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

Peer Review one

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 scentences 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 fx.

"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 abbrivation PM both as Project Management, and Project Maneger. 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.