View source for Talk:Product development and portfolio management processes at LEGO

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:'''<br>
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:
#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.
#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.
#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.
#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.
#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? 
#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):''' <br>
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!