Talk:Critical chain project management (CCPM)
From apppm
(Difference between revisions)
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
* Sometimes it is a bit difficult to differentiate between statements from literature and own opinion | * Sometimes it is a bit difficult to differentiate between statements from literature and own opinion | ||
* 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. | * 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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==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 :-) | ||
Revision as of 21:23, 22 September 2015
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.
Contents |
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.
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.
- 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 :)
- 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).
- 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
- 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.
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 :-)
