Is your R&D project 24 hours from success?

We see no reason why R&D management should not have some of those seemingly facile slogans that beset the rest of management thinking, especially when the catchphrase actually masks a lot of sense. So, while the notion that you can determine the likelihood of success in an R&D project simply by counting how many hours senior managers have put into the venture seems a bit like something chanted on an MBA course, the idea that things will fail if  director-level management does not "invest substantial time into the project, especially during the initial concept-generation phase" makes much sense.

 

You certainly take notice when the idea comes from someone who has spent 18 years "helping corporations to embrace innovation". We read on the web site of Cambridge Consultants that Lucy Rowbotham, one of their innovation experts, "has developed a 'Golden 24 Hours' principle to help ensure innovations make it to market".

 

The note says that "If the senior director team do not commit at least 24 solid hours during the formative stages, then the project will almost certainly fail". This can be a bit dangerous, especially if you have a box ticker who puts in the 24 hours and then expects that the project will automatically succeed, but who can argue with the thrust of the message?

 

Actually, we are probably being unfair. Doubtless there's much more to the thesis than simple clock watching, but the note is tantalisingly brief. We could use more quotes like those that do decorate the piece.

 

"On more than one occasion I've had clients jealously say of a competitor's innovation: 'but we did that in our own labs X years ago'", they quote Lucy as saying. "The solution to getting more radical ideas out of the lab lies in significant effort being applied to generating a clear understanding of the implications, across all key corporate levels. Understand the 'Golden 24 Hours' well, and a company's innovation culture can really be brought to life."

 

I suppose that they would give away too many secrets were they to flesh out this interesting concept. After all, Cambridge Consultants doesn't do this sort of thing for nothing. As their note says: "Cambridge Consultants has developed a robust methodology to bring together the needs of the developers and the corporate management, one that has mechanisms and moderation to resolve internal conflict and barriers to progress."

 

We've seen enough of the R&D business to recognise the uncomfortable truth in the comment that "radical ideas are often shelved because by their nature they often necessitate significant change. That change might involve new production processes and capital equipment, or new types of sales channel, and only the most senior echelon of management is able to sanction this."