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

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.