Monthly Archives: June 2010
I’ve heard product cost is designed in; I’ve heard it happens at the early stages of product development; And, I’ve heard, once designed in, cost is difficult get out. I’m sure you’ve heard this before. Nothing new here. But, is it true? Is cost really designed in? Why do I ask? Because we don’t behave like it’s true. Because was it was true, the Design community would be responsible for product costs. And they’re not. Who gets flogged when the cost of new products are too high? Manufacturing. Who does not? Design. Who gets stuck running cost reduction projects when costs are too high? Manufacturing. Who does not? Design. Who gets the honor of running kaizens when value stream maps don’t have enough value? Manufacturing. Who designs out the value and designs in the cost? Design. (That’s why they’re called Design.) If Design designs it in, why is the cost … Continue reading
Back in the day, before cable, satellite, HD and giant screens, watching TV wasn’t the same experience. It was subject to poor picture quality, interference from outside signals, and frequent static all viewed on small screens and requiring an antenna to get decent reception even from a local TV station. For as much as we’ve advanced in technology, consider the challenges we face today. Our cell phone calls are susceptible to dropped coverage and poor sound on PDAs with small screens (which we now love). We’re limited on what we can see and communicate because of tiny, poorly rendered avatars and text character limitations. While the static early TV viewers grew up with is a thing of the past, it has been replaced with new types of interference thwarting clear communication. Just a few recent examples: I met someone I’d been following on Twitter. This person’s avatar is a very … Continue reading
Failure is big in the news lately, because people are getting smarter about it. I’ve written before about my admiration for Google’s philosophy, as expressed in this quote from Senior Business Product Manager of Google News, Josh Cohen, in a recent Atlantic article: “We believe that teams must be nimble and able to fail quickly.” Now, we get that failure and innovation are joined the hip. But I still hear failure spoken of as a kind of necessary cost, a purgatory one goes through in order to enter the heaven of success. It’s like the old song: Pick yourself up, Dust yourself off, Start all over again. But let me suggest that failure is not an unwanted consequence, but a necessary ingredient of innovation. And you’re not starting all over again after a failure. I learned this lesson years ago, when …
I was meeting with a group that is interested in fostering innovation in the state where I live and we were talking about the reasons why organizations don’t innovate. We talked about the lack of strategy and cultural barriers and a number of other reasons. There are hosts of very smart people writing books and research papers on this very topic, but it struck me that I should be able to communicate the reasons firms don’t innovate in a way that a fifth grader can understand, since some of the folks we work with..never mind. At any rate, I created my alliterative list of reasons why firms don’t innovate, and if I get the time I’ll explore them in more detail over the next week or so. I encourage you to add your own reasons in the comments – alliterative or not, they are welcome as we begin …
Too often the question of value extraction/retention is a dominant concern for all parties at too early a stage. For the sake of argument, let’s consider a supplier who has to develop a critical component for a customer who will integrate it in the design of a new finished product. The development process has not yet started that the customer plays its cards close to its chest with the conscious objective to retain as much of the value they will get from selling the finished product, and the supplier plays in a similar way with an equally conscious objective to extract as much value as possible from selling their component to the customer. As a result, the supplier does not share unique knowledge for fear of losing leverage, the customer does not seek what could make the product unique for fear of tying itself to a particular supplier, and a … Continue reading
Last week I wrote about how the IBM report, “Capitalizing on Complexity: Insights from the Global Chief Executive Study,” suggested that a majority of CEOs around the globe felt ill-prepared to deal with the increasing complexity in today’s business world. In response to this finding, IBM asked business leaders to prioritize the three most important leadership qualities in the new economic environment. The CEO’s #1 choice? Creativity, followed closely by integrity, and global thinking. Even more interesting were the next six (in order): influence, openness, dedication, focus on sustainability, humanity, and fairness. Think about that for a minute. This does not sound like the model for leadership that I grew up with! Where is the visioning and strategic thinking? Where is the tough-mindedness and focus on the bottom line? Where is the ability to inspire and motivate others? And what about the ability to intuitively understand markets and customer needs? … Continue reading
