by Jeffrey Gotro on May 8, 2012
In our previous series of posts we have been discussing how to get technology from the research phase to the product development stage and ultimately to the market. So why have we spent this much time on the topic? Innovation drives growth. Cost cutting doesn’t. When Steve Jobs came back to Apple in 1997 he assessed the situation by saying “The cure for Apple is not cost cutting. The cure for Apple is to innovate its way out of its current predicament.” That statement should be a rallying cry for companies facing an uncertain future. Looking back, it is clear that Apple figured out how to innovate.
A recent article in the May 2012 Harvard Business Review by Ann Marie Knott entitled “The Trillion-Dollar R&D Fix” presented evidence that many big name companies are seriously under spending on R&D and that it is costing them profits and growth. She completed a simulation that showed if the top 20 firms traded on the US exchanges had optimized their R&D spending in 2010 using her mathematical simulation, the collective increase in the market cap would have been an astonishing $1 trillion. Wow. It’s a great article, so head on over to HBR.org if you want more details.
So what is innovation? My former company (ICI) used to call innovation “the successful commercialization of invention.” Another is “innovation is the process of successfully identifying, developing and implementing new ideas which create value.” There are many more in the same theme, with the literature consensus is that innovation requires three main components:
- Creativity
- Execution
- Added value
So how then did Apple “out-innovate” so many companies? Did Apple invent the PC? Did Apple invent the mp3 player? Did Apple invent downloadable music content? Did Apple invent the cell phone? Did Apple invent the tablet computer? The answer is no to all of these. In innovation terms, Apple is a fabulously successful “fast follower.” The genius was to integrate design and ease of use into their products.
So looking at the three elements above, what did Apple do to create such a powerhouse corporation? There is no doubt about Apple’s creativity. The user experience is just wonderful. I remember the first time I used my brand new iPod, downloaded iTunes, ripped in some of my favorite music CD’s and plugged in the iPod. Bingo! Everything sync’d easily and it was so simple. Next came the iPhone and iPad, again, the designs are elegant and the user-friendly aspects are unreal. Apple has gotten a lot of flak over their suppliers (mainly the Foxconn subcon in China), but they are masters at execution.
And finally, nobody has to ask about did they deliver value. Just look at the sales and stock price! So how can you learn from Apple?
by Jeffrey Gotro on April 16, 2012

This is the final post in the 8 part series and here we will explore how to rapidly exploit all of the hard, but focused work you have done to build a robust product architecture. Using the electrically conductive adhesive example, let’s say your first product was a fast cure, but required a high cure temperature. Your first customers like the faster curing times which saves them money due to increased throughput, but they want to get additional energy savings using a lower cure temperature. And as long as you are making a modification, the market needs a higher electrical conductivity as well.
In the “old days” a typical formulator would search existing products for something close to the customers CTQ’s and then start tweaking the formulation by adding ingredients to lower the cure temperature and increase the electrical conductivity. This was the trial and error method, since most of the time there was little understanding of how the original formulation actually worked.
Since we have been using a product architecture approach, it is likely that during the architecture development, an understanding of the key factors governing cure speed and electrical conductivity were developed. Remember we called these technology platforms such as the curing agents and conductivity promoters, such as the components on the left side in the figure above. The beauty of product architectures is that the main components of the formulation are already in place, so the formulation scientist does not have to start from scratch. Being able to modify an existing product architecture has the following advantages:
- Shortens development time for product modifications
- Enables rapid product line extensions if required
- Uses existing manufacturing processes
- Leverages a known, robust product architecture (product architectures are extensively tested during the initial development to ensure consistent performance at the customer)
We have spent the last 8 posts talking in detail about how to use a systematic process to enable formulation science. For many, this may seem like a cumbersome and slower way to develop products. It takes a major thinking shift in the beginning, but once you get your technology delivery process in place it actually takes less time to commercial revenues. I have seen all too many times in the past where the formulators did a rush job to get a formulation out to the customer only to find major problems during qualification. The customer has to wait while re-formulation occurs, then re-testing. The many iterative loops take a lot of time and burn valuable goodwill with your customers. If you have spend the right time upfront learning about your customers needs, then you will be ahead of them. Wayne Gretzky once said “I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been.” If you drive your technology delivery system to produce products where the customers are going to be, then you will enjoy much commercial success.