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

Revision as of 20:06, 25 November 2014

Peer review One - Different

• Five Dimensions are explained well.
• 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'.
• "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.

• 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.

Introduction

• Good, short intro text

Complexity

• References to the CCPM and FWHA are missing I think

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.

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.
• 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

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)

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
• 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

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
• 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?

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…
• Avoid using ‘’it’s’’, ‘’don’t’’, etc….
• The reference list is made by writing <references/>