Velocity is an omnipresent theme in product engineering today. It means getting to market in the shortest time possible, expending the fewest resources, using maximum efficiency and creating the highest-quality product. To achieve product-development velocity, many manufacturers follow a standard process such as Six Sigma Advanced Product Quality Planning (APQP) or New Product Introduction (NPI), and they rely on engineers who are certified in those processes.

Although a standard process by its very nature provides an important framework, at the same time, it can also foster inflexibility. This could suppress creativity and innovation. Today's global marketplace demands companies continuously re-evaluate the way they do business and how they develop new products. Accordingly, the best practice is not a specific, standard process, but the specific best process for the application at that time.

Five Steps
Without proper directions or a clear roadmap, it's easy to arrive at the wrong destination. The same is true with new product-development initiatives. In this case, a roadmap helps to maintain the critical balance between the various elements of product development. This depends on five elements.

First, understand the opportunity statement and the end-vision. The key to developing any road map is to know the desired destination. Begin with the end in mind.

Second, quantify the functional requirements based on the voice of the stakeholders: the customer, the shareholders and the people who participate in the process.

Many companies consider standard processes to be inflexible, unmovable objects that cannot be customized to meet specific business needs. But if there is one thing that is worse than not following any process, it is forcing everyone to march to the drum of a specific process when it is not the most efficient or effective way of developing a particular product. When the engineers who are in the trenches doing the work can see obvious process inefficiencies or are forced to fit a square peg into a round hole, it creates disengagement and wastes time and resources.

Take the example of a plant that decided to implement a process akin to the Toyota Production System. It did a poor job of internal public relations and failed to engage the employees who were charged with achieving the increased efficiencies. If management had listened to the voice of these people, it would have become obvious the proposed efficiency gains would be detrimental to the longevity of the company. These employees knew very well the business was not in a growing market space. While management focused on shareholders, it missed the input of the people needed to implement the process. The employees never came on board. The plant was eventually forced to close and consolidate its product line into another facility.

Listening to the voice of the customer is equally vital. Some years ago, a consumer products company decided to break into the Japanese market. As a few products began to show excellent sales, it decided to take its entire product line to Japan. One of those products, a doormat to be used on the inside of the door, did not sell at all. The manufacturer was mystified. If it had listened to the voice of the customer, it would have heard that people do not wear shoes inside homes in Japan and therefore have no need for inside doormats.

If a process takes all three voices into account – shareholders, employees and customers – any other challenge can be overcome. Third, understand the feasibility of the process. Every development process in every industry is challenged by three factors: limited human resources, insufficient time or an inadequate budget.

Step back and ask: Are money, resources and time available to execute this process well? If not, evaluate how the problem with the respective resource can be overcome, or alternatively, develop a different process that still remains true to steps 1 and 2.

Fourth, take action. If all the requirements of the first three steps are met, the plan is feasible and can be implemented. Fifth, continuously evaluate the process. This final step is the one most frequently omitted. Even companies that devote a great deal of time to developing and implementing an efficient process and balancing their limited resources often forget to assess whether or not their process is still viable.

Because marketplace demands change rapidly, it's important for every company to continuously reevaluate its situation, the manner in which it conducts its business and the process it uses to develop its products. Standard processes such as APQP or Six Sigma can serve as general guidelines, but they should never become rigid formulas. Just because U.S. engineering culture is driven by certification in standard processes, these processes are not always value-added. Following them rigidly can add to the cost of doing business without adding value. By definition, a standard process process is inside the box and successful companies know that innovation depends on people thinking outside the box.

Engaging People
The primary limiting factor in North American engineering today is human resources. As such, increasing the engagement and efficiency of people is the most critical challenge in the management of product development. This requires technical professionals who have subject-matter expertise, organizational skills and empathy for the people in the trenches.

However, people with excellent technical skills and subject-matter expertise do not always make good managers of people. They lack the skills needed to lead teams, engage the hearts and minds of people and create the synergy that drives high-level performance. Conversely, many competent managers of people are not technically proficient. It is rare to find a team leader who is highly technically skilled and has the people skills to encourage team members to reach their full potential.

An additional challenge is to create an environment where team leaders and team members can operate free of political pressure. Take the case of an equipment manufacturer's NPI manager who turned the proverbial blind eye to a systems development team when it circumvented the due diligence process. The team's manager had allowed team leaders to validate designs and processes without true testing or verification. His justification was that the time required to perform such functions would put the program at risk of not meeting its targeted release date. Although the team met the project's time metric, the lack of due diligence caused downstream disruptions. In effect, the NPI manager traded being timely for an unknown risk of program disaster. From the perspective of the internal (embedded) manager, being late reflected directly on the team's performance, which he considered more important than the success of the program itself.

If some or all development team members had reported to a business process outsourcing (BPO) manager, it would have assured the necessary political separation to identify and prevent the overall program failure. In short, it is easier for external sources to tell the truth because they are not subject to bias in their reporting. External BPO managers can disseminate fact without the internal pressure of serving as a messenger who might be mistaken for the message.

No Right Answer
What is the best product development process? There is no right answer. The solution is to continually evaluate what can make the operation more effective and efficient at achieving its goals.

A clear roadmap and a robust plan are necessary to reach the destination, but they should never lead through an endless maze of rigid guidelines or bureaucratic dead ends. Remember, innovation is king, and continuous change is necessary to stay in business.

Michael J. Harmon is junior partner and John T. Kelley is sales engineer with eServ LLC, headquartered in Peoria, Ill. For more information, visit www.eserv.biz or call 800-304-3454