Comments on: “Well, what kind of fraud is it?”

By: A Letter to the Editor « WWC

A Letter to the Editor « WWC — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 16:42:41 +0000

[...] I had planned to write a post later this spring on the collisions between what engineers sometimes perceive as practical and what turns out in practice to be useful. It’s a complex issue and there are examples that cut both ways, suggesting that a deeper understanding of both the underlying technology and the social “soup” where innovators thrive are needed to avoid some famous traps. I mentioned this briefly in my discussions of the impact of social fragmentation on innovation and the pitfalls of ignoring social contexts. [...]

By: Beware Sharp Edges! « WWC

Beware Sharp Edges! « WWC — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:33:33 +0000

[...] as we saw in “Well, what kind of fraud is it?“, worlds collide when there is confusion about context. The collisions are damaging to [...]

By: Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner « WWC

Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner « WWC — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:27:27 +0000

[...] “Well, what kind of fraud is it?” [...]

By: Computers & Tech

Computers & Tech — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:57:29 +0000

Hi there,
Cool blog, I just found it and I am already a fan.

By: Are R&D Customers are Always Wrong? « WWC

Are R&D Customers are Always Wrong? « WWC — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:48:34 +0000

[...] “Well, what kind of fraud is it?” [...]

By: richde

richde — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 13:41:44 +0000

Thanks for the straight line. The blog is all about how to avoid collisions like this, so I’ll be referring back to Alice and Edward a lot. I’d also like to hear from readers on this point. But there are some clear lessons to take away from the story:

1. Be clear on agendas (which may require some cultural education). Alice stopped being a customer at some point and fused her product agenda with Edward’s research agenda. It wasn’t necessary to do that because the technology was not on a critical path. It’s a lesson that Alice as an experienced product manager should have known already. I will do a mini-post on Thursday about Edward’s R&D agenda.

2. Alice missed a signal when the live demo failed. Her first thought should have been: “If this limited technology demonstration in front of Edward’s own boss failed so badly, how confident am I that these guys have their project under control?” That was her last chance to regain some control over subsequent events.

3. Edward repeated Alice’s mistake by putting so much weight on William, the youngest and least experienced member of the team. William had virtually nothing invested in the success of the prototype. He was still working in graduate student mode where driving his personal research agenda had the highest priority.

4. Alice did not listen to her own advisory board. She assembled a team of devil’s advocates but did not act on their advice. In a sense this was her second failure to act as a customer.

5. Alice’s managers allowed a critical early stage product development project to evolve into a science fair project. Alice’s incentives encouraged this outcome.

I have to say that there were lots of organizational factors that came into play that could have been addressed. One of the most important — which I’ll touch in in a few weeks — is to give technology a “seat at the table”. Alice controlled all of the technology risk-related information that rose through her management chain. Her management never had the chance to interact directly with Edward.

A lot to chew on? I’d be interested in hearing from others.

By: Tucker Balch

Tucker Balch — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 03:33:32 +0000

That was intense. I’ve been at one or two of those meetings. I’ll be your straight man: How do we avoid such collisions?