Talk:Minimizing Risk and Uncertainties in Construction Projects

Kristine: Minimizing risk is an interesting subject. Do try not to spread over too many subjects at once as it will not allow you to go enough in debt with each of them. Do consider what tool it is especially important for you to explain as this should have your main focus. The Main page is helpful to look at when you need to structure the article.

Reviewer 1: S102935

1. Pros
   1. Engaging overview, works as a good introduction
   2. Good overall structure of the article
   3. Good references

1. Missing content and formalities
   1. The annotated bibliography seem like an important part of the article, so remember to include annotations in your final article
   2. Few grammatical errors, which should be corrected before the final hand-in
2. Suggestions
   1. Remember to focus on a creating a red thread through your article.
   2. Reread your article to thin out grammatical errors.
   3. Try to integrate other relevant articles into your subject, such as budget overruns or delays due to uncertainties etc.
3. Additional comments
   1. You mention BIM in the overview of your article, but it is not used later on. After the TA feedback for my abstract, I decided not to write about BIM in the article, so I change the abstract in Word, but forgot to replace it in the wiki page. Now it is fixed.
   2. One of your references also focus on BIM, namely “Building Information Modelling (BIM) in Design Detailing with focus on Interior Wall Systems”, but is used for a part concerning weekly meetings and commitment and trust among the parties. You should look into whether it is intentionally or not. It is intentional. Despite the title of the source´s report, it also includes information about Lean Construction and Last Planner System, with a very wise mention to commitment among the parties.

Reviewer 2: AndreasAndersen

• The first impression of the article is good
• How the article is structured could be written in the beginning of the article. This will make the article more reader-friendly. I think you are right about this, so I made a small introduction of the article right after the title.
• In some places are the language and grammar difficult to understand and this needs to be improved because it removes the focus
• You should start every section with a short description of why the section is important. For example needs the ”Risk and Uncertainty” section a description of why it is important to manage. It would be more easy to understand the different sections if you can write 1-2 lines of why it is important to manage
• You are also using a lot of bullets which gives a good overview but in some places you could use more bullets. For example in the "transformation, flow and value" section are you describing three concepts without bullets. This can make it difficult to compare the three concepts and make an overview
• The figures gives a good understand of the theory but the figures are small and are of poor quality. You should try to make the quality better and make the figures larger
• You need to link your Wiki article to other relevant pages in the APPPM Wiki
• Your article is to short and has only about 1700 words
• It is good that you have different types of references

s150799 reviewer nr.3

Overall impression:

• There is a lot of interesting information and theories.

Improvement areas:

• For me, the structure was a bit confusing and made it hard to understand when and where different subject was discussed. For example are the sections about “transformation, flow and value” under Lean construction, or are this an independent theory?
• Always explain abbreviations before using it.
• The grammar makes the article a bit challenging to read.
• In the overview you state that you are going to discuss BIM in Lean, but I cannot see that this has been done.
• Remember to make links to other Wiki articles and an annotated bibliography section.

Suggestion of improvement:

• Instead of an own overview section, you could have an abstract before the contents.
• For the structure you could be more clear when and where you are talking about different theories. There was no clear difference between facts and the use of the tools.
• It would make the flow of the article much better if you looked at conjugation of words and the sentence structure. There are some sentences that don’t make sense because of the wrong use of words. For example “outlooks”, when I think you wanted to write “outcome”. And try to refer to someone or something when you start the sentence with “it, that or this”, then it is easier to understand what you mean.