|
|
| (22 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | Innovation projects are fraught with uncertainty in their nature. However, oftentimes management approaches presume a high degree of knowns and plan clear pathways through development stages. Doing so can be a costly and time-wasting affair because this approach lacks to recognize that project teams are proceeding based on assumptions instead of known facts.
| |
| − | After recognizing this fact, the Learning plan offers a systematic way of dealing with the uncertainties of a high uncertainty project. Using the Learning Plan allows a team to manage the ongoing evaluation and redirection in innovation projects, where specific objectives most likely are unclear or where the final goal is clear, but the pathway is uncertain.
| |
| − | This article describes what a Learning Plan is, how it is implemented and highlights the benefits and limitation of the tool.
| |
| | | | |
| − |
| |
| − | == Introduction ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | - ‘Learning per dollar spent’ philosophy
| |
| − | - From unknowns to knowns (unknown, hypothesis, known)
| |
| − | - Figure
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Prioritizing unknowns using the Uncertainty Matrix ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | - Purpose:
| |
| − | - Technical, Market, Organizational and Resource uncertainties
| |
| − | - Tells which unknowns to work on (upper right corner)
| |
| − | - Figure
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Implementing the Learning Plan ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | - Encourages project teams to systematically examine each of the categories in the Uncertainty Matrix
| |
| − |
| |
| − | - One learning loop:
| |
| − | o Assumption, test assumption (select approaches to test and test success criteria that meet the needs of managers)
| |
| − | o Agreement between team and evaluaters on objectives for each test and how success is measured for each test.
| |
| − | o Teams conduct tests and assess how much uncertainty reduction there is for each unknown. Update uncertainty matrix.
| |
| − | o Evaluation with team’s oversight board (critical step)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | - Iterative, remember to update uncertainty matrix as you identify more unknowns
| |
| − | - Figure
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Key benefits ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Limitations and pit falls ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | - there is a natural tendency to confront the uncertainties with which the team is more comfortable and to ignore others. This is a dangerous problem for teams composed mostly or solely of technical personnel, who generally prefer to focus on technical challenges. Failing to also recognize and confront market, organizational and resource uncertainties increases the likelihood that one of these uncertainties will turn out to be a project killer. To counteract such tendencies, it is important for oversight boards to be staffed with veterans of high-uncertainty projects.
| |
| − |
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == References ==
| |
| − | 1. See R.G. Cooper, “Stage-Gate Systems: A New Tool for Managing New Products,” Business Horizons 33, no. 3 (May-June 1990): 44-54.
| |
| − | 2. See Z. Block and I. MacMillan, “Milestones for Successful Venture Planning,” Harvard Business Review 63 (September-October 1985): 184-196.
| |
| − | 3. See R.G. McGrath and I. MacMillan, “Discovery-Driven Planning,” Harvard Business Review 73 (July-August 1995): 44-54.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Annotated bibliography==
| |
