Talk:Critical chain project management (CCPM)

Anna: Good choice of topic, remember to be focused on the tool aspect and be very very concrete with the explanation so that your article can help other students understand and use this method. Remember to follow the structure and include application and limitations.

Review of Sorth90 (Rasmus Sorth-Olsen s117422), Reviewer 1

To give the most constructive feedback on the article "Critical chain project management" I have used the sandwich model. (http://www.rightattitudes.com/2008/02/20/sandwich-feedback-technique/)

Answer: Thank you for this review, it has been very good help when reading through the text.

Praise:

• You have used the skills you have acquired during your eduction.
• The article shows that you know and have familiarized yourself with the subject before writing the article.
• The article in written in a clear way.
• Good language.

Criticism:

• The article covers some good models. However, it would have been obvious to have more models in the paragraphs, where the article only contains text - for example the paragraph "Methodological basis" and “The Critical Path Method”.
  • Answer: I have tried to make som more sub-paragraphs, and also used the models more. Thank you for the tip.

• 3-10 sources. This article contains 13th.
  • Answer: 3-10 references to the Annotated bibliography is added.

• Some of the sections could be divided into bullet points.
  • Answer: Tried to make more space in the text to make it more clear and easy to read.

Praise:

• The article has the necessary references and sources that support its content.
• Most studens at DTU would benefit from reading the article in connection with upcoming projects.
• It was must educational to read the article "Critical chain project management ".

Abstract:

• Good description of Critical chain project management (CCPM).
• Quick and precise.

History/background:

• Long description of Eliyahu M. Goldratt. Good description of his theory.
  • Answer: Tried to shorten the biography a bit.

• It is good that there is a description of the books.
• The section is supported by the sources.

Methodological basis:

• ”The main goal using Critical Chain Project Management is to speed up the project with up to 30 %, increase the predictability above 90 % and increase the productivity.” Are the goals exactly 30% and 90%?
  • Answer: The text says "up to 30 %" and "above 90 %", so the goals won´t be exactly 30 % and 90 %. When the speed is reduced by 30 % and the predictability is almost 100 %, the result of the method is at it´s best.

• Well built.
• Well, the section ends with a conclusion.
  • Answer: Changed from defining it a conclusion, to rather say that the method requires this because of the mentioned factors in the text above.

Core principles:

• The visual image supports the text. It is easy to understand section.
• The process, all students in the course could use.

The Critical Path Method:

• I need a figure of "network diagram".
  • Answer: Thank you for the tip, it is now included.
• Quick and precise.

Creating a CCPM schedule:

• Well, the text is supported by the figure.
• The section is supported by the sources.

CCPM in Japan:

• Is it primarily in Japan that uses CCPM?
  • Answer: The method is used all over the world, but I thought it would be nice with a example from the real world. This example also shows some of the advantages of the method, and when it is best used.

• The case must be supported by a source.
  • Answer: A reference to the example is already put in at the end of the paragraph.

Advantages and disadvantages:

• Well, the article concludes with this discussion.
  • Answer: Changed this, so it rather ends with a conclusion.

• Is not there some negative feedback about CCPM?
  • Some negative feedback in the limitation-paragraph.

Review of S141926, Reviewer 3

I think it is a good and well written article about Critical Chain Project Management, providing a good understanding of the method in a clear and well-structured way.

Answer: Thank you, and thanks for the good review.

General formal aspects

• I think the article is well structured, giving a good understanding of the methodological basis by providing information about the main aspects. Maybe the use of some bullet points would make this part more clear, under my point of view.
• The article engages the reader thanks to the fact that is easily readable, I think the use of the bullet points and subcategories help a lot to that with a logical and easy to follow work flow.
• Good reference notation and format.
• When mentioning methods/concepts that have a Wikipedia article it might be a good idea to link them.
  • Answer: Thank you for the tip, have made two links.

• Grammatically correct with good punctuation and use of technical vocabulary. However, I could read some informal contractions that under my point of view should be avoided in this sort of writing.

Review of the content

• The article covers successfully the course requirements for a method article. Good description, application and limitations by giving a number of reliable references well notated throughout the whole article.
• Under my point of view, the history part is too long and maybe irrelevant here. I think there is too much personal information about Eliyahu M. Goldratt that might not be much relevant for the purpose of the article. Personally, I would not add his portrait :)
  • Answer: Tried to shorten up the biography.

• The core principles are very well defined, using technical and precise language. Without too long and unnecessary sentences. If I had to suggest something it would be adding text formatting before starting the description of each factor (like bold titles).
  • Answer: Thank you for this tip, have tried to make some more subtitles and space through the text.

• Nice and useful illustrations that make more understandable the process and the article more attractive to the reader
• The length of the article seems appropriate and covers all the requirements of the method-article under my point of view. There is a good continuity throughout the article and under my point of view not unnecessary long sentences.
• Clear and well defined procedure to create a CCPM schedule, with examples to make it understandable to the reader.
• It provides a good understanding of the tool and real life examples (Japan section)
• Sometimes it is a bit difficult to differentiate between statements from literature and own opinion
  • Answer: Tried to make this more clear, however I don´t use subjectives like "I think..." in the text because I don´t think that fits into a wiki-article.
• Good summary of advantages and disadvantages with . However, I would add some more limitations and/or how to overcome them. I would also suggest to add some bullet points or bold format to differentiate the sub-parts.
  • Answer: Thank you for the tip, tried to add some more limitations. I also split up the benefits, limitations and conclusion.

Review made by s152093, reviewer 2

• A really good article. I learned a lot from it, and the specific comments I have to the article are details.
• The language is clear, and there is a natural flow of the language. Good references. It does say in the description of the project though that we have to “Summarize and outline the relevance of each reference to the topic”. This I can’t see anywhere.
• There are a few typos here and there.
• A little too long History section for my taste.
• Good introduction to the methodological basis, so that all the important tools and concepts are ready to be used for the explanation.
• The drawing in “Core principles” could be included in the explanation to make it even more clear.
• The example in “Creating a CCPM schedule” is good, but it is confusing that one example is described in text and another is shown in figure. It would be nice to have nice two aligned.
• Nice example with Japan, that really shows the strength of the method.
• Where it makes sense, it would be nice with some links to other Wiki-articles.
• It is a little hard to tell your opinion apart from statements from literature, even with the various references that you have.
• Are there really not any limitations to the theory? You point out that a critical path is needed for the CCPM to be made, and that the success is measured compared to previous very unstructured projects, and therefore its success is a little skewed. But isn’t there any more limitations to it than that?
• So as mentioned, all in all a very good article, and the comments I have made are almost all of them details :-)