Talk:Theory of Constraint - Revision history

S997303 at 16:23, 1 October 2015

2015-10-01T16:23:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:23, 1 October 2015
Line 25:		Line 25:
	the reader does not lose interest.		the reader does not lose interest.

	==Answer to reviewer 2 from S997303==		===Answer to reviewer 2 from S997303===
	Hi,		Hi,
	thank you for constructive input. You are right about formal aspects - I have tried to spell better and remove syntax. Also I have added more content.		thank you for constructive input. You are right about formal aspects - I have tried to spell better and remove syntax. Also I have added more content.
Line 73:		Line 73:


	==Answer to reviewer 3 from S997303==		===Answer to reviewer 3 from S997303===
	Hi,		Hi,
	thank you for constructive input. You did a very thoroughly job. It was very useful. I have added more content about TOC for PM and also some examples.		thank you for constructive input. You did a very thoroughly job. It was very useful. I have added more content about TOC for PM and also some examples.
Line 106:		Line 106:
	*The references are sufficient and easily distinguisted with personal opinions.		*The references are sufficient and easily distinguisted with personal opinions.

	==Answer to reviewer 1 from S997303==		===Answer to reviewer 1 from S997303===
	Thank you very much for your review. You have a very pleasant way of providing constructive feed back.		Thank you very much for your review. You have a very pleasant way of providing constructive feed back.
	I have tried to improve formal aspects. Your suggestion of linking tables and figures to actual source is very good, unfortunately I had to prioritize otherwise due to time pressure.		I have tried to improve formal aspects. Your suggestion of linking tables and figures to actual source is very good, unfortunately I had to prioritize otherwise due to time pressure.

S997303: /* Answer to reviewer 1 from S997303 */

2015-10-01T16:22:46Z

Answer to reviewer 1 from S997303

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:22, 1 October 2015
Line 109:		Line 109:
	Thank you very much for your review. You have a very pleasant way of providing constructive feed back.		Thank you very much for your review. You have a very pleasant way of providing constructive feed back.
	I have tried to improve formal aspects. Your suggestion of linking tables and figures to actual source is very good, unfortunately I had to prioritize otherwise due to time pressure.		I have tried to improve formal aspects. Your suggestion of linking tables and figures to actual source is very good, unfortunately I had to prioritize otherwise due to time pressure.
	As for content I have tried to explain more thoroughly all the "important" words as well adding more in depth analysis of TOC used for PM.		As for content I have tried to explain more thoroughly all the "important" words as well as adding more in depth analysis of TOC used for PM.
	I have followed your suggestion about structure and added advantages in the section with limitations. That was a good point.		I have followed your suggestion about structure and added advantages in the section with limitations. That was a good point.
	Also I have removed the section 2.3 as suggested. You were right. This example was not relevant in the article.		Also I have removed the section 2.3 as suggested. You were right. This example was not relevant in the article.
	I have learned a lot from your review. Thanks.		I have learned a lot from your review. Thanks.

S997303: /* Answer to reviewer 3 from S997303 */

2015-10-01T16:21:20Z

Answer to reviewer 3 from S997303

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:21, 1 October 2015
Line 76:		Line 76:
	Hi,		Hi,
	thank you for constructive input. You did a very thoroughly job. It was very useful. I have added more content about TOC for PM and also some examples.		thank you for constructive input. You did a very thoroughly job. It was very useful. I have added more content about TOC for PM and also some examples.
	Unfortunately I did not have time to add a good ~~example of TOC for PM~~. For the references I have added explanation to why they are important for the subject.		Unfortunately I did not have time to add as many good examples as I could have wished. For the references I have added explanation to why they are important for the subject.
	Thank you for giving review incl. both positive things and ~~of course all the~~ things to improve.		Thank you for giving a balanced review incl. both positive things and things to improve.


Line 105:		Line 105:

	*The references are sufficient and easily distinguisted with personal opinions.		*The references are sufficient and easily distinguisted with personal opinions.


	==Answer to reviewer 1 from S997303==		==Answer to reviewer 1 from S997303==

S997303 at 16:19, 1 October 2015

2015-10-01T16:19:01Z

@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 the reader does not lose interest.
-==S997303==
+==Answer to reviewer 2 from S997303==
-Hi
+Hi,
@@ Line 68: / Line 71: @@
 On the other hand, adding more examples in order to make the theory more accessible and visible can, I think, also be a great option. It could also clarify the connection with program, project or portfolio management.
 Of course, the translation from Word to Wiki has to be done properly in order to ensure a good visibility for the article.
 ===Reviewer 1, Konstantinos Lymperis, s142330===
@@ Line 94: / Line 105: @@
 *The references are sufficient and easily distinguisted with personal opinions.

S997303 at 15:45, 1 October 2015

2015-10-01T15:45:24Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:45, 1 October 2015
Line 24:		Line 24:
	solid (always backed up with references), is a bit hard to follow your writing. I would suggest to make it a bit "easier in the eyes" so that		solid (always backed up with references), is a bit hard to follow your writing. I would suggest to make it a bit "easier in the eyes" so that
	the reader does not lose interest.		the reader does not lose interest.

			==S997303==
			Hi

Konstantinos Lymperis: /* Reviewer 1, Konstantinos Lymperis, s142330 */

2015-09-24T10:46:21Z

Reviewer 1, Konstantinos Lymperis, s142330

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:46, 24 September 2015
Line 71:		Line 71:

	'''Formal aspects'''		'''Formal aspects'''

			*I would strongly recommend to use the === for the chapters and the == for the subchapters in order to create the table of contents

	*There are some spelling and grammar mistakes throughout the article. However, they can be easily spotted and corrected by the author prior to finalizing the article.		*There are some spelling and grammar mistakes throughout the article. However, they can be easily spotted and corrected by the author prior to finalizing the article.
Line 86:		Line 88:
	*Sub-chapter 2.1 explains the relatediness of TOC with project management. It would be better though to give some examples to explain statements such as the following: "if scope increases with fixed cost (or resources) schedule tends to increase".		*Sub-chapter 2.1 explains the relatediness of TOC with project management. It would be better though to give some examples to explain statements such as the following: "if scope increases with fixed cost (or resources) schedule tends to increase".

	*Furthermore, although chapter 2.3 is an application of the TOC theory, someone could argue that is not so releavant with the project, program or portfolio management..		*Furthermore, although chapter 2.3 is an application of the TOC theory, someone could argue that is not so releavant with the project, program or portfolio management.

	*The references are sufficient and easily distinguisted with personal opinions.		*The references are sufficient and easily distinguisted with personal opinions.

Konstantinos Lymperis: /* Reviewer 1, Konstantinos Lymperis, s142330 */

2015-09-23T22:32:27Z

Reviewer 1, Konstantinos Lymperis, s142330

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:32, 23 September 2015
Line 70:		Line 70:
	Overall the article is well written and easily understood by a reader who is not familiar with the topic. All main points are illustrated by figures, which help to visualize the theory.		Overall the article is well written and easily understood by a reader who is not familiar with the topic. All main points are illustrated by figures, which help to visualize the theory.

	**Formal aspects		'''Formal aspects'''

	*There are some spelling and grammar mistakes throughout the article. However, they can be easily spotted and corrected by the author prior to finalizing the article.		*There are some spelling and grammar mistakes throughout the article. However, they can be easily spotted and corrected by the author prior to finalizing the article.
Line 76:		Line 76:
	*As key concepts are introduced via tables and figures, it would be nice to link them with their actual source. Also, at the time of the review the figures and tables were not yet uploaded in the wiki edition but the format and their location blends well with the flow of the article.		*As key concepts are introduced via tables and figures, it would be nice to link them with their actual source. Also, at the time of the review the figures and tables were not yet uploaded in the wiki edition but the format and their location blends well with the flow of the article.

	**Content		'''Content'''

	*Some concepts and methodologies introduced in the article are not thoroughly explained (eg. buffer inventory, the critical chain method). Therefore, since the article is less than 3000 words in length, the definitions of the concepts could be a useful addition for a more in depth analysis of the subject.		*Some concepts and methodologies introduced in the article are not thoroughly explained (eg. buffer inventory, the critical chain method). Therefore, since the article is less than 3000 words in length, the definitions of the concepts could be a useful addition for a more in depth analysis of the subject.

Konstantinos Lymperis at 22:31, 23 September 2015

2015-09-23T22:31:30Z

@@ Line 26: / Line 26: @@
-==Reviewer 3, Damien==
+===Reviewer 3, Damien===
 This article was accessed the 22/09/2015 16:00
@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
 On the other hand, adding more examples in order to make the theory more accessible and visible can, I think, also be a great option. It could also clarify the connection with program, project or portfolio management.
 Of course, the translation from Word to Wiki has to be done properly in order to ensure a good visibility for the article.

Lessisv at 23:24, 22 September 2015

2015-09-22T23:24:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:24, 22 September 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Josef: Jane, I like the idea. Make sure to stick to the structure we propose for "methods" articles. I am looking forward to reading about the application of TOC in project management!		Josef: Jane, I like the idea. Make sure to stick to the structure we propose for "methods" articles. I am looking forward to reading about the application of TOC in project management!

			===Reviewer 2, lessisv===

			'''Overall overview'''.
			By the time the review was made, there were not Wiki functions used or figures. The author provided a word document to
			review instead. The topic is a really interesting one to look into and the article so far seems to deliver what is
			expected.

			'''Formal aspects.'''
			The article presents some syntax, grammatical and typing errors, but since the article is not in its final form , i am sure that
			the author will correct them. The figures look good and help illustrating what is written in text. However some of the tables
			(presented in the word document) seem to hold a lot of information inside and are a bit difficult to read. When writing in wiki
			it would be better if this information is presented in a cleaner way.

			'''Content aspects.''' <br>
			The article consists of 2200 words, so there is still room for additions, as far as the content is concerned. The author uses quiet
			a few references, which make the whole article look really solid. I also liked that you looked at the topic from 2 different perspectives.
			Your limitations section was a bit difficult to read - check your syntax.

			''' Conclusion and advices.''' <br>
			All in all an interesting article, although a shame that i could not read it through the wiki and see it in its full potential. As far as i
			can tell this is not close to the final version as the syntax is a bit confusing in various parts among the article. While what you write looks
			solid (always backed up with references), is a bit hard to follow your writing. I would suggest to make it a bit "easier in the eyes" so that
			the reader does not lose interest.


	==Reviewer 3, Damien==		==Reviewer 3, Damien==

Damien: /* Reviewer 3, Damien */

2015-09-22T18:21:10Z

Reviewer 3, Damien

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:21, 22 September 2015
Line 18:		Line 18:

	I’m quite sure it is “Six Sigma” instead of “Sex Sigma”.		I’m quite sure it is “Six Sigma” instead of “Sex Sigma”.


	I think that the referencing throughout the article is really well done. The flow of the article makes it quite easy to read overall, but some sentences should be shorter or rewritten for example :		I think that the referencing throughout the article is really well done. The flow of the article makes it quite easy to read overall, but some sentences should be shorter or rewritten for example :
Line 25:		Line 24:
	Finally I think the presentation is various and not too monotonous which is really great.		Finally I think the presentation is various and not too monotonous which is really great.


	*Schemas and photos		*Schemas and photos
	I believe the tables furnished interesting content but gather a lot of text and could therefore be resumed or more precisely introduced.		I believe the tables furnished interesting content but gather a lot of text and could therefore be resumed or more precisely introduced.