About TCP | Previous Issue | Next Issue | Subscribe/Unsubscribe | Issue Archive

This month we continue our look back to early blog-like columns that were posted on ancient (circa 1996) MRT websites…

Read.Me2: Product Development—Simply Art or Simply Science?
By Alex Cooper

At its simplest, product development is intuitive. However, as products become more complex, the process itself gets more abstract. And the greater the abstraction, the greater the difficulty in understanding and managing the process.

A SIMPLER TIME

It seems hard to believe now, but there was a time before corporations, before product development, before formally trained engineers, and even before Bob Dole. Life may have been nasty, brutish and short (gratuitously thrown in to make my years of college seem relevant), but product development was a lot easier.

The “discoverers” of fire didn’t have endless debates whether it was a product or a service? It was just there, and people figured out how to use it.

The “inventors” of the wheel weren’t using QFD either. They developed something that solved a problem, and they weren’t thinking about innovation or line extensions.

They didn’t worry about things like product liability, documentation, regulatory compliance, TQM, PDM, customer service, distribution, but then again, the sale of their products didn’t make them rich either. These “discoverers” and “inventors” didn’t develop the concept of licensing rights. If only they had, they or their descendants would still be getting royalty checks from all over the place, except from those countries where intellectual property rights are not respected.

AN ABSTRACT TIME

However, as society evolved, things got more and more abstract. The formation of
corporations and stock markets led to the abstract notion of legal entities which subsequently led to the proliferation of lawyers, and investment advisors (but that’s an article for another time). These legal entities exist mostly on paper. Stockholders get a piece of paper that represents the number of shares that they own. Clearly, the idea of the virtual corporation is not new!

However, these legal entities became the “being” that offered products and services for their own survival. Since these legal entities actually are made up of people, it is not surprising, that they developed their own Darwinistic will to survive.

Where Does Product Development Start?

The question really is; do businesses develop products to survive or because there is a strong commercial demand for the product? In most existing businesses, the pressures to release a new product come from an internal need to keep up with the competition and/or to maintain the revenue stream.

This gets businesses into the pattern of developing new products for the sake of developing new products. While this often leads to useful enhancements and to greater business success, it doesn’t mean that the corporation is really addressing a customer need. The corporation is developing products for its own internal need to develop products, just as much as it is developing products for its customers’ needs.

How many “new and improved” products are really new and improved?

How many customers actually notice the difference between the “changed” products aside from the change in packaging?

Undoubtedly, there is usually a rational reason for the introduction of a new product. There had to have been a convincing reason somewhere for the development of New Coke or Clear Pepsi (although I don’t think that I could be convinced). And I just love the new Arch Deluxe, and all of the improvements that it offers compared to McDonald’s traditional menu. It tastes like a McDonald’s hamburger on a different style roll for those of you who have been so busy downloading the new wave of Web browsers that you haven’t been able to get out in the past couple of months.

This incremental form of product development is risk averse and not likely to be very rewarding. It is very difficult to reinvent an industry that has already been invented, but it has been and can be done. There was clearly an opportunity to expand the soft drink industry and the fast food industry. The early success of Snapple Iced Tea and Boston Market demonstrated that there was a market demand for a different approach to soft drinks and fast food, however, this would have been too risky for existing corporations to try first. Thankfully, my life is complete now that Coca Cola offers the Fruitopia line of beverages.

Corporations cannot be faulted for wanting to grow, and wanting to compete in new markets, but they can be faulted for their approach to growth.

DREAMERS AND VISIONARIES

Throughout history, there have been gifted individuals and corporations that have invented products and innovative approaches to producing and delivering products that are of value. It is in this realm that product development offers its greatest satisfaction and potential. This is where the so-called product development process can be sub-optimal, and the result can be fantastic. This is long before the supposed need for the institutionalization of business practices.

In business, as in politics, institutionalization is about the consolidation of power, and once power is consolidated, any threats to that power are institutionally weeded out. That’s often why the institutions were created (subliminally or not) in the first place. The institutionalization of business practices may not happen with such sinister intent, but it often has the effect of squelching innovation. Corporations with their mission and vision statements, and the “X Corporation” way of doing things, often resemble “efficient” fascist regimes more than collaborations to deliver value.

This approach may work for a long time, but is really dependent on the strength of the leader. If the leader leaves or falls from grace in the eyes of the stakeholders (employees, board of directors, stockholders, etc.), then the organization may find itself in a state of crisis. Ultimately, most corporations reach a turning point when they find the need to reinvent themselves, if they are to survive. They need to think “outside the box.” Corporations may create “skunkwork” teams to try and break the mold, but it is difficult to “re-institutionalize” the practices of skunkwork teams.

It is in this way that corporations are increasingly irrelevant to the value chain. Organizations that think of themselves as perpetual start-ups (such as Silicon Graphics), or are in constant state of “virtual” collaborations, are more likely to represent the future of product development than what we think of as the traditional corporation.

AN ART AND A SCIENCE

Product development is both an art and a science. More often than not, it is the intangible qualities that ultimately determine the success or failure of a product development project.

Corporations wish that product development could be more scientific, and more predictable, but there is something irrational about the needs and evolution of society. How else could one explain the Ron Popeil School of Product Development (don’t start looking for the web page to enroll, I already checked for one and it doesn’t exist yet.) that teeters between developing useful products (the Popeil Bagel Cutter), and cheap plastic junk that lasts for about five minutes.

It reminds me of the phrase that my mother used to say to me as a child whenever I wanted a new toy, “you’ll play with it for five minutes, and then what?” Corporations will develop a new product, and then what?

Any reaction to this article? Send your feedback to gregg@roundtable.com

---

Link: http://flickr.com/photos/tags/whatsinyourbag/

When you’re waiting in the security line at the airport, have you ever been even just a little bit jealous of the baggage screener who gets a peek into everyone’s carry-ons? Those of you out there that enjoy a good medicine cabinet snooping session will enjoy the Flickr website, an online photo management service that also features picture after picture of the contents of people’s purses, briefcases, backpacks, satchels, valises and lots of other synonyms for the thing that holds your stuff.

This will be of interest to those who dabble in customer ethnography, as you will be exposed to a high volume of samples of people’s mobile storage behavior. You’ll see what lurks deep within the recesses of people’s personal preferences for their on-the-go necessities, including hygiene products, candy and snack consumption, gadgetry and many surprises. Many entries have been image mapped so you can see a tag that describes any particular item with a mouse hover, a very helpful feature.

Interesting note: almost every picture I clicked on had an iPOD. Really no surprise, but maybe exhibitionists love iPODs?