Talk:Analyzing the failure of the DaimlerChrysler merger from a project management perspective

Latest revision as of 00:22, 2 December 2014

[edit] Feedback - Char

FORMAL ASPECTA

• The structure creates a good and clear understanding of what the wiki pages is about.
• In general the article is well written and understandable
• The main Title describe the subject and the focus of the article good, but it is a little long in relation to this is a wiki-page and you want it to show up in the search field. You are right but I do not know how to make it briefer and still understandable...
• You sometimes write “we”(see section “The perspective of subject group”), try to avoid this, as it sounds unprofessional You are totally right, I will change it.
• Missing table number and related text Right, I will add it.
• Many assumptions are taken through the article and these need to be supported.
• Missing references You are right, I will add the references to support my ideas.

CONTENT ASPECTS The perspective of subject group (ISO 21500:2012)

• The section could start with a little longer and deeper explanation of the ISO standard, in order create a better understanding of what the ISO 21500 standard is and what it actually is doing. I can see that you are focused on the subject groups, but a general explanation of the whole ISO standard would be beneficial. One again you are right, I will add it
• You are writing that the ISO split the method into 39 processes and later are grouped into five processes, depending of the perspective. This should be explained. What do you mean with perspective? Which perspectives? How is the appropriate process selected relative to the perspective? Etc. Yes, it may not be clear... I will improve it and add a table.

DaimlerChrysler merger project The genesis of the project.

• “The table shows the complementary of the two companies, which seems to make them a perfect matching set” This needs an explanation. The table does not show explicit why the two companies is a perfect match.

All right, I will change it to make it more clear The project characteristics

• The two tables (Characteristics of DaimlerChrysler right after the merger and Expected results) are not comparable. It cannot be seen from the two tables that the achieved result is good or bad compared with the expected result, as the tables shows and describes different parameters. It is true the tables are not comparable BUT I introduced them to provide more details about the merger project. My aim was not to show the failre of the project here.

The mismanagement of some subject groups

• This section describes what went wrong in the four subject groups: the integration, time, communication and stakeholder. What would you rather have done? Write advice and suggestions in relation to the theory. I added some lines about it within the paragraphs

Integration

• The cultural table creates a good overview and understanding of the different culture in Germany and USA.

Stakeholders

• Interest and power-matrix. Describe why this it important, what it helps with and how you make one. I provided a Power-Matrix, thanks.
• Have a figure of the Interest and power-matrix Done :)
• Are there only three stakeholders related to the merge? Employees, Clients, Stockholders? Explain why you have focus on them and who the other stakeholders are. [[No, there are not the only one. I cannot provide examples about all of them. (I think 3 examples explaining why the Stakeholder process was mismanaged are enough BUT I will explain why I choose these three and who are the others in the Power-Interest Matrix.]]

Discussion section

• A discussion section should be added, where you discus the advantages and disadvantages of the ISO standard, since you are concluding in the conclusion that the standard is useful to analyze a project management. You could also do a discussion on how to perform a successful merge. I totally agree, I will add it. It makes sense

Thanks a lot for these usefull advices

[edit] from johnjohn

[edit] General

• The abstract should according to Christian be called a summary.
• Overall I think it is a really interesting topic and the structure and language of the article is well-organized and well-written.
• It is very interesting to have a concrete example analyzed throughout the article and you d a fine job making it interesting all the way.
• I however miss a discussion section and a "sum up of important learnings" from this example. Based on this analysis what should other companies do in future mergers? How can we learn from it? I suggest this to be brief and in a bullet format. You could also include benefits and challenges from using the ISO-standard. You are totally right, I will add it.

Format:

• Nice and fluent language. Easy understandable.
• No obvious grammatical errors
• References are missing “to do” it says. Yes, I will do it
• In general I miss some illustrations. Especially the Stakeholder go-through could be displayed visually.Good idea, I will a visual for the stakeholders.

[edit] Comments for each section

Abstract/Summary:

• Good summary stating the interesting aspects of this analysis.
• I felt intrigued to read more.
• Could you reference to the term “merger of equal” I am not aware of what context this expression comes from? Relevant, I will add a reference

Introduction:

• I like this because it is precise, and gives a good introduction.
• I like that you pose a question: But how to practically apply ISO 21500 to a project? But I miss the fact that you actively adress this later in a discussion or in sum up of best practice. I will add a discussion at the end of the article
• I miss that you in this section state your approach of how you have structured your article? You mention later that you have 3 parts, could you clarify this?

ISO:

• I would suggest that the introduction goes a bit more in-depth. You could also make links or references to external resources.I will go deeper and provide more information.

Perspectives of subject groups:

• You refer to the ”third part” this could be clarified better what part you mean? As mentioned could your abstract/summary maybe state your approach and how the article is structured. Right. I will introduce the structure more clearly.

DaimlerCHrysler merger project:

• I like that you use a tables to give an overview.

The mismanagement of some subject groups:

• Why don’t you go into all subject groups? Maybe you should explain why they are not relevant for you analysis? Why are only 4 of them addressed? I will explain why I focused on these stakeholders. Maybe this section: “Four Subject groups are successively addressed: Integration, Time, Communication and Stakeholders. The Integration Subject group includes the processes required to identify, define, combine, unify, coordinate, control and close the various activities and processes related to the project (ISO 21500:2012 - 4.2.3.2).” Should go above the "integration" headline? I do not agree since I need some details provided in the integration part are required to better understand the paragraph about Stakeholders

Stakeholders

• Could you introduce why you have chosen these stakeholders?
• As mentioned could a comparison of the stakeholders described be displayed visually.

I agree for both of these comments about the stakeholders. I will add a Power-Interest Matrix and explain why I choosed those one

Thank you for your help. It really helps me.