PDMA Blog

When real time analysis is not fast enough to manage current products, what are the implications for new product development strategies?

A recent SlideShare post by Jeremiah Owyang (@jowyang) of the Altimeter Group titled “Real Time Is *Not* Fast Enough: Three Strategies For Companies To Get Ahead” described the evolution of the web as it progressed from:

• Asynchronous (new sites, press releases, blogs, …) to
• Real time (status updates, chat tools, checkins, location-aware applications, …) to
• Intention (scheduling and resolutions (exemplified by sites such as 43 things or Plancast))

Owyang quipped “Real time is so yesterday.”

Reactionary Responses

Many companies have acknowledged the growing influence of the real time web on their products. This includes social media/computing impacts made possible by Web 2.0 capabilities. How should your new product development strategy change as a result of the potential for real time feedback?

A common response is aggradation. The easy stuff can be appended to the status quo. Twitter accounts can be created and keywords can be monitored. Customer generated content (reviews, rating, ….) can be incorporated into your web site. Social Media Directors may be hired. Social CRM efforts can be accelerated. Mandates may specify that in addition to links to the company web site, the @Twitter information must be included in promotional materials and on the product packaging.

Unfortunately, such additions may increase communication overhead and may increase analysis time. The new product development capabilities may be hurt because critical resources are diverted to react to new directives.

Another strategy is cost cutting or downsizing. Expect that someone will suggest a temporary price reduction for your current products to generate revenue to fund your future. Others will examine budgets and explore ways reduce ‘unnecessary’ expenditures.

Orthogonal suggestions may be proposed. Someone may suggest that a new advertising or PR effort may provide opportunistic sales of current products to increase revenue for the next quarter.

You are likely to receive passionate requests for that ‘one additional product feature’ that will ‘guarantee’ a huge increase in sales. Be cautious. What may seem like a small project to add one feature can divert your team’s attention from pursuing future innovations.

Trendy Fixes to Reduce Time-to-Market

To innovate and differentiate in rapidly changing environments, some organizations will explore ways to reduce development time.  This may start with an executive mandate or a stretch goal. Some will propose rearranging the organizational chart. Some will examine the Stage-Gate model. Some will expect project managers to find savings by creatively manipulating the schedule. There may be passionate pleas to work harder.

Some will explore alternative development methodologies. Some will insist that outsourcing certain operations will reduce cycle time.

Some may prefer to delay certain product features to expedite the next product release. The phrase ‘release early, release often’ may be used to garner support for this strategy.

A trendy Quick Fix from a best-selling book or a tool provider may be considered

Inspirational Attempts to Reduce Time-to-Market

Expect to see inspirational posters about efficient teamwork. Someone will quote Wayne Gretzky. “A good hockey player plays where the puck is. A great hockey player plays where the puck is going to be.” There may be a disagreement over who is credited with saying “The best way to predict your future is to create it .” Was it Abraham Lincoln or Alan Kay?”

Designing the Future

How will you manage the present and evolve to an uncertain future? How will you build the necessary relationships? Perhaps you will consider some of the following concepts to change the culture of your company:

• Encourage the development of new theories that can be tested
• Avoid axioms that over-simplify the factors that impact decisions
• Evolve the business models to reward agility
• Recruit the appropriate people to advance your future objectives. Release the people that hinder progress.
• Facilitate cooperation and collaboration. I explored this in my Detrimental Connotations in New Product Development – Collaboration post
• Embrace emerging ideas from development methods such as Agile, Scrum, and Lean.

New product development professionals that procrastinate are likely to experience creative destruction.

Creative Destruction: a phrase popularized by economist Joseph Schumpeter in 1942. It describes the disruption and downfall that occurs when new ideas emerge in anticipation of profound changes and future needs.

Which strategies will you embrace the progression of the web from asynchronous, to real time, to intention? What will you do to make your development capabilities more agile?

Within a new product development (NPD) environment, collaboration is more likely to produce innovation than cooperation. In NPD, opportunities for collaboration include all of the following interactions:

• Between individual contributors
• Across functional groups
• Agents (something that acts within the system) whose contributions focus on different portions of the development effort
• Asynchronous – individuals and information

Before presenting some of my suggestions for improving NPD environments [especially those embracing Web 2.0, social computing, NPD 2.0, co-development, open innovation, or geographically dispersed (virtual) teams], here is a review of the words denotation and connotation that started this 10-part series.

Denotation: the definition of a word apart from the impressions or feelings it creates in the reader.

Connotation: the set of associations implied by a word in addition to its literal meaning.

The intent of this post is evolve the connotation of collaboration within NPD environments to maximize success during product launch.

Interactions between individuals and across functional groups

Within many NPD environments, a conversion that exemplifies cooperation may be:

Designer: I need the latest copy of the requirements document.

Subject matter expert: I think that the most recent document is on the system.

Designer: Thank you.

The organization chart for this NPD group may resemble the following diagram:

As stated in my Network the silos – An alternative to breaking down the silos post:

“The most effective NPD environments are more than a collection of coworkers juggling multiple assignments in a hierarchical organization.”

To improve the potential for innovation, consider the connotation of collaboration within your organization. The Wikipedia entry for collaboration includes:

Collaboration: a recursive process where two or more people or organizations work together in an intersection of common goals

A conversation that exemplifies more effective collaboration may have the following characteristics:

Designer: I was thinking about the problem you mentioned yesterday and I was reminded of a success story from my friend at at another company.

Subject matter expert: Great. So far, my ‘textbook’ solutions don’t seem to provide the robust solution that I now believe this new product will need. Tell me more.

Designer: Correct me if I am mistaken… I want to understand before I integrate… It sounds like we might be able to modify…

Subject matter expert: What can I do to help you create and evaluate a prototype?

The diagram for this type of interaction is different.

Interactions in a neural network differ from those suggested by a hierarchical organizational chart. These interactions are more sophisticated than suggested by a matrix organization model. In a neural network model, an individual can have from one to many connections with other agents (something that acts within the system). The connections are made and broken dynamically. The ‘bandwidth’ of the connections between individuals can grow or shrink depending on the qualities of the tasks.

An introduction to complex adaptive systems is included in my December 2008 Visions article.

Level-of-Mastery and collaboration

To predict the effectiveness of collaboration within an NPD environment, examine the level-of-mastery of all of the individual contributors.  Not only are individuals that operate at the Ri-level of mastery more capable of inventing and blending techniques based on contextual clues, they have a greater potential for innovation because of the diversity of their knowledge.

In addition, contributors with a Ri-level of mastery are desirable collaborators because of their potential to be mentors to the Shu-level contributors.

Interactions of individuals that focus on different portions of development

To introduce this concept, consider the following riddle:

What did the Voice of the Customer (VOC) specialist say to the public relations specialist when they met for lunch?

If your answer was ‘They did not have lunch. They have never met.” you may have a new option for improving the potential for collaboration within your NPD environment.

Recall that the previous definition for collaboration included the word ‘recursive‘ and the phrase ‘common goals.’ Both the VOC specialist and the public relations specialist have common goals. They both contribute to the development effort and they share the same endgame – a successful product launch. A successful product launch validates the development decisions and activities designed to:

• Uncover what a potential customer will value in the future
• Determine how to communicate this value
• Deliver a great product at the appropriate time

Likewise, developers may use the documented Product Requirements, but such a document is likely to be an abridged and biased prediction of what potential customers may value in the future.

Facilitating more effective, cross-disciplinary interactions for contributors that focus on different portions of the development effort, maximizes productivity, minimizes re-work, and maximizes knowledge creation.

Interactions of individuals and information

A large portion of the information required for new product development is in legacy systems. Many tools have been developed to store and find information.

The availability of capabilities associated with Web 2.0 functionality such as user generated content, wikis, the ability to add tags to existing content, and the ability to rate content can improve the flow of information within an NPD environment.

Recent and popular uploads by an NPD contributor

The effectiveness of collaboration within an NPD environment can be improved beyond this currently accepted baseline to address asynchronous activities. I will address these advancements in future posts.

More than new tools and updated processes

Often, collaboration requires more than new tools and updated processes. Alistair Cockburn stated:

“If the people on the project are good enough, they can use almost any process and accomplish their assignment. If they are not good enough, no process will repair their inadequacy.”

Collaboration requires more than delegating tasks to other team members and reviewing results.

When your connotation of collaboration enables you to create an NPD culture that facilitates synergistic interactions among individuals and across functional groups and promotes better insights from information throughout development, your potential for innovation will improve.

Other posts in this 10 part Detrimental Connotations series

Quick Fix, 1/10
Product Requirements, 2/10
Subject Matter Experts, 3/10
Design, 4/10
Designers and Developers, 5/10
Marketing, 6/10
Launch, 7/10
Best Practice, 8/10
I know it when I see it, 9/10

Within a new product development (NPD) environment, the connotations of the phrase “I know it when I see it” may suggest that the team has implicit trust in the judgement of the person making the claim. Under ideal NPD conditions, the team does its best to ensure that an appropriate solution will be presented to the decision maker and that solution will be distinguished from all other candidates.

Problem is known. Solution is obvious

The Wikipedia entry for the phrase “I know it when I see it” includes:

I know it when I see it: a colloquial expression by which the user attempts to categorize an observable fact or event, although the category is subjective or lacks clearly-defined parameters.

In other cases, NPD contributors may be uneasy. They want hints to develop solutions that will be acceptable. They want insights about paths that may lead to success. They appreciate guidance to distinguish ‘good’ solutions from ‘better’ solutions.

Perhaps the most detrimental scenario is when both of the following conditions exist:

• Problems originating with the person making the claim. They may be sincere but lack the knowledge or objectivity to recognize ‘better’ solutions. They may be unlikely to approve ‘good enough’ solutions because of biases associated with the prevailing NPD culture. They may not recognize the Decision Traps in an NPD environment. They may approve the first workable solution and not pursue alternatives. Entrained thinking may predispose them to select inferior solutions (such as a decision maker with prior employment in a sales role may have a bias toward solutions proposed by current sales representatives).
• Problems originating with the network. Individuals proposing solutions may recommend familiar but outdated approaches. The level-of-mastery or diversity of the contributors may not be adequate for the task. They may be reluctant to seek the appropriate external help. They may be too busy with other priorities to properly investigate better solutions. They may not provide the appropriate background information to prepare the decision maker to select the appropriate solution.

In some cases, the person making the “I know it when I see it” claim has great influence. Such an opinion is known as HiPPO (Highest Paid Person’s Opinion). This opinion may be wise or foolish.

Uncertainty may be compounded when the first HiPPO is overruled by another HiPPO from a more highly compensated individual.

Experimentation and Verification

If the NPD problem can be clearly defined, NPD solutions that meet the “I know it when I see it” criteria should be verified. Conceptually, such a verification is relatively easy.

When both the NPD problem and the appropriate NPD solution are unknown, there is more risk of failure. Examples of difficult NPD problems include:

• What combination of attributes will form a compelling new product offering?
• With our project constraints, what is the minimum viable product for this version?
• Who should be recruited for this effort? When?
• What are the appropriate characteristics of the user interface for our potential customers?
• How should our development culture evolve to improve our competitive advantage?

Qualities of a highly effective NPD network

The detrimental connotations of the phrase “I will know it when I see it” may originate from the person making the claim or the individual contributors or both. An environment where a “Trust me. I will know it when I see it” claim is acceptable may be a prelude to NPD failure.

The same applies to those with a focus on their NPD process. Trust in a process that previously produced success does not guarantee future success.

What are the qualities of leaders that inspire trust when they claim to be able to recognize the appropriate solutions? What qualities of the individual contributors are required to ensure that appropriate solutions are presented for evaluation? How does the NPD network improve? What are appropriate checks and balances?

Part 10 of this series on Detrimental Connotations in New Product Development will include several of my suggestions to prepare for future development efforts.

Other posts in this 10-part Detrimental Connotations in NPD series

Quick Fix, 1/10
Product Requirements, 2/10
Subject Matter Experts, 3/10
Design, 4/10
Designers and Developers, 5/10
Marketing, 6/10
Launch, 7/10
Best Practice, 8/10
Collaboration, 10/10

The beneficial connotations of the phrase ‘best practice’ include safety and success. In New Product Development (NPD), best practices often involve benchmarking. PDMA’s NPD glossary includes the following definitions:

Best Practice: Methods, tools or techniques that are associated with improved performance. In new product development, no one tool or technique assures success; however a number of them are associated with higher probabilities of achieving success. Best practices likely are at least somewhat context specific. Sometimes called “effective practice.”

Benchmarking: A process of collecting process performance data, generally in a confidential, blinded fashion, from a number of organizations to allow them to assess their performance individually and as a whole.

Often, best practice reports are accompanied by survey results, case studies, or templates.

The caveat of context

Note that the definition of best practice includes a caveat regarding context. Before adopting any best practice, consider context issues such as:

• How does your company culture compare to that of the companies in the report?
• How long will it take for the desired change to permeate your organization?
• Where is your proposed new product on the technology-adoption life cycle compared to products highlighted in the report?

Contrasting correlation and causation

The definition of best practice includes the phrase “...associated with higher probabilities of achieving success…” Results are not guaranteed.

One synonym of associated is correlated. In NPD, it is important to distinguish correlated items from situations where one action causes a specific effect.

For example, a vendor may report that the collaboration effectiveness of NPD teams typically doubles after incorporating their tool set. However, buying their tool may not produce a similar result for your organization.

Cause and effect relationships

Some best practice reports correlate specific initiatives and results. Unfortunately, implementing a context-appropriate best practice may not produce the desired result.

A recent presentation by Dave Snowden of Cognitive-Edge defined the following types of systems:

• Simple: Repeating patterns and consistent events. Typically, best practices and defined processes will provide effective support for decisions because there are clear cause and effect relationships.
• Complicated: Expert diagnosis is required to discover cause and effect relations. Fact-based decisions are based on inputs from experts.
• Complex: Emergent behavior with competing ideas. Unknowns. Pattern-based leadership. When external conditions change, adapt and learn.
• Chaotic: No clear cause and effect relationships. Pattern-based leadership.

Insights about your NPD environment are required to optimize the use of best practice reports.

Preparing for future development

Best practices are derived from past practices. Typically, best practice reports contain summaries of events that occurred months before the release of the study. Some of the recommendations may not be applicable for future new product development projects.

In a rapidly evolving new product development environment, what capabilities should you develop to sustain your competitive advantage?

Part 10 of this series will include several of my suggestions to prepare for future development.

Other posts in this 10-part Detrimental Connotations in NPD series

Quick Fix, 1/10
Product Requirements, 2/10
Subject Matter Experts, 3/10
Design, 4/10
Designers and Developers, 5/10
Marketing, 6/10
Launch, 7/10
I know it when I see it, 9/10
Collaboration, 10/10

In a discussion of new product development (NPD), the word ‘launch’ has many connotations. What set of associations is common for someone in each of the following roles:

• Executive level manager
• Sales representative
• Distributor
• Public relations specialist
• Competitor
• Journalist
• Analyst

A more important consideration is ‘which connotation will predispose the development team to discover the appropriate strategies and to execute effectively to maximize the development investments?’

The look of successful NPD

The following definition is from the PDMA’s NPD glossary:

Product Development: The overall process of strategy, organization, concept generation, product and marketing plan creation and evaluation, and commercialization of a new product.

This definition doesn’t provide many hints to easily recognize successful NPD. Will you know it when you see it?

In the following illustration, the captions reveal the thoughts of each member of the group. What does this scene suggest about the success of the new product development effort?

Validation of a successful new product development effort during product launch

No one in this group of prospects and customers knows details of the development process. They don’t know the project constraints. They don’t need to know. The implications are:

• The product is new and it has captured the group’s attention
• The product has been released and is now available for purchase.
• The usability of the product is OK. A typical customer can use it and demonstrate it to others.
• Sufficient product information is available online.
• User contributed content has been created.
• The demonstration and the customer reviews support the value proposition. This solution is perceived to be better than currently available alternatives.
• Those familiar with the product are willing to recommend it to their friends.
• There is good potential for sales growth through viral marketing, word-of-mouth, and social networking.

Defining launch in terms of the endgame

Launch is the portion of new product development that validates all the previous development decisions and activities. Based on their perception of your solution, customers can vote with their cash, clicks, or reputation.

Events and activities during launch

Often, there are detrimental connotations that product launch is confined to an event or activity. The success of an event during product launch may be characterized using a set of metrics defined by a few members of your team but this is insufficient to validate the development effort.

Likewise, a product launch checklist reflects a set of opinions. A marketing plan or launch plan is a collection of theories. All of these are helpful but they only imply future success.

NPD validation requires that an abundant number of prospects become customers and that begins during launch. A team invests in plans, activities, checklists, and events associated with product launch in the hope of achieving results similar to those represented in the illustration.

Suggestions of how to maximize launch success will be included in Part 10 of this series.

Other posts in this 10-part Detrimental Connotations in NPD series

Quick Fix, 1/10
Product Requirements, 2/10
Subject Matter Experts, 3/10
Design, 4/10
Designers and Developers, 5/10
Marketing, 6/10
Best Practice, 8/10
I know it when I see it, 9/10
Collaboration, 10/10

Within the new product development (NPD) environment, what detrimental connotations are associated with the contributors from the Marketing department? This post explores several detrimental connotations about Marketing from an R&D perspective within an NPD context.

Generalizations from my time at HP

During my time at Hewlett-Packard, engineers contributing to new product development typically were assigned to the Research and Development (R&D) group while many of the internal subject matter experts reported to either the on-site Marketing department or the global Sales organization.

Although the development efforts were cross-functional, the ‘D’ in the R&D sometimes had the connotation that a disproportionate amount of the value was contributed by the R&D team.

It seemed that at any given time, contributors from R&D focused on one project related to new product development (NPD). In the most successful groups, it seemed that interruptions were minimized.

Often, contributors from Marketing had multiple product responsibilities that included several current products plus one or two new products. Because of the need to multitask, the work environment seemed to embrace interruptions.

From these characterizations, can you determine who is better equipped to provide better leadership in NPD?

Product Management and Product Marketing Management

As defined by the Association of International Product Marketing and Management (AIPMM), the summaries for two NPD leadership roles are:

• Product Management: from idea to launch – the inbound skills. Often this role is filled by someone with R&D or Marketing expertise.
• Product Marketing Management: from launch to withdrawal – the outbound skills. Often candidates for this role have marketing or sales experience.

Product Marketing for current products

One of the primary goals associated with traditional product marketing is to promote current products. This collection of products includes recently released products, older products, and products at the end of their life cycle.

A primary activity of many marketers is to nurture interest in current products and transfer qualified leads to the sales organization. Commonly, Marketers may explore technique in an attempt to attract the attention of potential customers with a traditional advertisement or they may influence the production of content that a potential customers may find in blogs, videos, white papers, and other forms of social media.

The skills required to promote and sell current products have a small overlap with the skills required to develop new products. This is shown below in the style popularized by Jessica Hagy at Indexed.

Why most Marketing Departments do not contribute more value to NPD

Marketing Department contributions to development efforts

Traditional Marketing Departments are likely to spend most of their time promoting products that have been released to manufacturing. When they have responsibilities for a development effort, they may transmit suggestions to the NPD team. In addition, they may be asked to:

• Contribute as a Subject Matter Expert
• Evaluate prototypes
• Contribute to launch events such as creating and delivering new product training
• Contribute to the financial analysis
• Drive additional administrative items such as pricing and licensing issues
• Facilitate meetings with external contributors

Becoming a more valuable NPD contributor

Most engineers prefer expertise more than hierarchy. Engineers are not likely to be impressed by your job title but they are anxious to determine your level of NPD mastery. The list in the previous section can provide guidance as you begin to assess the diversity of your skills.

To minimize detrimental connotations, Marketing representatives should strive for more effective collaboration with R&D representatives. Distractions and re-work should be minimized. Experimentation and validation should be facilitated. Issues related to Product Requirements typically provide opportunities for improvement.

NPD contributors are likely to appreciate individuals that can recognize and evolve nonaligned procedures to produce systemic results. Mastering the knowledge required for certifications such as PDMA’s NPDP or AIPMMs Product Manager and Agile Product Manager can increase your credibility.

Other ideas to improve synergy in NPD teams will be presented in Part 10 of this series.

Other posts in this 10-part Detrimental Connotations in NPD series

Quick Fix, 1/10
Product Requirements, 2/10
Subject Matter Experts, 3/10
Design, 4/10
Designers and Developers, 5/10
Launch, 7/10
Best Practice, 8/10
I know it when I see it, 9/10
Collaboration, 10/10

Within the new product development (NPD) community, the terms ‘Designer’ and ‘Developer’ have a diversity of meanings. Consequently, they have many connotations.

A few of the many types of Designers that may contribute to NPD include:

• Designers from university-level design programs can provide capabilities such such as ‘multidisciplinary innovation’ or ‘multi-disciplinary collaboration.’ Like their business school (B school) counterparts with Master of Business Administration (MBA) programs, design schools (D schools) offer advanced degrees and they may have abridged programs for  executives.
• Designers from programs such as Industrial Design have studied both form and function. They may exhibit both engineering skills and artistic ability.
• Interaction Design (IxD) professionals strive to define “the behavior of an artifact or system in response to its users.”
• Some types of Designers, such as graphic designers, focus on communication and presentation.
• Specialists at product design firms may contribute to NPD by providing discrete services (such as Industrial Design) or they may function in a co-development (which is also known as Collaborative Product Development) arrangement.
• Designers that focus on new business issues.
• Designers that work closely with subject matter experts and lead users to refine product concepts.

Clarifying the potential role of each Designer

In many situations, the team’s effectiveness can be improved by clarifying the roles of each type of Designer that may contribute to the NPD effort. This includes clarifying what each type of Designer could contribute and determining when those contributions are likely to have the most impact.

When selecting individuals for projects, consider questions such as:

• Will this type of Designer make contributions at the front end of the process or are will they be more effective in preparation for launch?
• If a Designer has been successful in a communications role, what new skills might they need to contribute effectively in an NPD environment?
• Who on the project team is best equipped to determine what type of design contribution is needed and when it is needed?

Levels of Mastery – Shuhari

Some Designers operate at the Ri-level of mastery. Team members expect them to be capable of inventing and blending design techniques based on contextual clues. Unfortunately, not all Designers can provide such adaptive solutions. A Shu-level Designer may be restricted to using templates gleaned from commonly available sources within their discipline.

A Designer’s level of mastery may be used to predict how they will interact with other team members.

Developers

In some NPD environments, individuals may be segmented using the generalized labels of Designer and Developer. This can be problematic because Designer and Developer are polysemous terms.

In some environments, Developers include those that are considered to have more technical expertise such as engineers, scientists, and programers.

Some Developers operate at a Ri-level of mastery and they are more likely to collaborate effectively with Designers to evolve product concepts. Often, Developers that operate at a Shu-level of mastery may be restricted to implementing approved designs.

Potential tension between Designers and Developers

In some NPD environments, there may be tension between Designers and Developers.

I have been surprised by misunderstandings caused by the vague use of Designer and Developer labels within NPD. A few of the pejorative characterizations that I have heard recently include:

• ‘Designers’ assume that ‘Developers’ are ‘artless geeks’
• ‘Designers’ assume that ‘Developers’ are Code Monkeys
• ‘Developers’ assume that ‘Designers’ do not have rigorous methods to validate the inputs used in their designs.
• ‘Developers’ blame ‘Designers’ for finishing the product design too late.
• ‘Designers’ criticize ‘Developers’ for starting coding tasks too early.

Besides clarifying role of Designers and Developers, how do you minimize the detrimental connotations of these labels? How do you maximize synergy? This will be the focus of Part 10 in this series

Other posts in this 10-part Detrimental Connotations in NPD series

Quick Fix, 1/10
Product Requirements, 2/10
Subject Matter Experts, 3/10
Design, 4/10
Marketing, 6/10
Launch, 7/10
Best Practice, 8/10
I know it when I see it, 9/10
Collaboration, 10/10

Within the new product development (NPD) community, there are many connotations for the term ‘design.’ Within NPD, the role of design may evoke the realm of aesthetics or a lofty concept such as “the engine of innovation, giving mere ideas shape and substance.”

A few examples of the term Design used within an NPD context include:

• Design for Six Sigma (DFSS) is “a technical methodology for developing… products…that has a linage in engineering and statistics…One of the goals of DFSS is to avoid manufacturing process problems.”
• Design Thinking seeks to “combine empathy, creativity, and rationality to meet user needs and drive business success.”
• Experience Design focuses on the quality of the user experience and culturally relevant solutions. A cross-discipline perspective drives Experience Designers to improve the affordance of a product.
• Big Design Up Front (BDUF) is a predisposition that specifies an intensive design during the beginning of the new product development effort followed by an implementation phase that strictly follows the pre-approved design.

Designing the on-screen interface for a television

During the development of a television that was the most expensive model in the product line, a very capable team was assigned to produce the on-screen interface portion of the product. The team included specialists in user interface design, graphics, and usability testing. These experts crafted an interface consistent with the best practices of on-screen interface design and prepared for an important project review meeting that would include a demonstration of their prototype to upper management.

Prior to the project review, someone on the team suggested that another design choice should be presented during the review. They reasoned that it would be better to craft a situation where the reviewers would make a selection (Candidate-1 or Candidate-2) rather than risk a potential disappoint that that their design would not be embraced (a Yes or No decision on their best effort).

The team decided to produce a second design. To ensure that the Candidate-1 was recognized as superior, Candidate-2 was intentionally designed to be a bit distracting. The fonts and colors selected by the design team were considered by some to be glaring.

At the project review, both candidates were presented. Much to the surprise of the design team, Candidate-2 was preferred by the executives. The executives were confident that Candidate-2 would attract more attention in retail environments in side-by-side comparisons with competitive products.

Detrimental connotations

Who was correct?

Because the design team had significant expertise and followed best practices, one connotation may be that great design teams consistently produce great designs.

Because the executives had significant experience in new television products, another connotation may be that domain experience trumps perceptions about the aesthetic qualities of an interface.

In a new product development environment, both of these connotations may be detrimental to product launch success. A few of the potential reasons:

• The decisions were based on opinions. The decisions were based on untested hypotheses. No holistic testing was scheduled. There was no plan to validate the decisions.
• Reductionism: The views were too simplistic. No one acted from a system viewpoint. There was not a designated product architect.
• Reductionism: Perhaps the design team relied too much on their historic perceptions of best practices within their discipline. If the context is changing, historic best practices do not guarantee success in the future.
• Reductionism: The executives may have made assumptions about the outcomes of suppositional competitive scenarios and then asserted that these comparisons would have a dominant impact on future product sales.
• Bias: The design team may have emphasized aspects of the interface that would be embraced by other graphics professionals over the qualities of the interface that improved the effectiveness of the design for target customers.
• Bias: Since many of the executives had previously been sales representatives, their entrained thinking may have predisposed them to assign more value to vivid screens that attracted the attention of shoppers than to screens optimized for usability in the home environment.
• False dilemma: Candidate-1 and Candidate-2 were not the only options for the on-screen interface design. Both were consistent with other popular implementations. Another approach may have resulted in a competitive advantage.

A googleverse of options

As a product is developed, there are likely to be many suggestions regarding the design. You can expect to hear the buzzword du Jour.

The DFSS supporters will lobby for their favorites. The advocates of Design Thinking will disagree with the priorities of Experience Design specialists. Some team members will embrace BDUF and others demand Agile approaches. The connotations are likely to suggest that each is critical to launch success.

How do you recognize the detrimental connotations and amplify the beneficial patterns? This will be the focus of Part 10 of this series.

Epilog – a refined design

After Candidate-2 was selected by the executives at the project review meeting, the design team had the opportunity to ‘refine’ the design before the product was released. According to the design team, the final design embodied best practices and was neither glaring nor garish. Today, this company is recognized as a leading producer of televisions.

Other posts in this 10-part Detrimental Connotations in NPD series

Quick Fix, 1/10
Product Requirements, 2/10
Subject Matter Experts, 3/10
Designers and Developers, 5/10
Marketing, 6/10
Launch, 7/10
Best Practice, 8/10
I know it when I see it, 9/10
Collaboration, 10/10

In new product development, a subject matter expert (SME) is a person who has expertise in a topic relevant to your project. In many cases, it is common to assume that appropriate experts have a minimum of 10 years of experience in their discipline. In other situations, expertise is conferred by the completion of extensive training. Expertise may be emergent. The duration of the SME’s involvement with other members of the new product development (NPD) team can range from a few hours to many years.

As part of a development effort, it is likely that an SME will be asked to do more than check documentation for accuracy. It is likely that they will influence development decisions.

Potential detrimental connotations

When there are new product development difficulties, part of the cause may be from detrimental connotations that team members associate with a subject matter expert.

The designation of ‘expert’ suggests that this individual operates at the Ri-level of mastery. Team members may expect them to be capable of inventing and blending techniques based on contextual clues. For additional information see Shuhari. Unfortunately, not all experts provide this level of mastery. They may not be able to provide the inputs necessary to evaluate diverse solutions.

Because an SME has abundant knowledge within a specific discipline, some may assume that their opinions are authoritative in unrelated disciplines. For example, an SME may not be the best resource to design the user interface for your new product.

Although an SME is assumed to have a mastery of the historical solutions to a specific set of problems, it does not guarantee that they have the knowledge or vision to imagine solutions that are possible because of advances in other disciplines. Typically, SMEs are not Lead Users. From PDMA’s NPD glossary:

Lead Users: Users for whom finding a solution to one of their consumer needs is so important that they have modified a current product or invented a new product to solve the need themselves because they have not found a supplier who can solve it for them. When these consumers’ needs are portents of needs that the center of the market will have in the future, their solutions are new product opportunities.

Typically SMEs have strong preferences that are influenced by familiar processes. Their preferences may conflict with other project constraints.

An SME’s expertise is confirmed by proficiency within your NPD context. An SME’s experience may be quantified by how many years they were involved with their discipline. Experience does not guarantee expertise. The recommendations provided by an expert should be validated with the objectives of your project.

Most SME are not qualified designers

Typically, the primary role of an SME is to be a source of specialized knowledge. According to Professor Bruce Archer, design is ‘The capacity for envisaging a non-present reality, analyzing it, and modeling it externally.” The Designer is tasked with finding a result that can be implemented that is in alignment with the project objectives and within the project’s constraints.

In most cases, the best conditions for improving value during development is when SMEs provide input to Designers.

SMEs are recruited to contribute to NPD to reduce risk. Most of the time, they provide great value. In a few circumstances, the interactions may be problematic. If you recall a new product development difficulty that may have been the result of detrimental connotations related to a subject matter expert, please share it in the comments.

Other posts in this 10-part Detrimental Connotations in NPD series

Quick Fix, 1/10
Product Requirements, 2/10
Design, 4/10
Designers and Developers, 5/10
Marketing, 6/10
Launch, 7/10
Best Practice, 8/10
I know it when I see it, 9/10
Collaboration, 10/10