Talk:Program evaluation and review technique (PERT)

Revision as of 19:28, 22 September 2015

Anna: Very nice topic! It seems that you have a good grasp on the structure of the article and the theme fits the first article type: method :).

Reviewer 1 - Biankajuh: Feedback

1. I have find your abstract very well-designed which fulfill the role of introducing the main purpose and highlights of the article. Also commendable that you mention the limitation of the PERT model and talk about the comparative tools as well as the modifications.
2. The article is nicely illustrated with the pictures which help the understanding. Although, I would suggest to name them as ‘’Figure 1, 2, 3, …etc.’’ which would allow to refer to the pictures more specifically.

So for example instead of the sentence “This information is presented in a box representation.”, you could say “This information is presented in the box representation showed in Figure 1.”.

1. The third figure entitled in “PERT network in MS Project 2013” is quite unclear. Could you increase the quality of the picture?
2. In some cases, too long sentences could be substituted by two or three shorter ones to help the understanding.

For example: “The essential difference between a PERT chart and DSM is the visualization; DSM matrices represent basically the same information as a PERT network, which is different activities and their connections; the advantage of this representation is its conciseness compared to PERT, where lots of space is required to have a readable network.” (Comparison to other tools) —> Could be changed to: “The essential difference between a PERT chart and DSM is the visualization. DSM matrices represent basically the same information as a PERT network, which is different activities and their connections. The advantage of this representation in DSM is its conciseness compared to PERT, where lots of space is required to have a readable network.”

1. Grammatical/Formatting hints:

• Space missing between two sentence: “whereas the events are the nodes.For instance,” (Network diagram),
• No need for space before question mark: “How do they differ from eachother ?” (Comparison to other tools)

1. Regarding the Bibliography, I would note to refer all these references within the text of the article at the corresponding spaces.

Reviewer 2 – User: s113735 Feedback: Program evaluation and review technique (PERT) Formal Aspects:

• The article clearly follows the “method or tool” structure required. Super!
• The grammar and spelling in the article is at a decently high level. The sentences are short and concise, which makes it a pleasurably read with clear and easy to understand points.
• Your choice of figures are good and in line with the points, you are trying to make. Some figures could, however, be explained a little better (for instance the PERT box).
• Figures are missing references.
• The article has a bibliography, but is otherwise free of references and links. This makes it really hardto check the validity of your points. The article will have to be referenced.

Content Aspects:

• The article is clearly within the scope as it relates directly to a “Program” tool/method.
• The length of the article seems fair, but a few headings and sub-sections could easily be elaborated a bit. (For instance the “process” section: What are the benefits/drawbacks from using the tools you present? Are the tools prescribed or optional? Etc… You explain the overall applications and limitations for the PERT model, but not for the individual tools).
• The “critical path” in Project Management to my knowledge is not “the path that includes the most time consuming tasks” but is instead “the sequence of activities which add up to the longest overall duration”. You clearly show in your article that you know this while ALSO showing you know how to calculate the critical path.

With a little bit sharper terminology and definitions, it would increase the understanding a lot.

• When making a statement like: “But soon, project managers and companies have found that it is too ineffective and error-prone to use it, causing lots of failures.” This definitely need to be referenced.

Other than in a few cases the article is generally void of personal/unverifiable opinions, which is good.

• So far, the article doesn’t link to any other articles on the Wiki. I understand that it might be tough to find something directly related to this specific tool amongst the rather limited topics on the Wiki. I suggest trying to find some broad topics or even Categories to link to when writing. For instance, you might link to “human behaviour” (a category on the Wiki) when writing about the “agreement dimension” in the Stacey Matrix.

Overall Conclusion: The article is written at a high level and is easy to read and understand. Some points could however be elaborated a bit and the article needs to be referenced according to Wiki standards using the <ref> lastname, firstname (year) [www.link.com “linkname”] </ref> standard.

MistaJacob, reviewer 3

The feedback will be given in the form:

• My feedback
  • My feedback

OR

• ’’Copy of your text’’
  • My feedback

Feedback

• The general formatting is almost as it’s supposed to be. The pictures though lack the numbering and the references in the text, and you shift with using ‘thumbs’ and placing it in the middle. Consistency can be recommended for a better visual overview.
• The language is clear and easy to read, only with small number of places where i found typo’s, like in “Limitation” where you start and end a sentence with: Therefore
  • I will not comment these since they will be obvious to you when you read through your article for corrections.

• I found the article relevant, with a good red thread through it.
• The step by step approach worked as it should. That being said, the reader’s understanding could have been improved if you included a practical example you carried out through all steps
  • As you promised in the introduction :)
• in the section “Key Concepts”, the sequence of the bullet point list should be the same as the sequence in which they are explained, or vice versa.
• ’’The process of making a PERT analysis can be divided into 4 steps:’’
  • you have written 5 bullet points below
• ‘’Preparation of a list of all the tasks that will be involved in a given project’’
  • I would stick to using ‘activities’ and not ‘tasks’ as you write here.
  • There are other places (maybe only one) where you use task as well
• I would suggest that you also explain the term ‘float’, since it appears in your figure
• ‘’In this step we estimate the amount of time that can be taken by each activity.’’
  • You normally don’t use ‘we’
• ‘’A project cannot be completed as long as his longest component isn't finished.’’
  • Don’t know whether you would be able to argue your way out of defining a project as being ‘male’ ;)
• ‘’Gantt charts are used to display the timing of activities aGantt charts are used to display the timing of activities and progress of the project.’’
  • Double up
• Since you describe the other tool in the comparison very briefly, I would suggest to include links to their respective articles (if they exists)