Talk:Minimizing Risk and Uncertainties in Construction Projects
From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
| (18 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
## Good overall structure of the article | ## Good overall structure of the article | ||
## Good references | ## Good references | ||
| + | '''''Thank you!''''' | ||
| − | # '''Missing formalities''' | + | # '''Missing content and formalities''' |
| − | ## The annotated bibliography seem like an important part of the article, so remember to include annotations in your final article | + | ## The annotated bibliography seem like an important part of the article, so remember to include annotations in your final article. |
| − | ## Few grammatical errors, which should be corrected before the final hand-in | + | '''''Thank you for the suggestion. I made the section Annotated articles''''' |
| − | # '''Suggestions''' | + | ## Few grammatical errors, which should be corrected before the final hand-in. |
| − | ## | + | '''''I went through all grammatical issues in the text. It should be fine now''''' |
| + | # '''Suggestions''' | ||
| + | ## Remember to focus on a creating a red thread through your article. | ||
| + | '''''I tried to be more consistent on Lean Construction connected with the methods''''' | ||
## Reread your article to thin out grammatical errors. | ## Reread your article to thin out grammatical errors. | ||
## Try to integrate other relevant articles into your subject, such as budget overruns or delays due to uncertainties etc. | ## Try to integrate other relevant articles into your subject, such as budget overruns or delays due to uncertainties etc. | ||
| + | '''''I think it is a good idea, so I included a paragraph about cost overrun due to uncertainties''''' | ||
# '''Additional comments''' | # '''Additional comments''' | ||
| − | ## You mention BIM in the overview of your article, but it is not used later on. | + | ## You mention BIM in the overview of your article, but it is not used later on. |
| − | ## One of your references also focus on BIM, namely “Building Information Modelling (BIM) in Design Detailing with focus on Interior Wall Systems”, but is used for a part concerning weekly meetings and commitment and trust among the parties. You should look into whether it is intentionally or not. | + | '''''After the TA feedback of my abstract, I decided not to write about BIM in the article, so I changed the abstract in Word, but forgot to replace it in the wiki page. Now it is fixed.''''' |
| + | ## One of your references also focus on BIM, namely “Building Information Modelling (BIM) in Design Detailing with focus on Interior Wall Systems”, but is used for a part concerning weekly meetings and commitment and trust among the parties. You should look into whether it is intentionally or not. | ||
| + | '''''It is intentional. Despite the title of the source´s report, it also includes information about Lean Construction and Last Planner System, with a very wise mention to commitment among the parties.''''' | ||
| + | '''''Thank you for your feedback!''''' | ||
'''Reviewer 2: AndreasAndersen''' | '''Reviewer 2: AndreasAndersen''' | ||
| − | * The first impression of the article is good | + | * The first impression of the article is good |
| − | * | + | * How the article is structured could be written in the beginning of the article. This will make the article more reader-friendly. |
| − | * In some places are the | + | '''''I think you are right about this, so I made a small introduction of the article right after the title.''''' |
| − | * You should start every section with a short description of why the section is important. For example | + | * In some places are the language and grammar difficult to understand and this needs to be improved because it removes the focus |
| − | * You are also using a lot of bullets which gives a good overview but in some places you could use more bullets. For example in the transformation, flow and value section are you describing three concepts without bullets. This can make it difficult to compare the three concepts and make an overview. | + | '''''I change some sentences and simplified the grammar''''' |
| − | * The figures gives a good understand of the theory but the figures are small and are of poor quality. You should try to make the quality better and make the figures larger. | + | * You should start every section with a short description of why the section is important. For example needs the ”Risk and Uncertainty” section a description of why it is important to manage. It would be more easy to understand the different sections if you can write 1-2 lines of why it is important to manage |
| − | * You need to link your Wiki article to other Wiki articles | + | '''''I believe that I already introduce the section the way you mention''''' |
| − | * Your article is to short and has only about 1700 words | + | * You are also using a lot of bullets which gives a good overview but in some places you could use more bullets. For example in the "transformation, flow and value" section are you describing three concepts without bullets. This can make it difficult to compare the three concepts and make an overview '''''Yes, when I was doing the bullets, I passed this part. Now it is fixed''''' |
| − | * It is good that you have different types of references | + | * The figures gives a good understand of the theory but the figures are small and are of poor quality. You should try to make the quality better and make the figures larger |
| + | '''''I changed the figures and put some diagrams that I think have more image quality. But it is true that the image has more quality only if you click on it''''' | ||
| + | * You need to link your Wiki article to other relevant pages in the APPPM Wiki | ||
| + | '''''I have added a section called Annotated articles. Thank you for the suggestion''''' | ||
| + | * Your article is to short and has only about 1700 words | ||
| + | '''''I was not finished, so now it should have around 2300 words''''' | ||
| + | * It is good that you have different types of references | ||
| + | '''''I am not sure about what you mean, but I did some research among articles and books, the ones that I mention in the Bibliography''''' | ||
| + | '''''Thank you for your feedback!''''' | ||
==s150799 reviewer nr.3== | ==s150799 reviewer nr.3== | ||
| Line 37: | Line 53: | ||
* There is a lot of interesting information and theories. | * There is a lot of interesting information and theories. | ||
===Improvement areas:=== | ===Improvement areas:=== | ||
| − | * For me, the structure was a bit confusing and made it hard to understand when and where different subject was discussed. For example are the sections about “transformation, flow and value” under Lean construction, or are this an independent theory? | + | * For me, the structure was a bit confusing and made it hard to understand when and where different subject was discussed. For example are the sections about “transformation, flow and value” under Lean construction, or are this an independent theory? |
| + | '''''The TFV section is part of Methods section, which is part of Lean Construction. But I wrote an additional sentence at the end of Lean Construction section, to introduce the specific methods''''' | ||
*Always explain abbreviations before using it. | *Always explain abbreviations before using it. | ||
| + | '''''I explain them in the Lean Construction section, and the complete names are also in the title''''' | ||
*The grammar makes the article a bit challenging to read. | *The grammar makes the article a bit challenging to read. | ||
| + | '''''I change some sentences and simplified the grammar''''' | ||
*In the overview you state that you are going to discuss BIM in Lean, but I cannot see that this has been done. | *In the overview you state that you are going to discuss BIM in Lean, but I cannot see that this has been done. | ||
| − | *Remember to make links to other Wiki articles and an annotated bibliography section. | + | '''''After the TA feedback of my abstract, I decided not to write about BIM in the article, so I changed the abstract in Word, but forgot to replace it in the wiki page. Now it is fixed.''''' |
| + | *Remember to make links to other Wiki articles and an annotated bibliography section. | ||
| + | '''''I have added a section called Annotated articles. Thank you for the suggestion''''' | ||
===Suggestion of improvement:=== | ===Suggestion of improvement:=== | ||
| − | * Instead of an own overview section, you could have an abstract before the contents. | + | * Instead of an own overview section, you could have an abstract before the contents. |
| + | '''''I did not place the abstract before the contents, but have introduced the article with two lines. Thank you for that''''' | ||
* For the structure you could be more clear when and where you are talking about different theories. There was no clear difference between facts and the use of the tools. | * For the structure you could be more clear when and where you are talking about different theories. There was no clear difference between facts and the use of the tools. | ||
| + | '''''Instead of the structure you mention about the tools, I tried to make the structure about risk management (facts) and the methods to assess it (application). But I modified part of the text to clarify your point''''' | ||
*It would make the flow of the article much better if you looked at conjugation of words and the sentence structure. There are some sentences that don’t make sense because of the wrong use of words. For example “outlooks”, when I think you wanted to write “outcome”. And try to refer to someone or something when you start the sentence with “it, that or this”, then it is easier to understand what you mean. | *It would make the flow of the article much better if you looked at conjugation of words and the sentence structure. There are some sentences that don’t make sense because of the wrong use of words. For example “outlooks”, when I think you wanted to write “outcome”. And try to refer to someone or something when you start the sentence with “it, that or this”, then it is easier to understand what you mean. | ||
| + | '''''I am not sure about what you mean exactly. It would be great if you would be more specific, in order to modify the text. When I start the sentence with 'this' or 'that', I refer to the previous information''''' | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''''Thank you for your feedback!''''' | ||
Latest revision as of 16:46, 28 September 2015
Kristine: Minimizing risk is an interesting subject. Do try not to spread over too many subjects at once as it will not allow you to go enough in debt with each of them. Do consider what tool it is especially important for you to explain as this should have your main focus. The Main page is helpful to look at when you need to structure the article.
Reviewer 1: S102935
- Pros
- Engaging overview, works as a good introduction
- Good overall structure of the article
- Good references
Thank you!
- Missing content and formalities
- The annotated bibliography seem like an important part of the article, so remember to include annotations in your final article.
Thank you for the suggestion. I made the section Annotated articles
- Few grammatical errors, which should be corrected before the final hand-in.
I went through all grammatical issues in the text. It should be fine now
- Suggestions
- Remember to focus on a creating a red thread through your article.
I tried to be more consistent on Lean Construction connected with the methods
- Reread your article to thin out grammatical errors.
- Try to integrate other relevant articles into your subject, such as budget overruns or delays due to uncertainties etc.
I think it is a good idea, so I included a paragraph about cost overrun due to uncertainties
- Additional comments
- You mention BIM in the overview of your article, but it is not used later on.
After the TA feedback of my abstract, I decided not to write about BIM in the article, so I changed the abstract in Word, but forgot to replace it in the wiki page. Now it is fixed.
- One of your references also focus on BIM, namely “Building Information Modelling (BIM) in Design Detailing with focus on Interior Wall Systems”, but is used for a part concerning weekly meetings and commitment and trust among the parties. You should look into whether it is intentionally or not.
It is intentional. Despite the title of the source´s report, it also includes information about Lean Construction and Last Planner System, with a very wise mention to commitment among the parties.
Thank you for your feedback!
Reviewer 2: AndreasAndersen
- The first impression of the article is good
- How the article is structured could be written in the beginning of the article. This will make the article more reader-friendly.
I think you are right about this, so I made a small introduction of the article right after the title.
- In some places are the language and grammar difficult to understand and this needs to be improved because it removes the focus
I change some sentences and simplified the grammar
- You should start every section with a short description of why the section is important. For example needs the ”Risk and Uncertainty” section a description of why it is important to manage. It would be more easy to understand the different sections if you can write 1-2 lines of why it is important to manage
I believe that I already introduce the section the way you mention
- You are also using a lot of bullets which gives a good overview but in some places you could use more bullets. For example in the "transformation, flow and value" section are you describing three concepts without bullets. This can make it difficult to compare the three concepts and make an overview Yes, when I was doing the bullets, I passed this part. Now it is fixed
- The figures gives a good understand of the theory but the figures are small and are of poor quality. You should try to make the quality better and make the figures larger
I changed the figures and put some diagrams that I think have more image quality. But it is true that the image has more quality only if you click on it
- You need to link your Wiki article to other relevant pages in the APPPM Wiki
I have added a section called Annotated articles. Thank you for the suggestion
- Your article is to short and has only about 1700 words
I was not finished, so now it should have around 2300 words
- It is good that you have different types of references
I am not sure about what you mean, but I did some research among articles and books, the ones that I mention in the Bibliography
Thank you for your feedback!
Contents |
[edit] s150799 reviewer nr.3
[edit] Overall impression:
- There is a lot of interesting information and theories.
[edit] Improvement areas:
- For me, the structure was a bit confusing and made it hard to understand when and where different subject was discussed. For example are the sections about “transformation, flow and value” under Lean construction, or are this an independent theory?
The TFV section is part of Methods section, which is part of Lean Construction. But I wrote an additional sentence at the end of Lean Construction section, to introduce the specific methods
- Always explain abbreviations before using it.
I explain them in the Lean Construction section, and the complete names are also in the title
- The grammar makes the article a bit challenging to read.
I change some sentences and simplified the grammar
- In the overview you state that you are going to discuss BIM in Lean, but I cannot see that this has been done.
After the TA feedback of my abstract, I decided not to write about BIM in the article, so I changed the abstract in Word, but forgot to replace it in the wiki page. Now it is fixed.
- Remember to make links to other Wiki articles and an annotated bibliography section.
I have added a section called Annotated articles. Thank you for the suggestion
[edit] Suggestion of improvement:
- Instead of an own overview section, you could have an abstract before the contents.
I did not place the abstract before the contents, but have introduced the article with two lines. Thank you for that
- For the structure you could be more clear when and where you are talking about different theories. There was no clear difference between facts and the use of the tools.
Instead of the structure you mention about the tools, I tried to make the structure about risk management (facts) and the methods to assess it (application). But I modified part of the text to clarify your point
- It would make the flow of the article much better if you looked at conjugation of words and the sentence structure. There are some sentences that don’t make sense because of the wrong use of words. For example “outlooks”, when I think you wanted to write “outcome”. And try to refer to someone or something when you start the sentence with “it, that or this”, then it is easier to understand what you mean.
I am not sure about what you mean exactly. It would be great if you would be more specific, in order to modify the text. When I start the sentence with 'this' or 'that', I refer to the previous information
Thank you for your feedback!
