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

Peer review One - Different

• Five Dimensions are explained well.
  • Great :)
• Nice table of different things that fits in each category.
  • ✓
• Would be nice if the listing of steps in the abstract was a list instead of just 'part of the text'.
  • I see your point and i tried it at first but I don't think it looks better.
• "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.
  • added stages
• 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?
  • Very good point, I saw that but didn't fix in time. Changed subsub to bold.
• 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.
  • added parenthesis to emphasize that this relates to construction projects and not any transportation project (e.g. public transport networks or utilizing the transport network).
• 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.
  • I tried looking into this as I can't recall a strict rule but it is a national agency after all and nowhere did I ever encounter a 'DOT' written in small letters so it stays as is.
• Referencing "The Iron Triangle" without either a link or a reference. It is quite understandable, but it might be nice with a reference.
  • ref added
• "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?
  • wording changed
• 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."
  • Complexity here is measured as the spread of difficulties not their depth. e.g. If you were to build a multilevel interchange on a barren 'no mans land' mountain range and had unlimited funds then the project would be complicated sure but it would not be complex.
• You are using the abbreviation PM both as Project Management, and Project Manager. I think you should stick to one of the two.
  • That is intended as some things can be done both by the top person as well as the whole team.
• 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?
  • It's only the best standardized factors. Changed the section description and added references to the text.
• 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.
  • This is actually my chosen area of expertise and it's faaar from depleted but of course I tried to keep it as short as possible else it would become a separate article :) I see your point though so I elaborated slightly on the points.
• 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.
  • Perhaps but it's still done with a typical wiki list syntax
• 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'
  • discussed in review 2
• 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 agree but the scale is already described in the scoring table.
• References are not working, but I suppose you already know this.

Feedback from ProjectGoat

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 :)

”Abstract text”

• 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.
  • considered :)

Introduction

• Good, short intro text
  • ✓

Complexity

• References to the CCPM and FWHA are missing I think
  • fixed

Traditional view

• 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.
  • fixed

Five dimensional approach

• 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.
  • good point
• re-write the sentence about the study’s conclusion to be more clear in what your want to say
  • done
• 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
  • Again to me it seems very logical but since both reviewers mentioned this I added an example to visualize the conclusion.

Five Dimensions

• 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)
  • It did say 'following structure' but i added the table title to clear any doubt.

Factors affecting complexity

• 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
  • fixed
• minor detail: When writing e.g. it should be in italic I think :)
  • that's right, changed all e.g. and i.e. to italic
• 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.
  • addressed in review 1
• 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 :)
  • added categories to the article
• 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
  • A project where all these aspect would have to be consciously managed at all times would redefine the word nightmare :) I believe the descriptions are enough in this case.

Radar Map

• 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"
  • yes that's nicer, changed
• 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.
  • I fully get your point but I think that a wiki article inherently should be somewhat generic. An example going through the whole article could actually make for a good case study.
• 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.
  • as said it is visible in the scoring table but i added this since both reviews commented on that
• 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?

• • added references to the figures

General comments

• 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…
  • again each occurrence can be made either by a single person or the team.
• Avoid using ‘’it’s’’, ‘’don’t’’, etc….
• The reference list is made by writing <references/>