Innovation, Technical Risk, and Schedule Risk

by Dr. Mike Shipulski

There is a healthy tension between level of improvement, or level of innovation, and time to market. Marketing wants radical improvement, infinitely short project schedules, and no change to the product. Engineers want to sign up for the minimum level of improvement, project schedules sufficiently long to study everything to death, and want to change everything about the new product. It's healthy because there is balance - both are pulling equally hard in opposite directions and things end up somewhere in the middle. It's not a stress-free environment, but it's not too bad. But, sometimes the tension is unhealthy.

There are two flavors of unhealthy tension. First is when engineering has too much pull; they (we) sandbag on product performance and project timelines and change the design willy-nilly simply because they can (and it's fun). The results are long project timelines, highly innovative designs that don't work well, a lack of product robustness, and a boatload of new parts and assemblies. (Product complexity.) Second is when Marketing has too much pull; they ask for radical improvement in product functionality with project timelines too short for the level of innovation, and tightly constrain product changes such that solutions are not within the constraints. The results are long project timelines and un-innovative designs that don't meet product specifications. (The solutions are outside the constraints.) Both sides are at fault in both scenarios. There are no clean hands.

What are the fundamentals behind all this gamesmanship? For engineering it's technical risk; for marketing it's schedule risk. Engineering minimizes what it signs up for in order to reduce technical risk and petitions for long project timelines to reduce it. Marketing minimizes product changes (constraints) to reduce schedule risk and petitions for short project timelines to reduce it. (Product development teams work harder with short schedules.) Something's got to change.

The relationship between innovation and technical risk must be changed. For every unit measure of innovation there must be less technical risk. Or, conversely, for every unit measure of technical risk there must be more innovation. Sounds great, but how? Well, deep questions like this deserve deep answers, answers that only the great philosophers can provide. As it turns out, the great American philosopher (and baseball player) Yogi Berra provides the answer:


"If you don't know where you are going, you will end up somewhere else."


"Where we are going", our destination, is a solution to a technical problem which the innovation process winds us toward, and the probability we'll "end up somewhere else", getting lost, is technical risk. We've got to know where we're going if we're to have any hope of getting there.

The key to getting there is problem definition. Not the regular kind, but the physics-capturing kind; the kind that is expressed simply, with regular nouns and verbs, that can be explained to non-technical folks, and fits on one page.

It is a better way to distill problems rather than dilute them; to clearly, simply, and unambiguously define problems using words we can all understand; to trust, but verify. I call it One Page Thinking.

One Page Thinking is a method to define a problem at its most basic level so that everyone can understand it. There are a couple simple rules for One Page Thinking:

1. Each problem must be defined on one page.
   
2. There can be only one problem on a page.

Problem definition of this type is powerful and difficult, and it's the key to innovation. Once the real problem is defined, once the physics are understood and can be described plainly, the problem is solved, and the destination is close-at-hand.


Here is an example of One Page Thinking for the problem of being overweight:


The physical elements of the system are represented as blocks labeled with nouns (PERSON, FOOD, CALORIES); the actions are represented as arrows labeled with verbs (EATS, PROVIDES, POWER). The undesirable action is represented by a red arrow and an X in front of the verb (X MAKE).

All technical problems - even complicated ones - can be distilled into this type of simple diagram, but it can only be done if your technical staff truely understands the problem. True understanding is required to translate complex physics and math into simple nouns and verbs and to translate complex interactions into straightforward block diagrams. And, likely most importantly, true understanding is required to stand up in front of a CEO with only a single slide consisting of a block diagram and simple nouns and verbs.

So, if you want to find out if your technical staff understands the problem at hand, ask them for a one page block diagram using simple nouns and verbs.

Not many have seen or done this one-page, physics-capturing problem definition. And it's power is severely underestimated and poorly understood. I'm sure many think I'm off my rocker when I say that one-page, physics-capturing problem definition is the key to innovation. But, I stick by my assertion. Once this hyper-rigorous problem solving helps you know where you are going, innovation can be as straightforward as entering a street address into your GPS.


Don't miss an article - Subscribe to our RSS feed and join our Continuous Innovation group!

---

Dr. Mike Shipulski (certfied TRIZ practioner) brings together the best of TRIZ, Axiomatic Design, Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (2006 DFMA Contributer of the Year), and lean to develop new products and technologies. His blog can be found at Shipulski On Design.