Talk:Risk Profile in Turnkey Projects

Revision as of 15:34, 24 September 2015

Review 1:

• Good work.
• Nice abstract. It comes around the article in a good way and you stick to the guideline from the abstract all the way. Only recommendation about the context in the abstract is to change your sentences so they don’t start with BUT, it’s not great. (there are two BUT-sentences in the first subparagraph)
  • Answer: Has reformulated the sentences to make it more profesional.
• After a few times reading the definitions it made sense. Maybe read it again with focus on making it very logical and clear. Take the reader by the hand; he/she should be able to understand it first time reading it.
  • Answer: I shortened the sentences and tried to be more accurate and logic in my explanations.
• It would have been nice with a few more references through the first few paragraphs about benefits and limitations.
• Try to find a way maybe with “dots” or with smaller letters to clarify that the three aspects in risk are subtitles; right now they have the same size as the titles.
  • Answer: I made them smaller so that it is clear that they are subtitles.
• Again missing references later in the article.
• Maybe write a conclusion to sum up the article.
  • Answer: I made a conclusion, this made the article more complete.

s103183, Reviewer 2:

• There is a good structure in the article. There is a nice flow and I like that you introduce the two topics individually before mixing them together.
• It feel that the use of 8 different references show that you have investigated the topic of the article.
• There are some mistakes in the wording such as: ”do not have to proper technical knowledge” and then this sentence is a bit hard to understand for me ”to complete the work as fast as cheap as possible to achieve their financial goals this might collide with the quality of the finished project.” Try to read the article again in a day or two and pay attention to the wording.
• I would maybe make the titles for the three aspects of risk profiling smaller. For me it is not so clear that they are part of the ”Structure” part of the article.
• There are no references for the figures and they are all named figure 1 which is kinda confusing.
• I would like just a bit more description of the 2nd and 3rd figure.
• You mention Ling (2005) in the section ”Use of risk profile in turnkey projects) but there is no reference.
• You mention risk factors in the construction industry, do these apply to other industries as well and maybe you could mention some risk factors from other industries?
• I would suggest adding an example of how to use the three aspects of risk profiling as I feel this is something I am missing.
• The parts ”capacity of risk” and ”required risk” are a bit short and you could maybe benefit from adding a bit more in these sections.
• As a final note the ”Annotated Bibliography” is missing which I recommend not to forget.

Review 3, Nannats
Hi IMT :-)

• I think that the language through the article is good, and easy to understand.
• I like that you list the benefits and limitations. In the ‘limitation’ section you could consider making bullet points, to make it easier to read, as you already list different things.
• You could consider to integrate links to some of the Wiki articles about the risk in the section ‘Risk profile as a tool’ (or other places).
• Maybe choose a smaller font size to the ‘three aspects in risk profiling’, or you could list them as bullet points under your section ‘structure’. It is hard to see that the three aspects are subsections to ‘structure’.
• Good that you use figures for illustration
• Remember reference when you write “Ling (2005)”
• I don't know whether it is possible, but in my opinion I could use an made-up example or a real-life case where the concepts are used.
• Don’t forget to make the ‘Annotated bibliography’ :-)

Overall, a nice article, so good job :-)