Kirkham

Submitted by:27NMP22 Mukesh Kumar Sahu27NMP43 Amit Gujjewar27NMP51 Komal TagraImproving the Product Development Process at Kirkham Instruments Corp.

Organization structure

Perceived management problems/issuesCompany having a tough time supplying customers looking for systems that integrate functions of multiple pieces of lab equipmentEach business unit (Mass Spectrometer, Chromatography, Optical Equipment, Waterloo Instruments) working on too many projectsNo universally accepted definitions for project typesStrategy does not help prioritize resource allocation

3

LowResourceHighResourceModerateResource

ConsumerValue PerceptionEnablingTechnologyNew CoreProductNewBenefits

RadicalIncrementalBaseNextGenerationDerivativePlatformBreakthrough

No Change

ImprovementVariantProduct Support

Aggregate Project Plan:

4

Benefits of an Aggregate Project Plan:Explicit choice of projects balances the long and short term, allows for the explicit discussion of the match to strategyMatch between project type and organizational form allows for a focus on the generation of competenceFocus builds speed and productivity for the individual and the organization

5

73

20

An Innovation Funnel Example

Initial marketing and technical concepts

IdeaGenerationCharterContractLaunch ProposalPost Launch ReviewGatekeeperGatekeeperGatekeeperGatekeeperFeasibilityConcept refinement and prototype creationProduct optimizationCommercialization Production & DistributionCapabilityLaunch & RolloutOne page description of proposed project including objective, rationale and development routes. Early Commercial AssessmentCross-functional development plan including project plan as contract between team and Gatekeeper.Launch Plan including CEP approval request.Tracks success of and key learnings from launched products

KEY= GATE= DOCUMENT

6

Gates:are major milestonesare intended to allow passage of the projects more likely to succeed by sacrificing projects more likely to fail as early as possiblefocus decision-making. At a gate, a decision is made to either:Continue working on the project, moving it along to the next stage in the funnel; orStop working on the project, shelving it or canceling it; orGet additional information and reconsider the project for passage through the same gate once that information becomes available

7

Example: The Key Questions Answered By Each Phase

PhaseReview 1PhaseReview 2PhaseReview 3PortfolioReviewPhase 1:ConceptInvestigationPhase 2:FeasibilityPhase 3:DevelopmentPhase 4:PostRelease

CurrentProductSupport

ENTEREXITDoes the product make sense from marketing, technical & financial perspectives?

If yes, thenconceptapproved& full teamallocatedWhat is the product spec?Can we develop it within budget and schedule?Can we produce it at the required cost & volume?

If yes, thenprototypeapproved& full teamallocatedHas the product been fully verified and validated?Have production objectives been met?

If yes, thenfull manufacturingapproved& sub-teamallocatedDoes the idea fit roughly with our strategy and resource availability?

If yes, thenconcept documentapproved& sub-team allocatedIs the product meeting safety, efficacy and business targets in the market?

If yes, thencloseoutapproved& handoff toproduct supportPhaseReview 4

IdeaGeneration

Post-launch reviewBusiness Case DevelopmentConcept Development

Gate 3Gate IConcept Exploration

Less than $xMBetween $xM and $xMBetween $xM and $xMGreater than $xM

LaunchNote: Cross hatching indicates non-resourced concept exploration projects

Gate 2Pre-Segment Review, But Resourced

Recurrent activitiesNon-ResourcedExample: Pipeline View by Stage and Project Focus

Execution

Making a funnel work:Formally:Pacing the funnel to the needs of the business, not the other way aroundInvolving key decision makers early

Informally:Leadership: tolerating high respect, high conflict debateTrust: but this would only work if we told the truthConsistency

10

89

17

Time line of developments

11

Mistakes that were madeEducation and trainingDone by external people, too early in advance of any actionDelegation to QuinnShe had responsibility but no real power, Donaldson not interested in actual detailsHiring Fetzer-WoolleyJust avoiding decisions, will feed back what they are toldDocuments for communication rather than decision-makingReally hard to produce, for very little or no resultStarted by trying to cut projects from total listManagers were given incentive to hide projects

12

The situation now as of Sep 1996Exhibit 9Aggregate project planning and Charters only used to aid upward communication rather than linking strategy with NPDDecision making not altered as intended; market potential and tech feasibility used as primary criteria instead of strategyProjects starting outside the funnel, thus not able to control projects in-houseProjects not reviewed as planed; hidden if falls behindWriting of gate-documents not prodding people to think in a cross functional sense3-6 projects/ personProject leaders not well trained in PMPersonnel transfers inhibiting the new cultureRank-and-file employees not confident on management

13

Core issues

14

Alternatives what they can do now?Short termTry the approach that Derrick champions within one or more individual unitsLong termGo to one business unit (get rid of separate business units each with a profit-loss statement) or start a business unit that produces systems with integrated functionalityDevelop a useful strategyDevelop consistent integrated information system for both communication and planning

15

Thank You