By Tom Inglesby

Radical innovations. Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? Although most of us are conservative in many aspects of our work, we like to think we are, perhaps, just a little more radical, a bit more innovative than the next person. But are we taking advantage of that radicalism, that daring-do attitude we see in ourselves? Or have we become a group of Walter Mitty clones, more creative in our minds than in our work? And do ethics come into play when we have something really different to bring to market that might, just might mind you, have some flaws still in the design? Is being "firstest with the mostest" better than being "bestest with the secondest?"

What brings this subject up is a report from the University of Alabama-Huntsville that compares the success of companies with a "get-it-to-market-NOW" approach to new product introductions versus a "no product will be sold before its time" approach. Specifically, 104 new electronic products developed over the past seven years were reviewed and the marketing approach of each was examined against a criteria of speed to market and risk taking. The results showed that, for some large U.S. companies at least, getting a product to market fast was more important in the success of the product than getting it to market in a finished (i.e., bug-free) form.

Dr. William Souder thinks that some U.S. companies are too conservative in their approach to getting radically new products to market. We tend, he says, to hesitate to release new products until "all the Ts are crossed and Is are dotted." On the other hand, some of our competition, namely the Japanese companies he studied, are willing to rush radically new products to market with a minimum of polish. In Souder's words, "If you know a product is going to be a radical innovation, then you also know that it's going to be changed once it gets into the marketplace. If you have a radical innovation, there's no reason to treat it conservatively."

What Souder and Dr. X. Michael Song of Michigan State found in analyzing new product success and failure at 15 top companies in each country (Japan and the U.S.) was that, in the areas of radical innovation in markets where there was a great deal of uncertainty about customers and their needs, "The companies that have been successful have been the ones that rushed things to market, even though they weren't finished, recognizing that changes were going to be made," according to Souder. In addition, companies that devote too much time and too many resources to perfecting radical products before introducing them risk losing the first-to-market advantage. As Souder says, "You also may go in the wrong direction because with some of these products, the only way to see where you need to go is to get the product into the field and then partner with the customer."

On the one hand, this sounds like a logical approach. We all want to be first in the market with a new concept. While the specific products compared are not mentioned in the report summary we received, they must have been daring innovations to generate such a glowing tribute for the idea of "sell it now, fix it later." However, being a consumer as well as a producer, it might make some of us stop to consider the ramifications of a general attitude of this nature. In our highly competitive and equally litigious society, dare we release a product, any product, that could cause problems the competition can use against us in the marketplace and the consumer in the courtroom?

In the same e-mail with the Souder report was an item from Southern Methodist University. According to Richard Mason of SMU, "We either don't comprehend the significant power exercised when information is used, or we fail to understand how information radically (there's that word again!) changes the context and timing in which decisions are made. Coupled with the rapid pace of modern society, we can quickly have situations occur before we have given them adequate ethical decision. We must prepare people to identify information moments of truth, to think clearly about them, and to act ethically when they occur."

We all live with the results of our actions, personal and business. We all think we are ethical and honorable. We all want our businesses to be profitable, as well. Most of us look askance at those who take short cuts which endanger others or who put out products that are less than they can be. We also accept the premise that we can polish a product until it shines, and it still could be improved. People are making better nails, engineering better bricks, improving products that have been in existence for hundred, nay thousands of years. Where do you draw the line, when do you say, "Enough already, let's sell the (expletive deleted) thing!"

What do you think? The forum is open, drop me a note with where you stand. For balance, let us know your thoughts on releasing new products without thorough "polishing" from a seller's and buyer's point of view. When you think about it, they may not be the same.

Seen on the Screen Are you tired of hauling a laptop around? Check out http://www.xybernaut.com for a look at the future of portable computing. You don't carry it, you wear it. The virtual 17-inch 640x480 VGA screen "appears to float in front of the user" through the use of a head mounted display (HMD). Its battery operated CPU is worn on the belt, the "keyboard" is voice recognition via a headset microphone and the whole thing is available today. Just the thing for working while driving on the California freeways. Yipes!

Copyright © 2020 by APICS — The Educational Society for Resource Management. All rights reserved.

Web Site © Copyright 2020 by Lionheart Publishing, Inc.
All rights reserved.


Lionheart Publishing, Inc.
2555 Cumberland Parkway, Suite 299, Atlanta, GA 30339 USA
Phone: +44 23 8110 3411 | br> E-mail:
Web: www.lionheartpub.com


Web Design by Premier Web Designs
E-mail: [email protected]