Latest revision as of 22:00, 22 September 2015

Mette: Hello, I like your idea and topic. Nice to see that you are already a long way with your article. Also good to see that you have a discussion section in the end of your article where you look at the different between the three scheduling techniques so the article is not only a recitation of scheduling techniques in PM. Maybe you could look at pros and cons in this section.

[edit] Feedback

[edit] Reviewer 1, S150931

• General suggestions
  • Very interesting and well elaborated topic
  • It is organized and easy to follow
  • Some paragraphs could be more concise
  • Some figures could have a more suited size

• Formal aspects:

• • It follows the methods structure
  • I’ve notice some phrases are repeated in sequence, as an example: “Every project has therefore constraints that can be summed up into the Project Management Triangle”
  • The article is concise and catches the attention
  • Figures are useful, good and clear but lack references

• Content aspects:

• • The article is interesting and related to the course topic
  • The length is appropriate and it has a logical flow
  • The sources lack a summary
  • Not copy paste

[edit] Reviewer 2, DI2009

• Method form: It is a article about scheduling techniques used within Project management, so I believe you could say that it looks at different tools/methods.

• Structure:
  • I think it is a well-structured and almost done article.
  • I like the comparison of the three tools, gives a nice overview. I don’t know if this overview maybe would be nice in the beginning of the article, and then the reader could decide which one of the method he/she would like to know more about (maybe link down to the section).
  • As well it might be nice with the “Benefits of using scheduling techniques in Project Management” section in the beginning to catch the readers interest. It will convince the reader to use these techniques and read on.

• Figures:
  • Nice with many relevant figures that match the content of the text. Might be that you could arrange the ones in Example of PERT/CPM a bit differently to make it look better.
  • Figure could maybe have a number,
  • Remember to refer to the figures in the text,
  • Some figures are unnecessary big, some are very small and hard to read (e.g. K. Adamiechi Chart)
  • As well I believe you have copied the figures from some textbooks of websites, remember the reference and make sure you are allowed to use it (no copyright)

• Language: It is well written, however some sentences are quite long, maybe you could look a bit more into this.
  • Spelling, a few spelling mistakes found:
  • Activies -> activities (PERT “…between the activies are shown by arrows…”)
  • Actity -> activity (PERT: Step by step to construct a PERT Diagram, step 2)
  • caluclated -> calculate (PERT: Step by step to construct a PERT Diagram, step 3)
  • coud -> could (PERT: Step by step to construct a PERT Diagram, step 4)
  • softwares -> software in section (Differences between PERT, Gantt and CPM
  • (It might be that I have missed some)

• Summary; I think the summary is nice short and gives a good introduction the article

[edit] Reviewer 3 (s150793)

I find the topic that you have written about very interesting. Here are my suggestions:

• Structure: For me, the structure of the article meets the “methods” structure. I have just seen that part number 2.1 has a different title style than the other subsections.

• Length: The length of the article is a bit longer regarding the suggested one. You could maybe sum up a bit the introduction part and add a last part concerning limitations or drawbacks of the tools.

• Figures and tables: I think that you have chosen really useful images and tables. Remember that you should enumerate them and reference them in the text. The sources where you have found the figures should also be indicated. In my point of view the two first images of the Gantt Chart part could be a bit bigger in order to understand what is written.

• Examples: The animation of the exercise is a great idea to illustrate how to use the tool. However, some brief explanation of the different steps followed in the resolution will also be helpful. I think that illustrating how to draw a Gantt Chart with the same data from the example of PERT/CPM could also be very interesting.

• Writing style: The text is easy to understand but has some grammar and spelling mistakes. I would suggest you to reed it again carefully.

• References: Remember that you should write a brief summary of each source and to reference all the passages of the article to show form where you have taken the information.