Talk:Metra Potential Method

From apppm
Revision as of 12:00, 25 September 2015 by AugustinB (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

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.
    • Thank you very much
  • When MPM is mentioned, why write Potential Metra Methods, and not Metra Potential Methods, as stated in the heading?
    • Well seen, it was a mistake from my part. It can be said both ways, but it is good to use the same one all the article long.
  • 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.
    • Thanks, I moved these 2 last sentences in order to get something more coherent
  • I don’t think you should use “… “after any sentence. (See Overview)
    • You are right, it has been changed
  • I found the description in “List of task” not very easy to follow. Maybe structure this in another way?
    • Explain such process with words is not always easy, that's why I tried to illustrate as much as possible with an example and some tables and pictures. I made some minor changes in the text in order to ease the comprehension, I hope it will be fine
  • Why isn’t the method for calculating the duration of tasks not specified? Doesn’t it include in the implementation of the MPM?
    • I thought that it should be a bit "out of the context" to explain in detail the calculation method in this article. From my point of view, explain how to calculate the duration of a task regarding the costs and resources should be the subject of an individual article. Ideally, I wanted to insert a link to another Wiki article about this specific point.
  • I had some problems understanding how to calculate “earliest start”
    • I tried to explain it another way to ease the comprehension
  • 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)
    • That's definitely true, I changed this sentence
  • Try not to use very long sentences as it makes it more difficult to follow.
  • Remember references!
    • Done !
  • I like how you have compared the MPM method to both the Gantt and the PERT method.
    • Thank you very much

Reviewer 3: s142581

  • The article was very interesting and easy to read. It is very much related to the course and relevant for practitioners.
    • Thank you very much
  • 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.
    • Thank you again !
  • 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.
    • I agree with you, I made a change
  • Another positive aspect is that you lean on one example when explaining the process.
    • Thank you
  • It was also a good idea to state a terminology list.
    • And thanks again
  • 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.
    • Thanks, I moved these 2 last sentences in order to get something more coherent
  • 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.
    • Reference added, I also need to add a link to Wiki Articles about GANTT of PERT
  • 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.
    • I don't think that it is the same meaning, anteriority is a name whereas previous is an adjective, same for dependency and dependent... Maybe an English mistake from, I will check again...
  • In the expression “realizing a table”, I suggest you write “making/doing a table”.,,
    • True
  • 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.
    • Done, thanks for the tip
  • I think you made a mistake when mentioning the three convention rules, since there are four bullet points.
    • Totally true, firstly I putted the fourth rules in another paragraph, then I though that it could be easier to understand if it was on the same part as the three others rules, but I forgot to turn the 3 into a 4
  • Regarding the figures, I would recommend that you type ":" after Figure X instead of ","
    • Are you sure ?
  • 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.
    • Done, thank's !
  • 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”.
    • Done, thank's !
  • Finally, even if you mention that you will add a bibliography, I would recommend to integrate the sources in the text with numbers.
    • Done, thank's !

Reviewer 2, s141530:

  • Very Nice structure, easy to follow the topic’s red-thread.
    • Thanks a lot !
  • 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.
    • Well seen, it has been updated
  • Enumerate the tables regarding the list of tasks and link them to the text.
    • Well seen, it has been updated
  • MPM explanation very well explains.
    • Thank you
  • 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.
    • Done, thank's !
Personal tools