The type, scope, and scale of a project will dictate the membership required of an effective team.  The array of technical knowledge that may be required is incredibly vast, but common themes run through projects of many different types.  Design, quality, maintenance, safety, integration, and validation are key project elements and are nearly universal.
     All projects require a competent team to ensure successful execution.  Characteristics critical to a team’s success extend beyond technical expertise, however.  Collaboration, communication, conflict resolution, time management, and other “soft” skills are discussed in many outlets; they will not be treated in detail here.
     Instead, we will discuss two traditional project roles and the spectrum of a personality trait that members of a project team should span.

     There are several ways to approach new product or service development.  One major distinction that establishes the framework for development is the source of the idea.  The evolution of an existing offering involves analysis that is not possible for a completely new product or service.  Development of a product or service that is a radical departure from those currently available involves many more unknowns and, therefore, less reliable forecasts.
            The diagrams below illustrate five types of development processes:

• Incremental or Evolutionary Development
• Visionary or Revolutionary Development
• Adjacent or Peripheral Development
• Nostalgic Development
• Conversion or Adaptation

     The choice of development process to follow depends on the information available to the development team.  Sales history or projections, customer sentiments, and technical specifications are valuable data; if they are unavailable (i.e. do not exist), they will have to be created, or estimated, during development.

     Last week’s post offered general advice regarding the work of “experts.”  Writing it reminded me of a set of articles that I feel is worthy of some direct attention, as the theme becomes increasingly prevalent.  Variations on “How to Read 100 Books a Year,” these articles demonstrate the misconception inherent in many of the “expert” articles of the type discussed.  The misconception is that the advice given is universal.
            Example articles include:
     [Link] “How to Read 100 Books in a Year” – Thrive Global
     [Link] “How to Read 100+ Books in One Year” – WikiHow
     [Link] "How to Read 100 Books a Year" – Observer
     [Link] "How to read 100 books in a year (and still have a life)" – Forrest Brazeal
     [Link] "How I Read 100 Books in One Year (and How You Can, Too)" – BookRiot
     [Link] "5 Steps To Reading 100 Books A Year – AuthenticGrowth

     Innumerable “experts” are now able to share their wisdom widely, at the click of a button, thanks to the expansion of social media and blogging platforms.  The ability to publish one’s assertions, however, does not ensure the validity or value of the content.  There are few limitations on what one can publish.
     Consider an example at the opposite end of this spectrum – peer-reviewed journals.  Despite the rigorous review process, authors are occasionally discredited after publication of an article.  Falsified data, inappropriate research protocols, or inconsistent conclusions may be discovered.
     The journal scenario is a good news/bad news situation.  The good news is that there is a third party (journal editor) responsible for maintaining the integrity and quality of published research that will publish a correction.  The bad news is that, many times, the correction may not reach those that rely on the original work, trusting its accuracy.  Also, reproductions of the article may not include the correction as an update or attachment.
     Unfiltered content does not provide even this imperfect safety net.  Perhaps one can leave a comment online, disputing an article’s content or conclusions, but where does that lead?  Often, nowhere.

     Following up on “Market Introduction is a Drag… Race,” we expand the metaphor by describing how several more terms can be applied to launching a new product or service:

Deep Staging                                                      60-ft Time
Rollout                                                                  Elapsed Time (ET)
“Cut a Light” or “Run the Tree”                        Trap Speed
Reaction Time (RT)                                             Make the Finals.