Talk:Metra Potential Method

Revision as of 21:49, 22 September 2015

Anna: Nice choice of method, you seem to have understood the requirements to both topic and structure, so I don't have any further comments.

Reviewer 1: Alise

• The layout of this article is very nice, and I like that it has pictures to help explain.
• When MPM is mentioned, why write Potential Metra Methods, and not Metra Potential Methods, as stated in the heading?
• Writing the two last sentences about Bernard Roy seems kind of messy when it’s at the bottom of the subject, when you mention him in the beginning without giving him much attention.
• I don’t think you should use “… “after any sentence. (See Overview)
• I found the description in “List of task” not very easy to follow. Maybe structure this in another way?
• Why isn’t the method for calculating the duration of tasks not specified? Doesn’t it include in the implementation of the MPM?
• I had some problems understanding how to calculate “earliest start”
• You have some sentences that could be written better. For example: “It results that bigger is the number of critical tasks with respect to the total number of tasks, lower is the elasticity of the project.” You should write: “The result of this will be that the bigger the numbers of critical tasks with respect to the total number of tasks, the lower the elasticity of the project.” (this is just one)
• Try not to use very long sentences as it makes it more difficult to follow.
• Remember references!
• I like how you have compared the MPM method to both the Gantt and the PERT method.

Reviewer 3: s142581

• The article was very interesting and easy to read. It is very much related to the course and relevant for practitioners.
• In general, it follows a logical flow and it is very well explained. In my opinion, this is especially difficult to achieve when explaining these kind of processes, and you did a good job in this matter.
• In addition, it has a good paragraph structure, and the advantages and limitations sections were a wise choice. Maybe I would present the Overview section as the first one, or maybe you could change the title to Concept.
• Another positive aspect is that you lean on one example when explaining the process.
• It was also a good idea to state a terminology list.
• I would suggest introducing Bernard Roy (the year he was born and why he is recognized) at the beginning of the first paragraph, and not as a second paragraph, when you have already introduced the MPM. I think it would help the flow of the text.
• You mention that the method can be considered to be half-way between Gantt Graph and PERT representation. In my opinion, this can be confusing if the lector has not previous knowledge of these methods. I would recommend that you mention the source, as it seems a subjective comment.
• In terms of grammar, the text is well written. I just found some words that I think you could supplant. For example, it the sentence “taking into account the anteriority constraints linking these several tasks”, I would replace anteriority for previous. Other word that you could modify is dependency in the sentence “taking into account the dependency relationships between multiple tasks”, where you could write dependent instead.
• In the expression “realizing a table”, I suggest you write “making/doing a table”.
• You make use of the apostrophe when you write don’t. I would suggest to write do not.
• In addition, you could rephrase the sentence “this method only takes into account the schedule aspects, deadlines, delays, etc.” for “this method only takes into account aspects such as scheduling, deadlines or delays”, to avoid writing etc.
• I think you made a mistake when mentioning the three convention rules, since there are four bullet points.
• Regarding the figures, I would recommend that you type ":" after Figure X instead of ","
• In the first figures, you could increase the size, not because it is hard to read, but because it would achieve more importance when reading the text. In addition, I suggest you improve the alignment of the tables, for a better visualization of the process, and numerate them so you can mention them in the text.
• I would also suggest to rephrase the last sentence of the Implementation section to “It results that the bigger the number of critical tasks is with respect to the total number of tasks, the lower is the elasticity of the project”.
• Finally, even if you mention that you will add a bibliography, I would recommend to integrate the sources in the text with numbers.

Reviewer 2, s141530:

• Very Nice structure, easy to follow the topic’s red-thread.
• From my perspective you should clarify a bit this sentence “….whose summits represent tasks and the connections represent anteriority constraints.” (3rd line) it was not entirely clear for me.
• In the History chapter you could mention a bit about the Graph Theory background so you can connect it with your Metra Potential Method.
• Good idea include “Terminology sections” and “Graphic representation” . However from my perspective could be useful to have few lines of introduction especially during the “Graphic representation” otherwise the reader is a bit lost.
• Enumerate the tables regarding the list of tasks and link them to the text.
• MPM explanation very well explains.
• Well written “Advantages” and “Limitations” section especially because you compare it with another method. However, you should remember to mention MPM absolute constraints and advantages.
• Sometimes the sentences are too long, try to short them.
• Remember to mentions sources especially regarding the comparison between Pert and Gantt, so the reader can get information also regarding those methods.