Talk:Theory of Constraints

Revision as of 22:43, 22 September 2015

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.

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.

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?)

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.

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.