Talk:The Critical Path Method (CPM)

From apppm
Revision as of 20:16, 27 September 2015 by Sissel (Talk | contribs)

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

Anna: Very nice topic that focuses on a specific tool. It seems that you have a good grasp on the structure and that you will follow the requirements stated.

Review 2, Nannats
Hi s112195 :-)

  • I think it is nice that you have linked to some of the other wiki articles – you are good at doing that through the entire article :-)
  • I think that the language through the article is good, and easy to understand.
  • In my opinion, the section ‘Guidance on use’, is long and with a lot of text. You could consider making a subsection with either the ‘challenges’ that you mention or the ‘Fast Tracking or Crashing’ part.
  • In my point of view, I miss something (maybe a guidance) on how to find the critical path, maybe with an example. The section with the ‘Tool and Method’ does not quite seem to be finish?
  • The discussion part on the limitations is good, it seems like you touch a lot of different aspects.
  • Under ‘Additional reading’ you write something about "more information on the Cynefin Framework" – I think that must be a mistake? :-)

Overall, a nice article, so good job :-)

To: Review 2
Thank you for your very nice words about by article. I did decide to add sections to "guidance on use" and it helped get a better structure of the article. I also wrote a better and longer explanation on how the find the critical path. Thanks you again, your comments were useful.

s103183, Reviewer 1:

  • !!!!!I Made this review just before class today, but just noticed that a lot has changed since then!!!!!
  • I like the overall structure of the article and the introduction and that the introduction to CPM is no to detailed and hard to follow.
  • The first thing I notice however is that the article is not yet finished as several parts are missing.
  • A good thing is that you seem to have a lot of different references which shows that you have reseached the topic even though the article is far from finished.
  • I would recommend to put in an example of how to use it or somehow show how to use the method when you finish the article.
  • An idea could be to give a short description of the additional reading, what it contains etc.
  • As a last comment I would recommend to change the text in the ”Additional reading part” from ”the Cynefin Framework” to something like ”The Critical Path Method”.

To: Review 1
Unfortunately I couldn’t use your comments, because I already had made most of the article but first uploaded it short before the class started. All of your comments were already included. Thank you anyway.

S113815, Review 3. [1985 words]

Dear s112195.

After reviewing your article, I have following comments:

First of all, I think the article is consistently well-written and explains a tool which is very useful in the field of project management. There structure of the article seems to follow the guidelines from the assignment. There is a red thread throughout the article and the examples is easy to understand.

I have made some comments and tried to make some suggestions to make the article even better, they are as followed:


  • ..” With available accurate task time estimate CPM is the preferred method.” Says who? Do you have references to back up this statement?
  • I like your links to the internal Wiki-articles. Thus, the link to PERT is not connected to a wiki-article?
  • Overall a good paragraph that sums up the tool.

Introduction to CPM

  • Really well-written paragraph.
  • My only comment is to the links you have made. All the links is to the internal wiki-page. On this page, there is no article on Microsoft Project etc. Therefore, you might change these links to the “real” Wikipedia.

Tool and method

  • Nice figures. Thus, the figures are missing figure number and the big one is also missing figure text.
  • There is no cross reference from the text to the figures. I think it would be nice if the figures were used to support the key points in the text. E.g. “Bla bla bla, is illustrated in figure x”. :)
  • I feel the figure in the middle needs a little more explanation. It is a little hard to follow. Maybe an example from real-life project could be used?

Guidance on use

  • Again, a very well written paragraph.
  • “The most logical and efficient way to work is on one project at the time, unfortunately this is almost never the case.” Should it be “… to work is one task at the time,…”? Not project?
  • If fell like the paragraph tells a lot about why I should use CMP and who I can benefit from using it. I miss the “aha” feeling. After reading “guidance on use” I still don’t think I would be able to use the tool right away. I would suggest a more practical “hands-on” example to give the reader a specific way to use the tool.

Discussion on limitations

  • “A schedule created from CPM involves a lot of fluctuation because you have to use best-guess estimates to calculate time.” Very nice point!
  • I like the discussion between manual vs. computer work.
  • In my opinion, the best paragraph in the article!

Conclusion, Additional reading, Bibliography

  • All three sections looks nice in form of format.
  • There are missing authors in some of the references in the bibliography
  • The videos are a little misplaced on the page. I would suggest to put them under each reference. (But nice touch with the videos – Super! )
  • The second reference in bibliography has a fail: “↑ name="Sm15"”

General to the article

  • I didn’t find any typing errors or crucial grammatical errors – nice work.
  • I like the amount of links in your article. Thus, some of them are linking to unexcisting wiki-pages. Maybe these should be changes to the “real” Wikipedia?
  • As you still have 1000 words to use, you might consider adding an example to strengthen your theory.

All in all a very nice article – and good work. :)

To: Review 3
Thank you for your nice words about the article. I thought the references to other wiki articles were working. Thanks for letting me know, so I could correct my mistake and add references to “real” Wikipedia site. References to pictures are now made, well spotted. I have included more to the paragraph “guidance to use”, so I think you will get the Ahha feeling now  Thank you for the many recommendations, I have used many of them and it made my article better for sure.

Personal tools