Talk:Theory of Constraints
StephSalling (Talk | contribs) (Created page with "== Review given by StephSalling, review1 == The TOC method is very interesting and you are explaining it in a good and simple way. It is really a shame that the last sections ...") |
(→Reviewer 2: s141586) |
||
| (17 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
==== Formal aspects ==== | ==== Formal aspects ==== | ||
| − | + | * The “method” structure is being followed very well (apart from the last parts not existing yet). | |
| − | + | * Grammar, spelling and punctuation – very good! | |
| − | + | * Sentences are short and precise, which make the article easy and engaging to read. | |
| − | + | * Adding some illustrations would improve the reading experience. | |
| − | + | * The use of different bullet point styles is good. It could be a good idea to link to some other wiki-pages. | |
| + | |||
| + | <code>'''The last parts have been added along with a couple of illustrations. I have also added links to relevant wiki-pages.'''</code> | ||
==== Content aspects ==== | ==== Content aspects ==== | ||
| − | + | * I would say that the article is very interesting for a practitioner. | |
| − | + | * The topic of the article is clear and specific. | |
| − | + | * It seems that there is (going to be) a logical flow through the article, but it is of course hard to say when only half of it is written. | |
| − | + | * The starting summary of the “big idea” is sufficient and not too long. | |
| − | + | * It looks like you have attempted to put in references but not succeeded (yet), which makes it hard to judge the sources and objectivity of the article (although it seems very objective). | |
| − | + | * It could maybe be beneficial to link the article to other pages in the APPPM wiki (such as pages with the topic of LEAN?) | |
| + | |||
| + | <code>'''I think I managed to get some proper references and cites :)'''</code> | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Reviewer 2: s141586 == | ||
| + | |||
| + | It is an interesting topic and it has a good flow, but it needs some improvement. <br><br> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Formal:<br> | ||
| + | • It is a method definition. <br> | ||
| + | • The use of English is correct. <br> | ||
| + | • The style of the article is short and concise; maybe too much, some extra explanation of the theory would be helpful. <br> | ||
| + | • It lacks figures. Some figures would help to make it more comprehensive. <br> | ||
| + | • The article is well formatted, but it is still in progress. <br> | ||
| + | • Missing references. <br> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <code>'''I added a few semi-relevant figures, as well as some references.'''</code> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Content: <br> | ||
| + | • It is an interesting topic for a practitioner. | ||
| + | It is difficult to understand if this theory is applied in Project Management, Program, Portfolio or everywhere. Where is it used? What are its benefits? Can it be applied to software development, for instance? <br> | ||
| + | • The length of the article is under the standard of 3000 words, but it seems that the article is still in progress. <br> | ||
| + | • In general it has a good focus and flow, however it needs more development and a deeper insight. <br> | ||
| + | • It seems that the main reference is Wikipedia, maybe would be a good idea to find some academic papers about the topic so you can find different approaches or ways of explaining, and also some clarifying figures. <br> | ||
| + | • Lacks annotated bibliography. <br> | ||
| + | • It is not linked to other APPPM articles. <br> | ||
| + | • There is not a subjective statement from the author; maybe a “discussion” section would be interesting. <br> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <code>'''I hope the applications chapter gave more meaning to the topic. I also threw in some relevant cites. I hope the "Limitations" chapter will suffice for the lack of a discussion :)'''</code> | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Reviewer 3, s121408== | ||
| + | Formal: | ||
| + | *The grammar and punctuation is ok. | ||
| + | *There are chapters empty. | ||
| + | * The language is clear and describe properly the tool. | ||
| + | *No proper refernce given in the text. | ||
| + | *No images shown. Images can improve the content of the article so I would suggest to add some. | ||
| + | |||
| + | <code>'''Chapters filled, and images and references added.'''</code> | ||
| + | |||
| + | Content: | ||
| + | *There is a good flow of the arguments | ||
| + | *There is not enough number of words. | ||
| + | * There is no clear relation between portfolio management course and your tool. I would suggest to use the concept given in class to approach this tool to portfolio/program/project management. | ||
| + | * As there is no clear connection with management portfolio I do not really see relevant for a practitioner. | ||
| + | *It is not well seem the author contribution to the topic. It seems just a description of a tool without any perspective or analysis. | ||
| + | |||
| + | <code>'''I hope the relevance for both the course and a practitioner is more clear, now the article is finished. Also, I hope that "Applications" and "Limitations" has given some depth and perspective to the article.'''</code> | ||
Latest revision as of 16:50, 29 September 2015
Contents |
[edit] Review given by StephSalling, review1
The TOC method is very interesting and you are explaining it in a good and simple way. It is really a shame that the last sections are missing.
[edit] Formal aspects
- The “method” structure is being followed very well (apart from the last parts not existing yet).
- Grammar, spelling and punctuation – very good!
- Sentences are short and precise, which make the article easy and engaging to read.
- Adding some illustrations would improve the reading experience.
- The use of different bullet point styles is good. It could be a good idea to link to some other wiki-pages.
The last parts have been added along with a couple of illustrations. I have also added links to relevant wiki-pages.
[edit] Content aspects
- I would say that the article is very interesting for a practitioner.
- The topic of the article is clear and specific.
- It seems that there is (going to be) a logical flow through the article, but it is of course hard to say when only half of it is written.
- The starting summary of the “big idea” is sufficient and not too long.
- It looks like you have attempted to put in references but not succeeded (yet), which makes it hard to judge the sources and objectivity of the article (although it seems very objective).
- It could maybe be beneficial to link the article to other pages in the APPPM wiki (such as pages with the topic of LEAN?)
I think I managed to get some proper references and cites :)
[edit] Reviewer 2: s141586
It is an interesting topic and it has a good flow, but it needs some improvement.
Formal:
• It is a method definition.
• The use of English is correct.
• The style of the article is short and concise; maybe too much, some extra explanation of the theory would be helpful.
• It lacks figures. Some figures would help to make it more comprehensive.
• The article is well formatted, but it is still in progress.
• Missing references.
I added a few semi-relevant figures, as well as some references.
Content:
• It is an interesting topic for a practitioner.
It is difficult to understand if this theory is applied in Project Management, Program, Portfolio or everywhere. Where is it used? What are its benefits? Can it be applied to software development, for instance?
• The length of the article is under the standard of 3000 words, but it seems that the article is still in progress.
• In general it has a good focus and flow, however it needs more development and a deeper insight.
• It seems that the main reference is Wikipedia, maybe would be a good idea to find some academic papers about the topic so you can find different approaches or ways of explaining, and also some clarifying figures.
• Lacks annotated bibliography.
• It is not linked to other APPPM articles.
• There is not a subjective statement from the author; maybe a “discussion” section would be interesting.
I hope the applications chapter gave more meaning to the topic. I also threw in some relevant cites. I hope the "Limitations" chapter will suffice for the lack of a discussion :)
[edit] Reviewer 3, s121408
Formal:
- The grammar and punctuation is ok.
- There are chapters empty.
- The language is clear and describe properly the tool.
- No proper refernce given in the text.
- No images shown. Images can improve the content of the article so I would suggest to add some.
Chapters filled, and images and references added.
Content:
- There is a good flow of the arguments
- There is not enough number of words.
- There is no clear relation between portfolio management course and your tool. I would suggest to use the concept given in class to approach this tool to portfolio/program/project management.
- As there is no clear connection with management portfolio I do not really see relevant for a practitioner.
- It is not well seem the author contribution to the topic. It seems just a description of a tool without any perspective or analysis.
I hope the relevance for both the course and a practitioner is more clear, now the article is finished. Also, I hope that "Applications" and "Limitations" has given some depth and perspective to the article.
