by James Davies 

Last week I spoke with the CEO of an idea management solution provider who posed the following question: if Stage-Gate has been around for 15 years and has been embraced by an estimated 70% of US mid- to large-sized manufacturers, then why is there still such incredible waste in R&D (estimated at 76% of overall R&D spend)? Good question.

My take is that the adoption of the Stage-Gate process remains largely focused on product development rather than ideation – “building the product right.” As we know, it’s great to build the product right – unless it’s the wrong product in the first place! Until such time that we all do a better job of “building the right product,” we will continue to witness incredible R&D waste.

If I’m right, then the current wave of interest around ideation and voice-of-the-market is well-placed and readily explained. It will lead to significant improvement in R&D effectiveness. Whether the heart of the challenge is the lack of credible data feeding the Stage-Gate process (i.e. ideas) or shortcomings in the application of Stage-Gate for the ideation process itself, remains to be seen.

by James Davies

Start-up companies feel especially vulnerable with regard to revealing their technology to potential customers and partners. But the instinct to protect one’s intellectual property – the hard-earned fruits of their innovation labors – at all costs often results in missed business opportunities. I’m not saying that we should throw caution to the wind and publish our IP on myspace.com. I do suggest, however, that we contemplate what a friend and colleague advised me a couple of years ago: That Italian racing cars do not have rear-view mirrors. The reason for this is that drivers need not worry about what is happening in their wake and should at all times focus on what’s in front of them.

More often than not, the business opportunity being explored has more potential for a positive outcome than a negative one. It’s very difficult to commercialize your technology if nobody sees it. And let’s face it – if your partners and competitors want to see your technology, they’ll find a way. Keeping our eyes on the road ahead is what helps us all to keep our market leadership position and not follow in our competitors’ wake.

So I disagree with Andy Grove when he opines that only the paranoid survive. Don’t let paranoia get in the way of realizing your company’s potential.

by James Davies 

OK – I admit that the concept of crushing competition is appealing, provided we act within ethical and moral constraints. But if you take this attitude too far, you can miss out on opportunity. Here’s an example:

I recently attended an industry event recently where a competitor was a fellow exhibitor. Making the obligatory rounds, I stopped by their booth to introduce myself to the staffers there working the event. I had hoped to share opinions and insights into our market with the m. Instead I was met with utter rudeness and arrogance.

We all smile through our teeth at competitors and wish each other well. That’s what professionals do. It’s called common courtesy. However, smart professionals understand that competitors are also market development partners. So next time you talk to a competitor, treat them like a partner. I bet that you’ll learn more from the (somewhat guarded) exchange of market insight than you would by idle boasting.

by James Davies 

What part of the enterprise has not been outsourced? From a Product Lifecycle Management perspective, manufacturing and product design development have been outsourced with largely positive results. In broad strokes, these services have become commoditized – which leaves innovation as the last competitive differentiator. So far so good.

Now fast-forward to today. Only 15% of Global CEOs expect ideas for tomorrow’s winning products to originate from internal R&D organizations. Industry movements, such as customer-centric innovation and open innovation, actually serve to outsource the very aspect of your business upon which your market survival hinges – your ability to innovate!

Now that’s ironic. What’s next? Is the “next” last competitive differentiator not what you innovate, but how you innovate?