A little conflict goes a long way

Whenever you are working a group decision making environment, disagreements are natural with a 100% chance that they are going to happen. Unless every member of the team has the exact personality and ideals, no important decision will be made without someone going against the grain. Although arguments may appear negative, in truth, they are almost necessary for effective decision making. People work better when they have an optimal amount of stress, in my opinion. Of course, there have to be stipulations that must be followed so as not to turn a harmless discussion turn into a wrestling match. Something I feel is most necessary to have an effective, conflicting decision-making process is an effective team leader. The input of the group is the most important, and you want everyone to feel that their voices are being heard and not getting lost in the noise. Still, not matter how much you plan and execute a group discussion, it is easy for things to get out of hand immediately. When the team leader sees this happening, it is his or her job to settle the confrontation. He or she cannot just sit back, participate to an extent, and hope the continuous debate ends. I know from personal experience that this usually does not work. The article called "How Management Teams Can Have a Good Fight" calls this tactic "consensus with qualification."

My only problem with this is the way it might appear to others. As a team leader, I would rather redirect the discussion than just make a decision on my own based on the team input. Only in extreme situations should an executive decision be made. The group may feel that their efforts were for nothing. In truth, this isn't the case at all, but what your employees see is what they really see. You can't necessarily tell them how to feel about a situation. When they feel like they are being underutilized, or there hard work wasn't appreciated, the morale and mental attitude of the group can change greatly. It is more important to have a motivated, effective, and participating group than make one simple decision. When using these tactics involving conflict, you must think about the long term effects on the employees. If bickering is a common situation, some may be turned off by it.

Keep The Creative Juices Flowing

Something we have discussed several times this year is the continuous creative process. To keep up with the market, it is more and more important to keep up with the changing trends and needs in the market/industry. This week, we read an article called Developing Products on Internet Time. The basic idea is to continually integrate any feedback and updated needs to the developing product. Traditionally, companies feel the need to release their products as soon as possible, so as to stay ahead of the curve, especially when creating a new product. Throwing the idea out into the market can be enough to create buzz and put you company's name at the front line of the product life cycle. In this case, delaying the release is not a bad thing. It's more important, and to some extent I agree, to keep up with dynamic consumer needs because in the end, they are the most important piece of the puzzle. If they don't find your product useful at that specific moment in time, then they are not even going to buy into the idea. If your product doesn't sell, then you've just lost a lot of time, money, and possibly respect. With consumers as fickle as they are, every move a company makes has to be strategically placed in the product development process.

Although it seems easy enough to take continuous feedback into consideration through this flexible product development process, but how do you keep a competitive advantage against other industry competitors? No matter what, in the end, if you miss that chance to get ahead, that could hurt you more than imaginable. I think the most obvious solution is to utilize the Internet much more. I know the article talks about Internet time, but that time quickly diminishing everyday. As fast as information can be attained on the Internet, it is becoming more difficult to compete with other companies. Because this article was written in the nineties, the future importance of the Internet wasn't even fathomed yet.

Another point I wanted to make was about the importance of the company's insight. Although consumer needs are vital to creating worthwhile products, product developers sometimes have to take matters into their own hands and focus on what they feel may be the right decision. A lot of consumers don't even know what they want, and if that is the case, company's have a chance to sort put their two cents in. Customers will take or leave this information, but it will at least get them thinking.

Sometimes Its Better to Just Jump

The concept of a life cycle has been used for years and years, and has been slowly applied to different topics. Although the visual representation of the concept has evolved over the years, it is still the same basic set-up: you have a rapid decline, a plateau, and then a steady decline to it's end. For marketers, the product life cycle is something they must completely understand and pay attention to. No matter what point a product may be on, it is always important to pay attention to what has happened in the past, what the current situation is, and what to expect in the future. In the article Darwin and the Demon, the life cycle of innovation is discussed. The term "innovation" is a very vague term, but the author, Geoffrey A. Moore, separates it into eight separate types. Moore states that there is no way to choose the "best" one. Just because you may think your company is the best at something, doesn't mean you are guaranteed a competitive advantage. On the one hand, I do agree with this statement. You can't focus on one aspect of product management and expect not to get left behind. Companies must be competent in all eight types of innovation, at the right times. The corporate world can be very cut throat, and you don't want to end up making it to the ocean when it is already red.

Still, I believe that there is something that companies should strive to be better at than their competition: the first three innovations in the life cycle, which are Disruptive, Application, and Product Innovations. Last we week, we discussed Guy Kawasaki's concept of "curve jumping." Once a certain product or technology is on the decline, such as land-line telephones, the next new product will already be growing, like the exponential growth in cellular phones. Curve jumping implies being on the front line of new, developing products so your company is never completely on the decline.

Since both of these cycles (product use and innovation) basically overlap, shouldn't it be important to also stay on top of the first stages of the innovation cycle? They are all the initial steps into creating a new and unique product. The other five (process, marketing, business model, ad structural) are almost secondary to the first three. By creating committees or sectors strictly focusing on what problems may arise in society, and how these issues can be solved, product developers will be on the front line of development. This can also apply to current products, and concepts such as product rejuvenation. With new needs in society popping up all the time, but consumers still wanting to have some consistency in their lives, becoming leaders in disruptive, application, and product innovations will only help. Companies need to be aware of these voids that may occur, even if the consumer doesn't know what is coming.

The bottom line is this: Although it may not seem externally obvious, if companies focus on beginning stages of innovation, they will have more of an opportunity to have consistent productivity. This is no way promises an automatic competitive advantage in the marketplace, but will give companies the upper-hand when it comes to curve jumping, which should be the ultimate goal.

Too Cool for School

Companies are always trying to stay on the cutting edge of what is considered "cool" to their target market. Sometimes companies are the ones who actually determine what is the newest craze. This week, I read an article discussing Activision's extreme sports line of video games. The first game of that series released was Tony Hawk Pro Skater, which was a a huge success. At the time, the skateboarding scene was very popular and the game itself was very advanced. With the success of that game, Activision continued on the trend of extreme sports. Years later, they released Kelly Slater's Pro Surfer. Despite the popularity of Tony Hawk, it didn't do as well as expected.

Activision is only one of many businesses where product developers use concepts such as sports, music, etc. and create a product based on that idea. The goal is to use some idea or activity that is highly regarded by the target market, whether they actually participate in it or not. For some, it is almost a way to live a life they could only dream of. I think that this is a great idea in some product formats, especially video games.

Still, there always has to be another side to the situation. There are two issues to address: 1) How do you keep track of changes in what is considered cool and 2) how do you attract people who actually participate in the activity?

Issue #1: Because consumer taste is constantly changing, it is vital to stay on top of trends before they even hit. How do you do this you may ask? There are lots of options. Like I said before, be the pioneer. We've been learning about innovation, and this is a time where this comes into play. The main goal is to be ahead of the pack as much as possible, whether it involves regular surveys, focus groups, or staying in constant contact with members of their target market. Marketing research needs to go above and beyond for this goal. Companies should be more like the fashion industry. They pay attention to whats going on in society whether it is entertainment or politics, and create trends for us to follow. People are easily swayed if something interests them, but it is important not to get to controlling because the market will NOT be receptive if something is forced down their throat.

Issue #2: Video games like Guitar Hero have continued to grow for the past couple of years since its release. There are clubs and even competitions for this games. It gives people a chance to feel like "real" musicians, even if they have no experience with a guitar or any musical instrument. I would assume that this is Guitar Hero's target market. What about people who actually play musical instruments or have some kind of musical ability? I know from experience that many people may be turned off by such a concept. They feel as if it is almost mocking their talents. This same idea goes for novels that have been turned into movie productions. People who are a fan of the book maybe very unexcited about about the visual representation, especially when directors change the story to make it more appealing to a general audience. To counteract this, companies should either be more honest and remind the market that these are only simulations, not replacements of the real thing, or they can give their inspiration more credit or embrace it more.

Who Knows What a Consumer Really Wants

New and innovative product design is something that all companies strive for. Whether it is creating a completely new product category, or just improving upon what the current standard is, companies realize that if they stand still for too long, they will get left behind by their competitors. A good product manager know that before you can focus on the profits, you have to keep the consumer's opinions and wants in mind while designing a product. This week, I read an article explaining the process of empathetic design. Basically, the concept implies that companies should focus on the real or perceived needs of their customers. It involves truly understanding, and analyzing the information gained about behaviors, and what consumers really look for in a product.

One interesting point in the article is about how companies should appease to the consumers needs, or create the needs they may not necessarily realize exists. As for the latter, there are a few ways to look at it. I do agree to some extent that consumers honestly don't know exactly what they want. As a consumer myself, I've definitely felt this way before. Creating demand in the market is important for sustaining longevity of a product. The question is: when has this gone to far? Although for some people this isn't true, I personally don't like to be told what I need to satisfy my needs and wants. How can a company still stimulate the need for the product without being too forceful? A balance between the two is key. It is important to make consumers feel like they have a choice, but not lessen the value of that freedom by shoving a new product down their throat.

Another article I read this week discussed "how to design the perfect product." The authors discuss, to great length, the value of recreating simple concepts. For example, the potato peeler is brought up. Although useful, potato peelers aren't complex products. The authors talk about adding more comfortable handles to them, etc. With additions like these, products move towards the top in technology and style. With that move comes a higher expense for the consumers. If a company is going to make such changes to a product, it is absolutely necessary for them to be deemed necessary and have some value to the consumer. If I'm going to pay more just for the aesthetics and style, it is going to take more effort for that company. Just because a product is newly designed doesn't mean it is going to sell solely based on that one aspect. Consumers enjoy what they are familiar and aren't always receptive of change.

The bottom line is this: companies have a great power. They have the opportunity sway and influence the society with their work. This power must be harnessed, and not used to take advantage of customers.

In With The Old, and Out With The New?

Product rejuvenation is one of the topics that I read about this week. This concept involves the reintroduction of an abandoned product or one with a quickly declining consumer interest. It is inevitable that hundreds of products will lose their touch, but the question is, what do you do next? There are basically two options, either clear the drawing board and start over, or recreate the same idea and put it back on the market. There are many advantages to product rejuvenation such as less risk, lower costs, less time necessary, cheaper market share, and hopefully higher profits. These are all prime factors in the decision process, and a good manager is always look for the most effective and efficient route.

Although this may seem like a perfect route to take, and I do believe that is has the potential to be very successful, this article really just touched the surface. Before making any business decision, especially one of this magnitude, any good business man know that you have to weigh the pros AND the cons. One apparent advantage is that you already have a captive audience. Because of this, it may seem that it is going to take less effort to win those "old users" over again. In one sense, this is true. Consumers that were avid users of a certain product will become nostalgic when they hear that brand or product they used to buy years ago. At the same time, brand loyalty can only go so far. With all of the changes our society is constantly going through, that product that was widely accepted and utilize five years ago maybe obsolete now. The general concept of the product may still be useful, but some drastic changes will have to made to appease those "old users." This isn't to say that some consumers will purchase something just for its nostalgic value, but to keep a product in the market much longer, more needs to be done to sustain its success.

A lot of it depends on the goals of the company. One reason a company may use product rejuvenation is to fill in a gap between productivity periods. For example, a typical scenario could be that Company A needs more time to fully develop their newest product. In the mean time, the revival of a past successful product could buy more time, and keep their brand fresh in the minds of their consumers. This is more of a short term goal. Another use for rejuvenation, in terms of a new product release, could be to show consumers that their "favorite" company is not leaving their roots, but just branching off to different area. Most people can respect and appreciate an entity trying to make change for the future, but still retaining their identity.

The bottom line is this: consumers, especially older ones, will at least consider the idea of a product that has been reintroduced to the market. At the same time, although this may not seem very risky, that is not the case. The fact that a product was well-established in the past does not guarantee it a future, even if it revamped.

If You Can't Take The Heat...

Creativity and innovation. These are two concepts that obviously don't just happen by themselves. Right? In the article "Hot Groups," from Havard Business Review, that theory is tested. The term hot group refers to a very active, dedicated, intense collection of people set out to use these characteristics to create something that is unbeatable. The people that make up a hot group are what you might call workaholics. They live, eat, and sleep their work, constantly fixated on the task at hand.. For a hot group to flourish, there are of course several stipulations that have to be followed. Basically, you have to treat them differently most other employees. As long as the hot group is being productive, special treatment may seem justified.

According to the article, hot groups are only effective in short bursts. Obviously, you can only ask so much of your employees. If employees are worked too hard, there is a natural reaction to burn out. I understand the concept of having a "hot group," but in my opinion, I would rather retain a group of people like this for as long as possible instead of just hoping for a small burst of intensity every once in awhile. Even if they aren't necessarily apart of the hot group, I would still want those employees to remain productive within the company. This article somewhat relates the importance of clever people in an organization. They know how much of an asset they are to the company, but everything has to remain in retrospect to the company's overlying goals.

Although this article states that hot groups cannot necessarily be formed and only grown, I believe that it is still possible to create a group a passionate individuals who will work just as hard as a so called "hot group." This past week, I attended the Concert Industry Consortium (CIC) where important executives from all aspects of the music business came to network and learn about new trends in the market. Not all, but in my opinion, several of the firms represened at the conference could be considered hot groups. And when I call them a hot group, I am referring to their dedication to their own cause. These people are so passionate about what they do. They live and breathe their work, and their day in the office almost never ends at 5:00 pm. Working a 12-18 hour day is normal for some.

I will admit that forming a group like this isn't easy at all. Careful orchestration is necessary to do so. At the same time though, it isn't smart to rule out the possibility, as a manager, of creating a bubble of energy from your employees.