Talk:Modularity and Black-Boxing
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Mette: I like this topic, however, I suggest you to make if clearly what you want to focus on with 'modularity' in this article and there the 'black-boxing' comes in. Remember to keep in mind the structure of a "method article". | + | '''Mette:''' |
| + | |||
| + | I like this topic, however, I suggest you to make if clearly what you want to focus on with 'modularity' in this article and there the 'black-boxing' comes in. Remember to keep in mind the structure of a "method article". | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''S112910''': | ||
| + | |||
| + | The author gives a good introduction to the subject and clearly states what the why it was chosen and why it is relevant to project, program and portfolio management. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The article seems to be of Type 1: Explanation and Illustration of a method, since it mainly explains the method and does not include any case study, therefore it is recommended that the author stick to the suggested structure for "method" articles, mainly to get a read thread throughout the article. | ||
| + | There are some minor issues with the grammar but the language of the text is overall fluent and understandable. | ||
| + | A lot of terms are used throughout the article. For those reading the article who are not familiar with project, program and portfolio management and issues related to this matter, it could be a good idea to give a short definition of the them, an example could be “Product family architectures”. | ||
| + | The “Design Structured Matrix” as a method for decomposing a product into standard designs, modules or platform is a good figure but it should be further explained and elaborated on since it stands kind of alone and it makes no sence to those who are not familiar with it. That goes for the blacbox figure as well. It would also be a good idea to equip your figures with a concise figure text and a reference. | ||
| + | There are two references in the “Annotated bibliography”, but they are not referenced in the text itself. Try using this piece of code in your text to refer to sources you’ve used: <ref>[''State the name of the source here''] ''State your source here'' </ref> | ||
| + | |||
| + | In the section “Modular Function deployment” you could use bullet points for the 5 tools. | ||
| + | The article does seem to be less than the 3000 words required for this task. However there are some under headings at the end of the article that seems to be very shortly mentioned that could be further elaborated on. | ||
Revision as of 14:46, 22 September 2015
Mette:
I like this topic, however, I suggest you to make if clearly what you want to focus on with 'modularity' in this article and there the 'black-boxing' comes in. Remember to keep in mind the structure of a "method article".
S112910:
The author gives a good introduction to the subject and clearly states what the why it was chosen and why it is relevant to project, program and portfolio management.
The article seems to be of Type 1: Explanation and Illustration of a method, since it mainly explains the method and does not include any case study, therefore it is recommended that the author stick to the suggested structure for "method" articles, mainly to get a read thread throughout the article. There are some minor issues with the grammar but the language of the text is overall fluent and understandable. A lot of terms are used throughout the article. For those reading the article who are not familiar with project, program and portfolio management and issues related to this matter, it could be a good idea to give a short definition of the them, an example could be “Product family architectures”. The “Design Structured Matrix” as a method for decomposing a product into standard designs, modules or platform is a good figure but it should be further explained and elaborated on since it stands kind of alone and it makes no sence to those who are not familiar with it. That goes for the blacbox figure as well. It would also be a good idea to equip your figures with a concise figure text and a reference. There are two references in the “Annotated bibliography”, but they are not referenced in the text itself. Try using this piece of code in your text to refer to sources you’ve used: [1]
In the section “Modular Function deployment” you could use bullet points for the 5 tools. The article does seem to be less than the 3000 words required for this task. However there are some under headings at the end of the article that seems to be very shortly mentioned that could be further elaborated on.
Cite error:
<ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found
