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.