 |
By Bryce Ruttier, CEO, Metaphase
Design Group, Inc.
Your company has innovative product ideas and the designs are really
cool, but the products are still falling flat in the market tests.
What started as a great idea somehow got derailed along the way.
Here are three of the most common early warning signs of a product's
downward spiral.
Feature Creep Syndrome
Feature creep is one of the most common mistakes made by project
teams, regardless of product or company. It primarily manifests
itself in two ways. In the dawning of a new product, team members
begin the task of defining product functionality and features. Using
traditional methods such as competitive product matrices and focus
groups, soliciting feedback from your company's sales force and
drawing on senior management's vision, the project team develops
their initial concept of what the product will be when it grows
up. This process is heavily based on what other manufacturers offer
and "educated guesses" by senior management.
From a sociological standpoint, an interesting thing happens during
this phase. Features are traded and bartered between team members,
in covert and overt ways, with each individual trying to promote
"their" list of features and functionality. There is a lot of "I'll
agree to having feature A if you agree to inclusion of function
B" bartering. The inclusion of features and functionality are a
direct result of the process. What's missing is the voice of the
consumer – the person who will ultimately will belly up to
the bar, crack their wallet and dig deep into those hard earned
dollars.
The second place feature creep manifests itself is after the initial
product definition, and it may occur throughout the rest of the
development cycle. The scenario is the same regardless of timeline
or industry. Typically, a management level individual who has decision
making authority attends a meeting and sets a competitor's product
or ad on the tabletop and clearly illustrates a feature this competitor's
product possesses that is not included in the current product spec.
Because this product was just released, the team perceives it as
the state-of-the-art. As it routinely unfolds, the heretic makes
their case to the team, and, in most cases, because of their rank,
the team argues about the implications of change, but eventually
agrees and adds the feature. Again, note that the decision making
process does not include the consumer. Furthermore, it's easy to
envision that the longer the project, the greater exposure you have
to inclusion of more features. The cost of feature creep escalates
exponentially as such changes are absorbed further into the development
program. Feature creep is reactionary and a defensive strategy,
and as a result rarely adds significant consumer value.
Redskin Syndrome
Remember Redskin? Redskin is a renowned mind reader who can close
his eyes, rally the energies of the ages and see into your mind,
accurately guessing what you are thinking. Maybe you have a few
Redskin wannabe on your team. Have you ever been in a meeting
when another team member proselytizes what this product needs to
be – "I have been in this business long enough to know exactly
what our customers want and need." In many cases, these heretics
come from sales and marketing areas, have spent time in the field,
and have had a significant amount of one-to-one customer contact.
But would you allow your family doctor to perform heart surgery
on you because he has observed cardiologists-even though he isn't
one himself? Probably not.
The Because We Can Syndrome
The Because We Can Syndrome is typically driven by the technical
folks on the team. No doubt, you have been there on this one, especially
if you live in the high tech medical, telecommunications, or computer
industries. The conversation typically unfolds as follows. "Hey,
the same chip set with a little code can also provide X, Y and Z
functionalities." The response is predictable – "Cool, let's
do it!" The view held by these individuals is that by providing
more features you automatically provide more value to the consumer.
Conversely, what project team members see as "cool & novel features"
consumers often see as nothing more than noise in the system.
Consumers do not view the added features as being important, and
quickly assume that they are paying money for features they do not
need and will never use. These superfluous features add complexity
to the user interface either through the addition of hard keys,
by adding graphic complexity to the display or extra layers to the
software hierarchy. Time and again, the addition of such features
has a direct negative impact on intuitiveness, ease-of-use, and
learning.
Your best defense for any of these project derailers is to go back
to your research. That's where the answers are. Talk with your customers.
Watch them. Find their truth.
This article first appeared in the January
2001 issue of DMI News.
|
