Factors to increase product development speed

The process for new product development is discussed at length in many companies. It is dynamic and called into review all too often with anything from tweaks to suit departmental ways of working, all the way to complete overhaul when a larger problem is perceived. It is important to find a process that produces the desired result, namely speed and volume, whilst also ensuring that it is simple to execute, manage and maintain. Any process must fit with the team that uses it because a cycle of decline can be caused if senior managers are turned into police officers, monitoring adherence. That being said, if new products are being launched too slowly then steps in the process must be taken to address them.

Firstly, review the history of product development performance over a reasonable period. The purpose of the review is to provide data about the performance, so that conversations can be factual and with pinpoint accuracy. Comparisons are useful between the actual time taken per project and the planned time, sources of delays per project, commonly identified bottlenecks and the team availability to perform throughout. These areas will show the pace of the process over time, and whether there are any trends that should be noted. For example, if the pace is documented to be steadily decreasing each year suggests that there is a foundational issue to address, or if there is generally solid performance overall but certain project types are more challenging, then this could be a technology or personnel challenge. Recognition of individual ability is important, because a process that caters for the pace of the slowest person can provide too many shackles for the highest performing teams.

Process review is typically best served as a collaborative process. It is effective to ask team members to document their own thoughts prior to the meeting date, so that fully formed thoughts provide the benchmark for discussion. This will generate engagement from each participant on a higher level, one that is not necessarily influenced by others in the room, which can happen in situations when discussions are “off the cuff”. This diversity of perspective will allow for a stronger understanding of the minutiae of the process steps. Individual steps could be eliminated, moved in the order, or refined to run more concurrently with other actions if the people performing them had the time to reflect on the merits of the exercise at hand. Often, we do things because they have always been there.

The balance in time between executing tasks and reporting on them is the next part of the review. The deliverables required to document and communicate the completion of each step should have a similar scrutiny to the process itself. More often than not, the process steps are overly focussed on without looking at the background work to register their completion. Deliverables like check sheets, reports and presentations take time to produce, proof and circulate, which prevents teams moving onto the next steps in the process. The role of the team here is to strike a balance in finding the most optimised method in completing the work.

The wider governance of the process should be brought into focus within the discussion. Clearly understand how projects are led, and whether communication can be improved. Communication is the oil in the machine and depending on how the teams prefer to work, will require different levels of detail. An effective balance that we have found is to have weekly status review meetings with everyone, at a fixed recurring time. This is where the project leader can run through each project being worked on, outlining the status and what is required to happen next. This is a forum for discussion so welcoming thoughts and updates from the group is important. Minutes should be written up and circulated to all, serving as a central point of reference for everyone in the team. Minutes can be circulated wider to the senior management team if required.

Overall, the product development process can be improved in many areas. It is best to ensure that any review starts with the people that are involved in the project, so that their granular insight can be captured. A collaborative discussion is best served when people have adequate time to prepare their thoughts, and attention should be given to the project peripheries – such as the deliverables and project leadership. Time savings should be found by completing these steps, and an engaged team will determine the scale of the savings.