Talk:Resource allocation and crashing - Revision history

Isabel.w: /* Answer 4 */

2019-02-25T21:49:12Z

Answer 4

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:49, 25 February 2019
Line 171:		Line 171:
	===Answer 4===		===Answer 4===

	he figure effectively supports the presented argument!		The figure effectively supports the presented argument!

	===Question 5 · TEXT===		===Question 5 · TEXT===

Isabel.w: /* Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Jack Frain */

2019-02-25T21:48:33Z

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Jack Frain

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:48, 25 February 2019
Line 108:		Line 108:
	===Answer 7===		===Answer 7===
	A good comprehensive annotated bibliography although the second one needs to be referenced instead of linked. Do not think you need to add anything here, just a couple more if possible.		A good comprehensive annotated bibliography although the second one needs to be referenced instead of linked. Do not think you need to add anything here, just a couple more if possible.






			==Feedback 2 \| Reviewer name: ''Isabel Wang''==
			===Question 1 · TEXT===
			'''Quality of the summary:'''

			Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 1===

			I really enjoyed your abstract as you kept it precise and easily to understand. It gives a clear and strong overview of your article structure and highlights the relevance of your topic.
			The only thing I would add is the description of CPM that should be clarified in the abstract rather than in the resource loading section and maybe state what the acronyms mean.

			===Question 2 · TEXT===
			'''Structure and logic of the article:'''

			Is the argument clear?

			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?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 2===

			Overall, it is a well written and structured argument as the chapters build logically build upon the other. I especially liked your limitations section as you critically reflect on your method and mention good points without dragging it on too much. I also liked how you kept the typology of a wiki article meaning that you can easily read any section of the article and getting yourself redirected to one chapter by clicking on the contents table. I really like the argument structure and the use of the example. So, nothing to add here.



			===Question 3 · TEXT===
			'''Grammar and style:'''

			Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?

			Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 3===

			I quite like your language. It doesn’t have any unnecessary fill words. I’ve noticed you referred to the PM as she. It might be more appropriate to refer to the PM as they. For the sake of completeness italicize the quotes but that’s already very detailed. I think I still haven’t done that in my article either.. =)


			===Question 4 · TEXT===
			'''Figures and tables:'''

			Are figures and tables clear?

			Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 4===

			he figure effectively supports the presented argument!

			===Question 5 · TEXT===
			'''Interest and relevance:'''

			Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?

			Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 5===


			You’ve made a strong argument about why the article is relevant and why it has high practical relevance. So, nothing to add here.

			===Question 6 · TEXT===
			'''Depth of treatment:'''

			Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?

			Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 6===

			Definitely interesting for a practitioner to read as it gives concrete information about resource allocation and crashing. Maybe briefly address slack and late start times. You could give the reader some insight into their use and how it will ease the resource load over the initial period, it would be nice to see but maybe it is not required and beyond the scope. It’s up to you =))


			===Question 7 · TEXT===
			'''Annotated bibliography:'''

			Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?

			Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?

			Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 7===

			The annotated bibliography looks good to me =)

Fraino12345 at 17:22, 23 February 2019

2019-02-23T17:22:59Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:22, 23 February 2019
Line 19:		Line 19:
	You mention that you will describe three techniques. Remember it is better to describe fewer things in depth than a lot superficially.		You mention that you will describe three techniques. Remember it is better to describe fewer things in depth than a lot superficially.
	\|}		\|}

			==Feedback 1 \| Reviewer name: ''Jack Frain''==
			===Question 1 · TEXT===
			'''Quality of the summary:'''

			Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 1===
			'Well written article and I enjoyed reading the abstract. Not very long but concise. You have not finished the article yet so I cannot comment too much. I would add a few more sections especially with crashing the project, explain the limitations of doing so and of each step. Figure 6 could also be more concise here.

			===Question 2 · TEXT===
			'''Structure and logic of the article:'''

			Is the argument clear?

			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?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 2===
			Good structure and easy to read. Has a good logical flow with no contradictions as far as I could see. Not a lot to improve here apart from adding a few more sections.

			===Question 3 · TEXT===
			'''Grammar and style:'''

			Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?

			Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 3===
			Good grammar, apart from a few instances where you write 'she' for the project manager such as 'For a project manager to crash a project most efficiently, she can follow the steps shown below '. Remember it can be a he or she.

			===Question 4 · TEXT===
			'''Figures and tables:'''

			Are figures and tables clear?

			Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 4===
			Figures are clear but they need to have a little more explanation of each one along with a reference and a little longer caption. Figure 1, 2 and 3 probably could be put into one image or have text in-between them all. Hard to understand why you need them all.

			===Question 5 · TEXT===
			'''Interest and relevance:'''

			Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?

			Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 5===
			Interesting topic with a high academic relevance but I think that you could have explained in more detail why resource allocation and crashing is important within projects, programs or portfolios.

			===Question 6 · TEXT===
			'''Depth of treatment:'''

			Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?

			Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 6===
			Not sure that you have gone into depth enough with a lot of the topics. The article is clearly not finished but I would add more to the Steps section to summarise why it is useful to have and a better introduction too.

			===Question 7 · TEXT===
			'''Annotated bibliography:'''

			Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?

			Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?

			Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?

			What would you suggest to improve?

			===Answer 7===
			A good comprehensive annotated bibliography although the second one needs to be referenced instead of linked. Do not think you need to add anything here, just a couple more if possible.

Ebkh: Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| Ok but could be more clear |- |'''Language'''|| OK but a few misspellings. |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''..."

2019-02-19T07:57:16Z

Created page with "==Feedback on Abstract:== {| |'''Text clarity'''|| Ok but could be more clear |- |'''Language'''|| OK but a few misspellings. |- |'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''..."

New page

==Feedback on Abstract:==

{|
|'''Text clarity'''|| Ok but could be more clear
|-
|'''Language'''|| OK but a few misspellings.
|-
|'''Description of the tool/theory/concept'''|| Could be more clear
|-
|'''Purpose explanation'''|| Good
|-
|'''Title of the Wiki'''|| Good
|-
|'''Relevance to curriculum'''|| Relevant
|-
|'''References'''|| Remember to make correct references. Here are some guidelines from DTU Library: https://www.bibliotek.dtu.dk/english/servicemenu/find/reference_management/references
|-
|'''Other'''|| It is good that you limit to project management.
You mention that you will describe three techniques. Remember it is better to describe fewer things in depth than a lot superficially.
|}