I'm struggling a bit with some R&D projects. The answer probably should be apparent but I suspect I'm stuck looking at trees instead of the forest.
We have some projects which are to develop technologies for a new type of machine. As part of that, we are trying to include the possibilities of several types of evolutionary and revolutionary technology so that when it hits the market it will be widely desired as "the next best thing" by a substantial margin.
Problem is this. As we go, our (very brilliant) technology teams are constantly discovering things which weren't even conceived as our projects began. If it were just one new thing, I would just handle it with the change process (update scope/schedule/cost considering the new technology). However these discoveries and developments are happening so frequently that we would essentially be completely re-scoping/scheduling/costing the projects every few months.
On the one hand, this is "simple" to handle with the change processes (change log, updated project charter, etc.). But on the other hand, as a business we do need to get something to market in a reasonable time frame and honestly these new technologies are too amazing to be excluded. Additionally, these discoveries and advancements are highly synergistic and related so it is undesirable to draw a line in the sand and limit to certain aspects and exclude others.
So my question is for PM's who have worked in a heavy R&D (mostly "R") environment. What is a good approach to the balance between utilizing amazing synergistic new discoveries and technologies (and the accompanying constant re-scoping) versus actually getting all of the concepts to an "engineering" / design phase (i.e. R&D=completed)?
(As a bit of background, my philosophy is that the scope of an R&D project should end once a complete machine concept has been developed and then can be designed & engineered. At that point, it becomes an entirely new project to design/engineer the actual machine based on the R&D from the prior project. The reason for this is that it's nearly impossible to define machine requirements while so many new discoveries are being made toward this new machine in the R&D phase.)
Any insight is appreciated!
p.s. As frustrating as this is for me, it is also exciting to know that our society doesn't know everything (yet). There are SO many amazing projects to push so many aspects of technology and society forward! Saving Changes...
You need to consider your roll-out strategy and the timing of your entry to market. If you keep tweaking a product indefinitely, you're pushing out your revenue stream.
I've worked a variety of large R&D projects where there is a phasing in of new features. There will actually be a series of prototypes with additional features added. Some of these might be eventually sold after refurb, but often they're used up in the testing phase.
The development model will have a series of blockpoints where new content can be added. The nature of an integrated design means if you're always held for the latest great idea, everyone else is often on hold to integrate the new thing with the current baseline. A blockpoint or design freeze forces a point of stability where everyone is working to the same baseline.
In an ideal world, we could "get it right the first time", but the nature of R&D is almost always iterative, even for large hardware. Saving Changes...
As with any project, you need to decide on what constraints are fixed and which are flexible. In this case, scope is likely the most flexible whereas your investors or management would want to see "something" by a given day or cost amount. An adaptive approach whereby someone is responsible for prioritizing capabilities and techniques such as spikes are used to explore areas of uncertainty proactively might help.
We are very familiar with such R&D circumstances, where we use extensive R&D as part of a proposal to bid on (globally) unique (and risky) contracts that ultimately would be constrained by fixed price, fixed schedule, and/or penalties, sometimes bonuses. Typically the (potential) Customer is involved during the R&D phase but that involvement typically becomes different the moment a fixed price contract is signed. Usually these R&D projects are funded by ourselves, and we have our management constraints re budget. Schedule constraints essentially are driven by the bid schedule.
We could further discuss via email.
[email protected] Saving Changes...
Have you considered treating this project as a piece of continual delivery based on outcomes. When a piece of work is good enough to meet the exit criteria release it into the wild and continue to evolve the next piece of work as a subsequent phase rather than end the project and start again. I know this works best with software, but can be done with hardware based projects as well where any hardware / software integration works by requesting the hardware to be done by a specific date so that the integration can be completed. It is a kind of hybrid agile working practice. Saving Changes...
George FreemanThought Leader | Author | Architect| Florida, United States
Corporately carved-out (i.e., isolated) R&D divisions have a higher likelihood of “living in their own world” when it comes to “feeling the pain” in sales and marketing. For instance, when there is a void in new product launches, there are cost impacts: e.g., The Opportunity cost of lost sales, Existing customer upgrade opportunities, Competitive turnover loss of customer base, Brand goodwill loss, etc.
As time goes by, there is an exponential impact on these loss areas, and at some point, the critical mass of lost opportunities may implode the company. Recognizing this type of risk, companies bring products to market that are a step above their current releases or the competition, fully acknowledging that they have three or four “next gens” in the pipeline.
So, understanding that it’s a balancing act, I believe organizations should yield towards a manufacturing release model that enables and greases the wheels of the organization from front to back, keeping the concern alive and well. And that is likely to look more like a periodic release model driven by the sales and marketing need. Saving Changes...
Anonymous
Thanks all. I think the "draw the line in the sand" approach is essentially what's needed. Better to come out with something good/great and work toward perfection in the long run, than to aim for perfection out of the gate. Saving Changes...
