there in the table remains the questions. Also, there is
no elaborated definition of G100.000-plus, and G100.000-minus. Definition and a
better introduction to the results is necessary in order to understand the table. “Not
all realtors agreed” can you say this!
From LQ to formulating a conclusion that there are opportunities for serviced offices
is a step too far away from each other. Without giving any crossover details (See
maybe more important to mention in the discussion of the thesis. Not very relevant
for the foreword since this maybe let the reader doubt the validity of the thesis.
Introduction: Problem is described well, explaining of real estate office market, why
there is vacancy and numbers. Going from Dutch trend to Europe trends is not
necessary in my perspective but confuses the reader. What are the 4 main urban
regions in the Netherlands is not explained here (see page 8). Also missing some
real-life examples on page 8. Page 9 the last Alinea could be aligned with the other
information better, since now it is vague and detached.
Literature review: The first three types in the first Alinea, maybe some more
elaboration on the definition of those 3 types. Why she chooses the 3 subquestions
is not very elaborated, why is location, building characteristics important and why is it
much related to her main question is not defined much. The relation with why the LQ
is important for vacant offices or offices is not clear mentioned. Lost track of the total
numbers of side questions, since they are divided over different Alinea’s.
Research objective and questions: Subquestions not explained properly why she
choose it and they are previously mentioned in the literature review but formulated
different, this is confusing to the reader. Seems too many questions.
Research methods: In the literature she is mentioning the users of the serviced
offices, yet she does not take this group into account when conduction the semi
structured interview. So, her response will be from the CEOs of serviced offices and
realtors, more the investor side and one-sided perspective. Yet she did not define
these as the users in her literature review. Her approach is deduction, and not
qualitative of quantitative, not very well elaborated why deduction and not qualitative
or quantitative. What are SOC’s is not defined here. Yet she talks about doing
quantitative methods, and before she said this was not the research method, this
creates confusion. She is doubting if the overview was complete on page 21, not
being sure says she is doubting while doing research, a bad sign to the reader.
This resulted in a qualitative interpretation of data. From a quantitative viewpoint, the
coding tables were designed to display the number of participants that elaborated on
a certain element
The person (CEO/Realtor) characteristics was not mentioned here, man or female.
Age segmentation, She only mentioned geographical segmentation. Also, which
companies would she segment on is not mentioned. Therefore, repeating that
interview is very difficult, because there is not much accurate data available.
Results: The table measurements on the left are not explained before, so this is new
information and why is it put there in the table remains the questions. Also, there is
no elaborated definition of G100.000-plus, and G100.000-minus. Definition and a
better introduction to the results is necessary in order to understand the table. “Not
all realtors agreed” can you say this!
From LQ to formulating a conclusion that there are opportunities for serviced offices
is a step too far away from each other. Without giving any crossover details (See
