Talk:Contracting as a PM

Mette: Hey, I like your idea. Perhaps you need to be more specific of what exactly it is you want to look at in your article, what you want to study and discuss in your article. Keep in mind the structure of a "method article".

Reviewer 2, S997303

Hi Elizabeth

• I find it an interesting subject to compare stakeholder management in construction projects with stakeholder management in SCM; And it is a good idea to rename the article to match the abstract as you have written under notes.

• Your abstract gives a good introduction, but I suggest you to consider moving the last three lines in your abstract to the beginning of the abstract, because these lines tell exactly what this article is about. Maybe you could also consider stating more clearly why you want to compare/analyze stake holder management in construction projects with/in relation to SCM networks.

• Your article is very interesting for a practitioner. I believe, however, that it has been a challenge to put this article into the method structure and I miss some limitations pointed out e.g. in relation to the stakeholder models used.

• It is a god idea with the illustrations /figures, and if you make them a little bigger and clearer, it will be easier to read them. They are complementing your text.

• Your language is fluent and precise. I would though re-consider writing statements like a large project “can either save a company from bankruptcy or put them in the grave” at least if you do not have a reference to back up this statement.

Good luck with the completion of your article. Best Regards Jane

Reviewer 1, Dimak

Hi,

I believe that this article gives a complete overview of connecting the management of stakeholders in a construction project with the principles used in SCM. I saw that you used Martin Christopher's book as a reference, which I have read in the past, and I believe that vastly explores the different aspects of SCM. The article in general has all the characteristics of a Wiki-style article. The language used is fluent with only a few grammatical and syntax errors and the sentences are short and conclusive. Generally, your article has a nice structure which a good flow and nice illustrations.

Some remarks I have are the following:

• One point is that you can consider having bigger images as you do in the representation of the Power/Interest Matrix. For instance, the Winch-Bonke framework looks very interesting and I would like to see a bigger representation of it in order to connect it with the text.

• Another point is that you can try and use more references especially in some parts that you provide many information. One example can be the analysis process section. Also, I would suggest to use references in some sentences you use (example: save a company from bankruptcy or put them in the grave).

• I understand that it might be difficult, but try to express contractors in a different way. A practitioner might find it easier to follow if you do so. I believe you can try finding synonyms or expressing it differently. For example, you can use instead of contractors "everyone that works in the construction site".

• Furthermore, I believe it would be nice if you present a bit more difficulties, drawbacks and limitations for your method.

Some of minor changes that I have spotted and you can consider doing are:

• You can maybe label or put a short description under the Power/Interest Matrix.

• On the general section and at some other parts, I would use a position in the market instead of a position on the market

• Again on the general section, you say: goal of supply chain management differs from each chain. I believe you can change "from each chain" to "from chain to chain"

• You can think of changing the section's name "A Management Contractor" to "The Management Contractor". In my opinion it fits better as a heading to an article

I hope that these remarks will help you. Good luck with your article.

Dimitris

Reviewer 3, Konstantinos Lymperis s142330

Intresting article, high level analysis and very unique topic. I admit that an unfamiliar reader, like me, can hardly follow the flow, due to condensated information. Overall, I would say that it possess high academic quality, but it is not an 'eye-candy'. There is time to improve the image in order to make it more 'reader-friendly'.

Formal aspects

• I would recommend to name the table, reference it into the article and link it with bibliography. Also, the format is confusing because it does not distinguish titles, subtitles and document.
• The fugures should be bigger.

Content aspects

• I believe that some aspects introduced, like turnkey/main/individual trade contracts and network flow, are not properly defined.
• The title is indeed a bit confusing. I think is not a bad idea to rephrase it in order to match with the content of the article.
• Regarding the format of the document I would say that there should be better cohesion between sub-chspters. For instance, at chapter 1 General there are two sub-chapters 1.1 A Management Contractor and 1.2 Management of a Network. The first one is a person and the second one is the persons actions. Either syncronize them or rephrase them (due to very specific subject you cannot avoid large detailed titles).

To summarize I think it is a top article and should go for the prize assuming that the (minor) image errors are fixed! Good luck.