#315 from Innovative Leader Volume 6, Number 12          December 1997

FORUM—from our readers

Too Much Change?

I work in R&D for a high-tech company that intends to remain the leader in our product field.  We have a group of pretty clever research scientists, and we’re always looking out for new methods to achieve our goals more rapidly.

Because this is such a fast-moving field, there’s a new method published just about every couple of months.  Our VP of R&D is paranoid that one of these methods is going to be used by a competing company and will give it the winning edge.  Therefore, at least twice a year, we’re told to drop the method we’ve been using, and learn the new technique. 

This, of course, wastes a lot of time.  Even if the new method is relatively easy to accommodate, we still have to get “into the rhythm.”  That can take quite a bit of energy as the scientists first have to become facile with it; and then they have to train the technicians.  Then, months later, the VP urges us to use yet another new way of measuring or producing something. 

Fortunately, our VP has a good sense of humor.  When he comes around, we can say directly to him, “Oh no, not another system!”  We’ve also learned that some of these techniques aren’t as good as claimed.  Therefore, we have sometimes gone back to the “old” method—at least for a while.

This article, however, is not meant as an opportunity to complain.  Just the opposite.  It turns out that because of all the experience our department has with so many different methods, we have become extremely flexible.  Several of the methods, while they didn’t turn out useful for the intended purpose, found their way into other projects.

But the main benefit of our experiences with so many methods, is that we have recently developed a technique that we feel will keep us at the forefront for quite a while.  This is a hybrid of two published methods plus a method developed in-house.  It’s a technique that is key to developing our next class of products. We are, of course, keeping this technique a secret.

The lesson here is that varied experiences provide not only new knowledge, but also confidence that it’s not so difficult to change.  That confidence wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for our VP “forcing” us to change so many times.

When competition is breathing down your neck, change should be a key ingredient in your strategy, even if you don’t know what’s going to change.

Anonymous