Talk:Theory of Constraint
| (15 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Josef: Jane, I like the idea. Make sure to stick to the structure we propose for "methods" articles. I am looking forward to reading about the application of TOC in project management! | Josef: Jane, I like the idea. Make sure to stick to the structure we propose for "methods" articles. I am looking forward to reading about the application of TOC in project management! | ||
| − | ==Reviewer 3, | + | ===Reviewer 2, lessisv=== |
| − | + | ||
| − | *The amount of words | + | '''Overall overview'''. |
| − | + | By the time the review was made, there were not Wiki functions used or figures. The author provided a word document to | |
| − | * | + | review instead. The topic is a really interesting one to look into and the article so far seems to deliver what is |
| − | + | expected. | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | '''Formal aspects.''' | |
| − | + | The article presents some syntax, grammatical and typing errors, but since the article is not in its final form , i am sure that | |
| − | + | the author will correct them. The figures look good and help illustrating what is written in text. However some of the tables | |
| − | + | (presented in the word document) seem to hold a lot of information inside and are a bit difficult to read. When writing in wiki | |
| − | + | it would be better if this information is presented in a cleaner way. | |
| − | * | + | |
| + | '''Content aspects.''' <br> | ||
| + | The article consists of 2200 words, so there is still room for additions, as far as the content is concerned. The author uses quiet | ||
| + | a few references, which make the whole article look really solid. I also liked that you looked at the topic from 2 different perspectives. | ||
| + | Your limitations section was a bit difficult to read - check your syntax. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''' Conclusion and advices.''' <br> | ||
| + | All in all an interesting article, although a shame that i could not read it through the wiki and see it in its full potential. As far as i | ||
| + | can tell this is not close to the final version as the syntax is a bit confusing in various parts among the article. While what you write looks | ||
| + | solid (always backed up with references), is a bit hard to follow your writing. I would suggest to make it a bit "easier in the eyes" so that | ||
| + | the reader does not lose interest. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer to reviewer 2 from S997303=== | ||
| + | Hi, | ||
| + | thank you for constructive input. You are right about formal aspects - I have tried to spell better and remove syntax. Also I have added more content. | ||
| + | The WIKI functionalities regarding references I have not improved that much as my sources are mainly articles with no link. | ||
| + | To be honest I worked under time pressure and unfortunately I was forced to prioritize. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===Reviewer 3, Damien=== | ||
| + | This article was accessed the 22/09/2015 16:00 | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Overall overview. | ||
| + | There are no Wiki functions used and no figures. However a word version was available for this review. | ||
| + | The amount of text doesn’t fulfil the 3000 words required, so addition have to be made in terms of content. The plan and the structure of the article allow a reader to fully understand the concept without specific prerequisite knowledge. | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Formal aspect: | ||
| + | Mistakes : | ||
| + | |||
| + | “an” => and in the Abstract | ||
| + | |||
| + | “ ) “ in 1.1 without “ ( “ | ||
| + | |||
| + | “TOC in very process” | ||
| + | |||
| + | I’m quite sure it is “Six Sigma” instead of “Sex Sigma”. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I think that the referencing throughout the article is really well done. The flow of the article makes it quite easy to read overall, but some sentences should be shorter or rewritten for example : | ||
| + | “The rope is a signal generated by the constraint indicating that some CTs have been consumed which triggers the start for new CTs to be processed in the flow.” | ||
| + | Basically I think that some work on the syntax have to be done. | ||
| + | Finally I think the presentation is various and not too monotonous which is really great. | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Schemas and photos | ||
| + | I believe the tables furnished interesting content but gather a lot of text and could therefore be resumed or more precisely introduced. | ||
| + | The positioning of the figures and tables cannot be judge at this point but the word version seems great to me. | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Links, connections and comprehension. | ||
| + | The article describes step by step the methods while considering literature reference. I think that provides a simple and great comprehension of the topic. | ||
| + | The example is more than welcomed in the article, in order to complete the content, it may be a good idea to try to find another spot in order to introduce a practical example of how TOC can be used in a project ( even if it is necessary to oversimplify a situation). | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Bibliography | ||
| + | The references seem to be very serious one. | ||
| + | The number of references is satisfying at this point, simply remember to explain for each one how it is relevant to the topic and why it should be consulted by the reader. | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Conclusion and advices: | ||
| + | The subject is fully treated and well presented with a reduced amount of words, therefore it could be great to add more content regarding the possible extension or future development of the methods, original applications or your own point of view well argued. | ||
| + | On the other hand, adding more examples in order to make the theory more accessible and visible can, I think, also be a great option. It could also clarify the connection with program, project or portfolio management. | ||
| + | Of course, the translation from Word to Wiki has to be done properly in order to ensure a good visibility for the article. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer to reviewer 3 from S997303=== | ||
| + | Hi, | ||
| + | thank you for constructive input. You did a very thoroughly job. It was very useful. I have added more content about TOC for PM and also some examples. | ||
| + | Unfortunately I did not have time to add as many good examples as I could have wished. For the references I have added explanation to why they are important for the subject. | ||
| + | Thank you for giving a balanced review incl. both positive things and things to improve. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===Reviewer 1, Konstantinos Lymperis, s142330=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | Overall the article is well written and easily understood by a reader who is not familiar with the topic. All main points are illustrated by figures, which help to visualize the theory. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Formal aspects''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | *I would strongly recommend to use the === for the chapters and the == for the subchapters in order to create the table of contents | ||
| + | |||
| + | *There are some spelling and grammar mistakes throughout the article. However, they can be easily spotted and corrected by the author prior to finalizing the article. | ||
| + | |||
| + | *As key concepts are introduced via tables and figures, it would be nice to link them with their actual source. Also, at the time of the review the figures and tables were not yet uploaded in the wiki edition but the format and their location blends well with the flow of the article. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Content''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Some concepts and methodologies introduced in the article are not thoroughly explained (eg. buffer inventory, the critical chain method). Therefore, since the article is less than 3000 words in length, the definitions of the concepts could be a useful addition for a more in depth analysis of the subject. | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Regarding the structure of the article, someone could note that the sub-chapter 2.2 "Advantages" should not be in the chapter "Applications". Maybe it could be paired with the limitations at chapter 3 under the title "Advantages and limitations of the TOC theory". | ||
| + | |||
| + | *The abstract could include a statement in regards to limitations described in the article. | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Sub-chapter 2.1 explains the relatediness of TOC with project management. It would be better though to give some examples to explain statements such as the following: "if scope increases with fixed cost (or resources) schedule tends to increase". | ||
| + | |||
| + | *Furthermore, although chapter 2.3 is an application of the TOC theory, someone could argue that is not so releavant with the project, program or portfolio management. | ||
| + | |||
| + | *The references are sufficient and easily distinguisted with personal opinions. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer to reviewer 1 from S997303=== | ||
| + | Thank you very much for your review. You have a very pleasant way of providing constructive feed back. | ||
| + | I have tried to improve formal aspects. Your suggestion of linking tables and figures to actual source is very good, unfortunately I had to prioritize otherwise due to time pressure. | ||
| + | As for content I have tried to explain more thoroughly all the "important" words as well as adding more in depth analysis of TOC used for PM. | ||
| + | I have followed your suggestion about structure and added advantages in the section with limitations. That was a good point. | ||
| + | Also I have removed the section 2.3 as suggested. You were right. This example was not relevant in the article. | ||
| + | I have learned a lot from your review. Thanks. | ||
Latest revision as of 17:23, 1 October 2015
Josef: Jane, I like the idea. Make sure to stick to the structure we propose for "methods" articles. I am looking forward to reading about the application of TOC in project management!
Contents |
[edit] Reviewer 2, lessisv
Overall overview. By the time the review was made, there were not Wiki functions used or figures. The author provided a word document to review instead. The topic is a really interesting one to look into and the article so far seems to deliver what is expected.
Formal aspects. The article presents some syntax, grammatical and typing errors, but since the article is not in its final form , i am sure that the author will correct them. The figures look good and help illustrating what is written in text. However some of the tables (presented in the word document) seem to hold a lot of information inside and are a bit difficult to read. When writing in wiki it would be better if this information is presented in a cleaner way.
Content aspects.
The article consists of 2200 words, so there is still room for additions, as far as the content is concerned. The author uses quiet
a few references, which make the whole article look really solid. I also liked that you looked at the topic from 2 different perspectives.
Your limitations section was a bit difficult to read - check your syntax.
Conclusion and advices.
All in all an interesting article, although a shame that i could not read it through the wiki and see it in its full potential. As far as i
can tell this is not close to the final version as the syntax is a bit confusing in various parts among the article. While what you write looks
solid (always backed up with references), is a bit hard to follow your writing. I would suggest to make it a bit "easier in the eyes" so that
the reader does not lose interest.
[edit] Answer to reviewer 2 from S997303
Hi, thank you for constructive input. You are right about formal aspects - I have tried to spell better and remove syntax. Also I have added more content. The WIKI functionalities regarding references I have not improved that much as my sources are mainly articles with no link. To be honest I worked under time pressure and unfortunately I was forced to prioritize.
[edit] Reviewer 3, Damien
This article was accessed the 22/09/2015 16:00
- Overall overview.
There are no Wiki functions used and no figures. However a word version was available for this review. The amount of text doesn’t fulfil the 3000 words required, so addition have to be made in terms of content. The plan and the structure of the article allow a reader to fully understand the concept without specific prerequisite knowledge.
- Formal aspect:
Mistakes :
“an” => and in the Abstract
“ ) “ in 1.1 without “ ( “
“TOC in very process”
I’m quite sure it is “Six Sigma” instead of “Sex Sigma”.
I think that the referencing throughout the article is really well done. The flow of the article makes it quite easy to read overall, but some sentences should be shorter or rewritten for example : “The rope is a signal generated by the constraint indicating that some CTs have been consumed which triggers the start for new CTs to be processed in the flow.” Basically I think that some work on the syntax have to be done. Finally I think the presentation is various and not too monotonous which is really great.
- Schemas and photos
I believe the tables furnished interesting content but gather a lot of text and could therefore be resumed or more precisely introduced. The positioning of the figures and tables cannot be judge at this point but the word version seems great to me.
- Links, connections and comprehension.
The article describes step by step the methods while considering literature reference. I think that provides a simple and great comprehension of the topic. The example is more than welcomed in the article, in order to complete the content, it may be a good idea to try to find another spot in order to introduce a practical example of how TOC can be used in a project ( even if it is necessary to oversimplify a situation).
- Bibliography
The references seem to be very serious one. The number of references is satisfying at this point, simply remember to explain for each one how it is relevant to the topic and why it should be consulted by the reader.
- Conclusion and advices:
The subject is fully treated and well presented with a reduced amount of words, therefore it could be great to add more content regarding the possible extension or future development of the methods, original applications or your own point of view well argued. On the other hand, adding more examples in order to make the theory more accessible and visible can, I think, also be a great option. It could also clarify the connection with program, project or portfolio management. Of course, the translation from Word to Wiki has to be done properly in order to ensure a good visibility for the article.
[edit] Answer to reviewer 3 from S997303
Hi, thank you for constructive input. You did a very thoroughly job. It was very useful. I have added more content about TOC for PM and also some examples. Unfortunately I did not have time to add as many good examples as I could have wished. For the references I have added explanation to why they are important for the subject. Thank you for giving a balanced review incl. both positive things and things to improve.
[edit] Reviewer 1, Konstantinos Lymperis, s142330
Overall the article is well written and easily understood by a reader who is not familiar with the topic. All main points are illustrated by figures, which help to visualize the theory.
Formal aspects
- I would strongly recommend to use the === for the chapters and the == for the subchapters in order to create the table of contents
- There are some spelling and grammar mistakes throughout the article. However, they can be easily spotted and corrected by the author prior to finalizing the article.
- As key concepts are introduced via tables and figures, it would be nice to link them with their actual source. Also, at the time of the review the figures and tables were not yet uploaded in the wiki edition but the format and their location blends well with the flow of the article.
Content
- Some concepts and methodologies introduced in the article are not thoroughly explained (eg. buffer inventory, the critical chain method). Therefore, since the article is less than 3000 words in length, the definitions of the concepts could be a useful addition for a more in depth analysis of the subject.
- Regarding the structure of the article, someone could note that the sub-chapter 2.2 "Advantages" should not be in the chapter "Applications". Maybe it could be paired with the limitations at chapter 3 under the title "Advantages and limitations of the TOC theory".
- The abstract could include a statement in regards to limitations described in the article.
- Sub-chapter 2.1 explains the relatediness of TOC with project management. It would be better though to give some examples to explain statements such as the following: "if scope increases with fixed cost (or resources) schedule tends to increase".
- Furthermore, although chapter 2.3 is an application of the TOC theory, someone could argue that is not so releavant with the project, program or portfolio management.
- The references are sufficient and easily distinguisted with personal opinions.
[edit] Answer to reviewer 1 from S997303
Thank you very much for your review. You have a very pleasant way of providing constructive feed back. I have tried to improve formal aspects. Your suggestion of linking tables and figures to actual source is very good, unfortunately I had to prioritize otherwise due to time pressure. As for content I have tried to explain more thoroughly all the "important" words as well as adding more in depth analysis of TOC used for PM. I have followed your suggestion about structure and added advantages in the section with limitations. That was a good point. Also I have removed the section 2.3 as suggested. You were right. This example was not relevant in the article. I have learned a lot from your review. Thanks.
