The Role of Failure in Innovation
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•1,000 views
Presentation by Design Concepts President Dave Franchino on sources of failure in product development and how to mitigate risks. Delivered in Madison, WI, on July 25, 2019.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to The Role of Failure in Innovation
Similar to The Role of Failure in Innovation (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
The Role of Failure in Innovation
- 2. Whilewearewaiting… Thinkof a product or service outside of your firm thatyou’d consider to be a “failure” Think of a project or product within your company that you’d consider to be a “failure” What made them failures in your mind? Could failurehave been prevented by different or better engineering or design? DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 2
- 3. T E R R I B L E , W O N D E R F U L DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 3
- 4. The role of in innovation DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 4
- 5. Today’s Topic… DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 5
- 7. And more recently yet… DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 7
- 10. WTF??? DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 10
- 11. Success Requires Innovation Innovation Requires Risk RiskImplies (the possibility of) Failure DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 11
- 12. Phase Odds ofSuccess Business Strategy 75% Concept 75% Engineering/Development 75% Manufacturing/Deploy 75% Distribution 75% Advertising / Promotion 75% Pricing 75% CumulativeOdds of SUCCESS 13% DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 12
- 13. The “When”of innovationFailure DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 13
- 14. Strategic planning Conceptual design Engineering or development Manufacturing / deployment Following product launch All “Failure”is NotCreated Equal DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 14
- 15. The Cost Of “Failure” DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 15 Strategic planning Conceptual design Engineering or development Manufacturing / deployment Following product launch
- 16. DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 16 Groupcontemplation: When in the development cycle do you thinkit should have been apparent that it wasn’t going to be a success?
- 17. DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 17 The “What” of innovationFailure
- 18. Oddsof failurevary with the project type New-to-world innovation (New User Needs, New business model or New technology New-to-company innovation (Entering anew market ora new technology foryour firm) Major redesign of an existingproduct or service Facelift / update of existing product or service HigherRisk of Failure Lower Risk of Failure DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 18
- 19. DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 19 Groupcontemplation: Was the failure (partially) explainedby the degree of innovation reach?
- 20. DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 20 The “Why”of innovationFailure
- 21. Success is… DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 21
- 22. DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 22
- 23. DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 23
- 24. DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 24
- 25. DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 25 Groupcontemplation: Was the failure due to: Customer desire Financialviability Technicalfeasibility
- 26. When “Failure” didn’t needto be… DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 26
- 27. DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 27
- 28. Conceptvs Execution DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 28
- 29. DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 29 Groupcontemplation: Is it possible the concept sound and execution was poor?
- 30. When “Failure” isn’t… = DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 30
- 32. “But the most significantresult of 'new Coke' by far was that it sent anincredibly powerful signal... a signalthat we really were ready to do whatever was necessary to build value for the owners of our business.” --Roberto Goizueta -CEO DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 32
- 33. “Yes, it infuriated the public, cost a ton of money and lasted only 77 days before we reintroduced Coca-Cola Classic.Still, New Coke wasa success because it revitalized the brand and reattached the public to Coke.” -SergioZyman,Coca-Colahead ofmarketing DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 33
- 34. DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 34 Groupcontemplation: Do you think there were ultimately benefits to the company generated from this “failure”?
- 35. Sometimes Failure is a steppingstone to success… DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 35
- 36. DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 36
- 37. Toyota Prius –1st Generation 1997 - 2000 Battery Bus Recall Electronic Power Steering Rack Recall EPS Control UnitRecall HV Transaxle Failures Motor/Generator Failures Master IndicatorWarning (engine fails to start) Electronic Throttle Body Sticking Gas Pedal Position Sensor Bad Sales – 30,000units / year Toyota Prius –4th Generation 2015-Present Sales – 725,000units /year DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 37
- 38. …? DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 38
- 39. DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 39 Groupcontemplation: Was the company able tobuild on thisfailure and go on to do bigger and better things?
- 40. How does yourculture manage failure? DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 40
- 41. From:…….<……@gmail.com> Sent:Friday,July 5,20193:37PM To:DaveFranchinoSubject:RE:[design] The roleoffailureplaysin innovation /rant_mode_on Oh god, you hit a nerve. Coming from XXXXX talkingabout failure gives me hives. XXXXX talksa brave game, repeatedly and publicly, but internally stillsubtly punishes people for failing, allwhile saying they celebrate it. /rant_mode_off DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 41
- 42. 6 Phases of a Project 1. Enthusiasm 2. Disillusionment 3. Panic 4. Search for the guilty 5. Punishment of the innocent 6. Praise and honors for the non-participants DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 42
- 43. DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 43 Groupcontemplation: To what extent do you thinkthe internalculture impacted the ultimate failure of this product – or the inability to learn the most from it?
- 44. Some thoughts ontools and techniquesfor managing risk… DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 44
- 45. 1. Acknowledge 2. Frontload 3. Align expectation 4. Patience, perseverance and pivots 5. Design Spirals 6. Fight the hottest fire 7. Parallel path 8. Killthe Zombies 9. Learn DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 45
- 46. 1. Acknowledge 2. Frontload 3. Align expectation 4. Patience, perseverance and pivots 5. Design Spirals 6. Fight the hottest fire 7. Parallel path 8. Killthe Zombies 9. Learn DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 46
- 47. Let’s talk aboutrisk…! DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 47 RISK!
- 48. Failure ModeEffects Analysis DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 48 Severity if FailureOccurs X Probability of Failure Occurring X Likelihoodof Escaping Detection = Risk Priority Number
- 49. 1. Acknowledge 2. Frontload 3. Align expectation 4. Patience, perseverance and pivots 5. Design Spirals 6. Fight the hottest fire 7. Parallel path 8. Killthe Zombies 9. Learn DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 49
- 50. The Cost Of “Failure” DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 50 Strategic planning Conceptual design Engineering or development Manufacturing / deployment Following product launch
- 51. Desired pointof “Failure” DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 51 Strategic planning Conceptual design Engineering or development Manufacturing / deployment Following product launch
- 52. All “Failure”is NotCreated Equal DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 52 Strategic planning Conceptual design Engineering or development Manufacturing / deployment Following product launch Encourage Expect Tolerate Avoid Shun Project Failure Product Failure!
- 53. 1. Acknowledge 2. Frontload 3. Align expectation 4. Patience, perseverance and pivots 5. Design Spirals 6. Fight the hottest fire 7. Parallel path 8. Killthe Zombies 9. Learn DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 53
- 54. Calibrateplansandexpectationswiththe project type New-to-world innovation (New User Needs, New business model or New technology New-to-company innovation (Entering anew market ora new technology foryour firm) Major redesign of an existingproduct or service Facelift or model update of existing product or service HigherTolerance of Failure Lower Tolerance of Failure DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 54
- 55. 1. Acknowledge 2. Frontload 3. Align expectation 4. Patience, perseveranceand pivots 5. Design Spirals 6. Fight the hottest fire 7. Parallel path 8. Killthe Zombies 9. Learn DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 55
- 56. DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 56
- 57. 1. Acknowledge 2. Frontload 3. Align expectation 4. Patience, perseverance and pivots 5. Design Spirals 6. Fight the hottest fire 7. Parallel path 8. Killthe Zombies 9. Learn DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 57
- 58. DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 58 Design
- 59. 1. Acknowledge 2. Frontload 3. Align expectation 4. Patience, perseverance and pivots 5. Design Spirals 6. Fight the hottest fire 7. Parallel path 8. Killthe Zombies 9. Learn DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 59
- 60. Desirable Do People Want it? Feasible Does it Work? Viable Can wemake $ DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 60 Lean Experiments Market Research Market Tests BusinessModel Simulations Scenario Planning Pricing Models Sensitivity Analysis Rapid Prototyping Low Fidelity Prototyping Virtual Prototyping Parallel Paths Design Sprints Iteration
- 61. 1. Acknowledge 2. Frontload 3. Align expectation 4. Patience, perseverance and pivots 5. Design Spirals 6. Fight the hottest fire 7. Parallel path 8. Killthe Zombies 9. Learn DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 61
- 62. DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 62
- 63. 1. Acknowledge 2. Frontload 3. Align expectation 4. Patience, perseverance and pivots 5. Design Spirals 6. Fight the hottest fire 7. Parallel path 8. Kill the Zombies 9. Learn DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 63
- 64. DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 64
- 65. 1. Acknowledge 2. Frontload 3. Align expectation 4. Patience, perseverance and pivots 5. Design Spirals 6. Fight the hottest fire 7. Parallel path 8. Killthe Zombies 9. Learn DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 65
- 66. DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 66 The Post-Mortem What went right and deserves to be celebrated? What went wrong? What did we learn thatcan make us better? What are the positives for our firm? Etc.
- 67. 1. Acknowledge 2. Frontload 3. Align expectation 4. Patience, perseverance and pivots 5. Design Spirals 6. Fight the hottest fire 7. Parallel path 8. Killthe Zombies 9. Learn DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 67
- 68. Go forth and Fail! (elegantly,appropriately and early and on a limited basis) DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 68
- 69. T h a n k Y o u ! DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 69
- 70. DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 70
- 71. DESIGN CONCEPTS, INC. 71
Editor's Notes
- I think this it the first of our after-hours events that I’ve personally hosted and I’m trying hard not to draw conclusions from the fact that the team asked me to speak to the topic of failure. It’s true that I’ve been at this a pretty long time – and accordingly I’ve got my fair share – and some would say more than my fair share of failures to draw on. But it is true that I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about the role of failure in innovation – and it’s actually sort of a fun honor to be part of a discussion on this sensitive, important topic.
- I happen to be an engineer – and I teach a class in product design at UW Madison and some time ago I noticed an engineer proudly rocking this t-shirt. I get what it’s trying to convey – it ties into the pride sense of responsibility many engineers feel when they view their craft.
- But honestly, if you think about it, it’s a bit ironic. Because the reality is that history is absolutely littered with some pretty dramatic and spectacular examples of engineering failure – extending back as long as mankind has been trying to invent new things.
- And it’s not like we’re really getting any better at it. We learn more and more from each passing generation, Our tools have become more sophisticated. We have the wisdom of previous failures to build on. And yet, we still seem to find ways to fail spectacularly and regularly.
- And the dramatic, headline grabbing, sometime tragic failures like these are really just the tip of the iceberg. The vast majority of failures are far less public but still leave their mark. They’re products that just don’t work well – cause frustration or disappointment and get cast aside, or products that work as intended but never sell. Or products that can’t quite sustain a business and never make any money. And the products that make it into the marketplace are just a small fraction of the failed projects that consume remarkable amounts of time, money and resources to never see the light of day or make it onto a shelf.
- There are really no accurate statistics on product failures – A Harvard study a while ago estimated that between 80-95% of all products introduced into the market fail. this is an old slide but I suspect its directionally illustrative. And the most interesting and jaw dropping statistic on this slide is that about half of all the resources, time and money allocated to development ends up being spent on failed products.
- In some aspects, the failure rates we tolerate on new product development are sort of mind boggling. We don’t expect or tolerate those in any other aspect of commerce. I mean, if you and your spouse decide you’re going to build a new house, how would you react to a builder telling you – well the cost is going to be $200,000. And by the way, there’s an 80% chance when we’re done you won’t be able to live in it. We’d never tolerate that. When we launch a new web site, decide to build a new factory, finance a new purchase, there’s a reasonable expectation that they may not achieve all our aspirations but there’s not an 80% chance of complete failure. When those activities are done we rightfully assume we’re sort of going to have what we expected.
- So obviously, the reason for these failure rates lies in our insatiable desire for the innovative and new. Innovation improves our lives, it drives our businesses and it separates us from our competition. But the this striving for innovation inherently implies taking risk. And the very definition of risk is something that might end in failure. So Innovation, Risk and Failure are intractably linked and frankly always will be. And any effort to eliminate risk and failure from new product development is a fool’s errand. A true story – I sit on a board with a sr. manager at a large equipment company you would all recognize. And some time ago we were out to diner and he was bragging that he had never in his career undertaken a project that didn’t go to market. And I found myself biting my tongue. Because there’s no possible way you can be driving your business forward in an intensely competitive environment without some level of controlled failure. And I challenge you to pick absolutely any company you admire – including your own, and I’m positive that you’re going to find a fair degree of failure littered in their past.
- Part of this can be explained by the sheer number of things that have to go perfectly right to succeed in new product development and innovation. It’s perhaps the only activity a corporation undertakes that requires the integrated collaboration of just about aspect of the firm from strategic planning, finance, accounting, legal, engineering, manufacturing, distribution, sales. And aside from the inherently cross discipline collaboration required for most highly integrated products or services a lot of things need to fall into place perfectly. If you consider that you were likely to be successful ¾ of the time on each of these isolated activities – when you combine them the cumulative probability of something being the weak link the chain helps explain why so many projects are doomed to fail.
- So all this is interesting and perhaps somewhat intuitive – but not particularly actionable. I guess you could all go back to your bosses and tell them you went to a presentation on the role of failure in new product development and I told you it was inevitable so just deal with it. But I suspect that might not go all that well. So let’s spend a bit of time trying to develop some context around failure and then talk about ways you can increase your chances for success and minimize the impacts of the failures that do occur. And let’s start with the “when” of failure.
- Which is basically an observation that all failure is not created equal. A reasonable development process at your company might start with strategic planning, developing a business case, determining a user need – progress from considering different concepts into engineering programming development and then get deployed into the market.
- Each one of these activities represents an area of risk and a possibility for failure. Although I might start by arguing that it’s actually a misnomer to call them failures when projects are truncated early in the process. And another intuitive observation is that the sunken costs of failure rise – fairly dramatically as you move through the process. Early on, when you’re doing strategic planning and conceptual design, the costs committed to projects in terms of people, time and money can actually be pretty insignificant. So intuitively, you want to drive or tolerate failure as early in the process as possible.
- Turning back to the failed products you thought earlier, spend just a couple of minutes contemplating – with the benefit of hindsight – when in the development process do you think it might have become apparent that the product wasn’t going to be successful. And although we don’t have the benefit of hindsight in our own projects – when you think about some of the more dramatic, public and tragic failures of recent and distant history – there are often some pretty significant markers that were missed and flat-out ingored during the development process.
- Beyond the when, it’s also worth considering the “what” of failure -
- And by that I mean recognizing the realization that all innovation isn’t equally ambitious. And it stands to reason that the further your company is “reaching” from it’s current products and services, the higher the risk of failure. Ground-breaking – new to world technologies, emerging or previously unmet user needs or brand new business models carry a much higher threshold of risk and higher development failures. Conversely, if you’re introducing Version 4.5 of an existing product that represents a facelift or a modest update, there should be a much higher expectation of success – back to that house you and your spouse are building. There should be plenty of organization experience and muscle memory that make this a much more likely endeavor.
- So spend a bit of time contemplating the failed products you identified – and consider whether the failure could at least be partially explained by the degree of innovation reach undertaken. Not always certainly.
- Finally, there is the “why” of failure. Because products fail for a really broad range of reasons.
- But one pretty useful taxonomy for deconstructing failure is shown in this nifty graphic. Which seeks to illustrate that to be successful a product has to achieve three broad aims. At it’s core – it has to be desirable. That means it needs to meet a need in the marketplace and be valued and desired by your customers. Stereotypically, this is the prevue of the marketing team although I’ll argue in a different after-hours event that it’s the responsibility of everyone who engages in innovation. Beyond that however, the product need to be feasible –often this is the bailiwick of the engineers. By feasible I mean it needs to work as intended and expected. It needs to be safe, reliable, conform to applicable standards and deliver the features and functions expected in a dependable and delightful manner. And then finally, for a product to be a success in the market it needs to be viable – and by this I mean it needs to create a sustainable business for you. You need to be able to manufacturing, distribute and price the product or service in way that covers your costs and leaves some left over for that most capitalistic of endeavors –the profit margin. And each one of these three areas represents a distinct venue for product risk and failure.
- Consider desirability. The Segway, google glass and the nike fuel band are perhaps examples of products that delivered on the expected features and function in a reasonably cost-effective manner – but simply didn’t create enough user value to justify their existence.
- Accordingly, the fairly recent and fairly spectacular failure of Munchery, the online food ordering and meal delivery service that managed to burn through $125mm in venture funding as well as the Jawbone fitness tracker and my beloved General Motors EV-1 are all examples of innovation that actually created a pretty loyal and devoted following – but weren’t able to tip over into a sustainable business money. As a bit of an automobile nut, I fear for tesla in this regard but that’s a topic for another talk.
- And then finally, there are the spectacular technical flame-outs. As an engineer, these are the ones that give us night-sweats. Where when all is said and done , in spite of all our sophisticated tools and best efforts, the product simply doesn’t work as intended or desired
- So spend a bit of time thinking about your failed product and project. Why do you think it failed primarily – was it because it didn’t’ meet a customer need? It couldn’t justify or sustain the business? It didn’t work technical?
- So although I’ve postulated that failure is an inevitable part of innovation, that doesn’t mean that any particular product is intrinsically headed for failure from the onset. Sometimes products start out fine and get screwed up down the road.
- Consider the case of the much beleaguered Pontiac Aztek The current poster child for a failed car. Immortalized by Walter White of breaking bad fame and perhaps one of the most loathed cars in recent history. And if I do say so myself, that is one really ugly car.
- But what most people forget is that the GM was essentially pressed into executing the Aztek by the wildly successful Aztec concept car introduced at the 1999 Detroit auto show. Pre-dating the Honda Element and Scion XB, the Aztec lead the pack as a concept for a funky, utilitarian sports minded cross over. Although this image is now 20 years old, the original Aztek concept car looked really freakin’ cool. And then us engineers completely screwed it up.
- So consider again your failed product. What are the chances that the basic concept was sound and it was just poorly executed.
- We have a visceral fascination with the concept of failure. I think the German phrase Schadenfreude – taking delight in other’s pain really does apply here. Whether it’s Thearnos, or Boeing or Juiceroo we love to pile on the misery of others.
- But sometimes the real truth behind the failure isn’t quite as devastating as our public perception. Consider the cast of New Coke – perhaps the most compelling failure story in modern commerce. Some of you younger folks might not recall that new coke was a reformulation of the iconic brand, driven by dropping market share in the mid early 90’s It’s been argued that new coke was the most thoroughly market-tested product in modern history and the product was uniformly preferred to existing coke and it’s rival Pepsi in blind taste tests. And yet when new coke was introduced, it was a colossal, embarrassing and remarkable expensive failure. Lasting only 77 days on the market.
- And yet, if coke is to be believed, there are many aspects of the new coke experiment that were a resounding success for the company.
- It’s even been speculated – although denied – that new coke was simply a marketing ploy to drive interest in the coke brand.
- Finally, while failure might be an intrinsic part of the innovation process, sometimes it’s a really effective stepping stone to much greater future success.
- Consider for example, the failed Apple Lisa – many parts of which when on the inspire the remarkably successful, iconic and groundbreaking Apple Macintosh.
- In another automotive example, consider the original Toyota Prius. The first-generation Prius back in 1997 took some bold technological steps – and suffered from some pretty dramatic teething pains. And it only sold a fairly paltry 30,000 unit. But Toyota has a great track record of playing the “long game” and stuck with it to create what might be one of the most beloved, dependable and successful small cars in modern history.
- Compare that if you will to the GM EV-1. driven by California fuel mandates and the pending gas crisis, the EV1 , introduced in 1996 actually had a very favorable reception. But GM believed electric cars were doomed as an unprofitable niche and balled the whole thing up – literally – in 1999. So imagine what would happen if GM had stuck with the EV 1 with a 10 year head start on Tesla. And what the EV7 might look like today. We’ll never know.
- None of these failures exist in a vacuum and none of them were developed in a test tube. They’re all the results of efforts in dynamic, complex and flawed corporate cultures – like yours – each subject to imperfect information, market and cost pressures, And one of the biggest contributors to a culture of innovation is how a culture deals with failure. And that certainly spans the gamut.
- When I was preparing for this talk, I sent a quick note out to some former classmates and friends on the Stanford University list-serve asking for input on how various companies deal with failure – and I got this screaming rant back from a former employee of a very noted technology company you would all recognize. As you can see, here is one pretty cynical perspective.
- And I suspect when it come to product and project failure, all of you
- So we’ve talked a fair amount about types, reasons and the context of failure. And we’ve described it as an inevitable, healthy and sometimes even positive part of the innovation process. But all is not lost here. There are things we can do that increase our odds of success, reduce the cost and impact and ensure that failure is minimized and sequestered to the greatest extent possible.
- So let’s review
- The first of these is basically what we’ve been doing throughout this entire presentation. To have a frank, candid, honest and realistic discussion about risk and the possibility of failure. And I’m sort of amazed how many companies the concept of risk or failure is taboo. And whether or not you want to call it wargaming, scenario planning, worst case, common sense or just plain realism, encouraging dialogues about risk and failure is a really critical part of the process.
- The engineers in the room have a wonderful process they use for formally assessing risk – called an FMEA – or failure Mode effects analysis. In spite of the fancy name but it’s actually quick simple. It involves a group of engineers sitting in a room and basically trying to think of all the ways things can go pear shaped. Beyond this though, the FMEA actually asks the engineers to rank failure in three different areas; On a scale of one to 10 So, while the engineers use this as a structured methodology for assessing design or process risk – we’ve noticed it works really effectively for just about any aspect of the development process. For the strategic plan – for conceptualization – for manufacturing, pricing and distribution. Whether you use this particular tool or not, baking in formal discussions on risk into your process and talking about failure modes and mitigations is a really powerful tool.
- The next technique is to frontload failures into the early part of the process.
- Each one of these activities represents an area of risk and a possibility for failure. Although I might start by arguing that it’s actually a misnomer to call them failures when projects are truncated early in the process. And another intuitive observation is that the sunken costs of failure rise – fairly dramatically as you move through the process. Early on, when you’re doing strategic planning and conceptual design, the costs committed to projects in terms of people, time and money can actually be pretty insignificant. So intuitively, you want to drive or tolerate failure as early in the process as possible.
- Because like we mentioned the costs of failure rise dramatically down the road. So it stands to reason that failing earlier will conserve precious resources.
- So like to say that failure should be encouraged during strategic planning.
- Next as we mention – and perhaps closely tied into acknowledging risk – is to recognize that the probability of failure increase with the more innovative you’re trying to be. So taking the time and an organization to asses your appetite for risk and make sure you honestly don’t bite off more than you are willing to chew is another technique of mature companies.
- We talked earlier about all the innovation that could have been – had the company simply been willing to preserve. And while being willing to kill deeply flawed projects is a characrteristic of winning companies, likewise, recognizing that your first effort is seldom likely to be your best or be optimized. A development plan that candidly recognizes the potential for warts, flaws and misteps in the initial lauch – think in terms of Lean Start-ups MVP can be a very powerful tool.
- Think what might have happened if GM had cosndiered the EV 1 to be the first step in a multi phase journey.
- Whenever we talk about failure there is going to be a lot of talk about rapid prototyping, iteration
- But I actually think a better metaphor is the spiral – where there are a series of design/test/protoype iterations that all progressively move you closer and closer to a final product. Whenever I see a development plan that moves right from a first protoype into production – or worse yet – skips the prototype entirely – I am deeply skeptical and worried. So make sure your development plans include progressive iterative spirals toward an optimized target.
- We talked earlier about the different ways that product can fail.
- Another prudent technique – with some caveats – is to formally decide what aspects of your innovation require a parallel path. By parallel path, I mean an alternative, less risky approach or fall-back that’s co-developed in conjunction with highly risky aspects of the design. Now clearly these consume costs and resources but often time the cost and time of a parallel path easly offsets the risk of failing an aspect of your product that has no contingency.
- One dirty corporate secret that I wanted to bring to light is the zombie project. By that I mean the project that’s clearly dead but for some reason still consuming precious time, money and resources. It’s often some sr. manager’s pet project – or there is a department or staff member puttering away in a back room that nobody want’s to offend. There is never enough support to bring them into the market but conversely, there isn’t enough momentum to kill them. The best companies ferret out the zombie projects.
- And finally, perhaps the most important tool of all is a willingness and appetite to learn as much as you possibly can from every failure. The recognition that innovation is a really difficult, messy and risky business where some degree of sub-optimal results are going to occur. Failure is expensive. It’s painful. It can be embarrassing because we all have professional pride. The Post-Mortem - What went right and deserves to be celebrated? What went wrong? What did we learn that can make us better? What are the positives for our firm?
- So let’s review