Challenge

Re-vitalize through new product introductions the neglected core business segment.

  Over a period of years, the development resources of the core business segment (call it  Segment A) were stripped away in order to support an emerging , faster growing  business segment (call it Segment B) that had already exceeded the revenue of Segment  A

  Segment A was comprised of many varied products and families of products that were  used to make similar types of components but which were different in design. The  applications and end markets were numerous. However, revenue from new products  was flat over several years reflecting the lack of investment, technically and marketing- wise. Still opportunities seem to exist.

  Segment B grew rapidly, as its end market exploded driven by technology advancement.  Competition in Segment B’s market was fierce. Product performance advantage drove  adoptions and technology advanced relatively quickly. When competition overcame  performance advantage, price was used to mitigate share erosion until performance  advantage could be regained. Hence, the felt need to increase Segment B resource level.

  The overall business was becoming quickly synonymous with Segment B, which made it  vulnerable to Segment B’s single application, single market and limited customer base.

  Even two years after restoring Segment A’s resources, performance fell significantly  short of promises both in terms of new product introductions and revenue generated.

  The Business Unit Vice President expressed strong disappointment in the Segment A  Manager and the Business Manager (Segment A Manager’s boss) and sought  reassurance than the past failures would not be repeated.

  Better tracking and prioritization process were launched to improve execution.  However, the approach to new business development and new product introduction  remained basically unchanged. Except for a recent hire of a new Research Director, the  management and support across functions remained unchanged.

Selection

Visualization –charts, diagrams, cartoons, maps, photos, videos, performances and anything which one  sees as a means to surface and resolve discord with that presented or missing; so that, the final edited  depictions are  ones on which all agree are accurate and appropriate for the problem. While being used  here for problem definition, visualization could be used to create discussions and alignment throughout  the entire Design Thinking process. (Ref:  Angela Meyer video on Visualization in the Week 1 material)

  Visualization is a means which could lead to a consensus understanding of the  challenge, and all relevant conditions, considerations and gaps that should be addressed  for a successful outcome.

  It enables a holistic, strategic assessment of the “environmental” factors that influence  success.

  It is a means to capture/consider the inputs from all stakeholders and subject matter  experts.

  Visualization builds ownership and teamwork by assuring the voices of key  people/functions are heard at the beginning.

  It is a means to assimilate all relevant information that enables people to more readily  identify levers that might enable success and weaknesses that could lead to failure.

  It is a process that takes more time and cost than you want to spend but less time and  cost than fixing issues resulting from a poor understanding and redress of the current  state

I think visualization would have aligned all stakeholders on the factors that influenced segment  management decisions and execution. Visualization requires one to communicate through images which  helps clarify “what, when, how and with whom”  for review and discussion.

Although most of us had worked together for several years, my stakeholders still were a diverse group - functionally, by organizational level, by nationality, by language and by training/education. We didn’t  hear or process information the same way. We hadn’t the same understanding or experiences.   Pictures/diagrams/process maps and the opportunity to edit them would have helped us create and  ensure a common understanding of the current state.

Application

First, I would describe the current state as well as possible through graphs, diagrams, and process maps.  This would include expectations, performance and a review of a representative sample of projects. I  would annotate the diagrams and process maps with sketches, cartoon and photos. I would incorporate  input from the two managers that were key stakeholders. Second, I would seek corrections,  amendments and comments from the people in Research, Technical Service, Marketing, Sales and  Business Management that were performing or supporting the activities. In particular, I would seek to  learn about their execution problems and the barriers and challenges they faced. Finally, after having  gathered the inputs I would try to synthesize 2-3 definitions of the current state based upon these  inputs and the starting materials.  These definitions then would be used in the “What If” stage to  develop families of possible re-vitalization through new product solutions.

Insight

As I thought about using visualization for defining “What Is”, I struggled with scope and what to include  and what not; what has been missed. I try to imagine the activity itself and the people who would  participate. What information would they feel was needed; what information or resulting discussions

would enhance their engagement. I wonder how best to present information and perspectives. I am  sketching on paper the activities, defining them and considering how they relate. I am creating a mental  image of the interactions.  Basically, I am visualizing the construct of the visualization that I would use to  enable definition of the “What Is” state.

Approach

Rather than first developing the exercise material alone, I could engage the two other stakeholders from  the start. Doing so, the work load would be shared and the preparation time reduced but more  importantly, they would have ownership from the start and the materials would reflect consensus.

Another alternate approach was tried. The projected number of new product commercializations and  the resulting revenue was challenged based upon history but the challenge proved insufficient to  meaningfully alter the management approach and the results. This alternate approach failed because  the issues of the current state were not sufficiently understood and hence, interest in an alternate  management approach was not developed.

