Talk:Location Based Scheduling
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Mette: I like your idea. Remember to keep the structure for a "method article". You write about the benefits of using LBS instead of CPM, so maybe you could discuss why and where LBC is a better tool. | Mette: I like your idea. Remember to keep the structure for a "method article". You write about the benefits of using LBS instead of CPM, so maybe you could discuss why and where LBC is a better tool. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Review 1, s140046 | ||
| + | |||
| + | # The introduction works very well. | ||
| + | # Good use of internal references(wikilinks), even within our own wikipage. | ||
| + | # Intensive commercials when clicking on the Empire state picture are confusing | ||
| + | # Picture text in figure 3: Consider to use short/long instead of slow and fast | ||
| + | # Great description of LB activitity-linkages with fine exmples. Please add a reference to underline that the used terms of the linkages are the formal ones. | ||
| + | # It would be great if you describe how the duration of the tasks are defined. At least include it before you suggest to optimize by adding resources in section “Control of resources and Linkages”. | ||
| + | # You are on the 3000 words limit however I feel that you can articulate how the slope of the flowlines are determined better. The pace/tact are (often) determined quantitatively where with CPM it is often qualitatively. With LBS the schedule is based on actual numbers and not personal experience. | ||
| + | # In general a well written article with a good structure. The tables works out very well. | ||
| + | # If you should improve on the taxonomic level I would argue to focus more on the critical reflections and perhaps shorten the LB activitity-linkages section. | ||
| + | # Note that references must include a brief summary of each source. | ||
| + | |||
Revision as of 21:48, 22 September 2015
Mette: I like your idea. Remember to keep the structure for a "method article". You write about the benefits of using LBS instead of CPM, so maybe you could discuss why and where LBC is a better tool.
Review 1, s140046
- The introduction works very well.
- Good use of internal references(wikilinks), even within our own wikipage.
- Intensive commercials when clicking on the Empire state picture are confusing
- Picture text in figure 3: Consider to use short/long instead of slow and fast
- Great description of LB activitity-linkages with fine exmples. Please add a reference to underline that the used terms of the linkages are the formal ones.
- It would be great if you describe how the duration of the tasks are defined. At least include it before you suggest to optimize by adding resources in section “Control of resources and Linkages”.
- You are on the 3000 words limit however I feel that you can articulate how the slope of the flowlines are determined better. The pace/tact are (often) determined quantitatively where with CPM it is often qualitatively. With LBS the schedule is based on actual numbers and not personal experience.
- In general a well written article with a good structure. The tables works out very well.
- If you should improve on the taxonomic level I would argue to focus more on the critical reflections and perhaps shorten the LB activitity-linkages section.
- Note that references must include a brief summary of each source.
Review 2, s150621
• The overall impression is that the article is clear and straight forward, with many good figures and tables
• All together very good language
• The table with types of activity linkage is very good, with both description and a figure
• Very good with links to other articles, like for example WBS
• The figures are very nice, but a suggestion is to add the sources
• The abstract is very good, with both a short example and a comparison. A suggestion is to move the first two sentences in the second paragraph over to the abstract, so that you describe some of the content of the article in the abstract rather than in the introduction to the method.
Review of Sorth90 (Rasmus Sorth-Olsen s117422), Reviewer 3
- The article has the necessary references and sources that support its content
- Most studens at DTU would benefit from reading the article in connection with upcoming projects
- It was must educational to read the article "Location Based Schedulin"
- The article in written in a clear way.
- The article shows that you know and have familiarized yourself with the subject before writing the article.
- The article covers some good models.
Abstract:
- From the abstract, the article seems interesting.
- Good description of Location Based Schedulin.
- Quick and precise.
About Location Based Scheduling:
- Well, that section is divided into bullet points. This makes it easier to read.
- It would be good with an example. "time / place-diagram" and "Flow-line diagram".
- Really good. The section is supported by the figure.
- Figure 2 is too small. You can not read what it says.
Flow-Line Method:
- Well, that section is divided into bullet points. This makes it easier to read.
- Give the sections numbers. In this way, we know that the following sections are subsections.
Flow-Line Diagram:
- Really good. The section is supported by Figure 3.
- Figure 3 is too small. You can not read what it says.
Identifying the locations:
- Really good. The section is supported by Figure 4.
- Figure 4 is too small. You can not read what it says.
Optimization using flow-line diagram:
- Very short description. The section to be deepened.
Location-Based activity-linkages:
- Well, that section is divided into bullet points. This makes it easier to read.
- Types of activity-linkages. The table is really good. The figures are a little small, but you understand the principles.
Control of resources and linkages:
LBS/Flow Line Diagram compared with CPM/Gantt Chart:
- Figure 16 is unmanageable.
Current State of Art:
- Well section.
- What's the competitors enter the LBS?
Kritisk Reflects:
- Well, that section is supported by sources.
