Talk:Lean as a project management tool - Revision history

Sorth90: /* Reaction to Feedback */

2015-09-26T07:50:51Z

Reaction to Feedback

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:50, 26 September 2015
Line 55:		Line 55:
	==Reaction to Feedback==		==Reaction to Feedback==
	'''Rasmus Sorth-Olsen, s117422'''		'''Rasmus Sorth-Olsen, s117422'''

	'''User: Sorth90'''		'''User: Sorth90'''


	I’m glad to have received the constructive feedback.		I’m glad to have received the constructive feedback.

Sorth90: /* Reaction to Feedback */

2015-09-26T07:50:22Z

Reaction to Feedback

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:50, 26 September 2015
Line 54:		Line 54:

	==Reaction to Feedback==		==Reaction to Feedback==
			'''Rasmus Sorth-Olsen, s117422'''
			'''User: Sorth90'''

	I’m glad to have received the constructive feedback.		I’m glad to have received the constructive feedback.

Sorth90: /* Reaction to Feedback */

2015-09-26T07:42:17Z

Reaction to Feedback

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:42, 26 September 2015
Line 63:		Line 63:
	One of the feedbacks said that the section “History” seemed a bit unnecessary. However, in my opinion this section is necessary, in order to do the introduction of the topic. Instead I have referenced some other articles in this section. This way the section is still an important introduction for the reader, which gives a better understanding of the rest of the article.		One of the feedbacks said that the section “History” seemed a bit unnecessary. However, in my opinion this section is necessary, in order to do the introduction of the topic. Instead I have referenced some other articles in this section. This way the section is still an important introduction for the reader, which gives a better understanding of the rest of the article.
	I have furthermore referenced the following wiki articles:		I have furthermore referenced the following wiki articles:
	* The A3 report		* [[The A3 report]]
	* Kaizen Event		* [[Kaizen Event]]
	* The Gantt Chart		* [[The Gantt Chart]]

	I would have used more references, but since the wiki article could only contain 3-10 references, I have only used the most important ones, which have had the most importance to the articles content.		I would have used more references, but since the wiki article could only contain 3-10 references, I have only used the most important ones, which have had the most importance to the articles content.

	I have made the figures myself and this is why there are no references on them.		I have made the figures myself and this is why there are no references on them.

Sorth90 at 07:40, 26 September 2015

2015-09-26T07:40:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:40, 26 September 2015
Line 52:		Line 52:
	;Is the article properly linked within the Wiki to other relevant articles and category summaries?		;Is the article properly linked within the Wiki to other relevant articles and category summaries?
	: There are no links within the Wiki.		: There are no links within the Wiki.

			==Reaction to Feedback==

			I’m glad to have received the constructive feedback.

			All the three judges/students feedback are generally positive.

			I have later tried to correct some grammatical errors in the article.

			One of the feedbacks said that the section “History” seemed a bit unnecessary. However, in my opinion this section is necessary, in order to do the introduction of the topic. Instead I have referenced some other articles in this section. This way the section is still an important introduction for the reader, which gives a better understanding of the rest of the article.
			I have furthermore referenced the following wiki articles:
			* The A3 report
			* Kaizen Event
			* The Gantt Chart

			I would have used more references, but since the wiki article could only contain 3-10 references, I have only used the most important ones, which have had the most importance to the articles content.

			I have made the figures myself and this is why there are no references on them.

Faker at 20:30, 22 September 2015

2015-09-22T20:30:14Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:30, 22 September 2015
Line 32:		Line 32:
	* Under my point of view the Discussion part is a little poor. I think it could be a good idea to mention and describe the main benefits of using this tool compared to other methods.		* Under my point of view the Discussion part is a little poor. I think it could be a good idea to mention and describe the main benefits of using this tool compared to other methods.
	* Also, I think it would improve the article and also meet the course requirements to describe more specifically the limitations and the problems that might arise if using this tool inappropriately.		* Also, I think it would improve the article and also meet the course requirements to describe more specifically the limitations and the problems that might arise if using this tool inappropriately.

			==Reviewer: Faker, review3==

			;Clarity of writing. Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?
			: There are a lot of both grammatical and spelling error.
			: Unacademic language. pulling "it" and "is" together in "it's" is better suited for speech than academic writing.
			: There are not necessarily a lot of fill words, but the text can come across as a bit lenghty. It seems possible to explain the topic in a more concise manner.

			;Clarity of the argument: 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?
			: The order of chapters seem to work well.

			;Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?
			: I feel like the history chapter is irrelevant to the assignment as described in the course handbook.
			: I feel like the topic of the article is spread too thin. Some of the tool explanations could be done by just linking to other articles that describe the specific tool in more detail.

			;Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?
			: The article is well cited. Some passages are dominated by authors opinion, but it is not excessive and it does not hurt the point of the article.

			;Is the article properly linked within the Wiki to other relevant articles and category summaries?
			: There are no links within the Wiki.

S141926 at 19:19, 22 September 2015

2015-09-22T19:19:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:19, 22 September 2015
Line 16:		Line 16:
	I think it is a good and well written article about Lean, providing a good understanding of the tool in a clear and structured way.		I think it is a good and well written article about Lean, providing a good understanding of the tool in a clear and structured way.

	== General formal aspects ==		=== General formal aspects ===
	* I would suggest to review grammatical aspects, I could find some inaccuracies like subject-verb disagreement		* I would suggest to review grammatical aspects, I could find some inaccuracies like subject-verb disagreement
	* Good structure. Clear and well-structured article, with good introduction/history, overview of the tool and then more specific aspects of the use of it as management tool.		* Good structure. Clear and well-structured article, with good introduction/history, overview of the tool and then more specific aspects of the use of it as management tool.
Line 23:		Line 23:
	* When mentioning methods/concepts that have a Wikipedia article it might be a good idea to link them.		* When mentioning methods/concepts that have a Wikipedia article it might be a good idea to link them.

	== Review of the content ==		=== Review of the content ===
	* Nice illustrations that make more understandable the process and the article more attractive to the reader.		* Nice illustrations that make more understandable the process and the article more attractive to the reader.
	* The length of the article seems appropriate and covers all the requirements of the method-article under my point of view. There is a good continuity throughout the article and under my point of view not unnecessary long sentences.		* The length of the article seems appropriate and covers all the requirements of the method-article under my point of view. There is a good continuity throughout the article and under my point of view not unnecessary long sentences.

S141926 at 19:19, 22 September 2015

2015-09-22T19:19:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:19, 22 September 2015
Line 16:		Line 16:
	I think it is a good and well written article about Lean, providing a good understanding of the tool in a clear and structured way.		I think it is a good and well written article about Lean, providing a good understanding of the tool in a clear and structured way.

	=== General formal aspects ===		== General formal aspects ==
	* I would suggest to review grammatical aspects, I could find some inaccuracies like subject-verb disagreement		* I would suggest to review grammatical aspects, I could find some inaccuracies like subject-verb disagreement
	* Good structure. Clear and well-structured article, with good introduction/history, overview of the tool and then more specific aspects of the use of it as management tool.		* Good structure. Clear and well-structured article, with good introduction/history, overview of the tool and then more specific aspects of the use of it as management tool.
Line 23:		Line 23:
	* When mentioning methods/concepts that have a Wikipedia article it might be a good idea to link them.		* When mentioning methods/concepts that have a Wikipedia article it might be a good idea to link them.

	=== Review of the content ===		== Review of the content ==
	* Nice illustrations that make more understandable the process and the article more attractive to the reader.		* Nice illustrations that make more understandable the process and the article more attractive to the reader.
	* The length of the article seems appropriate and covers all the requirements of the method-article under my point of view. There is a good continuity throughout the article and under my point of view not unnecessary long sentences.		* The length of the article seems appropriate and covers all the requirements of the method-article under my point of view. There is a good continuity throughout the article and under my point of view not unnecessary long sentences.

S141926: /* Review1 given by S152093 */

2015-09-22T19:18:45Z

Review1 given by S152093

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:18, 22 September 2015
Line 12:		Line 12:
	* The three sections, “The Lean Stucture”, “What is Lean as a project management tool?”, and “How can Lean be use as a project management tool?” are a little repetitive to me. Maybe to write it into less sections, or a little more defined outline of the sections would make it a little more clear to me.		* The three sections, “The Lean Stucture”, “What is Lean as a project management tool?”, and “How can Lean be use as a project management tool?” are a little repetitive to me. Maybe to write it into less sections, or a little more defined outline of the sections would make it a little more clear to me.
	* The bibliography is missing the part from the structure “Summarize and outline the relevance of each reference to the topic”.		* The bibliography is missing the part from the structure “Summarize and outline the relevance of each reference to the topic”.

			== Review of S141926, Reviewer 2 ==
			I think it is a good and well written article about Lean, providing a good understanding of the tool in a clear and structured way.

			=== General formal aspects ===
			* I would suggest to review grammatical aspects, I could find some inaccuracies like subject-verb disagreement
			* Good structure. Clear and well-structured article, with good introduction/history, overview of the tool and then more specific aspects of the use of it as management tool.
			* The article engages the reader thanks to the fact that is easily readable, I think the use of the bullet points and subcategories help a lot to that with a logical and easy to follow work flow.
			* Good reference notation and format. In case the figures attached are taken from some source I would add its reference to the caption.
			* When mentioning methods/concepts that have a Wikipedia article it might be a good idea to link them.

			=== Review of the content ===
			* Nice illustrations that make more understandable the process and the article more attractive to the reader.
			* The length of the article seems appropriate and covers all the requirements of the method-article under my point of view. There is a good continuity throughout the article and under my point of view not unnecessary long sentences.
			* Sometimes it is a bit difficult to differentiate between statements from literature and own opinion
			* Clear and well defined processes to use Lean as a management tool.
			* It provides interesting recommendations to avoid counterproductive issues if one is to use the tool.
			* It provides a good understanding of the tool and how to use it.
			* Under my point of view the Discussion part is a little poor. I think it could be a good idea to mention and describe the main benefits of using this tool compared to other methods.
			* Also, I think it would improve the article and also meet the course requirements to describe more specifically the limitations and the problems that might arise if using this tool inappropriately.

S152093: /* Review1 given by S152093 */

2015-09-22T18:27:58Z

Review1 given by S152093

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:27, 22 September 2015
Line 9:		Line 9:
	* You mention that other PM methods could be more useful in the conclusion. It would be really nice with an example of that, either here or somewhere else in the article.		* You mention that other PM methods could be more useful in the conclusion. It would be really nice with an example of that, either here or somewhere else in the article.
	* Maybe a little more talk about the limitations?		* Maybe a little more talk about the limitations?
			* The figures are good, but the aren't referred to, and that makes them unnecessary as it is right now. In my eyes, they need to be referred to and included in the text, if they are there.
	* The three sections, “The Lean Stucture”, “What is Lean as a project management tool?”, and “How can Lean be use as a project management tool?” are a little repetitive to me. Maybe to write it into less sections, or a little more defined outline of the sections would make it a little more clear to me.		* The three sections, “The Lean Stucture”, “What is Lean as a project management tool?”, and “How can Lean be use as a project management tool?” are a little repetitive to me. Maybe to write it into less sections, or a little more defined outline of the sections would make it a little more clear to me.
	* The bibliography is missing the part from the structure “Summarize and outline the relevance of each reference to the topic”.		* The bibliography is missing the part from the structure “Summarize and outline the relevance of each reference to the topic”.

S152093 at 18:25, 22 September 2015

2015-09-22T18:25:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:25, 22 September 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Mette: I like the idea and the topic you have chosen. As you write Lean contains many tools, so you could maybe consider if you should focus on only one tool in case of not getting your hands too full. It would still be possible to look at the questions you have presented by only looking at one tool.		Mette: I like the idea and the topic you have chosen. As you write Lean contains many tools, so you could maybe consider if you should focus on only one tool in case of not getting your hands too full. It would still be possible to look at the questions you have presented by only looking at one tool.

			==Review1 given by S152093==
			* Good article overall. I learned something from it, and it was very informative. A few typos here and there, but there is a full week to correct that :-) In my eyes it gives a very good overview, which is really good. Alternatively you could have chosen a specific area to go in depth with. A few specific comments:
			* In “the Lean Structure” I think it would be a little easier to get an overview if the titles were included in the bullets, instead of only in the picture. The picture is really good though, as it gives a quick overview.
			* In the next section the titles would be nice as well, but then in the section about how lean can be used as a tool it is included, and that is nice.
			* If possible, link to other articles under Gantt chart, QCD-triangle etc.
			* When the different parts of the Lean philosophy is described, it would be very useful for me to have the different steps compared to the “traditional” PM methods. You do it at the end of the article, but it would create an easier understanding for me, if there were some concrete examples on where it differs.
			* You mention that other PM methods could be more useful in the conclusion. It would be really nice with an example of that, either here or somewhere else in the article.
			* Maybe a little more talk about the limitations?
			* The three sections, “The Lean Stucture”, “What is Lean as a project management tool?”, and “How can Lean be use as a project management tool?” are a little repetitive to me. Maybe to write it into less sections, or a little more defined outline of the sections would make it a little more clear to me.
			* The bibliography is missing the part from the structure “Summarize and outline the relevance of each reference to the topic”.