Who Decides Which Themes and Sets get Made?

[Lego David]

So, I have been wondering... We already do have a lot of designers working within LEGO who are fans of original themes. This is clearly felt through the fact that we keep on getting for example Castle-related CMFs, and the occasional 18+ Adult sets. So, that means that there are at least a few designers who work at LEGO who are fans of those themes and who presumably would also wish to see those themes return as fully fledged lines of sets rather than just big expensive 18+ sets. So then, why can't those designers come together and just pitch to LEGO a reboot of those themes in a modern way? 

More importantly... Who exactly within LEGO has the power to decide which themes and sets get produced? It is clearly not the designers, otherwise we would have had Castle return as a full line of sets long ago. Is it some kind of board of executives that only care about profit and aren't actually interested in original themes? If so, how do themes such as Dreamzzz get created? I doubt that some impartial businessmen whose primary motivation is what would be the most profitable would commission the creation of such themes. And even within new original themes that we do get sometimes, such as Dreamzzz, you can clearly sense that most of the sets are trying to copy the Ninjago style and the designers don't actually have as much freedom to explore new ideas or set concepts. 

So, who actually gets to decide which sets and themes get produced, if it isn't the designers? If anyone here has had the privilege to maybe speak to some designers in person at a LEGO convention or something like that, your insight would be greatly appreciated. 

[Lyichir]

I don't know if this is the case for ALL themes, but Lego has a division called Lego Futura that has existed since the 60s that is focused on brainstorming and testing new concepts for themes, standalone sets, and sometimes particular parts. I know they are heavily involved in new tech-related concepts (including not just modern tech ideas like the smart brick but also ones dating back to things like the origin of Lego trains), but they also are involved in other sorts of themes (IIRC, an old book of mine went into how they were involved in the origin of the Rock Raiders theme).

I don't think it's as simple as "secretive division mandates designers to focus on themes entirely originated from there", though. Lego designers can and do pitch their own concepts for themes and sets of their own which can be approved by designers in leadership positions (often designers such as Matthew Ashton or Jamie Berard with a lot of experience and seniority). I believe product and concept testing with focus groups plays a role at these early stages too, with concept art and prototypes evaluated by groups of kids who are surveyed afterward to get a sense of their popularity and staying power within kids imaginations.

So as reassuring as it is to imagine that the lack of themes that appeal to you is the result of a cabal of clueless executives restricting certain ideas, I don't know how much truth there really is to that idea. Chances are that Lego has made countless concepts related to classic themes like Castle which, for one reason or another, have failed to resonate as much with focus groups as other proposed themes and concepts. And the same probably applies to non-traditional themes, with the ones that end up seeing the light of day only being a fraction of those which are proposed.

[Mylenium]

I don't have enough insights into how specifically LEGO does it, but I've worked with enough big companies from worker grunt to CEO level to have a generalized understanding of these structures and the basic gist is that there is never a single decision maker anywhere. It's always a hierarchical, sometimes collaborative process and decisions ripple through up and down via pre-defined contact points and communication lanes. You can't just go to the C-suite managers and ask them to get a product greenlit. In fact those people may not even know what specific product is currently being worked on since all they see is budgets being requested and allotted to departments and some code names for upcoming stuff. Typically you have R&D and the other people involved just working away quietly up to a certain point and then there is presentations when it's time to decide whether or not to proceed and how. A lot of products never make it beyond that phase and I've seen million dollar prototypes of machinery being disassembled and teams starting over. That isn't different elsewhere. Just remember how we all have heard about games, movies, TV series being scrapped after years of development. Also keep in mind that there is compartmentalization everywhere. Different teams work on different stuff and them being isolated helps keeps things secret and also reduces interference between the teams.

LEGO no doubt use a similar approach. It would of course make sense to have the design teams be independent from the actual manufacturing and organizational stuff, but I doubt that they would band together in the way you assert. If there's X number of designers, there's always some working on Friends, City, Creator and so on independently from what's going on in the next room. Yes, they have their meetings and talk to each other during lunch break, but as per above some things may not be talked about at all. That's part of the reality of working at a big Con-Glo-Mo. I'm sure the designers are working on stuff all the time and have wonderful ideas, but of course once they have finished their prototypes and discussed them within their group it gets handed off to the next level manager. He then may have three different ideas on his table and after a little back and forth will decide on only one. Rinse repeat a few times until it reaches the top level product managers who have to sign of on production. Point in case: No doubt a lot of nice models do get designed all the time, but only a fraction will make it through this process. Somewhere along the chain someone is going to say no at least once and it will likely not have much to do with personal preferences but hard facts and numbers. That's why I would say with certainty that we'll never get a full revival of classic themes because the market research just doesn't support it.

Anyway, just a few random thoughts on a Sunday morning. I guess ultimately the point to this specific issue is that LEGO no longer is this small company of the 1980s where the head designer could walk over to the CEO's office and get things going. The processes are much more formalized and to some extend of course rigid simply because it's a big machinery you can't start and stop at whim.

Mylenium

Edited May 24 by Mylenium
fixed some grammar

[SpacePolice89]

I believe that big changes like allowing licensed themes in the late 90s must be approved at the highest level like ownership/board of directors which Peter Eio had to get to make Star Wars sets. Smaller changes like a new in house theme I believe only needs permissions from mid tier bosses that are responsible for product development but I believe that some sort of guidelines from higher up also exists like the reintroduction of classic themes in the late 00s was a product of new management and strategies. Sometimes high level people like then CEO/madman (1998-2004) Poul Plougmann try to micromanage every theme and kill the old ones and make too many new weird ones. Plougmann almost killed to company and was fired by Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen. Sanity then returned when the excellent Jørgen Vig Knudstorp took over after Plougmann.

Edited May 24 by SpacePolice89

[Mylenium]

5 hours ago, SpacePolice89 said:

Sometimes high level people like then CEO/madman (1998-2004) Poul Plougmann try to micromanage every theme and kill the old ones and make too many new weird ones. 

It was quite generally a weird time, though. Many companies didn't survive this era. It was peak "digital transition" time and everyone had to find their way. Micro-management and having "pet projects" is still a sign of bad management, though. It simply means you don't trust anyone and overriding decisions from lower levels can have extreme consequences.

Mylenium