View source for Talk:E. Pihl & Søn A/S from a management perspective


UserName:Jejenji - REVIEW 3 

* Great intro to describe the whole picture
** Thank you.
* The chapters regarding the history are a bit long. From my point of view it would be useful to make a table or describe the most important events through bullet points.
** I agree and I have tried to shorten the history parts. I however think that the history is an important part in order to understand the problems in the company (especially after 2008), so I am afraid that bullet points will be insufficient.
*Interesting to know which constructions they built in DK
**Good. I have shortened the list a little to make the history parts shorter.
*According to me it would be more important to highlight the MANAGEMENT part instead of the HISTORY. Maybe shorten a bit the history part and expand more the Management paragraph. It could be useful to consult more sources about these part and insert a little bit of theory.
**Again I agree. I have found some additional sources and tried to elaborate the management even more.
*Detailed conclusion that underlines who took decisions
**Thanks.
*Adding a sort of hierarchy picture of the company would help to understand how’s the power distributed
**I have made an organization chart
*It could be useful to divide the conclusions and implications in subchapter to analyse more into details each part (example: leadership,“enlightened despotism”…. )
**Good idea to divide the two.
*Nice point the “enlightened despotism”
**Tanks.
FORMAL ASPECTS
*Overall the article follows the case study structure
**Good.
*Grammar wise is correct
**Good.
*Lack of figures and visual illustrations 
**I agree. I hope it helps that I have added the organization chart.
*Formatted Properly 
**Good.
CONTENT ASPECTS
*The article is interesting 
**Thank you
*It does relate to PPPM
**Good.
*Appropriate length 
**Good.
*Logic flow between HISTORY _ MANAGEMENT _ CONCLUSION
**Thanks.
*Reference materials are a bit poor
**The book covers the case quite well I think, but I have added some other references as well.
*Great annotated bibliography 
**Thank you.
*The historical part seems poorly re-elaborated
**I am not sure I understand this point?
==Reviewer 2, s121408==
Formal:
*The grammar and flow of the article was correct from my point of view.
**Good.
*Pictures are well allocated.
**Good.
*It is well documented from bibliography from what I have seen.
**Good.
Content:
*Good starting.
**Thank you.
*I understand that to evaluate a case you need to present it. But I think there has been put so much effort in describing the history and situation of the firm (nearly half of the article), something that someone could just read in the book you referred or elsewhere. 
**I agree. I have tried to shorten the history parts.
*The flow of the article is very good, but I see the topic away from the concepts used in the course. I do not clearly see how the concepts explained in the slides are implemented in the article. There are some concepts of Project and Portfolio management in the article but it could be enlarged.
**I have tried to elaborate the management part.
* I do not clearly see the personal contribution of the author. I have the impression there is a lot of paraphrase coming from literature but correct if I am wrong. I would recommend to talk with the professor, because the article is very illustrative but maybe he wants something else.
**I believe that the point is to be objective and use statements from literature rather than my personal opinion, so from that point of view I guess your comment is positive?

== Reviewer 1: s141586 ==

Formal:<br>
•	It clearly has a case study structure.<br>
*Good.
•	It is well written. I couldn’t find gramatical errors, just a tipo: Too keep track of the progress -> To keep track of the progress<br>
*Thank you!
•	Who is Carl Bro? Carl’s Brother? <br>
*And thanks again, I do not know where "Bro" came from, it was supposed to be "Pihl".
•	I think it would be good to see some figures representing the structure of the company in a visual way (organigram).<br>
*I have made an organisation chart.
•	I think that you could add more figures describing the different topics you talk about, like a map of the projects carried away by the company, the flat organisational structure…<br>
*I hope that the organization chart is illustrative enough. 
•	The article is very well formatted<br>
*Thank you.

Content:<br>
•	The length of the article is the appropriate.<br>
*Good.
•	I think that the topic is very interesting, however, from a practitioner’s point of view I can’t see a clear utility of the article, since it is mostly talking about the history of the company rather than purely managerial aspects.<br>
*I agree, I have tried to shorten the history parts and elaborate the management aspects.
•	For the first part of the article (History):<br> It is a well-documented article about the history of the company, however It’s difficult for me to find a connection with the course curriculum, maybe is not necessary to explain the whole history of the company (who was the CEO, when,…) but try to focus, for instance, on the governance management strategy of the company.<br>
*I have shortened the history parts.
•	Fort he second part (Management in E. Pihl & Søn A/S):<br> It is very interesting to know about the type of leadership, organisation… but it would be nicer if you could relate it to the theory, maybe explaining why the flat organisational structure is good for motivation, or what do the manager-employees relationships have to do with team performance… try to find some papers that talk about some of the topics you have written about.<br>
*Great inputs, thank you. I have found some additional sources about the flat organizational structure and incorporated them.
•	Following a logical thread, I would put Project management after Portfolio Management.<br>
*I think both ways make sence, so I am keeping the order I had.