Serial Productisation: how to avoid falling into the trap

As highlighted in a previous post “Serial Killer: the perils of ‘one-off’ product development“, product developers constantly face the challenge of how to deliver more with less, how to target larger groups of customers but not be crushed under the weight of supporting them, how to build a range of products without starting from scratch each time.

Big companies frequently use these approaches, but even for SMEs, using a portfolio and platform approach can pay dividends. The terms ‘portfolio’ and ‘platform’ are often thought of as ‘big company speak’ inside SMEs and shunned as being too restrictive and heavyweight – but they don’t need to be. The product and technology platforms that can deliver the efficiencies and economies of scale needed for growth are sometimes ignored altogether. This is a big mistake, as by adopting the elements of portfolio and platform thinking that are applicable to SMEs, you can avoid the inevitable problems as you start to grow.

No battle plan survives contact with the enemy

Helmuth Karl Bernard Graf von Moltke, apart from having a rather long name, was a Prussian Field Marshall during the 1800s known for his strategic brilliance. Among the many quotations attributed to him, the most famous seems particularly apt when considering planning in the context of product development: “No battle plan survives contact with the enemy“.

Product development is not war (even though it can feel like a battle much of the time) but when it comes to planning, Von Moltke showed great insight on planning in general. A plan is a starting point, not a destination, and it needs to be adapted and evolved as the ‘battle’ continues.

For most people with a passion for developing products, planning is at best a necessary ‘evil’ and at worst it can feel like an albatross around your neck. Worst of all, no product development plan is ever ‘right’ – and by that I mean that no new product development ever goes exactly according to plan. This is one of the biggest challenges for anyone leading a new product development – how to manage the work and cope with the uncertainty.

Serial Killer: the perils of ‘one-off’ product development

Increasing competitive pressure and the prevailing economic conditions are forcing companies to deliver more with less. No stone has been left unturned in the quest to reduce costs, and with sourcing costs already pared to the bone, product development processes have also faced their fair share of scrutiny. In order to protect their futures, product developers find themselves needing to achieve broader market reach while simultaneously reducing their operating costs and increasing productivity. The results can be grisly …

Do you want benefits with that?

In a previous post “Benefits … who needs them?” I described a recent experience with a potential client who was considering a significant expenditure on a new IT system, but weren’t clear about the benefits they wanted to achieve. That’s business benefits, but what about the broader picture of product or service benefits from an end customer perspective?

Most product marketing focuses on features …

Recently, I’ve been working with several start-up companies developing hardware products. Their products are aimed at competitive, but relatively niche, markets. They have product brochures that detail all the specifications and features of their products, and claim they are ‘best in class’ or offer some advantage over the competition.

Benefits … who needs them?

Benefits frequently get overlooked when implementing business changes. The need for change gets driven by reorganisation, acquisitions, ageing IT systems or for other internal reasons and it is easy for companies to jump to a solution without considering the wider business context. Recently I had an experience that highlighted for me how essential it is to focus on benefits – not technology, products or features – when considering any business change.

We know we need to make a change …

How to escape from the Start-up “Valley of Death”

Over the past year I have been working with several tech start-ups and have talked to the founders of many more. There seem to be some common problems they all face, and few are able to build a sustainable business. Lately, I’ve found myself wondering …

Why do so few Start-ups escape from the “Valley of Death”?

Why do bad things happen to good products?

In my last post, The ‘Selfish’ Product, I gave some examples of highly successful products that have broken through to dominate the market, propelling their brand into consumer consciousness and driving new categories that enter social culture as Memes. But … far from all new products launched by the major consumer electronics companies achieve that kind of success.

Why is it that some products from major brands fail?

Here are some examples from the past and present of ‘orphaned’ products that nobody wants to adopt. In each case, the product was backed by a major brand and offered something new for consumers … but failed.

The ‘Selfish’ Product

Richard Dawkins wrote about ‘The Selfish Gene’ and developed the idea that genes (rather than species) survive generations because their evolutionary consequences serve their own interests and not those of the organism. The most successful genes become ubiquitous and dominant in the population and express themselves in social culture as ‘memes’.

The most successful products do the same – they become ‘Selfish’ Products.

“Meme: an idea, behaviour or style that spreads from person to person within a culture”

The changes in behaviour brought about by ‘Selfish’ Products are everywhere to see, and these changes establish and reinforce those behaviours until consumers believe the product is an integral part of their life: “I can’t live without my iPhone!”

Each decade has seen consumer electronic products that become dominant in the market and start to influence social culture, for example: