Talk:Project Schedule development

Revision as of 19:17, 19 February 2018

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Oliver Adam Mølskov Bech

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

The abstract itself is missing, however, I have taken the section called 2. Motivation into account when answering your summary. The motivation states some of the reasons as to why Project Schedule Development is an important management concept however it does not concisely describe the key focus of the article and/or what the article will contribute to in terms of explaining the concept.

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

The article has a logical flow in terms of introducing the overarching term, project time management, for which PSD falls under. The article then continues logically by delving deeper into PSD. However, it is slightly unclear as to what direction and what topics of PSD will be discussed in the future. The article is so far consistent in its argument and free of contradictions. I would recommend splitting the table of contents into more sub-topics to provide the reader with a higher degree of clarity as to what the article will discuss, thereby making it easier for the reader to navigate through whatever material may be relevant to them.

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

The writing contains several grammatical errors. Grammatical errors lead to an inconsistent reading flow for the reader. The language is fairly precise however be careful with the use of unnecessary adjectives. Here is a list of some possible errors and suggestions for improvement:

• Refer to "projects" or "a project" rather than "the project". E.g. Under 2. Motivation, the last sentence says "potential costs of the project", what project is this you are referring to?
• Example of a sentence containing grammatical errors: "At last but not the least,PSD implemented correctly...."
• Be consistent in your syntax, are you going to insert a reference immediately after a word or after a symbol (.,). Refer to your first reference and compare to second reference for an example. Consistency in your syntax will make your article appear more professional.
• Again, there is no consistency in your tables under section 3.2, some bullet point sentences end with a full stop "." while others don't.
• Also, the term "Schedule Development" always uses Title Case syntax within your text, I would recommend moving away from this as it is not good formatting.
• "1. Inputs" is inserted within the framed box while "2. Tools and Techniques" and "3. Outputs" is framed outside their respective boxes.
• Consider using italic font for your points to allow the reader to more easily distinguish between "terms" and "term descriptions".
• Under 3.2 Schedule Development, 1. Inputs, 1.6. Constrains - do you mean "Constraints"? The word constrains is used again later on, please double check this.
• Consider using bullet points using the asterix symbol, such as for parts like the limitations section where you have used a numbering system.

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

The use of figures and tables are relatively clear. Figure 1 provides a good overview of the project time management concept and its link to schedule development. Under section 3.2 I am unsure whether the sub-topics: "1. Inputs, 2. Tools and Techniques, etc" could be formalised in a more concise manner. When reading on a MAC the "2. Tools and Techniques" table contents extend beyond the boundaries of the frame. I am expecting more figures to support your discussion of project schedule development as so far there is one figure.

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

Yes, the article has high practical relevance to individuals with a vested interest in the time management and scheduling developments of projects. The motivation section discusses the importance of the topic and the benefits to developing a successful project schedule. Perhaps it would be more academically relevant if a wider body of references were used, such as for example ISO standards.

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

The article is mostly relevant to a practitioner.It does contribute beyond a cursory web search using relevant references to the PMBOK guide. I would suggest delving deeper into some of the complexities of project schedule development to make the article useful to both practitioners and academics.

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 article uses appropriate referencing, perhaps some references are missing in the "Motivation" section? The key references have not been summarized in a bibliography yet. I suggest expanding your research to include various academic perspectives on the topic. Also, researching ISO guidelines in terms of time management and schedule development may be interesting.

Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Place your name here

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

Answer 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

Answer 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

Answer here

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

Answer here

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

Answer 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

Answer here

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

Answer here