Talk:The Triple Constraint in Project Management
(→Feedback on Abstract:) |
(→Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Shri Tejas Vedula) |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
===Answer 1=== | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| − | ''It is a nice concise abstract, explaining the basic concept of TCS. Summarizes the intention of the article and highlights the different viewpoints in the conflict between scope and quality. There are a few minor spelling errors but I'm sure you'll find correct them when you proof read the section again. In the second last sentence you write about a disagreement between the inclusion of scope or cost in the triangle. Isn't it scope and quality ? '' | + | ''It is a nice concise abstract, explaining the basic concept of TCS. Summarizes the intention of the article and highlights the different viewpoints in the conflict between scope and quality. There are a few minor spelling errors but I'm sure you'll find and correct them when you proof read the section again. In the second last sentence you write about a disagreement between the inclusion of scope or cost in the triangle. Isn't it scope and quality ? '' |
===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 46: | Line 46: | ||
===Answer 2=== | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| − | ''Very clearly articulated. A glimpse at the table of contents explains a logical flow for all sections.' | + | ''Very clearly articulated. A glimpse at the table of contents explains a logical flow for all sections. The arguments are free of contradictions. What I like in your article is that you've cited papers and quoted their arguments as to why TCS is better than TCQ etc(different perspectives). However, since the Triple constraint is a simple concept and rather not a tool, the application section rather just explains the obvious of how a balance is needed among the three elements. |
===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 58: | Line 58: | ||
===Answer 3=== | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The writing style in general is good. There are a few instances of grammatical and spelling errors but as I wrote for Q1 you'll just need to proof read it a few times '' |
===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
===Answer 4=== | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The figures are pretty simple and clear. However try reducing the size of them. They seem to be a bit too big. Also if you made the figures yourself, you can just add a side note saying "figure made by me with inspiration from book xyz" '' |
===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 82: | Line 82: | ||
===Answer 5=== | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''The article has good academic relevance. I can see the different perspectives presented in a good manner. I think the practical relevance of this model or theory is pretty self explanatory as it is very simple (as claimed by Atkinson ). In order to make it more interesting, you could probably add Axelos Prince2 standard's interpretation as well ?. Additionally, I think it would be very helpful if you described the dynamics of the constraints with project examples or like types of projects which would be "fast" "good" and not cheap etc. You do explain this but if you could categorize the projects, it would be even better for practical purposes. '' |
===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 94: | Line 94: | ||
===Answer 6=== | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| − | '' | + | ''It is an interesting read as you present different viewpoints for the understanding of this fundamental model. You do a pretty good job when it comes to backing up claims with arguments from different sources. You can make the article a bit more interesting if you described a counter model in depth. For example, you mention the "TRIJECT" model in the end last section. It would be nice if you could have conducted a direct comparison of these two models and drawn out some substantial conclusions which you could have presented in the conclusion section. '' |
===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| Line 108: | Line 108: | ||
===Answer 7=== | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| − | ''Answer | + | ''Good use of citations. As mentioned before, the different perspectives work in your favor when critically reflecting on your article. I guess you're also planning to add the annotated bibliography section ? '' |
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ==Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: ''Sebastian Walther''== | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Question 1 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Quality of the summary:''' | ||
| + | Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? | ||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 1=== | ||
| + | ''The Abstract is written very well! The key focus is explained with the TCS and understandable. Good job for this part! | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Question 2 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Structure and logic of the article:''' | ||
| + | Is the argument clear? | ||
| + | Is there a logical flow to the article? | ||
| + | Does one part build upon the other? | ||
| + | Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? | ||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 2=== | ||
| + | ''The argument is clear, and the text is well structured. In my opinion, there is a logical flow in the text, which is very well expressed with the table of contents at the beginning. I was a bit confused with the two different definitions at the beginning (TCS and TCQ). In my opinion you wrote about the two different things in the same sentence. Maybe you can distinguish it clearer and just split these sentences. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Question 3 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Grammar and style:''' | ||
| + | Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? | ||
| + | Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? | ||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 3=== | ||
| + | "Overall, the text is written quite well. Here and then are some minor spelling and grammar errors, but once you go through the text again, you will recognise and correct them. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Question 4 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Figures and tables:''' | ||
| + | Are figures and tables clear? | ||
| + | Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? | ||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 4=== | ||
| + | "As Tejas already mentioned above, the Figures are a bit too big. Try reducing the size, otherwise they are clear and easy to understand." | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Question 5 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Interest and relevance:''' | ||
| + | Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? | ||
| + | Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? | ||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 5=== | ||
| + | ''As already mentioned before, the article is well written. Also from an academic perspective, the style is quite good. The way of describing the tools is very well done. It is easy and clear to understand for the reader, but still on a high practical level. Maybe you can add some advantages of the tool? Furthermore, I liked the example with the house you provided. If you could add some more, I think it is even easier to understand for the reader. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Question 6 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Depth of treatment:''' | ||
| + | Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? | ||
| + | Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? | ||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 6=== | ||
| + | "Overall, it is a good and interesting work you did! I like the different references you used. As already mentioned above, maybe you can find some more examples and also add some advantages to also make the report a bit longer..? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Question 7 · TEXT=== | ||
| + | '''Annotated bibliography:''' | ||
| + | Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? | ||
| + | Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? | ||
| + | Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? | ||
| + | What would you suggest to improve? | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Answer 7=== | ||
| + | "Usage of reference good. Annotated bibliography missing yet, but I assume you haven't had the time to do this yet.." | ||
Latest revision as of 22:54, 25 February 2019
Contents |
[edit] Feedback on Abstract:
| Text clarity | Good |
| Language | Good - few misspellings though |
| Description of the tool/theory/concept | Good |
| Purpose explanation | Good |
| Title of the Wiki | Good |
| Relevance to curriculum | Relevant |
| References | Good but a looks like you are missing references in the first line |
| Other |
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Shri Tejas Vedula
[edit] Question 1 · TEXT
Quality of the summary:
Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 1
It is a nice concise abstract, explaining the basic concept of TCS. Summarizes the intention of the article and highlights the different viewpoints in the conflict between scope and quality. There are a few minor spelling errors but I'm sure you'll find and correct them when you proof read the section again. In the second last sentence you write about a disagreement between the inclusion of scope or cost in the triangle. Isn't it scope and quality ?
[edit] Question 2 · TEXT
Structure and logic of the article:
Is the argument clear?
Is there a logical flow to the article?
Does one part build upon the other?
Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 2
Very clearly articulated. A glimpse at the table of contents explains a logical flow for all sections. The arguments are free of contradictions. What I like in your article is that you've cited papers and quoted their arguments as to why TCS is better than TCQ etc(different perspectives). However, since the Triple constraint is a simple concept and rather not a tool, the application section rather just explains the obvious of how a balance is needed among the three elements.
[edit] Question 3 · TEXT
Grammar and style:
Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors?
Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 3
The writing style in general is good. There are a few instances of grammatical and spelling errors but as I wrote for Q1 you'll just need to proof read it a few times
[edit] Question 4 · TEXT
Figures and tables:
Are figures and tables clear?
Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 4
The figures are pretty simple and clear. However try reducing the size of them. They seem to be a bit too big. Also if you made the figures yourself, you can just add a side note saying "figure made by me with inspiration from book xyz"
[edit] Question 5 · TEXT
Interest and relevance:
Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance?
Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 5
The article has good academic relevance. I can see the different perspectives presented in a good manner. I think the practical relevance of this model or theory is pretty self explanatory as it is very simple (as claimed by Atkinson ). In order to make it more interesting, you could probably add Axelos Prince2 standard's interpretation as well ?. Additionally, I think it would be very helpful if you described the dynamics of the constraints with project examples or like types of projects which would be "fast" "good" and not cheap etc. You do explain this but if you could categorize the projects, it would be even better for practical purposes.
[edit] Question 6 · TEXT
Depth of treatment:
Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read?
Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 6
It is an interesting read as you present different viewpoints for the understanding of this fundamental model. You do a pretty good job when it comes to backing up claims with arguments from different sources. You can make the article a bit more interesting if you described a counter model in depth. For example, you mention the "TRIJECT" model in the end last section. It would be nice if you could have conducted a direct comparison of these two models and drawn out some substantial conclusions which you could have presented in the conclusion section.
[edit] Question 7 · TEXT
Annotated bibliography:
Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work?
Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article?
Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion?
What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 7
Good use of citations. As mentioned before, the different perspectives work in your favor when critically reflecting on your article. I guess you're also planning to add the annotated bibliography section ?
[edit] Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Sebastian Walther
[edit] Question 1 · TEXT
Quality of the summary: Does the summary make the key focus, insights and/or contribution of the article clear? What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 1
The Abstract is written very well! The key focus is explained with the TCS and understandable. Good job for this part!
[edit] Question 2 · TEXT
Structure and logic of the article: Is the argument clear? Is there a logical flow to the article? Does one part build upon the other? Is the article consistent in its argument and free of contradictions? What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 2
The argument is clear, and the text is well structured. In my opinion, there is a logical flow in the text, which is very well expressed with the table of contents at the beginning. I was a bit confused with the two different definitions at the beginning (TCS and TCQ). In my opinion you wrote about the two different things in the same sentence. Maybe you can distinguish it clearer and just split these sentences.
[edit] Question 3 · TEXT
Grammar and style: Is the writing free of grammatical and spelling errors? Is the language precise without unnecessary fill words? What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 3
"Overall, the text is written quite well. Here and then are some minor spelling and grammar errors, but once you go through the text again, you will recognise and correct them.
[edit] Question 4 · TEXT
Figures and tables: Are figures and tables clear? Do they summarize the key points of the article in a meaningful way? What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 4
"As Tejas already mentioned above, the Figures are a bit too big. Try reducing the size, otherwise they are clear and easy to understand."
[edit] Question 5 · TEXT
Interest and relevance: Is the article of high practical and / or academic relevance? Is it made clear in the article why / how it is relevant? What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 5
As already mentioned before, the article is well written. Also from an academic perspective, the style is quite good. The way of describing the tools is very well done. It is easy and clear to understand for the reader, but still on a high practical level. Maybe you can add some advantages of the tool? Furthermore, I liked the example with the house you provided. If you could add some more, I think it is even easier to understand for the reader.
[edit] Question 6 · TEXT
Depth of treatment: Is the article interesting for a practitioner or academic to read? Does it make a significant contribution beyond a cursory web search? What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 6
"Overall, it is a good and interesting work you did! I like the different references you used. As already mentioned above, maybe you can find some more examples and also add some advantages to also make the report a bit longer..?
[edit] Question 7 · TEXT
Annotated bibliography: Does the article properly cite and acknowledge previous work? Does it briefly summarize the key references at the end of the article? Is it based on empirical data instead of opinion? What would you suggest to improve?
[edit] Answer 7
"Usage of reference good. Annotated bibliography missing yet, but I assume you haven't had the time to do this yet.."
