Talk:The Triple Constraint in Project Management

Feedback on Abstract:

Text clarity	Good
Language	Good - few misspellings though
Description of the tool/theory/concept	Good
Purpose explanation	Good
Title of the Wiki	Good
Relevance to curriculum	Relevant
References	Good but a looks like you are missing references in the first line
Other

Feedback 1 | Reviewer name: Shri Tejas Vedula

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

It is a nice concise abstract, explaining the basic concept of TCS. Summarizes the intention of the article and highlights the different viewpoints in the conflict between scope and quality. There are a few minor spelling errors but I'm sure you'll find and correct them when you proof read the section again. In the second last sentence you write about a disagreement between the inclusion of scope or cost in the triangle. Isn't it scope and quality ?

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

Very clearly articulated. A glimpse at the table of contents explains a logical flow for all sections. The arguments are free of contradictions. What I like in your article is that you've cited papers and quoted their arguments as to why TCS is better than TCQ etc(different perspectives). However, since the Triple constraint is a simple concept and rather not a tool, the application section rather just explains the obvious of how a balance is needed among the three elements.

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

The writing style in general is good. There are a few instances of grammatical and spelling errors but as I wrote for Q1 you'll just need to proof read it a few times

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

The figures are pretty simple and clear. However try reducing the size of them. They seem to be a bit too big. Also if you made the figures yourself, you can just add a side note saying "figure made by me with inspiration from book xyz"

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

The article has good academic relevance. I can see the different perspectives presented in a good manner. I think the practical relevance of this model or theory is pretty self explanatory as it is very simple (as claimed by Atkinson ). In order to make it more interesting, you could probably add Axelos Prince2 standard's interpretation as well ?. Additionally, I think it would be very helpful if you described the dynamics of the constraints with project examples or like types of projects which would be "fast" "good" and not cheap etc. You do explain this but if you could categorize the projects, it would be even better for practical purposes.

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

Answer here

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

Answer here