This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
In the previous article we talked about why site optimization is important and presented a few important goals and philosophies to impart on your team. We created the following minimum completion criteria for my past team at DIRECTV Latin America. I’d like to switch gears now and talk about more tactical stuff, namely, process.
By now, “almost everybody building products” has at least heard the term and has been exposed to the big ideas. Yet, when we look around we don’t find the corresponding adoption across teams. often part of a mandated checklist imposed upon teams. Adopting a fundamentally new productdevelopment process is no different.
By now, “almost everybody building products” has at least heard the term and has been exposed to the big ideas. Yet, when we look around we don’t find the corresponding adoption across teams. often part of a mandated checklist imposed upon teams. Adopting a fundamentally new productdevelopment process is no different.
Between 1996-2001, Jim Collins’ team researched and wrote a bestselling book called Good to Great. Most of them were organizations that ‘make and sell’ products (Abbott Laboratories, Kimberly-Clark, Philip Morris, and Gillette Company). They were inventors of the 20th Century; many of which gave rise to the said products.
Between 1996-2001, Jim Collins’ team researched and wrote a bestselling book called Good to Great. Most of them were organizations that ‘make and sell’ products (Abbott Laboratories, Kimberly-Clark, Philip Morris, and Gillette Company). They were inventors of the 20th Century; many of which gave rise to the said products.
Between 1996-2001, Jim Collins’ team researched and wrote a bestselling book called Good to Great. Most of them were organizations that ‘make and sell’ products (Abbott Laboratories, Kimberly-Clark, Philip Morris, and Gillette Company). They were inventors of the 20th Century; many of which gave rise to the said products.
Fast-forward to 2012, five years after the introduction of the iPhone — and three years after release of Android and Samsung’s first smartphone – RIM, Nokia and others, using the best business tools available, were still projecting future growth based on past performance. Would it have a new productdevelopment or innovation process?
van Wassenhove, both of Insead in France, found that the complexity of high-tech innovation efforts can blur teams’ perceptions. The following highly condensed fictional case study draws on their paper “Anatomy of a Decision Trap in Complex New ProductDevelopment Projects” in Academy of Management Journal.
Perhaps it has something to do with the profile of LEGO’s management team, comprised almost entirely of men. The 21-person corporate management team has 20 men and one woman – and she’s in an internally-facing staff role, not connected to the customer base or productdevelopment. Think outside last century’s box.
That is the lesson learned at Lego — just in time,” says David Robertson, Professor of Practice teaching Innovation and ProductDevelopment at Wharton. Nintendo released Wii U in 2012. If you thought GameCube was bad, Wii U was worse. 1 PwC Advisory Oracle practice 2012. His book Brick by Brick is a must read.).
The innovation alone is a herculean task, but imagine being that upstart pioneer trying to develop the technology, while at the same time going up against entrenched, powerful competitors with deep industry knowledge, assets, and channels who’ve been around for a hundred years or more. Such collaboration can take many shapes.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 29,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content