We are all aware of the existence of the NIH (Not Invented Here) factor, where open-minded judgment is overshadowed by a misguided emotional stance to keep things as they are. It is often talked about it in 3rd person, as if only exhibited “somewhere else” in the organization. Any evidence of its existence is regularly swept under the rug; it’s considered a reality of business in the engineering world. What price is paid when the NIH factor is allowed to routinely guide decisions about products, processes and ideas?
NIH is inversely proportional to an organizations creative ability. The more NIH is allowed to prosper, the less an organization will push the bounds of revolutionary discoveries. Left unchecked, NIH can lead to a stale organization where the imaginative juices stall, eventually leading to creative bankruptcy. Contemplate the US automakers current situation – NIH undoubtedly played a significant role.
The truth is it’s difficult to directly monitor the existence of the NIH factor and it’s impact on a business. However, consider that the same forces that enable an aversion to continuous improvement are also at work to drive up the NIH factor. Evangelize continuous improvement principals as a way of life, and NIH becomes a non-issue. An organization plagued with NIH is certain to have a culture where the status quo is an accepted approach to New Product Development.
As a leader, your teams will follow by example; they will align with your displayed support or opposition of practices that diminish NIH. What do they see? Your true motives will come through load and clear, accordingly it’s essential that you pay close attention to the reasons behind decisions. Stay on the lookout for decisions that were made out of a need to feel comfortable about a path of action. Comfortable usually means a familiar coarse of activity, one that is often repeated and perceived to carry limited risk; one that is also likely brimming with a healthy dose of NIH.
Where is your organization on the NIH culture scale? Not knowing is passive ignorance, not trying to find out is dangerous and not doing something about persistent NIH is disastrous. Once more, contemplate the US auto industries NIH affliction. Too big to fail – think again!
Monday, November 23, 2009
The NIH Factor may be Putting your Business in Peril
Posted by
Jeff Jorvig - IC Design Leader
at
5:41 AM
0
comments
Friday, November 13, 2009
Concepts for Improving New Product Transparency
Transparency - Ensuring everyone has the information that allows them to maximize their contribution and enable informed decisions for the ultimate success of a project. Unpredictability will always be the result of a constriction in information, where transparency has not been a priority. Below are some thoughts on mechanisms that will pump of project transparency.
Visible Milestones
You don't want your team fishing around for key milestones. Take the key dates such as tapeout, 1st Si, characterization and product ramp and post them - BIG. You can see them from across the room size. As a project approaches a key milestone, post it on doors as they enter the area. This stuff is not a secret and there is no excuse for everyone on the team not knowing what the next key project event is.
Workflow Management
There must be an easily accessible mechanism where the team can go to find out where things are at, specifics on deliverables and the best practices for the project. This is not a set of documentation gathering dust on the shelves, or a rarely accessed read only file wasting space on a hard drive. It is an interactive guide for the team's activities where the user is adding value to the content in addition to seeking best practices guidance and deliverable expectations. PIEmatrix is at the top of the list for this application followed by Design Guides.
Bi-Directional Project Meetings
Make sure there is more to routine project meetings than updating status and directing activities. Don't forget to listen - where are the areas of concern from the team and what can you collectively do about them. This is promoting upward transparency from the team to leadership and will only provide continuing results where the team realizes actual benefit. Encourage open communication and problem solving and reap upward transparency rewards on a long-term basis.
There are many other possibilities for improving transparency. Bear in mind that the objective is that no one is ever surprised, from the lower levels all the way to the top. Ponder what can be done to enable this goal. Best of luck and may transparency prosper and deliver the new product development predictability that your business requires.
Posted by
Jeff Jorvig - IC Design Leader
at
7:21 AM
0
comments
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
How Limited Transparency Impacts New Product Efforts
Project transparency - What thoughts do you have about this for your organization? Transparency is a mechanism that facilitates information flow both up and down through the project hierarchy - a means to observe status and decisions while also delivering essential information to the members of the team. Contemplate heightened transparency as an enabler of predicable new product development efforts. If New Product Development (NPD) surprises are common to your business, there are issues with project transparency that must be resolved.
When thinking about transparency for a new product development effort, do you believe it's a problem for your organization? Here's a simple test, pick some in the trenches team members at random and ask them something you believe they should know about a project. Questions like tapeout, characterization or qualification planned dates are simple yet revealing.
For a bit more of a challenge you might try a question about inclusion of a specific feature that has recently been in a state of flux and is now resolved. Does the team accurately know the decision of that feature? Odds are high that you will be surprised at what team members should know, but don't. These are a few examples of easier project transparency issues.
How visible is a project when in the early stages of assessment, the period from product concept through a decision to launch or drop a product development effort? Having broad based input on risks, scope and effort is critical for a fully informed decision. This is certainly not the time for a project to be out of view. How many times has a sanctioned product been killed, significantly delayed or has failed to realize financial objectives? An unacceptable success rate is a solid indicator of deficient transparency during the vital new product assessment phases. For failed projects, something largely unknown (invisible) did not have the opportunity to surface during the new product consideration phases.
How often does a completed activity need to be reworked? Yes, you guessed it - rework is another example of inadequate transparency. In this case an individual did not have access to the current information they needed to successfully complete and/or properly deliver their contribution. A high rate of revisiting completed activities should be another flag that there is work to be done for improving transparency of project activities.
Why would an improvement in transparency ever be bad? Maybe when attempting to keep a thorny issue under wraps, typically hiding it from someone who will have an opinion we don't want to deal with. So, how has that worked out in the past? Limiting transparency to avoid conflict rarely leads to a project success story. Full disclosure real time keeps us all honest and ensures that a new product does not end up a victim of unrealistic expectations. If you find that there is an item that you prefer to de-emphasize, that is a flag that it's time examine your motives.
The benefit of expanded transparency is hard to argue. Be open, be honest and be prepared for ideas, concepts and opinions that make you squirm. Hanging out in the comfort zone is not a place where product excellence is nurtured.
Posted by
Jeff Jorvig - IC Design Leader
at
6:14 PM
0
comments
Friday, October 23, 2009
Organizational Silos - The Enemy of Project Execution
So how are projects working out for you? I ask this question frequently, to just about everyone I talk to in a professional setting. And the most common answer is – “We are doing OK”. If I take the same question and pose it in a fashion such that the focus is in a different functional area from the individual I am asking, the answer is entirely different. Apparently there is much more to say when talking about how project execution is going outside a person’s sphere of responsibility. Translation – “We are doing OK, but those people over in ______ need to get their act together.” This is human nature, although amplified by the organizational structures in place today.
Consider that collaboration blockages flourish through the functional silo based organizational configuration. Even though matrix project teams are widely used, allegiance of each individual remains within their organizational unit. Why? Loyalty naturally rests at the source of performance reviews, personal objectives, raises and functional area workflows. An individual on a matrix team will primarily be measured, directed and rewarded based on solid line organizational reporting. However, the business success depends on the effectiveness of the temporary matrix reporting within a given project. This is a major disconnect!
Who is ultimately in charge of a projects success or failure - where is the accountability for a project? Project execution responsibility typically rests with the project manager, however they are often lacking the full breadth of authority to carry through. Additionally they are generally not fully skilled and/or sanctioned to gauge and direct the sub-flow details within each of the silos. The functional area towers have the skills for the detailed sub-flows, although they typically lack the formal project management skills or motivation to properly assess and plan a sub-project. This is a system that is ripe for finger pointing, blame, collaborative blockages and ownership issues.
Fact - the current project system is not providing the full spectrum of results businesses require. The organizational silos believe they are doing OK, while the businesses experience an element of unpredictability; leading to surprises and delays on the path to new product revenue. Given this, it may well be time to step back and take an honest look at the mechanics of current project delivery. Business success dictates that we engineer a system that promotes accountability and collaboration, addresses individual project skill gaps, and measures/rewards contribution based on enabling project revenue success.
The current project management strategies have been in place for greater than 15 years and have provided significant benefit to new product development. Advancing to the next generation of project delivery will require that the walls of the organizational silos come down and a structure based on project execution be constructed, collaboratively stitching the functional areas together. Are you in this race to win, or are you in the race to hang with the pack - Isn’t it time for change?
Posted by
Jeff Jorvig - IC Design Leader
at
5:26 AM
0
comments
