return to archive list • this month's article

Flexibility & Mess or Systems & Neatness — Which is More Effective for Innovation?
By Dave Ramsey

During the past 3 weeks, we have discussed a variety of projects with potential clients. During the discussions we routinely discuss our process of commercialization. To execute the commercialization process we employ a series of activities that lead to the introduction of the product or service into the marketplace. To graphically describe the process we display the activities in a linear series of arrows leading to the end goal of licensing/production and sales of the innovative service or product. Each arrow depicts an activity that can take place.

In our explanation of the process, we explain about the flexibility of the process and how it results in disruptive innovation. In response to our explanation, it is common to hear the client say “We use a stage gate process at our firm.” The stage gate process was defined to make certain that the innovation and commercialization process resulted in the most effective development of new products. The result to the company in following the process was to be instead of spending increasing amounts of money to get fewer new products, bringing order to the process of innovation and commercialization by planning and management of the process.

While we are prepared for this response, it always makes us want to say “the stage gate process only slows things down and you get only incremental innovation, not the breakthrough innovation that is truly valuable.” In order to write this article I took a deeper look at the stage gate process.

As designed, the process is appears to be capable of accomplishing the goals assigned to it:

• Keep management informed of progress,
• Allow periodic review to make certain the innovation process makes sense
• Keep the project on track
• Minimize cost by offering opportunity for additional input

In fact, on the internet, one can find a variety of citations attesting to the effectiveness of the process.

However, personal conversations with a number of engineers seem to belie the effectiveness of the process. In most every instance, the engineer involved in the process is frustrated by the gates that one has to pass through along the way to completing a project. In almost every account, the engineer completes a number of tasks, documents findings and prepares for the stage gate presentation only to have the managers be late or worse yet not show up for the meeting. If the manager(s) do show up, they ask questions that should have been asked along the way before the presentation. The end result is that the engineer is forced to go back and do something that could have been done earlier without wasted time and additional expense. In the engineer’s mind a question remains, “Is the stage gate process really worth it?”

This question leads one to wonder “Is it the process that is not worth it or is it the execution of the process that makes it not worthwhile? The truth of the matter is that most often by themselves, processes are not bad or good. They are simply a series of tasks or activities leading to an end. While the process tasks might be changed or modified to improve the outcome of the task and/or the end result of the process, it is difficult to assign a good or bad tag.

The root of the problem it seems is that the Stage Gate process, like other processes is open to failures of execution. In this case, failure of management to execute the process in a manner that is true to its intent.

If asked to choose which process is best for innovation, flexibility and freedom or stage gates and systems the answer would be: “It depends.” For us, both methods work to deliver innovative methods, products and services.

The dependent factor is management. As a manager, do you need control and order in everything going on in your area of responsibility? Do you desire to know all the small details? Do you communicate company goals, strategic direction and company values? All of these factors plus additional ones such as hidden agendas, political games, power grabbing/maintenance and functional silos determine what your innovation process will accomplish in the way of new products, processes and services. The question becomes “Do you want/need to manage the process or are you willing to guide it?”

Aptimise focuses not only on innovation of new products; we focus on turning obstacles into innovative competitive advantage. Send Ron Minke at rminke@aptimise.com or Dave Ramsey at dramsey@aptimise.com an e-mail. They will be pleased to answer any question you may have and along the way they will share some of their expertise in the use of TRIZ, the process of inventive problem solving.

“In Italy, for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, bloodshed – and produced the works of Michelangelo, daVinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did they produce – the cuckoo clock.”