TCP
Home | <Previous Issue | Next Issue> | Issue Archive | About TCP
I s s u e S e v e n
May 20, 1999
c o n t e n t s / t h i s m o n t h :
1 > Cross-Functional Communication
2 > NPD On The Web: Australian Design Awards
3 > Guest Commentary: "Maneuver Warfare
in Product Development"
4 > Top Ten Product Development Movie Titles
5 > MRT EXCLUSIVE - *CUSUMANO
KEYNOTE PREVIEW*
6 > MRT Calendar of Events
SUBSCRIPTION INSTRUCTIONS
To begin or cancel your FREE subscription, please use the automated form on this page or send me an email - gregg@roundtable.com
Please send any feedback about this newsletter and its content to gregg@roundtable.com
a r t i c l e - o n e :
CROSS-FUNCTIONAL COMMUNICATION
Engineering's from Mars, Marketing's from Venus
While functional stereotypes abound within product development, they are
quite often based on truth, however unfair or politically incorrect that may seem. One of
the most severe instances is the lack of respect between marketers and engineers, and it
goes both ways.
Marketers often believe engineers to be social misfits who wield rigid
science against all customer challenges to their brilliant engineering solutions.
Engineers see marketers as shallow, ignorant and technically naïve contributors who
arrogantly use their access to the customer as a defense for uninformed decision making.
How does anything get done? Marketers tolerate engineers for their
ability to realize the product; engineers tolerate marketers for running valuable
interference between the laboratory and the marketplace. Regardless of the truth,
perception is the unfortunate reality. Sure, many harmonious environments also exist, but
these are stereotypes for a reason.
Perhaps something can be learned with the way each group typically views
"requirements." Marketers typically view the product design in terms of
"customer requirements" - an analysis of how customers and others suggest your
product solves a problem and the attributes that drive sales. Engineers typically view the
product design in terms of "technical requirements", how to execute the
product's features mechanically, electronically or otherwise. Sometimes people can confuse
these two for the same thing. However, each group will process data differently within
these perspectives, and quite often a gap will emerge that is difficult to bridge.
The "Why don't you just..."
Syndrome
This is what often happens when a person's job requires them to
influence an area where they are not knowledgeable. Their suggestions will typically begin
with the words, "why don't you just...?"
- "Why don't you just upgrade the power supply?"
- "Why don't you just delay that promotion for a week?"
- "Why don't you just specify a different material?"
- "Why don't you just tell the customer that's not
possible?"
Unfortunately, this can belittle the true complexity of problem solving.
This attitude fails to recognize the web of interdependencies involved and the
"domino" effect of change. The recipient of these questions usually ends up
feeling a lack of respect for their job and their judgement from someone they feel is not
qualified to judge. Needless hostility escalates.
To simply say "walk a mile in the other's shoes" just doesn't
cut it. Marketers should make a more earnest effort to understand the science and
technical aspects of the product. Engineers should increase their flexibility and
tolerance for the "fuzzy" quality of marketing data and the voice of the
customer. Both sides could be much better at learning from each other and seeing outside
their segment of the overall system.
Despite the growing awareness that all functions need to increase their
exposure to customers, marketing is still the organization's traditional interface. And
while it has become rather cliché to advise engineers to participate in customer needs
gathering activities, the idea of enlightenment through first-person contact still meets
opposition.
For that matter, why aren't marketing people invited to spend more time
in the engineer's environment? If someone shows a genuine interest, they should be
encouraged.
Of course, there is no way around pesky personality conflicts that often
are the root cause of poor cross-functional communication. But with groups that are
willing to work at it, and are willing to keep their egos in check, the common focus of
corporate goals can keep the functional Tower of Babel from contributing more useless
failed products to the company graveyard.
Harder than it sounds? Why don’t you just…oh, never mind.
* * *
a r t i c l e - t w o :
NPD ON THE WEB
"Australian Design Awards"
Link: http://www.designawards.org.au
Now about three year's old, this awards program is an interesting peek
into the quality of innovation being supplied by product developers "down
under." Click on the link to the 1998 award winners and you'll be taken to a list
breaking down winners into three categories: Industrial Design, Engineering, and Software.
What I like about this is that they are attempting to reward products not just for their
good looks, but for the type of functional designs that add value through economic- and
environmentally-friendly design and engineering.
Know a website we should review? Send the url to gregg@roundtable.com
* * *
a r t i c l e - t h r e e :
GUEST COMMENTARY:
"Maneuver Warfare in Product Development"
By Tony Rizzo
Member Technical Staff
Lucent Technologies
tocguy@lucent.com
[I am grateful to Captain Stephen S. Barranco, U.S.M.C., for making me
aware of Maneuver Warfare. I am grateful to Dr. E. M. Goldratt, for teaching me how the
TOC Multi-Project Management Method can improve product development operations to such a
degree as to enable an organization to apply the principles of Maneuver Warfare in product
development.]
During a retrospective analysis of air combat over North Korea, Colonel
John Boyd determined how the U.S. pilots were able to achieve a 10-1 kill ratio over their
opponents. The U.S. pilots flew F-86 Sabers. The North Korean pilots flew Mig-15s, from
the former Soviet Union. Boyd noted that the U.S. pilots achieved their stellar
performance despite the fact that the Mig-15s could accelerate faster than the F-86s, and
they could hold a tighter turn longer than could the F-86s.
Boyd determined that the U.S. pilots exploited two less known advantages
of their F-86 Sabers: the greater visibility afforded by the bubble canopies and the
ability to TRANSITION from one maneuver to another faster than the Mig-15s. The higher
powered hydraulic systems of the F-86 Sabers made the latter advantage possible.
The U.S. pilots exploited their fighters' maneuverability and greater
visibility by performing a continuous sequence of maneuvers, which caused the Mig pilots
to become disoriented, confused, and ultimately panicked.
Boyd identified a four step cycle used by the U.S. pilots: Observation,
Orientation, Decision, and Action. These four steps are now known as the O.O.D.A. loop, or
the Boyd cycle. With each execution of this cycle, i.e., with each maneuver, the U.S.
pilots gained a small time advantage over their opponents. With the continual execution of
the cycle, the time advantage of the U.S. pilots became greater and greater. As a result,
the actions of the Mig-15 pilots became more and more inappropriate.
The Boyd cycle is the basis for a war fighting approach known as
Maneuver Warfare, which now is embraced by the U.S. Marines. The approach is exemplified
by the German blitzkrieg of World War II. General Schwartzkopff's operation in the recent
Gulf War is also an example of Maneuver Warfare. The approach strives to cause the enemy's
deployment of resources to become inappropriate and ineffective, which tends to negate the
enemy's strength while exposing weaknesses. This is achieved with the execution of rapid
maneuvers, which are guided by timely intelligence.
Maneuver Warfare and the Boyd cycle apply in new-product development
markets as well. Consider Parametric Technologies Corporation (PTC). When that company
began marketing its Pro Engineer product, it was nothing more than a startup. The
Unigraphics package, developed by McDonnell-Douglas, was the predominant CAD package used
by most product development organizations.
However, PTC was able to outpace its competitors rather quickly. The
company maintained a release rate of two versions per year, while its lethargic
competitors could barely maintain one release per year. As a result, PTC was able to
introduce new, useful features at twice the rate of its competitors. By maintaining a more
rapid release rate with its product, PTC maneuvered its competitors out of significant
market share.
Most new-product development organizations are currently unable to
exploit Maneuver Warfare principles. They are not focused on achieving and maintaining a
rapid-fire release of products and features. Instead, they are focused on winning the day
with one overwhelming project effort. They think more in terms of throwing the big punch,
the hay maker, with which they hope to "knock out" the competition. To this end,
they deploy massive amounts of resources, which they fully expect to consume. However,
this traditional approach to new-product development is more akin to attrition warfare
than Maneuver Warfare. Attrition warfare, also known as trench warfare, was the incredibly
wasteful war fighting approach used during World War I.
This tendency to prefer attrition-warfare-like operations explains the
overwhelming cost focus of most organizations today. If "throwing resources" at
a problem is the only approach available to organizations, and if the organization that
can throw at the problem more resources for longer periods can be expected to win the day,
then the cost of those resources becomes very important. Lower costs mean more resources.
The effective use of Maneuver Warfare on the battlefield requires
superbly effective battlefield operations. The effective use of Maneuver Warfare in
new-product development requires equally effective product development operations.
This is where the TOC Multi-Project Management Method plays a vital
role, by providing a powerful operational solution for product development organizations.
With it, product development organizations gain significant speed in the execution of
their development projects. By combining this speed with information from customers and
with effective analysis of the needs and wants of those customers, a product development
organization that adopts the TOC method can add agility to its newfound speed; it can
outmaneuver its competitors at will.
As an example of the application of Maneuver Warfare in product
development, consider two toy manufacturers competing in the same market. Manufacturer A
focuses on the hay maker product development effort, the mother of all toys, which reaches
the market successfully and catches the manufacturer B by surprise. Initially,
manufacturer A captures market share with its new product. It's competitor has nothing
that can match it. Subsequently, manufacturer A invests some of its earnings into the next
mother of all toys, which also requires a substantial development effort. By all
expectations, manufacturer A should maintain its market share.
Now, consider what happens when manufacturer B adopts a Maneuver Warfare
approach. Rather than trying to counter with its own mother of all toys, manufacturer B
undertakes a reverse engineering effort with its competitor's product and uses the outcome
of that effort as a launch point. Manufacturer B then undertakes a sequence of development
efforts, carefully planned and timed. The first release of manufacturer B's toy does all
that its competitor's toy does, and a bit more. Its release halts the loss of market
share. The second release offers customers additional features, via easy upgrades. That
second release hits the market just months after the first release. The third release
offers even more features, again, just a few months after the second release; it reverses
the flow of market share.
By now, manufacturer A is scrambling to match the new features with its
second mother of all toys. Its development projects undergo almost constant re-planning.
A few months down the road, manufacturer B markets yet another release
of its product line, with even more features that customers find useful. Manufacturer B is
able to identify these useful features, because its marketing people are actively
collecting "intelligence" and relaying it back to the developers.
Its distribution channel also collects intelligence, in the form of
product failures. This information is also fed back to the developers rapidly.
Manufacturer B's marketing people even sample their competitor's product, searching for
quality weaknesses. Again, this information is fed back to the developers, rapidly, so
that manufacturer B's product can avoid the same pitfalls.
Now, manufacturer A's development efforts are entirely inappropriate. It
is developing features that its competitor has already obsoleted in its own product. It
has begun to lose market share, and it is unable to halt the trend.
In response to the loss of market share, manufacturer A's executive team
pushes for more speed. Executives dictate project completion dates to their development
teams. Consequently, project plans are squeezed, so that they might fit the defined
windows of opportunity; the project plans cease to represent reality. Manufacturer A's
development teams feel forced to cut short some of the testing. They do so, and quality
problems crop up and delay project completion further.
Why is manufacturer B able to release products in quick succession? How
can it sustain such a rapid release of products indefinitely? It has adopted the TOC
Multi-Project Management Method.
© Copyright, Tony Rizzo 1999
* * *
a r t i c l e - f o u r :
TOP TEN PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT MOVIE TITLES
...from the MRT home office in Lexington, Massachusetts
10. There's Something About
Marketing
9. 10
Things I Hate About Customers
8. Quality: The Movie
7. Risk Analyze This!
6. A
Software Bug's Life
5. Attack
of the 50-foot QFD Matrix
4. Honey, I Shrunk the
Cycle-Time
3. I Know What Project
Budgets You Fudged Last Summer
2. Goldratt in Love
...and the No. 1 product development movie title:
1. Shop Floor Wars - Expedite
One: The Phantom Ship Date
Send your Top Ten List suggestions
to gregg@roundtable.com
* * *
a r t i c l e - f i v e :
MRT NEWS - CUSUMANO KEYNOTE PREVIEW
Sorry, this presentation is no
longer available.
* * *
U p c o m i n g M R T e v e n t s
"Accelerating New Product Development
Through the Strategic Use of Information"
June 7-8, 1999 - Cambridge, MA
http://ManagementRoundtable.com/ANPD.html
* * *
A D M I N I S T R I V I A
The Critical Path is a free monthly e-mail newsletter
written by:
Gregg Tong, Director of Product Development
Management Roundtable, Inc., 1050 Waltham Street,
Suite 410, Lexington, MA U.S.A.
Tel: (781) 676-0606 Fax: (781) 676-1951
Gregg@roundtable.com
Please feel free to forward this publication to any friends or
associates you feel could benefit from its message. We welcome any suggestions, stories or
comments that will help us improve the value of this newsletter. Please contact me
directly with your input.
This newsletter and archived issues can be retrieved directly from our
website at the following url: http://ManagementRoundtable.com/Critical-Path-Index.html
SUBSCRIPTION INSTRUCTIONS
To begin or cancel your FREE subscription, please use the automated form on this page or send me an email - gregg@roundtable.com
For more information on Management Roundtable's events, publications,
and services: http://ManagementRoundtable.com
© Copyright 1999 by
Management Roundtable, Inc. All rights reserved.
# # #
TCP
Home | <Previous Issue | Next Issue> | Issue Archive | About TCP
Return to MRT Homepage
© Copyright 1999 by Management
Roundtable, Inc. |
