Talk:Lean Approach to Scheduling in Construction Projects
(→Question 5 · TEXT) |
(→Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Mads Grøndal) |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
'''Depth of treatment:''' | '''Depth of treatment:''' | ||
| − | Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? | + | Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes |
| − | Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? | + | Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? Yes |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
'''Annotated bibliography:''' | '''Annotated bibliography:''' | ||
| − | Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? | + | Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Yes |
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? | Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? | ||
| − | Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? | + | Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| Line 93: | Line 93: | ||
''Answer here'' | ''Answer here'' | ||
| − | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: '' | + | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: ''Mads Grøndal''== |
===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Quality of the summary:''' | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| − | Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? | + | Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Yes |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''I think it could be more clear that the main focus is on Location Based Scheduling and not necessarily a comparison between LBS and CPM '' |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Structure and logic of the article:''' | '''Structure and logic of the article:''' | ||
| − | Is the argument clear? | + | Is the argument clear? Yes |
| − | Is there a logical flow to the article? | + | Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes |
| − | Does one part build upon the other? | + | Does one part build upon the other? Yes |
| − | Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? | + | Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? Yes |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| Line 123: | Line 123: | ||
'''Grammar and style:''' | '''Grammar and style:''' | ||
| − | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? | + | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Mostly Yes |
| − | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? | + | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''Review and correct minor errors'' |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
'''Figures and tables:''' | '''Figures and tables:''' | ||
| − | Are figures and tables clear? | + | Are figures and tables clear? Yes |
| − | Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? | + | Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? Yes |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| Line 147: | Line 147: | ||
'''Interest and relevance:''' | '''Interest and relevance:''' | ||
| − | Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? | + | Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? Yes |
| − | Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? | + | Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? Yes |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| Line 159: | Line 159: | ||
'''Depth of treatment:''' | '''Depth of treatment:''' | ||
| − | Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? | + | Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes |
| − | Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? | + | Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? I have not made a cursory web search :P |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| Line 171: | Line 171: | ||
'''Annotated bibliography:''' | '''Annotated bibliography:''' | ||
| − | Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? | + | Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? yes |
| − | Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? | + | Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? Yes |
| − | Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? | + | Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| Line 181: | Line 181: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
''Answer here'' | ''Answer here'' | ||
| − | |||
==Abstract Feedback== | ==Abstract Feedback== | ||
Latest revision as of 17:33, 19 February 2018
Contents |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Emma B. K. Hansen
[edit] Question 1 · TEXT
Quality of the summary:
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Yes
What would you suggest to improve? I think it is clear that you want to talk about both LBS and CBM but not if you want to focus on LSB or CBM: “The main focus of the article is to describe LBS, a Project Time Management tool, used by project managers in the construction industry.” You write this but the bullets just below the sentence show a lot of comparison of LBS and CBM plus the new title tells that it will be a comparison. Maybe you could write that it will focus on LBS with a comparison of CBM or make more bullets which focus on LBS. :-) Depending on your plan for the wiki of course.
[edit] Answer 1
Answer here
[edit] Question 2 · TEXT
Structure and logic of the article:
Is the argument clear? Yes
Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes
Does one part build upon the other? Yes
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? Yes
What would you suggest to improve? You could add a conclusion, you have a headline called “LBS vs CPM” but also compare them before that e.g. in the part “Scheduling Principles.” Is the LBS vs CPM meant to be a sum up?
[edit] Answer 2
Answer here
[edit] Question 3 · TEXT
Grammar and style:
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Yes
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes and nice to read!
What would you suggest to improve? Rephrase “whatever” in the very first sentence since it's better suited for spoken language.
[edit] Answer 3
Answer here
[edit] Question 4 · TEXT
Figures and tables:
Are figures and tables clear? Yes
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? They are very useful for the understanding.
What would you suggest to improve? You mention the “The first process in Project Time Management, the Plan Schedule Management Process” It could be nice to have this process visualized for a reader who is not completely sure of the process.
[edit] Answer 4
Answer here
[edit] Question 5 · TEXT
Interest and relevance:
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? Yes
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? Yes especially in the beginning and during application.
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 5
Answer here
[edit] Question 6 · TEXT
Depth of treatment:
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 6
Answer here
[edit] Question 7 · TEXT
Annotated bibliography:
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Yes
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 7
Answer here
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Mads Grøndal
[edit] Question 1 · TEXT
Quality of the summary:
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 1
I think it could be more clear that the main focus is on Location Based Scheduling and not necessarily a comparison between LBS and CPM
[edit] Question 2 · TEXT
Structure and logic of the article:
Is the argument clear? Yes
Is there a logical flow to the article? Yes
Does one part build upon the other? Yes
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 2
Answer here
[edit] Question 3 · TEXT
Grammar and style:
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Mostly Yes
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 3
Review and correct minor errors
[edit] Question 4 · TEXT
Figures and tables:
Are figures and tables clear? Yes
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 4
Answer here
[edit] Question 5 · TEXT
Interest and relevance:
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? Yes
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 5
Answer here
[edit] Question 6 · TEXT
Depth of treatment:
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Yes
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? I have not made a cursory web search :P
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 6
Answer here
[edit] Question 7 · TEXT
Annotated bibliography:
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? yes
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? Yes
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? Yes
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 7
Answer here
[edit] Abstract Feedback
Text Clarity; Ok.
Language; Ok.
References; Ok.
Gantt charts are horizontal bar graphs, a visual representation, and not represent a scheduling technique, however is the common way to represent a CPM technique, do not forget to explain how LPS and LBS are graphically represented.
Annotated bibliography is a list of articles, books or documents followed by a briefly descriptive and evaluative paragraph, what you have under your annotated bibliography section are references this section is missing in your article, however is nice that you already established the structure of the article.
In general the abstract is ok, when developing the article don't forget to elaborate and describe the relevance for a Project Manager.
