new product innovation: the case for collaboration · new product innovation: the case for...

New Product Innovation:The Case for Collaboration

How product innovation fails and why an agile approach is critical to success.

New Product Innovation: The Case for Collaboration | www.one2team.com | [email protected]

New product innovation is the lifeblood of business growth and longevity.

Lego was once a furniture manufacturer. LG started in chemicals and cosmetics. Amazon started in book sales and has become the largest cloud computing vendor in the world.

Markets today are more competitive and more prone to disruption than ever. Companies must continuously invest in innovation and need to generate positive returns faster.

That is why we believe that cross-functional and agile collaboration is the critical enabler of new product innovation and can make the difference between success and failure in research, development and even the marketing launch of new products.

Read on to discover why.

Hervé

Hervé LaumonierFounder and CEO of One2Team

New Product Innovation: The Case for Collaboration | [email protected] | www.one2team.com/demo

Table of Contents

1. NPI Innovation Methodologies Overview ................3

Stage-Gate Model ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Agile Product Development .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Hybrid Spiral Development .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

2. Why NPI Initiatives Fail .........................................11

Why NPI Underperforms .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

3. The Case for Agile Collaboration ...........................16

Agility Improves Performance .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Case Study: Faster Innovation at Bel Group ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

2

NPI Methodologies Overview

1


New Product Innovation (NPI) is a loosely defined set of managerial practices and methodologies. In its broadest sense, the expression stands for the discipline of taking a raw idea for a new product or service and delivering it to a global commercial launch.

We define [product development] as the transformation of a market opportunity into a product available for sale.”Vish Krishnan and Karl Ulrich1

What is New Product Innovation?

Quintessentially cross-functionalEven if examined in the strict context of a traditional corporate structure, NPI as a discipline is hard to pin down. It is a quintessentially managerial endeavor, in the sense that it touches upon, and summons resources from, many of the typical corporate functions: R&D, Procurement, Marketing, Manufacturing, Operations and Finance just to name a few principal players.

From assembly linesProduct innovation also cuts across virtually every industry, since the generic process of creating a new offering within a market opportunity spans the widest range of sectors. Obviously traditional manufacturing industries have a long history of formalizing product development and methodologies, harking back to the early industrial era. More recently, service-based industries, such as banking, insurance, media and hospitality have adopted and developed a host of NPI methodologies and adapted them to the process of bringing immaterial “goods” and experiences to market.

To apps and data Finally, with the advent of the digital era, there is renewed interest in NPI and the emergence of new approaches. Digital communication, data storage and mobile technologies have not only changed the economics of entire industries but also dramatically changed the process of market entry. When the material content of a new “product” is essentially software, it is not surprising that the processes designed to support the development, production and distribution of physical goods show their limitations. As we’ll see, digital technology allows for an unprecedented level of experimentation and testing within NPI methodologies.

“

4

The Stage-Gate™ ModelIt is virtually impossible to discuss product development without mentioning Scott Edgett and Robert Cooper. Founders of the Product Development Institute and prolific authors, they have been at the forefront of the field for 30+ years.

NPI Methodologies

Winning at New Products: Creating Value Through Innovation, published by Dr. Cooper in 1986, was based on research studies intended to identify patterns across successful and failed new product launches.2

The authors formulated a systematic approach to the management of the product innovation process that would become the foundation of Cooper’s and Edgett’s Stage-Gate model.

The Stage-Gate model was an immediate success and has been widely adopted by large corporations in a variety of industries.

Key ConceptsAs the name suggest, Stage-Gate is based on two fundamental concepts: discrete work phase (or stages) separated by “go/kill” decision points (gates).

In Stage-Gate, there are five stages followed by gates, plus a preliminary idea generation stage:

• Stage 0 - Idea Generation: Identification of new ideas and market opportunities.

• Stage 1 – Scoping: Quick feasibility study with no prototyping.

• Stage 2 - Business Case: In-depth analysis of assumptions, technical specs, projections and financials.

• Stage 3 – Development: Design, prototyping and engineering.

• Stage 4 - Testing and Validation:Market pilots and laboratory tests.

• Stage 5 – Launch: Marketing investment, production and launch.

5

Source: Product Development Institute

After each stage, a project goes through a gate where stakeholders decide whether to continue investing. The basic structure of each gate includes:

• Deliverables: A summary of key results achieved during the previous stage.

• Criteria: A pre-defined list of success criteria that must be meet to move to the next stage. Criteria include: Strategic Fit, Product and Competitive Advantage, Market Attractiveness, Technical Feasibility, Synergies/Core Competencies, Financial Reward/Risk.

• Outputs: The decision to move forward and commit additional resources and approval of the action plan i.e. a Go/Kill/Hold decision.


While activities can potentially move along in parallel, the Stage-Gate model is fundamentally sequential. Each stage must be completed, meaningful information must be generated and a go decision must be made at the gate point before the next stage can be started.

Executives in charge of the project and the product portfolio are presented with key performance indicators and risk assessments after each gate. They must decide to either continue to invest resources or kill the project.

Strengths

• The sequential nature of the model makes it absolutely clear as to the progress of each NPI initiative.

• A project is either a “go” or a “kill”. There is no ambiguity.

• NPI portfolio management is greatly simplified, and the model works well with project finance analysis.

• Resource allocation and financial commitments grow linearly as the project progresses through the gates.

• It forces companies to develop standardized and strict criteria for go/kill decisions and a systematic cost-benefit analysis.

Weaknesses

• Stage Gate is essentially a waterfall process. That means 100% of the entire project information, investment and learnings are passed on to the following stage in one handover.

• It is one-size-fit-all, despite the fact that, even in the same company, not all projects are equally business critical or require the same level of resources of financial scrutiny.

• It can create a bureaucratic management style with large and costly overhead.

• It assumes that virtually all product design decisions can be made before performing any prototyping or market testing.

70to85%of leading U.S. companies use Stage-Gate to drive new products to market.Product Development Institute3

NPI Methodologies

Stage-Gate Model

6

Some projects and project teams really understand how to win—they get it.”Robert Cooper4

“Stage-Gate at Procter & Gamble: SIMPL™SIMPL, the Successful Initiative Management and Product Launch model is P&G’s version of Stage-Gate and is a key part of P&G’s strategic product innovation framework, the Initiatives Diamond.

With its focus on winning in the marketplace and balancing risk with rigor, SIMPL is credited for enabling the turnaround of P&G’s cosmetics business in the late 90s.

As Bob McDonald, at the time P&G’s Vice Chairman of Global Operations, put it, “The Initiative Diamond played a significant role in improving the business results in P&G’s Household Care global business unit. This work brought us a new discipline to manage our innovation programs and yielded a major increase in the in-market success of our initiatives.”5

Agile Product DevelopmentIn 1986, Harvard Business Review published “The New Product Development Game”, an article by Hirotaka Takeuchi and Ikujiro Nonaka in which they declared that a “new emphasis on speed and flexibility calls for a different approach for managing new product development.”6

They contrasted this with “the traditional sequential or ‘relay race’ approach to product development.” This seminal article, with its rugby analogies, is widely regarded as foundational in the development of scrum, one of the most adopted agile development frameworks.

Scrum, like other early agile methodologies, was developed in a very specific context: software development. Today, variations on agile concepts and methodologies, while still primarily applied to products with a significant digital component, are being used to develop products and services in a wide range of industries.

7

Individuals and interactions over processes and tools.

Working software over comprehensive documentation.

Customer collaboration over contract negotiation.

Responding to change over following a plan.”The Agile Manifesto

“Key ConceptsThe most general set of agile principles were articulated in 2001 by a group of software developers in the “Agile Manifesto.”7

Essentially any process that incorporates the manifesto’s 12 principles, can legitimately be called an “agile” process.

A fundamental tenet of agile development is that any complex undertaking should be broken down in smaller iterative cyclesmanaged by small, empowered teams.

Such cycles are defined not by bundling requirements and deliverables in phases, but by fitting finite units of work into short, frequent production time periods, sometimes called sprints. The work is organized in incremental iterations, with the output of each iterative cycle being tested by users, so that feedback is not relegated to a singular, dedicated phase of the product development process, but built in from the beginning.

In fact, the new product development process becomes a series of successive experiments each building on the learnings from the previous phases to progressively refine requirements and features.

Source: Silicon Valley Product Group


Strengths

• Agile methodologies work well when market requirements are hard to pinpoint or change rapidly and when building an entirely new concept.

• Because of the tight correlation between intermediate deliverables and user feedback, dead-ends, mistakes and other forms of process waste tend to be minimized and financial losses contained.

• Teams doing the work are empowered to make product decisions. There is short decision lag and the cumulative quality of decisions improves over time.

• The balance of budget, quality and timing are better managed in rapid decision making processes.

• If market conditions or corporate priorities change during the project, agile methodologies allow to respond and adapt faster and at lower cost.

Weaknesses

• Agile methodologies work well with relatively small teams, but struggle to adapt to very large organizations and highly complex product initiatives.

• Balancing long-term product roadmaps with short-term development cycles and tracking accountability for long-term outcomes can be difficult.

• Agile methodologies demand heavy involvement of committed users and stakeholders. Agile works well when users, whether internal or customers, provide rapid feedback one iterative cycle after the other.

• Because requirements are meant to evolve, it can be difficult to reconcile agile with delivery commitments such as contractual obligations or performance guarantees.

45%Share of high productivity businesses that employ spiral development models.American Productivity & Quality Center9

NPI Methodologies

Agile Product Development

Hybrid Spiral DevelopmentOver the years, and especially after the introduction of agile principles into process design, companies and practitioners have started to create hybrid models that marry the linear structure of a phased approach to the speed and flexibility of agile development.

In an article published in Research-Technology Management in 2014, Robert Cooper reported how “a handful of leading firms are rethinking and re-inventing their idea-to-launch gating system.”8

The evolution of phase-gate models has taken aim at the early model inefficiencies by:

§ Renewed emphasis on the innovation front end, valuing a loosely organized and often serendipitous process of generating ideas worth exploring.

§ A move towards more flexibility and adaptability, allowing phases overlap and customization in stage deliverables and gate criteria definition.

8

§ The injection of core agile development methods such as sprints, retrospectives and iterative user validation.

§ A general focus on accelerating the product development process through collaboration and communicationtechnology and by allowing some parallelization of tasks within and between stages.

Key ConceptsThe most important concept of the agile + stage-gate hybrid is spirals. The fundamental idea of spirals is that deliverables at each stage of the process are developed iteratively, thanks to focused and disciplined activity cycles, or spirals, each involving four steps: Build, Test, Feedback, Revise.

The consequence of this approach is that instead of enforcing full completion of a stage before the team can move on to the following stage, deliverables are defined and completed over the course of the project. In this approach more data and insights allow for more accurate assumptions and better-informed decisions. This applies to market requirements, product specs, pricing and costing decisions, channel and distribution considerations.

In addition, spirals are designed to incorporate market, customer or user feedback from the start. Conceptually, every spiral cycle involves some degree of feedback, significantly reducing the risk of investing in poor ideas, inadequate designs, or immature projects.

9

Stage

Feedback

Test

Build

Revise

Start Gate End Gate

User feedback is incorporated at

each cycle

Data and insights inform better assumptions

Better accuracy of market requirements, product specifications, pricing, costing, forecasting…

A third important characteristic of these hybrid NPI models is the focus on collaboration tools and technology to enable faster and more pervasive distribution of product development portfolio data. This allows to customize a stage-gate model to accommodate simplified versions of the process and customized gate criteria definition while still maintaining control over the potential increase in complexity, especially for companies with large innovation portfolios.


Strengths

• Hybrid NPI models combines the structure, strategic outlook and discipline of stage-gate models with the nimbleness of agile development methodologies.

• Because of their flexibility, hybrids increases dramatically the applicability of structured innovation and NPI management to a wider range of business models.

• The spiral approach engenders a culture of experimentation and controlled risk-taking that produces faster innovation outcomes and lowers the cost of failures.

• The iterative nature of the model enables companies to identify and mitigate risks incrementally, enabling better portfolio risk management.

• The full lifecycle from idea to launch is consistently faster with hybrid models vs traditional stage-gate.

Weaknesses

• The increased complexity of NPI hybrid models requires specific agile expertise. Their implementation works best in organizations that consolidate NPI management expertise in PMO-like functions.

• These approaches front-load the fuzzy front end, making the early part of the process idea generation and technology discovery more critical without being very organized.

• More agile and lean NPI approaches benefit greatly from dedicated software designed to manage large initiative portfolios and project data at scale. Companies that look to implement these processes need to invest in advanced tools.

NPI Methodologies

Hybrid Spiral Development

10

Why New Product Innovation Fails

2


According to an Harvard Business Review article by Joan Schneider and Julie Hall “about 75% of consumer packaged goods products fail to earn even $7.5 million during their first year” and “less than 3% of new consumer packaged goods exceed first-year sales of $50 million.” 10

The common sense response to such statistics is that the consumers is bombarded with such an abundance of choices that makes it difficult for new products and services to break through the noise.

A comprehensive list of reasons why new product development and launch initiatives fail could easily include dozens of specific contributing factors -- Schneider and Hall alone identified 40 possibilities.

There are however patterns that tend to surface. These root causes seem to be consistently responsible for poor performance of a company’s product innovation initiatives:

§ Flawed products.

§ Undeveloped fuzzy front end.

§ Collaboration breakdown.

§ Poor governance and execution.

“

66%

26%

8%

Source: McKinsey11

About two-thirds of drug launches don’t meet expectations. Improving that record requires pharmaceutical companies to recognize the world has changed.”McKinsey10

12

46%of the resourcesthat companies devote to the conception, development and launch of new products go to projects that do not succeed.Product Development Institute3

Below forecast

On or near forecast

Above forecast

Percent of pharmaceutical drug launches that hit sales forecast targets:

A wasteful process?

Why NPI Underperforms

1. Flawed ProductOvercoming the deficiencies of a fundamentally flawed product or service is nearly impossible. Consumers and business buyers alike have grown increasingly impatient with products that fall short of claims. Near 100% functional effectiveness is expected, poor design is no longer justified as an acceptable tradeoff for innovation. But why do “bad” products and services hit the market?

§ Too early. New technology may not be quite mature or available at a sufficiently low price point to allow a finished product to be engineered to the satisfaction of its target market. This is a classic case of “being too early” i.e. failing to assess correctly the maturity of the the underlying enabling technology.

§ Too late. The market is already saturated. The new product does not differentiate itself from the competition, nor comes at a sufficiently lower price point. competitors have gained a lead and have had time to optimize the product and drive their costs down.

TAKEAWAY #1The development of raw ideas into early product concepts is non-linear, chaotic and serendipitous.

13

2. Undeveloped Fuzzy Front EndResearch published in the PDMA Handbook of New Product Development shows that quality of execution in the early phases of the NPI process and specifically in the fuzzy front end is correlated with higher new product launch performance.

Companies that fail to address key challenges in the early stages of technology and product development underperform against their peers.11

§ No systematic approach. Fuzzy front end is fundamentally different than other portions of the innovation process. The path from raw idea initial product concept is non-linear and often serendipitous. Additionally, the innovation front end is influenced by external conditions, such as regulatory changes or the development of core technology by partners. A common vocabulary and systematic framework are needed to manage idea generation and selection with sufficient discipline.

§ Bias against external ideas. Companies that do not embrace a culture of open collaboration and that have insular R&D and engineering organizations struggle to create breakthrough new products.

62%Share of high productivity businesses that do heavy front-end homework before development begins.American Productivity & Quality Center9

§ Poor execution. The company simply may not have the core competencies to engineer, manufacture or deliver the product at the level the design requires. This includes manufacturing defects, poor fit and finish or inferior service delivery.


TAKEAWAY #2Modern NPI models only work if customers and potential users are heavily involved in all the stages of development.

14

§ Not enough focus on enabling technologies. The most successful products are the ones that are designed and launched as the development of the underlying enabling technology has just reached an inflection point in its maturation. In the early phases of NPI, it is critical to develop a thorough understanding of the intrinsic limitations of enabling technologies and forecast accurately their likely evolution.

Why NPI Underperforms

3. Collaboration BreakdownNPI initiatives are highly cross-functional, collaborative endeavors. Not only do they require expertise borrowed from multiple organizations, but also close collaboration with suppliers and sometimes other upstream sources such as research institutes or universities.

Modern NPI models only work if customers and potential users are heavily involved in all the stages of development. Innovators need well functioning communication channels and effective means to capture information and feedback.

§ Too little customer feedback. Input from customers that is too superficial or too infrequent can provide misleading cues to market requirements analysis, competitive positioning, pricing, feature prioritization and distribution channel selection.

§ The right questions to the wrong people. Research at Kellogg School of Management found that there is a chasm between early adopters and the mass market. This chasm goes often unrecognized during the NPI process. 12

§ Breakdowns in cross-functional collaboration. Systems must support a culture of fluid, real-time communication and collaboration internally. Even in companies that have deployed formal stage-gate or agile NPI processes, poor cross-functional communication and a “silo” culture are lethal to NPI success.

Of 9,000 new products that achieved broad distribution at a national retailer [...] just 40% of them were still sold three years later.”Kellogg School of Management12

“

NPIFuzzy Front End Commercialization

TAKEAWAY #3NPI portfolio and project management requires specialized tools designed to map the company’s specific stages, agile cycles and processes.

15

4. Poor Governance and ExecutionUltimately, it all starts at the top. NPI portfolios are integral part of a company’s strategic initiative portfolio. Therefore NPI’s governance, accountability and vision rest with the most senior levels of an organization. Companies that have a poorly laid out or incomplete governance structure or that lack the systems to manage portfolio execution struggle with their product innovation.

§ Too many NPI projects. Large corporations with businesses in multiple categories or industries have naturally complex innovation portfolios. Strategic clarity and pruning of low potential concepts are critical. A study by Donald Sull in Harvard Business Review found out that only 55% of middle managers could name even one of the company’s top five priorities!13

§ Too much bureaucracy, too little agility. NPI is an intrinsically wasteful process. Some concepts will not be feasible, technologies will fail. In a bid to limit losses and mitigate risks, some companies implement elaborate NPI processes and enforce strict compliance. In doing so they often fail to hit the sweet spot between “disciplined” and “nimble” and end up burdening the organization with too much managerial overhead.

§ Lack of accountability in execution. Best practices at successful companies suggest a high correlation between new product performance and the creation of dedicated NPI teams that remain in place for the entire duration of any given project.11

Executive teams that do not foster a project-driven culture and do not shift emphasis from functional loyalties to NPI goals all but ensure a higher failure rate.

§ The wrong tools. As the PDMA Handbook of New Product Development simply puts it, NPI works best when “a central shared-information system for project team members is in place--a system that permits sharing of project information and allows several team members to work concurrently on the same document, even across functions, locations and countries.”12

Team accountability is a pivotal best practice, separating the best from the worst performers by

7:1PDMA Handbook of New Product Development12

The Case for Agile Collaboration

3

Global competition, fickle consumers, new categories. Those are just some of the reasons why companies are being forced to aggressively pursue new market opportunities.

Shorter lifecycles of products, technologies and concepts mean that companies need to bring innovation to market continuously. In large companies, these initiatives involve major execution complexity.

Agility improves performance.

In a recent survey by FTI Consulting, 40% of executives listed NPI projects among their most strategic corporate initiatives.14 Unfortunately, there is strong evidence that strategic initiatives fail more often than they succeed. In fact, according to both Harvard Business Review and Gallup Business Journal, more than 70% of strategic change initiatives fail. That does not bode well for NPI.15

17

Less than30% 51-79%

More than 80%

30%18%

27%

6% of firms

3%

15%

# of

agi

lity

rout

ines

with

abo

ve

aver

age

scor

es

3-4

< 3

Percent of years Return-on-Assets was above industry average

Source: University of Southern California, Booz & Company 15

Is there a better way? Booz & Company has published research that uncovers a strong correlation between organizational agility and performance, looking at market performance data over a span of 30 years. They found out that companies with high scores in certain agility capabilities are six times (18 percent vs. 3 percent) as likely to be outperformers in their industry in terms of Return on Assets.16

Some of One2Team most successful customers share our vision that agile collaboration is at the foundation of modern NPI. Bel Group, one of the largest producers of dairy products worldwide is one of them.

Download the eBook at

one2team.com/blueprint

eBook

Strategic Initiatives: The Agility BlueprintA practical 3-stage agility blueprint to improve your organization’s performance.


Case Study

Faster Innovation at Bel Group

Founded in 1921, Bel Group is the world's third largest producer of branded diary products. Innovation is in Bel’s DNA and central in the company’s 150-year history. The group controls 30 production sites and distributes its products in 130 countries.

The international footprint requires NPI teams to collaborate across borders and time zones. They also need to ensure that new products meet the needs and tastes of very different consumers around the world.

To boost the Group's growth, we decided to improve our capacity for innovation. This is why we have optimized and harmonized our innovation processes and ported them into the One2Team collaborative platform.

One2Team makes working in project teams simpler and easier. Managers can check, in real time, whether their portfolio is on track, see what should be given priority to and channel teams' efforts and resources into the group's strategic projects.”

“

§ Speed up time-to-market for innovations by facilitating collaboration among the various business units and functions.

§ Prioritize resources at the Group's strategic portfolio management level.

§ Harmonize NPI methods, models and processes.

§ Simplify task management by sharing all NPI project and portfolio information in a centralized system of record.

Bel Group NPI Priorities

Bel wanted to optimized and harmonize its innovation processes across brands, product lines and markets. It turned to One2Team solutions and its agility blueprint to create the systems and tools its NPI organization needed. 400

million consumers

30brands

12,000 employees

Chantal Cayuela VP, Research and Innovation

18

All-in-One Project Management Software for New Product Innovation

“Visionary Leader” 2016 Gartner PPM Magic Quadrant

19

www.one2team.com/fastcasual

Reinventing the way we work.

Open InnovationEngage employees and the ecosystem to identify and develop the best ideas.

One2Team enables employees, partners and suppliers to submit new ideas and quickly develop the most promising ones, facilitating their prioritization and early assessment.

Fast DevelopmentMaximize quality and accelerate NPI portfolio development with agile collaboration.

With automated project data consolidation, rapid feedback and real-time portfolio tracking, One2Team shortens the time it takes to move new products through development.

Launch ExecutionReduce market launch risks and achieve targets with real-time project -management.

Real-time alerts and live monitoring empower steering committees and launch managers to track marketing programs, ensure supply chain performance and react to early market data.

Request a Demo at content.one2team.com

/demo-request

Explore One2Team now!


References1. Product Development Decisions: A Review of the Literature. Vish Krishnan and Karl Ulrich, Management Science,

2001.

2. Winning at New Products: Creating Value Through Innovation. Robert Cooper, 1986.

3. Stage-Gate® - Your Roadmap for New Product Development. Product Development Institute Inc., 2016.

4. Perspective: The Stage-Gates Idea-to-Launch Process—Update, What’s New, and NexGen Systems. Robert Cooper, Journal of Product Innovation Management, 2008.

5. Succeeding at New Product Development the P&G way: A key element is using the “Innovation Diamond”. Robert Cooper and Michael Mills, 2005

6. The New Product Development Game. Hirotaka Takeuchi and Ikujiro Nonaka, Harvard Business Review, 1986.

7. Manifesto for Agile Software Development. Various authors, 2001.

8. What’s Next?: After Stage-Gate. Robert Cooper. Robert Cooper, Research-Technology Management, 2014.

9. New Product Development Best Practices, Benchmarks, and Metrics. American Productivity & Quality Center, 2011.

10. Why Most Product Launches Fail. Joan Schneider and Julie Hall, Harvard Business Review, 2011.

11. The secret of successful drug launches. Hemant Ahlawat, Giulia Chierchia, and Paul van Arkel, McKinsey, 2014.

12. PDMA Handbook of New Product Development. Product Development Management Association, 2013.

13. Why Strategy Execution Unravels—and What to Do About It. Donald Sull, Rebecca Homkes and Charles Sull, Harvard Business Review, 2015.

14. FD/Forbes Insights Strategic Initiatives Study. FTI Consulting, Forbes, 2010.

15. Most Change Initiatives Fail -- But They Don't Have To. David Leonard and Claude Coltea, Gallup, 2013.

16. The Agility Factor: Building Adaptable Organizations for Superior Performance. Thomas Williams, Christopher Worley and Edward Lawler III, Strategy + Business, 2013.

20

One2Team Inc.575 Market Street, 11th FloorSan Francisco, CA 94105

+1 [email protected]

www.one2team.com

© One2Team Inc. 2018

new product innovation: the case for collaboration · new product innovation: the case for...

Documents