IMPROVING THE PRODUCT

DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AT
KIRKHAM INSTRUMENTS
CORP.

Submitted by:

27NMP22 Mukesh Kumar Sahu

27NMP43 Amit Gujjewar
27NMP51 Komal Tagra

ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE

PERCEIVED MANAGEMENT
PROBLEMS/ISSUES
Company having a tough time supplying
customers looking for systems that integrate
functions of multiple pieces of lab equipment
Each
business unit (Mass Spectrometer,
Chromatography, Optical Equipment, Waterloo
Instruments) working on too many projects
No universally accepted definitions for project
types
Strategy
does not help prioritize resource
allocation

AGGREGATE PROJECT PLAN:

Consumer Value Perception
Enabling
Technology

New Core
Product

New
Benefits

Low
Resource

Improvement

Moderate
Resource

Variant

High
Resource

No Change
Breakthrough

Radical
Platform
Next
Generation

Derivative
Incremental
Product
Support
Base

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 strategy
Match between project type and organizational
form allows for a focus on the generation of
competence
Focus builds speed and productivity for the
individual and the organization

AN INNOVATION FUNNEL EXAMPLE

Gatekeeper
Gatekeeper
Gatekeeper
Gatekeeper

Idea

Feasibility

Generation
Initial marketing
and technical
concepts

Concept
refinement and
prototype
creation

Product
optimization

Contract
Charter
One page description of
proposed project including
objective, rationale and
development routes. Early
Commercial Assessment

Launch &
Rollout

Capability

Cross-functional
development plan
including project plan as
contract between team and
Gatekeeper.

Commercialization
Production &
Distribution

Launch
Proposal
Launch Plan including
CEP approval request.

Post
Launch
Review
Tracks success of and
key learnings from
launched products

KEY
= GATE
= DOCUMENT

GATES:

are major milestones

are intended to allow passage of the projects more
likely to succeed by sacrificing projects more likely to
fail as early as possible
focus 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; or
Stop working on the project, shelving it or canceling
it; or
Get additional information and reconsider the
project for passage through the same gate once that
information becomes available

EXAMPLE: THE KEY QUESTIONS

ANSWERED BY EACH PHASE
Portfolio
Review

Idea
Generation

E
N
T
E
R

Phase
Review 1

Phase 1:
Concept
Investigation

Does the idea fit

roughly with our
strategy and
resource
availability?
If yes, then
concept document
approved
& sub-team
allocated

Phase
Review 2

Phase 2:
Feasibility

Does the product

make sense from
marketing,
technical &
financial
perspectives?
If yes, then
concept
approved
& full team
allocated

Phase
Review 3

Phase 3:
Development

What is the
product spec?
Can we develop it
within budget and
schedule?
Can we produce it
at the required cost
& volume?
If yes, then
prototype
approved
& full team
allocated

Phase 4:
Post
Release

Has the product

been fully verified
and validated?
Have production
objectives been
met?
If yes, then
full manufacturing
approved
& sub-team
allocated

Phase
Review 4

E Current
X Product
I Support
T

Is the product
meeting safety,
efficacy and
business targets
in the market?
If yes, then
closeout
approved
& handoff to
product support

Example: Pipeline View by Stage and Project Focus

NonResourced

Pre-Segment
Review, But
Resourced

Recurrent
activities

Launch

Concept
Development

Concept
Exploration

Execution

Business Case
Development
Gate 3

Gate 2
Gate I
Less
than
$xM

Between $xM
and $xM

Between $xM
and $xM

Note: Cross hatching indicates non-resourced concept exploration projects

Greater
than $xM

Postlaunch
review

MAKING A FUNNEL WORK:

Formally:
Pacing

the funnel to the needs of the business, not

the other way around
Involving key decision makers early

Informally:

Leadership:

tolerating high respect, high conflict

debate
Trust: but this would only work if we told the
truth
Consistency

TIME LINE OF DEVELOPMENTS

Nov 15-19 1995 New product development seminar with Harvard profs

Feb 16 1996 One day crash course with Derrick

Feb 17 1996 Bad meeting of Executive Committee with Derrick

Apr 1 1996 Hoole presents diagrams, etc. at Quarterly Executive Conference

Sep 1996 Review and audit by Derrick, Fetzer-Woolley to present report soon

MISTAKES THAT WERE MADE

Education and training

Delegation to Quinn

Just avoiding decisions, will feed back what they are

told

Documents for
decision-making

She had responsibility but no real power, Donaldson

not interested in actual details

Hiring Fetzer-Woolley

Done by external people, too early in advance of any

action

communication

rather

Really hard to produce, for very little or no result

Started by trying to cut projects from total list

Managers were given incentive to hide projects

than

THE SITUATION NOW AS OF SEP

1996

Exhibit 9

Aggregate project planning and Charters only used to aid

upward communication rather than linking strategy with
NPD
Decision making not altered as intended; market potential
and tech feasibility used as primary criteria instead of
strategy
Projects starting outside the funnel, thus not able to control
projects in-house
Projects not reviewed as planed; hidden if falls behind
Writing of gate-documents not prodding people to think in a
cross functional sense
3-6 projects/ person
Project leaders not well trained in PM
Personnel transfers inhibiting the new culture
Rank-and-file employees not confident on management

CORE ISSUES
Role of Donaldson in the management of
the company
Incentive structure for managers of
separate business units
Allocation of resources within the
company

ALTERNATIVES WHAT THEY CAN DO

NOW?

Short term
Try

the approach that Derrick champions within one or

more individual units

Long term
Go

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
functionality
Develop a useful strategy
Develop consistent integrated information system for
both communication and planning

Thank You