Talk:The Critical Chain Method

Mette: Hello, I like your idea and I like if you would add the topic you have written within the brakets. As you write yourself it would be nice to add something specific/different in the article.

Thanks for the feedback. However, after I talked with Joseph I decide to focus on just one topic. It could be a future topic to investigate.

Reviewer 1, s112960

Overall

• It looks to me as if you are following the ‘method’ structure
• Clearly the topic is related to a project, program or portfolio topic
• It’s written very clear and straightforward and is thus easy to read
• It’s an interesting topic.
• Even though the article is not done I like how it’s build up e.g. how ‘limitations’ of traditional approaches leads to the explanation of Critical Chain Method
• It’s good that you have many different references both books and online. This makes your article trustworthier.

Abstract

• Good explanation of why CCPM was made (response to projects resulted in larger duration etc.)
• If it is possible, it would be awesome if exactly how CCPM differs from traditional methodology is explained in one sentence so we already know in the beginning. You write it differs in how uncertainty is handled – but how exactly?

Nice comment, but the sentence was just present in the draft ;)

Theory of constraints:

• Nice illustration. However, it will make it easier to read it, if you made it bigger.

Thanks for the tips. I am thinking that in order to avoid making the article too long, some of the figures will remain of the same size. To better visualize them it possible to click on it.

• Good use of a quote. You might want to consider mentioning the one you are quoting by name e.g. ‘As explained by Goldratt…’

Undesired effects of traditional approach:

• I like the mentioning of a ‘’Student Syndrome’’
• Again, good use of a figure, but it needs to be bigger

Thanks again. See previous comment

Suggestions for improvement:

• Remember the bibliography of references
• It might be an idea to have examples in the article. It would also be interesting in comparing Critical Path to CCPM.

Due to space limitation, I choose to deeply analyze the CCPM and I add specific explanation step by step with an external example.

I’m looking forward to reading your finished article. Good luck!

Review3, s150794:

Overall:

• My first impression of this article is that it is clear and straightforward, and looks good with clearly defined headings and sections, and there are descriptive pictures with explanation.
• You have a good academic language throughout the article.
• The article is a bit short, but I see that you have some more topics you want to write about. :)

Abstract:

• A good introduction to the term, but I'm not sure if you need the first sentence.

I forgot to remove it. Theory of constraints:

• I like that you start with a short introduction of this topic.
• It think it is a smart way to highlight the implementation how you use the 5 points from the first paragraph to the next, with an adequate explanation.

Undesired effects of traditional approach:

• Looks good so far. I look forward to the rest 

Some suggestions for improvement:

• There are some space between some sentences that may give the text less flow. Tips could be to make the first part of “Theory of construction” to make it to a coherent paragraph.

I remove the spaces where unnecessary, but I did not get the second part of your sentence.

• Some sentences that where a bit long, which made it a bit hard to follow. A tip is to either divide of rewrite the sentences. Two examples:
  • “CCPM is an outgrowth of the Theory of Constraints(TOC) and was introduced in 1997 in Eliyahu M. Goldratt’s book, “Critical Chain”[2] in response to many projects resulted in larger duration, increased cost, and less derivable than expected.”
  • “TOC is a systems-management philosophy, originally applied to production system, based on the principle that any system must have a constraint that limits its output.”

Thanks for noting this. It is an "italian problem" I am trying to avoid. I shortened many sentences

• Some of the sentence had some grammar faults. I would looked a little on sentence structure.

Thanks. Hope I found all the grammar mistakes

• In addition to CCPM you could include a paragraph on risk, since you have this in the title.

It would be a really nice idea. Since risk is a quite wide topic, I am not sure if it would fit in my article.

Reviewer 2, s145170:

Overall:

• The article clearly follows the “methods” structure, states the topic from the beginning and is compact and to the point.
• The topic is related to a project, program or portfolio topic
• Good and clear academic language
• Figures that correspond to the theory described and cover the main aspects of the topic
• The transition from the one headline to the other, as well as from sentence to sentence is logical

Abstract:

• Good description of the context that is directly related to the Method
• Important that you mention the Critical Path Method, which differs from the CCPM and you will compare them

Theory of constraints:

• Nice introduction to the topic by stating the relation between CCPM and TOC, which explains why you will analyze the second.
• Even if you describe the implementation of the “five focusing steps” to Project Management, you could refer to a real-world example, which would be combined with the analysis of the theory that you already did.

Thanks for the tip. I add a practical explanation regarding PM along the five focusing steps.

Undesired effects of traditional approach:

• Important that you mention the undesired effects of traditional approaches, so that you strengthen the implementation of yours.
• I like the example with the student syndrome, as it helps understand what you describe in practice.

Suggestions of improvements

• As you cover the theory adequately (even if a part is missing, it is clear from the contents), a practical example is needed, maybe in the form of small practical implementations/examples like the “Student Syndrome”, in order to reinforce your theory description.
• You could also add your own opinion somewhere in the text. As it is difficult to include our own opinion in the description of a theory, you could evaluate the implementation of this theory in a small example, as I proposed one point before

Thanks, I change a bit the structure and add pratical instruction both about five steps and about CCPM method itself.

• Maybe you could avoid some voids between small sentences.
• If the figures are not yours, you may have to add a reference to avoid copyright problems

I had the source in the description of the figures, not sure if it is the right place

Very interesting topic with nice compact structure! I wish you good luck with the rest!