 |
|
|
The product development newsletter no 5 |
| Topic: How the way that functions are organised and collaborate
helps or hinders |
| |
| Most companies say they develop products using teams. Or at least that’s
what they think they do. But is that what they really do? And how do they do
it? |
| The theory is that you get everyone involved in developing the product
around one table and make them all talk to each other - sort out between
them all the problems and how they’ll do it. Then do it. Good theory. But
not often what we do. |
| For a start, we don’t usually get representation from all the areas that
the product touches. And when we do, do they all start with good intentions?
How many are press-ganged to be there then mysteriously fail to appear
thereafter? For example, the sales/marketing representation that later could
have helped us incorporate a particular feature that would have made all the
difference to sales; or manufacturing engineering, a feature detail that
would have halved the cost of that assembly. They weren’t there so neither
got incorporated. |
| In every case their input could have contributed that vital something,
which would have avoided those decisions that were later found to be poor.
And we (they) had the information all along. |
| Or maybe we don’t even make pretence of operating like that. While the
process says that these areas’ inputs will be there, what really happens? |
| Marketing issues the spec (on what information - opinion or genuine
customer research?), Technical area designs it (and adds some technical
features which in their view are essential), Manufacturing Engineering sorts
out the process (and changes a few features because we can’t make it like
that), Manufacturing makes it (and struggles because the detail design makes
it harder than it could be so there are quality problems - more like
one-and-a-bit-sigma), it’s late (so what’s new), and then Marketing blame
anyone who is listening because it wasn’t precisely what they had in mind;
and finally, Sales discover that customers don’t want to buy the quantity or
mix that Marketing based the business plan on. Great; but we always do it
that way - it’s our way of life and thank heavens it’s now Friday. |
|
|
|
But of course no one ever behaves like that, do they (statement, not
question). |
| But if they did, how would we avoid it? It comes back to culture. Unless
Top Bod (note: this is not sexist: Bod can be M or F, and it might be you)
takes an interest and mentors the process to ensure that everyone will
contribute, it can happen like that. It doesn’t need everyone’s full time
presence on the team. But there should be a team with representation from
all areas the product touches, to contribute what they know right at the
start, and then update it as we go. The team permanent members can be from
half a person organising everyone’s input to, in larger outfits, many.
Depends how big your firm is. |
| Often, a company will realise they want to run it that way and will try
to make a change from their vertical silo-type organisation. A firm’s
hierarchy is organised vertically; whereas business processes are operated
horizontally. And that’s where the problem (sorry, challenge) lies. “So, in
future, we’ll have product teams” quothed Top Bod (just come back from an
inspiring workshop). So a team leader is appointed and members are co-opted
from a number of areas. |
| To start with, the team leader is appointed from within the team and is
relatively junior, a so-called “lightweight” team leader. Their problem
(challenge!) is that all the team members now answer to two bosses; their
function head and the (rather junior) team leader. So their function head is
guaranteed to win any dispute. We thereby have a matrix organisation where
the intersecting lines of team and function represent points of potential
conflict. Team members get really fed up with the turf wars and wriggle out
of the contest. Result: many companies have tried to make the transition but
gave up because they couldn’t cope with the turf wars. Why? Because Top Bod
would not support the culture change and make sure that everyone ran it as
intended. |
| Some have gone part way and now design the product with effective
manufacturing (or process) engineering (m/p-e) area input. That’s a good
start. But often even this is hard, because the m/p-e area is understaffed
and overworked. Why? Because they are engaged in continuously trying to
catch up with a workload of planning the new and sorting out problems caused
by the old that continually interrupt their daily routine. This is
surprisingly common, even in top household-name companies. |
|
|
|
The solution is to grow the m/p-e department a little so they can cope
with the workload and make the time to contribute to the design process. In
time this will reduce their workload because the fire-fighting element will
diminish. The money this saves greatly outweighs the additional employment
costs. But with tight budgets, few Top Bods feel they can sanction a few
more m/p-e staff. And so they never emerge from the vicious spiral. It’s
often no use just expecting m/p-e to put in more input and sort the problem
(bit more overtime please) when they’re already working well over 50 hours a
week. A surprisingly common situation. |
| A few have made the transition successfully and have gone the whole hog
to a “heavyweight” team leader route, a senior position often reporting
directly to a new position, the Projects Director. Here, the teams have
autonomy to run all major projects and the departments shrink to small
support teams that act as centres of excellence to advise and help the teams
develop their technical expertise. Departments also run minor projects that
don’t depend on company-wide input, like a minor production change. They
also work on new technology or building block developments to debug them
off-line. They’re particularly good at this aspect. Sounds easy when you
write it but it needs a major change in management philosophy and culture. |
| The benefits of heavyweight leaders are that a multi-discipline team
runs the project, not all members being full time, and makes sure that
everyone’s input can always be incorporated. And the heavyweight leader
makes sure that it runs to time and specification without other areas
diluting the team’s focus. It does need a first-rate process map too - and
we’ll come to that in future newsletters. |
| In other words, how you do it, including how you are organised, not only
affects the cost of what you give your customers but also how well they like
it (customer value). The moral is that it’s not good enough just to have a
brilliant process and culture. You also have to be organised in such a way
that you have the best chance of not wasting your (and everyone else’s)
time. Did I exaggerate or does it ring bells? |
