Talk:Construction modularization from a lean perspective

Revision as of 18:50, 27 September 2015

LasseHoier87 reviewer 2

First impression is good, especially the use of a real life case is nice. The layout is thought through and seems to “guide” the reader through the topic. However, it could be "spiced" a bit up if there were some nice pictures, illustrations or even a video. This would "catch" the reader more i think.

Formal aspects: (Wiki article Peer Review template is used)

• The article is as clearly stated in the article following a “case study”
• No gramma faults or spelling.
• Written in a fine engaging style, The sentence is too long and may be a bit too much direct style. Use more formal style.
• No illustrations at all, you mention a video on youtube why not use that one. Maybe the figures showing the building or similar.
• No figures
• No figures
• No figures
• No figures therefore no copyright issue
• I think the overall wiki formation of the article is fine.

Content aspects:

• For practitioners it is a relevant article, because the topic is very relevant.
• It is not specific related to PPPM. However, the idea lean and critical path is used in project management and scheduling.
  • The PPPM relation is lean Construction.
• The length of the article is fine. I don’t think it should be longer, but maybe a bit more in the “Preface” and maybe it is too basic.
• I think the overall red thread is fine and the article seems coherent.
• The starting summary is good and works fine, but I think the “preface” and “abstact” could be merged together and be more precise in terms of starting the “red thread”.
• The reference is missing.
• I find it hard to say which material has been used. There should be a clear list of reference and link into the text.
• There is no section “annotated bibliography”.
• As far as I noticed, there were no link to other APPPM wiki article. But links to websites, that is fine.
• Own opinion is clearly stated in “ reflections on practice of modularization in the construction sector”
• There is no reason to think there is any type of plagiarism

[[ (S142899_I am not aware of whether I am reviewer ½ or 3)

References are missing summary at the end.

A) Not many grammatical or spelling mistakes!

• BSB term should be explained before used in the ABSTRACT PARAGRAPH
• I would suggest in general to create less complex and smaller sentences throughout the article in order to avoid confusion for the reader
• Under Board Sustainable Building Co.Ltd paragraph there is a space mistake “ The2008..” and use past tense as well.
• Also the numbering can become simpler not 1…..1….2….1 but instead.1……1.1….2…….2.1
• Reference at the end of TH30 HOTEL, Modular Constructions impact on critical path, paragraph is missing?
• In the paragraphs under BSB's prefabrication technology reference is missing
• In lean Construction paragraph double “. . “ error and gap after “.” Exist also in the second paragraph. Also reference is missing.
• Under BCB projects analyzed from a lean perspective paragraph data is rmentioned without reference.
• “Broad Organization” in paragraph Reflections on practice of modularization in the construction sector could be with small letters

B)

• Preface and Abstract probably should be in one paragraph
• Logical paragraph flow without overlapping.
• I would create a paragraph that incorporates the paragraphs: 3 Broad Group,4 Broad Sustainable Building Co. Ltd., 5 T30 Hotel

and name it “case T30 description”

C)

• Congrats on summing up info and referring on them in Board Group paragraph.

Especially the summing up paragraph illustrates a critical support of the theory in combination of this case study.

• I would add the “T30 HOTEL CASE STUDY” in the title of the article probably]]