Talk:Five Dimensional Project Management (Complexity Mapping for Transportation Projects)

Peer review One - Different

Would be nice if the listing of steps in the abstract was a list instead of just 'part of the text'.
"Used in early project planning" is not really clear - Does it mean that it was used back when Project planning was invented, or if it is the early stages of project planning.
The table of content seems a little extreme. Maybe it could be an idea to write the sub-sub headings with bold text, instead of a headline?

The Concept of "Transportation project management" is explained. It might just be straight forward, but it could be nice to have a few sentences about it.

Under Traditional view it says: (usually a Department of Transportation) "Department of Transportation" if, as I understand it, is just a random department from the industry, it should not be in capital letters.

Referencing "The Iron Triangle" without either a link or a reference. It is quite understandable, but it might be nice with a reference.

"One of this study’s conclusions was that given a five dimensional model a complex project is one in which the PM must manage at least four of the five possible dimensions." - Could be formulated a little clearer for example "One of this study’s conclusions was that given a five dimensional model a complex project the PM must manage at least four of the five possible dimensions in order to live up to certain criteria." - or something like that?

I do not really understand where you get this conclusion from: "Therefore a routine project can be complicated, technically, but not complex if the issues of context and financing have an insignificant magnitude. The aim of 5DPM is to allow for a better optimization of resources to ensure the success of a complex project."

You are using the abbreviation PM both as Project Management, and Project Manager. I think you should stick to one of the two.
In the section of "Factors affecting complexity" it seems like you want to explain the factors driving complexity, but you are also giving tips on how to solve it; e.g. the list under "Project Estimates". Maybe change the title of the section, or move it to another section on how to manage the complexity?

The list under "Schedule - Time" is not made with correct Wiki-syntax, but it should be easy to fix.

The Technical aspect seems a little short/rushed, compared to the other sections, but if you think you've depleted the knowledge, I can't see anything wrong with it.

Under Local Issues it might be more readable if you make a few breaks in the text. for example before each point you are presenting.

It is not urgent, but the example you use to visualize the Financing part, could be used as a thorough example through the different sections, all relating to the same case. That would definitely help on the 'connecting thread'

Again, it is logical, but it would still be nice if you mentioned (with text!) that a low score is good, and a high score is bad.

I hope the feedback makes sense, it should come in a pretty logical order, as it was written down as I read through the article :)

Good introduction
Write more about the relevance of your article for project management – the teachers want a summary stating the relevance of the subject/article
Consider making the list of 5 as an actual list.

Very nice to write about this in order to give a perspective to the 5D
Reference to where the “Iron Triangle” figure comes from – could be the same ref as the one used in the tekst.

Reference to the case study of 18 complex transportation projects could be moved to right after “a case study” to make it more clear – instead of only mentioning it after the conclusion to the study.
re-write the sentence about the study’s conclusion to be more clear in what your want to say
I am unsure of how you get the conclusion to this paragraph, I cannot see the direct link to what has been mentioned in the paragraph and the conclusion

Reference to where the figure is from + refer to the figure in your text.
When writing the last sentence “ The division of requirements…” you should refer to the table (maybe call it table 1)

Good introduction to the factors included in complexity
Remember to make references to where you have these definitions from, the ideal would be to have several references, which will enhance the credibility.
Maybe consider changing the introduction to reflect the fact that you are not only giving definitions, but you are also giving tips in your lists
I think you forgot to use “Stars” to make a bulleted list in the Time paragraph
minor detail: When writing e.g. it should be in italic I think :)
The Technical paragraph is not as well described as some of the others, so consider revising this part and adding additional information here. However, I of course don’t know whether or not there in fact is more to write about this subject. It may just also be the fact, that this part has more of sub-parts.
Look into the possibility of maybe linking your Stakeholder part with some of the articles written about this – helps create a coherence with other aspects of project management. I think it can be done with the use of external linking :)
In the Financing a Future Revenue Stream, it would make more sense to make the three issues as an actual numbered list.
I would suggest you trying to incorporate an example throughout the explanation of all the aspects

Maybe don’t call it (tool) like this. A suggestion could be calling it: A tool – using a Radar Map or Radar map – a tool for clarity and comparison
Very nice explanations with the use of the radar complexity diagram
In relation to the comment about using an example to illustrate – this example could maybe also be coupled to this Radar Map tool, if possible. This would be ideal to create a great flow in the article. By giving explanations - almost telling a story through the explained factors and then finishing by tying it together with the practical tool.
Remember to mention that on the range from 0-100, which is the best and which is the worst in order to avoid confusion later on in the Radar Chart.
Do you have a reference to where you have found this tool? And where do you have the numbers from for the mapping of the different phases?

It seems that the table of content is a bit “overwhelming” and you could consider removing some of the sub-headings.
Are you using PM for both Project Manager and Management? This could create confusion…
Avoid using ‘’it’s’’, ‘’don’t’’, etc….
The reference list is made by writing <references/>