Latest revision as of 03:12, 26 November 2014

The way, in which the article is explained is good, I like the structure, and as the subject is covered from history to development.

[edit] Content aspects

• The article is well related to portfolio management and project management, the way it has been categorized is consistent
• I think the use of 3500 words is not necessary for this article, the issue is well explained in a concise manner, facilitating the understanding of the tool.
• The topic is referenced correctly, consistent sources
• I think this tool is a great contribution to future students of the course

[edit] Formal aspects

• I find the article easy to read, I like the style in which it was written
• Overall I see a good structure of the article, I see that is well structured, and it shows that the topic is well known by author.

• The figures are well referenced and understandable.
• References must be organized so that it can link the note with the reference at the bottom. That is corrected by following the instructions in the following link [1]

[edit] Peer review from Eniram

[edit] Global review regarding form and content

[edit] Formal aspects

• Grammar, spelling, punctuation: From my point of view, it is very well written, with only a few mistakes (some 's' missing at the third person)
• The style is engaging, easy to understand.
• Your figure is nice and easy to understand and really illustrates the main point of the article (the difference between CCPM and traditional critical path). It is a pity that you do not make reference to it in the text!
• Also, the picture is referenced, which is good, and you draw it again yourself, so I think there is no copyright problem this way.
• Regarding layout etc.: try to make proper linked references; how to do this is well explained in the help section.

[edit] Content

• Your article is really interesting and I learnt a lot by reading it!
• It is also well related to the subject of the course, especially in the field of project management. It is also well categorised.
• The length seems appropriate. I think you chose a subject quite difficult to explain in an article, and you do not say too little nor too much.
• The article is well organised; there is an 'evolution' (from 'history' to 'discussion') and the different steps of the method are also well organised.
• The only really negative point in your article is the referencing: You almost never reference your sayings. I do not think these are all your ideas, and you even say so by mentioning studies and persons working on the subject. Every idea that is not yours must be referenced by an endnote, even if they are re-written in your own words.
• Otherwise, the sources you used are of good-quality.
• Overall impression: I think you chose a subject which is very complex and difficult to explain, and you managed to do it properly! For me, there is no copy/paste, because I can see you tried to explain with your own words. An improvement could be to add some concrete examples.

[edit] Detailed review for each paragraph:

[edit] Summary

• Your summary is good because it defines already what you are going to talk about and made me want to know more!

[edit] History

• It's really nice that you start your article by the historic aspect. It is a really good introduction
• You need to reference the book 'Critical chain'
• Maybe you can describe the theory of constraints just after you introduce it the first time instead of at the end of the paragraph. It would also help understanding the second paragraph.
• There is a lack of references on the third paragraph; you need to say from which report/paper you got these numbers.
• Theory of constraints
  • I don't think you need a new headline for this part since it is the only one in the 'history' paragraph, maybe you can describe it as a full part of the paragraph
  • The first sentence is very long and I think the first part it misses a verb
  • The description of the steps is good, but for a better understanding you could add some short examples, for example, what could be a constraint, and what could be a way to exploit it, elevate it, etc.?

[edit] Concept

• This paragraph is nice to understand the differences between critical path and critical chain. Maybe you should link it to your picture, which is also a quite easy way to understand these difference!
• The first paragraph miss a reference: Where did you get this number?
• Does the use of the critical chain allow losing less time in project? I think this is what you imply in the first paragraph, but maybe you can state it clearly.
• In the second step, what does the 'optimal solution' refers to? A solution to a particular project, or a solution about how to order the tasks to get a shorter project?
• In the second step: 'There is an default' -> replace 'an' by 'a'
• What is the Event Chain Methodology?
• No reference at all in this paragraph!

[edit] Planning

• All the steps are well-explained
• Again, no reference at all in this paragraph (you must have learnt it from somewhere, haven't you?!)

[edit] Execution

• Well explained
• 'The analogy is even realized in some cases by have' -> by having
• Later on the same sentence 'To signal critical...' -> to signal that
• Again, no reference!

[edit] Monitoring

• You mention graphs and charts in this paragraph; do you have any example to show?
• The last part, regarding the threats that can happen, is a very interesting aspect to consider. Do you have any example of what kinds of measure could be taken? Find a way to shorten the next tasks?

[edit] Discussion

• Are these your criticisms? Otherwise, you may want to link the references!
• You mention some studies, some opponents... What/who are they?
• TOC: Theory Of Constraint?
• Finally, in what cases (what kinds of projects or organisations) would it be recommended to use the CCPM rather than another method?
• Would it be a good way to consider both CCPM and a traditional method and compare/combine the final results to get the optimal solution?