Talk:Product development and portfolio management processes at LEGO

From apppm
Jump to: navigation, search

Hello, I like the idea for your "case study article". Please make sure to use that structure. I would also suggest to focus on one aspect of Lego, i.e. portfolio management or risk management (in the context of new PD). I do not think it would be appropriate to talk about the Lego PD process "in general" for this class.

Adam.pekala (reviewer 1) article accessed 2015-09-22 21:20:
The article that you wrote fits in the Case-study requirements and is pleasure to read, especially for a long-time Lego fan such as me. However, there is room for improvement, to make it even better:

  1. Illustrations are appropriate but they might be a bit larger by default so it would be easier to read without zooming on them. // That’s right, I just used a default 200px version at first, I enlarged them now.
  2. Language is suitable for such kind of article, however there are few spelling mistakes or grammar drawbacks (double spell check once again, read through and look for grammar order) // Thank you I hope now it is better.
  3. Stage-Gate chapter explains how the model work at Lego, but to me, there are some inconsistencies between the description and provided figure (around point 4, to be more precise) // That’s also a good point and true, I missed that point.
  4. Generally the structure is consistent but it would be even better with better ‘flow’ between the paragraphs (maybe some linking words?) // It is always hard to write something in a way to be logic and consistent, especially, when you are really in a topic and you can not read, as somebody for the first time. I tried to use some more links and inner references in the article, hope now it is better.
  5. In comments it would be really interesting to get some personal overview on the analysed case. // I am not sure what do you mean “in comments”? Here in the wiki system or personally for you? 
  6. Bibliography seems to be really well-chosen but it would be nice to read more about at least the main sources used – it might serve as further reading for interested readers. // I add annotated bibliography, thanks.

You have fit in the requirement of words number an after adding some smooth changes it will be almost ideal (right now being around ~2600 - but since you cover the topic, I think it is all-right). Keep working and polish it up. Looks like more than a great base! // Thanks for the useful comment and carefully reading, I appreciated it!

Alex161 (reviewer 2):
I like so much the Lego case study and it is very nice to read. I found the structure of the article well structured, with an enganging style and not hard to follow. I think the main points of the article are well illustrated with figures. It is understandable. Looking at the content i think your ‘’case study ‘’ is related with the course , maybe I would say that the part about the risk is a bit small compared with the size of the topic ( Risk management ). It follows a logical flow and i liked the started summary. Maybe you can add an annoted bibliography for each source. In general this is a very positive feedback I liked so much reading your article .

// Thank you very much for the positive words and I am happy that it was interesting for you as well. You are right, that the optimizing and risk part is a bit short, but there I am not talking about the risk management of LEGO, as you said, it would be to large topic. Under the term risk, I just would like to highlight the risk of deleting something from the previous product portfolio and apply 60% of new products. // I add some annotated bibliography, thanks to mention it!

Review 3, S145166

A very interesting article Balint! // Thanks Peter, I am happy that it was enjoyable for you!

Formal Very nice use of images and well labelled

  • there is a cite error on all the figures // Yes, I found, there was a cite in the figure description as well and apparently it seems the wiki system does not like it. I corrected now.
  • some grammar/spelling mistakes - read through again // I did, hopefully now it is better. Otherwise I will ask you to help a bit directly. 
  • Its more standard to put the Overview above the contents list // I guess it is a matter of taste, for me it is more decent. But namely, that way is more standard I put above the TOC.

Content Well explained theories clearly linked to portfolio management Good references from reliable sources

  • Just add an annotated bibliography for further reading // I add some with a short description, thanks. However, not for all the references, because some of them was also a reference in the referred literature.
  • And links to other relevant APPPM articles eg. portfolio management // I add some key words and other link also with a category (however most of the categories, which are relating to this topic are not exist), that was a good idea anyway.

// Thank you for the good words and for the constructive suggestions!

Personal tools