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

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 sometimes write “we”(see section “The perspective of subject group”), try to avoid this, as it sounds unprofessional
• Missing table number and related text
• Many assumptions are taken through the article and these need to be supported.
• Missing references

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.
• 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
• Have a figure of the Interest and power-matrix
• 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.

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.

from johnjohn

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.

Format:

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

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?

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 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.

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.

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? 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?

Stakeholders

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