Talk:Behaviors in scheduling

Revision as of 16:26, 19 February 2018

Abstract Feedback

Text clarity Text can be more coherent

Language Good

Description of the tool/theory/concept Good , but text clarity will make it easier to follow. Explain what behaviour is

Purpose explanation Emphasize what the reader will learn/get out of this article

References Missing references to mandatory list of references where appropriate

Relevance of article Consider the following:

1. Who is the reader? Project Manager or Sponsor etc?
2. Ensure depth of the article so it contributes to the project management community more than a normal web search

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Place your name here

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

Very precise abstract. You write clearly that you will have an emphasis in project management, which is good to have in you abstract. Your abstract seems to be divided and explains you will cover some different aspects, which includes human behaviour in project management, approaches used to plan projects, strategy, decision making factors and plan scheduling as a process. As for this wiki article it seems like you have too many different aspects covered at the same time, and i am afraid it will be very messy and incoherent. What might be a challenge is to find a red thread between all the above mentioned things, and make it clear for the targeted reader, since it can easily just end up being a list of different tools and theories/methodologies with little to no connection to each other. i would rewrite my abstract and make the scope smaller and more clear.

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

Your techniques in scheduling shows why you abstract needs to be more clear with a more narrow scope. You list some techniques, which are not necessarily relevant to each other, and they don't quite follow you objective scope being human behaviour's influence on project planning. I would remove some of the techniques and focus on only one maybe two, and explain more in depth why they are relevant. You should also write more precise in the introduction of this part why you have it, and what value it adds. The two lines are a bit cryptical and well formulated, and they do not explain why this part is relevant to the scope, and what it will explain.

The change management section is frankly a mess. there is no natural flow from the previos section to this one, and they are not connected at all. Again the issue here is the scope, since your scope is so broad you need to write some sections, which are not connected to successfully fulfill your scope. I cannot see the relevance of this section either. The best advice i can give you here is to go back to you abstract or write a section right after that explains what human behaviour is (maybe) and which aspects of human behaviour you will focus on, and to which category i.e you cannot not focus on planning, monitoring, realization etc. This part is also very dense, and you have some interesting aspects, but because your force a lot of information into few sentences it is actually difficult to see who the intended reader is, and why we actually have this part. I looks like you have decide to write an article to the industry, but then you have some very heavy theory. I think your article could be really cool and relevant if you only focused on industry and narrowed your scope down to e.g. "Effect of human behaviour in change management" and focus on project and maybe program management.

It looks like the last section is not quite done, so i will not comment on that, since i cannot see its relevance. But the direction you are moving in with it follows the same pattern as the previous sections, which i believe you should reconsider.

You should also consider the general flow of the article in terms of the sections. The three sections you have are not connected at all, and very loosely connected to you scope. There should be build up were you have some sections that are logically place in an order, where you build up information that is relevant for the reader.' Put it this way, when you write the sections ask yourself: What will happen if i change the order of these two sections? Should one of them naturally lead up to the other like: Relevant tools ->Methodologies->Applicability

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

Your abstract is decently formulated, but the rest has a lot of bad formulations, can be excessively wordy, with few errors which mostly seems to be typing error. You have a good vocabulary. In general it seems like you know how to formulate yourself, and the result of your formulation either comes from fast typing, or because the content has to be very dense due to your large scope. Either way i would re write a lot, and then maybe have a focus on writting it a bit less as spoken language

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

There are none. But for this type of article i would expect to see a lot. This is a lot with processes, and where and how humans interact with them, which should include graphical representation of the tools.

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

This is interesting considering your article leads up to be highly relevant in a practical sense, but have a lot of fractions that are highly theoretical. You cannot have one without the other, but I believe you should really focus on the practical sense and maybe find some litteratur that actually explains what the results can be if human behaviour is neglected, or what the benefits can be if they are managed correctly in a project. This would give you a very relevant article, and I believe you will easily find a lot of literature that can give you a strong indication how human ressources can benefit different tools or with the wrong managerial approach can can have a negative consequence

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

At this point no. It is a lot of rewriting some theory, but not really applying it. What you should do is, to briefly explain relevant theory and write why it is important to notice, because your reader probably know allot this and expect a more applied article. Considering your scope influencing human behaviour on project management the people reading it probably have some knowledge about this area and would learn more. I think my second answer also explains hiow you could do that.

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

You have a broad source of references and they seem good and relevant. There are some points where you write some facts, and don't really back it up e.g. :Despite all of the tangible results schedule changes will also affect humans causing higher pressure, lower productivity and in general - quality reduction. This is due to high number or variables and possible risks even though usually those are thoroughly analyzed because it is not possible to predict any scenario." This part here is a bit weak because it sounds like speculations. Maybe you should write: According to XXX we can see industries having issues with scheduling changes due to..." But in general it seems like you know how to find relevant infromation.