Talk:Beyond the Triple Constraint
(→Annotated bibliography:) |
|||
| (17 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
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? | ||
| − | The abstract is clear and gives a good overview of what's to come. | + | ''The abstract is clear and gives a good overview of what's to come.'' |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | Nothing. | + | ''Nothing.'' |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
===Question 2=== | ===Question 2=== | ||
| Line 19: | Line 16: | ||
Is the argument clear? | Is the argument clear? | ||
| − | Yes. | + | ''Yes.'' |
Is there a logical flow to the article? | Is there a logical flow to the article? | ||
| − | Yes. | + | ''Yes.'' |
Does one part build upon the other? | Does one part build upon the other? | ||
| Line 29: | Line 26: | ||
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? | Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? | ||
| − | Under application you talk about cost and time being closely correlated, but leaving scope out? Are time and scope not closely correlated? Cost and scope? | + | ''Under application you talk about cost and time being closely correlated, but leaving scope out? Are time and scope not closely correlated? Cost and scope?'' - ''I have addressed this in my text and will try to include some more explaining.'' |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | The limitation section is very large and it would be nice to have it divided into more subsections. | + | ''The limitation section is very large and it would be nice to have it divided into more subsections.'' - Done. |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
===Question 3 === | ===Question 3 === | ||
| Line 42: | Line 37: | ||
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? | ||
| − | Excellent English :) | + | ''Excellent English :)'' |
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? | ||
| − | Yup. | + | ''Yup.'' |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | Nothing. | + | ''Nothing.'' |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
===Question 4=== | ===Question 4=== | ||
| Line 60: | Line 52: | ||
Are figures and tables clear? | Are figures and tables clear? | ||
| − | All figures are named "Figure 1". | + | ''All figures are named "Figure 1".'' - Done |
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? | ||
| − | Sure. | + | ''Sure.'' |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
===Question 5=== | ===Question 5=== | ||
| Line 76: | Line 65: | ||
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? | Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? | ||
| − | Both practical and academic. It gives a an extra dimension to the old model. | + | ''Both practical and academic. It gives a an extra dimension to the old model.'' |
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. | + | ''Yes.'' |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
===Question 6=== | ===Question 6=== | ||
| Line 92: | Line 78: | ||
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? | Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? | ||
| − | Mostly academic. Some more real-case examples could make it more "eatable" for a practitioner. | + | ''Mostly academic. Some more real-case examples could make it more "eatable" for a practitioner.'' |
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? | Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? | ||
| Line 98: | Line 84: | ||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | Some real-life examples. | + | ''Some real-life examples.'' - Done |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
===Question 7 === | ===Question 7 === | ||
| Line 108: | Line 91: | ||
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? | Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? | ||
| − | Yes. Many cites to both the PRINCE2 and PMBOK standards. | + | ''Yes. Many cites to both the PRINCE2 and PMBOK standards.'' |
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? | ||
| − | The references have yet to be summarized. | + | ''The references have yet to be summarized.''- Done |
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? | Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? | ||
| − | Mostly on empirical as the old models have been improved as they did not seem sufficient. | + | ''Mostly on empirical as the old models have been improved as they did not seem sufficient.'' |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Matthew Wells == | ==Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Matthew Wells == | ||
| Line 129: | Line 110: | ||
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, the summary is clear, highlights how the sides of the | + | ''Yes, the summary is clear, it highlights how the sides of the Iron Triangle are interrelated and continues to explain why this is important to project management and managers.'' |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | + | ''Please create a clearer distinction between the traditional model and newer additional 'softer' edges or augmented models within the summary.'' - Done | |
| − | + | ||
===Question 2=== | ===Question 2=== | ||
| Line 141: | Line 121: | ||
Is the argument clear? | Is the argument clear? | ||
| − | Yes, the argument is clear as to why the model should be used, how it determines the success of a project and it can change during the project lifetime. | + | ''Yes, the argument is clear as to why the model should be used, how it determines the success of a project and it can change during the project lifetime.'' |
Is there a logical flow to the article? | Is there a logical flow to the article? | ||
| − | Yes, there is a logical flow through the article. From the definition | + | ''Yes, there is a logical flow through the article. From the definition to the traditional model, to limitations and to proposed new models.'' |
Does one part build upon the other? | Does one part build upon the other? | ||
| − | Yes, each part builds upon the next in a clear and logical way. | + | ''Yes, each part builds upon the next in a clear and logical way.'' |
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? | Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? | ||
| − | The article is free of contradictions. There is an inconsistency with the model being referred to as time, scope, cost and then scope, budget, schedule. This due to the images used (and they do provide alternative names for them) and could be ignored, but if possible it could be nice redo them. | + | ''The article is free of contradictions. There is an inconsistency with the model being referred to as time, scope, cost and then scope, budget, schedule. This is due to the images used (and they do provide alternative names for them) and could be ignored, but if possible it could be nice redo them.'' - Done |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | ''Not much except for correcting image triangle names''. | ||
===Question 3 === | ===Question 3 === | ||
| Line 163: | Line 144: | ||
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? | ||
| − | There are a few spelling errors but as this is a draft I assume they will be fixed. | + | ''There are a few spelling errors but as this is a draft I assume they will be fixed.'' |
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? | ||
| − | The language is precise, does not ramble and is not filled with unnecessary words. | + | ''The language is precise, does not ramble and is not filled with unnecessary words.'' |
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | Please correct the spelling errors. | + | ''Please correct the spelling errors.'' - Done |
| − | + | ||
===Question 4=== | ===Question 4=== | ||
| Line 178: | Line 158: | ||
Are figures and tables clear? | Are figures and tables clear? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''All figures and tables are clear.'' | ||
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? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''The figures and tables used summarise the article in a meaningful way as each of the traditional, and newer models each have their own figure to graphically represent it.'' | ||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | + | ''If possible please keep the Iron Triangle Side names consistent between each.'' - Done | |
| − | + | ||
===Question 5=== | ===Question 5=== | ||
| Line 190: | Line 173: | ||
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? | Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? | ||
| + | '' | ||
| + | The article has both practical and academic relevance as it is a model that can be utilised within the industry and as an academic tool.'' | ||
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? | Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? | ||
| + | ''The article makes clear how The Iron Triangle is relevant in the context of assessing project successes and how it keeps managers accountable. | ||
| + | '' | ||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | + | ''Not much else.'' | |
| − | + | ||
===Question 6=== | ===Question 6=== | ||
| Line 203: | Line 189: | ||
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? | Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? | ||
| + | ''Yes, the article is interesting for both practitioners and academics to read as it goes beyond just explaining the Iron Triangle by providing examples of more modern interpretations of the model and its implications on quality. | ||
| + | '' | ||
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? | Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''Yes, it provides modern interpretations that discuss risk, resources and quality.'' | ||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | + | ''Possibly find more alternative interpretations and explicit uses.'' - Done | |
| − | + | ||
===Question 7 === | ===Question 7 === | ||
| Line 214: | Line 203: | ||
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? | Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''Yes, the article properly cites references. There are many references to PMBOK and PRINCE2.'' | ||
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, it does for a few and I expect the final article will for all.'' - Done | ||
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? | Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''It is based on empirical data backed up by global standards.'' | ||
What would you suggest to improve? | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| − | + | ''Not much else.'' | |
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
| − | + | ||
==Abstract Feedback== | ==Abstract Feedback== | ||
Latest revision as of 20:01, 22 February 2018
Contents
|
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Kasper Løwe Olsen
[edit] Question 1
[edit] Quality of the summary:
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
The abstract is clear and gives a good overview of what's to come.
What would you suggest to improve?
Nothing.
[edit] Question 2
[edit] 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?
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?
Under application you talk about cost and time being closely correlated, but leaving scope out? Are time and scope not closely correlated? Cost and scope? - I have addressed this in my text and will try to include some more explaining.
What would you suggest to improve?
The limitation section is very large and it would be nice to have it divided into more subsections. - Done.
[edit] Question 3
[edit] Grammar and style:
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?
Excellent English :)
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?
Yup.
What would you suggest to improve?
Nothing.
[edit] Question 4
[edit] Figures and tables:
Are figures and tables clear?
All figures are named "Figure 1". - Done
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?
Sure.
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Question 5
[edit] Interest and relevance:
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?
Both practical and academic. It gives a an extra dimension to the old model.
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?
Yes.
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Question 6
[edit] Depth of treatment:
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?
Mostly academic. Some more real-case examples could make it more "eatable" for a practitioner.
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?
What would you suggest to improve?
Some real-life examples. - Done
[edit] Question 7
[edit] Annotated bibliography:
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?
Yes. Many cites to both the PRINCE2 and PMBOK standards.
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?
The references have yet to be summarized.- Done
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?
Mostly on empirical as the old models have been improved as they did not seem sufficient.
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Feedback 2 | Reviewer name: Matthew Wells
[edit] Question 1
[edit] Quality of the summary:
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
Yes, the summary is clear, it highlights how the sides of the Iron Triangle are interrelated and continues to explain why this is important to project management and managers.
What would you suggest to improve?
Please create a clearer distinction between the traditional model and newer additional 'softer' edges or augmented models within the summary. - Done
[edit] Question 2
[edit] Structure and logic of the article:
Is the argument clear?
Yes, the argument is clear as to why the model should be used, how it determines the success of a project and it can change during the project lifetime.
Is there a logical flow to the article?
Yes, there is a logical flow through the article. From the definition to the traditional model, to limitations and to proposed new models.
Does one part build upon the other?
Yes, each part builds upon the next in a clear and logical way.
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?
The article is free of contradictions. There is an inconsistency with the model being referred to as time, scope, cost and then scope, budget, schedule. This is due to the images used (and they do provide alternative names for them) and could be ignored, but if possible it could be nice redo them. - Done
What would you suggest to improve?
Not much except for correcting image triangle names.
[edit] Question 3
[edit] Grammar and style:
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?
There are a few spelling errors but as this is a draft I assume they will be fixed.
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?
The language is precise, does not ramble and is not filled with unnecessary words.
What would you suggest to improve?
Please correct the spelling errors. - Done
[edit] Question 4
[edit] Figures and tables:
Are figures and tables clear?
All figures and tables are clear.
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?
The figures and tables used summarise the article in a meaningful way as each of the traditional, and newer models each have their own figure to graphically represent it.
What would you suggest to improve?
If possible please keep the Iron Triangle Side names consistent between each. - Done
[edit] Question 5
[edit] Interest and relevance:
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? The article has both practical and academic relevance as it is a model that can be utilised within the industry and as an academic tool.
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?
The article makes clear how The Iron Triangle is relevant in the context of assessing project successes and how it keeps managers accountable. What would you suggest to improve?
Not much else.
[edit] Question 6
[edit] Depth of treatment:
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?
Yes, the article is interesting for both practitioners and academics to read as it goes beyond just explaining the Iron Triangle by providing examples of more modern interpretations of the model and its implications on quality. Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?
Yes, it provides modern interpretations that discuss risk, resources and quality.
What would you suggest to improve?
Possibly find more alternative interpretations and explicit uses. - Done
[edit] Question 7
[edit] Annotated bibliography:
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?
Yes, the article properly cites references. There are many references to PMBOK and PRINCE2.
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?
Yes, it does for a few and I expect the final article will for all. - Done
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?
It is based on empirical data backed up by global standards.
What would you suggest to improve?
Not much else.
[edit] Abstract Feedback
Text clarity Coherent
Language Good. Minor error e.g. writing "constraint" when "constrain" is meant
Description of the tool/theory/concept Good, but paragraph 2 is difficult to follow: Does "other constraints" refer to constraints within the quality constraint?
Purpose explanation Good, but a lot of constraints have been introduced in the abstract (see comment above) - will the article focus on a particular few or all of them?
References Good, but add the mandatory references in the "Reference material"
Relevance of article Definitely relevant, but look at the comments above for improvement
