Understanding Barriers

8/6/2019 Understanding Barriers

1/13

22 |

Understanding Barriers to ProductInnovation at the R & D /Ma rketingInterfaceby A. F. Millman

"Marketing hardly ever tell us w hich products they want and whenthey do, they always want them yesterday.""We badly need a few new produc ts to see us through the next fiveyears.""We've had product X for over two years there's nothing cantouch it, yet nobody's out there trying to sell it.""Customers are crying out for an improved version of product Y butwe can't see anyone working on it."

How often have you heard the above expressions of frustration?Possibly they are so comm onplace that you now accept them as a wayof life? When times are good it is easy to ignore the symptoms ofdespondency everyone is preoccup ied with the present and thefuture seems a long way off. When business becomes tight, horizonsshorten and the cumulative effect of irritations and general inade-quacies of the system is to block or severely restrict innovation duringa period when it is needed most.Of all the functional interfaces in the innovation process, the onewhich is required to match product and m arket is the m ost vulnerableto becom ing a friction face . Clearly, it is the joint responsibility of R& D and Marketing management, as guardians of the medium/longterm product offerings, to ensure that conflict is resolved before itbecomes a permanent feature of the company's modus operandi.Problem AreasThe scope for contact between R & D and Marketing varies considerably within different companies and industries. Perhaps the ideal situation would be continuouscontact with no clearly defined interface and well developed channels of communication. Unfortunately, few products and markets allow such stable relationships to develop they are continually in a state of flux, as are the organisationsand people who are required to operate in them.


2/13

Barriers to Produ ct Innovation | 2 3

External environmental change is uncontrollable, yet it is a variable that must bemonitored, interpreted, and fed back into the organisation. Most organisationsclaim to be aware of environmental influences but only a minority are sufficientlypro-active so as to tailor their way of working to meet anticipated conditions. Thevast majority lag the market by months or even years they react to, rather thananticipate, customer needs; and it is hardly surprising that a whole host of cum-munication problems are generated internally. Unlike the external business environment, the internal working climate is, in theory, controllable. If there is some truthin the old adage that management's purpose is to get things done through people,then it follows that those organisations which are prepared for change and canmotivate everyone to pull in the same direction, will have a distinct edge over competitors.Lack of market orientation and breakdown in communications are the most frequently cited reasons for British industry failing to complete the product innovationcycle and achieve full commercial exploitation. It is not that we are short of potentially sound product ideas nor that our technical skills are outdated. We have fallendown in two vital areas: firstly, by concentrating too much attention on R & Daspects and not injecting a marketing input early on, we have paid the penalty ofmis-timed product launches or offered products largely on their technical meritrather than packaged in the form of a product concept which meets a known marketneed; secondly, the multi-stage nature of the innovation process has beenmisunderstood, resulting in boundaries becoming barriers as the product movesfrom idea generation (or need identification), screening and concept evaluationthrough techno-commercial analysis, product development, market testing andfinally, production and commercialisation. Occasionally, to speed up the process,managers have been tempted to omit certain stages and reduce the number of interstage reviews or step up the frequency of crash development programmes. Suchshort-term thinking invariably leads to disillusionment with procedures andthreatens overall commitment.

A recent report from ACARD[1] highlighted institutional problems, specialisation and lack of communication as acting against innovation, and "neglect ofmarket con siderations either because of isolation of the R & D function frommanufacturing and marketing, or because new products are expected to create theirown m ark et" . In similar vein, a report from the US National Science Foundation[2]suggested that most barriers to innovation are institutional in nature and somecriticism was aimed at the policies and operating practices of both government andcorporate organisations. A NEDO report[3] on the pharmaceutical industry concluded that while the major companies relied heavily on research, there were few instances of marketing representation on R & D committees and project teams. Finally, Mansfield[4], digressing from his econometric analysis of technological innovation, commented that: "The personality attributes, interests, training and othercharacteristics of top and middle management play an important role in determininghow quickly a firm introduces innovation. The presence or absence of a few men inthe right places makes a critical difference."


3/13

24 | European Journal of M arketing 16,5

Organisational D esignIn its simplest sense of the word an organisation is a collection of people possessingvarious skills, values, attitudes and beliefs; required to work individually and ingroups; and to perform prescribed tasks. This normally involves the formation of amanagement hierarchy vested with authority and responsibility to achieve a set ofaims and objectives. In order to do this effectively in a technological environment,organisation design centres on optimising group size and the co-ordination requirements of groups which are both specialised and interdependent. Before examining interaction between R & D groups and Marketing, it is worthwhile brieflyreviewing traditional organisation models and some of their managerial implications.(a) R&D GroupsVertical (functional) groups are active in specialised fields e.g., metallurgy,chemistry, electronics. Such groups are normally permanent and eachmember has a clear idea of his responsibilities, performance requirementsand promotion prospects. Because of the nature of the work, the manager isrequired to possess specialist knowledge in addition to acquiring managerialskills. His main task is to maintain a suitable balance between individualmembers' needs for personal development within their profession and concentrating their efforts on the job in hand.

Horizontal (project) groups contain, or have access to, all of the resourcesnecessary for problem solving. Project managem ent involves the selection ofa multidisciplinary team which may start off with a few key members, buildup to a peak and then taper off in number towards the end. Project groupsare, by definition, temporary, well known examples being a new productlaunch, introduction of a computer system, design/construction ofpetrochemical complex, etc. Project management requires different qualitiesto those of continuous management. Often the manager will be required todirect work outside his own particu lar expertise. No one would expect him tobe expert in all fields, but demonstrated competence in at least one technicalfield is a distinct advantage in gaining the respect of his peers and subordinates. The benefits of improved communication and co-operation amongstspecialists committed to the same objective under tight time constraints canonly be realised if they remain committed and there is some assurance thatwhen the project is terminated, others will follow.Matrix organisations evolved as a compromise between functional and project systems in an attempt to maintain the advantages of each. Projects requiring only a small or sporad ic input of expertise in a particular area can callupon the part-time services of a specialist instead of duplicating the employment of full-time persons for each project. This means that some specialistsretain their reporting route to their functional manager whilst also havingresponsibility to a project manager. In most cases, power and control isdevolved to the individuals and groups who have the technical skill to accomplish the task, no matter what their level in the organisa tion. Many of theEuropean aerospace and communications satellite companies have organised


4/13

Barriers to Product Innovation | 25

their design and development programmes along matrix lines.Historically, R & D work has mainly been located within the confines of a singleorganisation unit close to other functions geographically. However, there is now atrend towards centralised R & D facilities, licensing know-how and sub-contractingprojects to external specialist organisations such as consultants, universities, computer software houses and research associations. This has far-reaching implicationsfor R & D management it means that a conscious decision has been taken to purchase expertise in preference to building up in-house groups. Researchers are required to form temporary relationships with organisations quite different from theirown; and in accepting bought-in know-how, the risk of emergence of the "not invented here" syndrome cannot be ignored. Some managers regard crossing corporate boundaries in this way as very beneficial and there is more than adequateevidence of success to be found in the high technology industries. It is said to makeR & D personnel more cost conscious and expose them to the inside operations ofother groups of professionals which might otherwise be inaccessible. Comparisonshave also been drawn with Marketing's relationship with customers and distributors in this instance, R & D being the recipient.(b) Marketing GroupsFunctional groups (sales, customer service, marketing research, advertising/promotion, sales administration, distribution, etc.) reporting to themarketing manager are the most popular in medium/small companies and

those with only a few product lines and markets. A variation on this themefor larger or multi-product/m ulti-ma rket companies is to divide functions into operational and service oriented groupings, thereby introducing a furtherlayer of managem ent. This is claimed to alleviate immediate pressures on themarketing manager and leave him free to concentrate on longer-termstrategic planning issues.Product groups are similar to the project groups discussed in the previoussection on R & D organisation. The product manager's role is centred onplanning, co-ordination and control of all the activities associated w ith a particular product. In some cases it is possible to set profit centre criteria andwhen the products are complex technically, there are advantages from havingspecialist field sales engineers and technical service people.Market groups are particularly suited to companies selling similar productsinto a number of different ma rkets. These rely on carefully identified marketsegments and on the formulation of strategies to meet the differing needs andpurchasing behaviour of end-users.

Superimposed on all the preceding marketing organisations may be the need fordecentralised operating divisions; regional representation, including export; complex systems of account management related to one or more large customers and intermediaries; and sometimes the desire to consider whole industries and governmentdepartments.


5/13

2 6 | European Journal of Marketing 16,5

Is Integration Possible?Standing back from the mle, it would seem there is no single best organisationaldesign and no easy way to achieve integration. Few companies opt for revolutionarychange, most being prepared to modify their existing system through minorreorganisation and loosening boundary constraints. Under these conditions, informal communication flows must be allowed to develop and where possible, co-ordination and liaison skills visibly raised to the status level of functional skills.It is often instructive to look back a few years and examine what has been saidabout organisational design, particularly with respect to closer integration of the R& D and Marketing functions: Lawrence and Lorsch[5] predicted that "one of thecritical organisational innovations will be the establishment of management positions, and even formal departments, charged with the task of achieving integration.Moreover the integrative function will be on a par w ith such tradition al functions asproduction, sales, research and oth ers ." They presented a profile of the behaviouralcharacteristics of effective integrators with emphasis on competence and knowledgerather than positional authority. This approach was thought to assist resolution ofinterdepartmental conflict and disputes in R & D intensive companies where there ishigh functional differentiation and strain on existing organisational forms.Hayhurst and Wills[6] offered the concept of a Marketing Development M anager:a co-ordinating role separated from operational activities and embracingmarket/product planning, marketing research and the administration/control ofproduct development. Economic feasibility was said to be restricted tomedium/large companies, and they conceded that a split of this type may be"creating a new, unfamiliar problem of integration in order to overcome a lesserproblem that of persuading marketing executives to spend somewhat more timethinking about the future in the course of an already integrated activity." Nevertheless, the notion of top-level integrators is a very appealing o ne, especially for project oriented companies involved in sub-contract work and industrial consortia.Some senior executives have adopted the title Marketing Development Manager butthe biggest growth area has been in the number of middle level personnel with narrower roles, carrying titles such as Liaison Executive and Project Co-ordinator.Whatever the benefits of new titles and organisational designs on paper, ultimatesuccess is still bound up in the management of change in hum an relationships due toaccompanying technological and external environmental change. Argyris[7] suggested that "administrative and information technology available to deal with complexity" and "new requirements for organisation survival", were part of a revolution in organisational design. He saw the new organisational forms as basicallysound bu t "becau se of the methods used to introduce them and because of those used to maintain them, many of the unintended self-defeating consequences of theolder structures are reappearing."Multidisciplinary GroupsAn increasingly common occurence in companies attempting to break down barriersbetween various functional un its is the formation of ad hoc multidisciplinary teams.These are based on the principle that specialists debating the same subject or problem stimulates interaction, and synergistic use of human resources leads to


6/13


improved solutions.Ideally, the make-up of groups and degree of structuring should reflect the rangeof problems to be covered. For example, in certain circumstances such as creativitysessions, it is desirable to impose minimal structuring on the group so that it canspontaneously generate a pool of ideas for subsequent evaluation. The author's experience in this particular area indicates that providing members are carefullyselected for their willingness and ability to contribute to creativity and problem-solving exercises, brainstorming techniques can be handled by most capablemanagers. However, as the scope of the group extends further in the direction ofproblem solving, other more sophisticated techniques, e.g., synectics, due to theirreliance on interpersonal relationships, problem redefinition and analogies, may require the assistance of trained leaders.Some managers encourage the formation of multidisciplinary peer groups totackle cross-functional problems and the early exploration stages of productdevelopment. T he degree of autonomy allowed to these groups in deciding their wayof working and their expected life are importa nt factors influencing efficiency.Davis[8] described his observations on interactional patterns in egalitarian groupsituations and found that members of freely interacting ad hoc groups rarely arrangean optimal interpersonal structure to process efficiently the information demandedby the prob lem. Firstly, he noted that group performance was seldom at the level ofits best mem ber, and most often dropped below the base line describing optimal performance. And secondly, below optimal performance resulted even when the taskand circumstances permitted allocation of sub-problems, but there was some benefitfrom interaction directed towards establishing an affable atmosphere and a kind of"social survival" value. This behaviour is often found in temporary groups,especially those which are poorly briefed and lacking the cohesiveness of permanentgroups. According to Janis[9], where there is no clear-cut disagreement, consensualvalidation replaces critical thinking resulting in an "illusion of unanimity". Davis,however, holds out some future for the peer group approach in his comment: "Agroup that remains in existence long enough to discover members' talents couldeventually organise far mo re satisfactory use of resources namely, an intellectualhierarchy that is correlated with members' skills".This now raises the question of formal and de facto leadership and what happensto ideas that have sufficient merit to warrant setting up a feasibility study or moreextensive project. Various writers have put forward ideas on project leadership,sometimes under the guise of new venture groups, business teams or short-lived taskforces. For example, Schon[10] coined the name "product champion" and morerecently, Burns[11] introduced the notion of "natural knowledge leaders", whocould be coached in interpersonal relations and communications techniques.Slocum[12] advocated that once the product concept has been clarified, the teamleader should be appointed from the members of the "exp lora tion " gro up. C ertainly, the best start for a project group is the selection of a leader showing entrepreneurial skill coupled with some technical talent valued by the group to instill a degree of legitimacy to his appointment.Not all multidisciplinary groups are peer group s. In practice we find formalgroups made up of senior/middle managers, Marketing and R & D specialists and


7/13


other co-opted members, delegated responsibility for screening and reviewing product ideas worthy of further development. It should be noted that every time a product is reviewed andmovedon to the next stage in the innovation process, there is apotential discontinuity and additional people become involved. Here we are facedwith a dilemma: Should members of new product groups, so vital to the company'sfuture, be staffed by people on their individual skills or solely on position in thehierarchy? In an imperfect organisation with senior and middle management positions inherited from previous regimes, it is often necessary to invite people who areknown "fence builders" and accept an off-optimum set of conditions. Not to invitethem might create an even bigger barrier to innovation later on.Performance of the group is further influenced by members' relative positions inthe hierarchy and the requirements of decision making. Among the complexbehav ioural p atterns in groups of this type are inhibitions due to pecking orders based on authority; worry-minimisation and risk-taking (or avoidance) because decisions are spread over several members; and the ever-present danger that the groupwill be used to ensure ideas carrying a "political" element receive approval. Thereare many examples of products demanding more than their fair share of resourcejust because a top executive has attached his name to them. Similar irrationalitiesalso exist in peer groups, especially when product deletions are under discussion. R& D and Marketing personnel alike often show marked reluctance to drop productswhich have served the company well for many years and on which they as individuals have built their reputations. Sound quantitative market research is normally the only effective way to support product deletions.

A counter force to the top executive who pulls rank or puts indirect pressure onmanagers to ensure an obstruction-free passage for his pet project, is the positive action of the sponsor. He is not necessarily, as might be thought, the provider offinance; bu t a senior executive who takes on the role of produ ct/pro ject prote ctor.Since new ideas are initially unstable and have to survive much scrutiny and criticismbefore they take off, he is given the job of seeing they are not condemned to deathbefore receiving a fair hearing.Mulkay[13] presented an interesting sociological view of innovation, suggestingthat the top and bottom of hierarchies are the most fertile areas for innovation. Hemaintained that top research people with established reputations have very little togain from conformity and, within reason , some will permit themselves to indulge inthe occasional risky venture. At the bottom end, young researchers have nothing tolose and everything to gain by challenging anomalies and pursuing a wild notion.Serious error is more likely to receive sympathetic understanding than rejection andcan be explained away by the impetuousness of youth! Mulkay saw the middle-of-the-range researchers as having little incentive to risk failure and they con tinue theirplodding way as they have always done. A similar, though more caustic, attack onconformity was instigated by Raudsepp[14] who blamed despondency and faulty interpretation of the democratic method inherent in group activity. He offeredguidance on creating constructive non-conformity, including: exposure of researchengineers to varied assignments, reward for extra effort and excellence, return to individualism and de-emphasis on committee decisions. It appears there is strong support for the multidisciplinary approach in providing a forum for ideas but when it


8/13


comes to decision making and maintaining momentum, leadership and en-trepreneurship are important requirements. As Clarke[15] succinctly put it: "Successful innovation is founded, not in a committee process, but on the motivationsand energies of entrepreneurs. The marketing input must inform the judgement ofthe entrepreneurs, not replace it."Contrasting RolesRecurring themes in the literature on the management of innovation are the twinbarriers of culture and professionalism. Shibutani[16] reminds us that: "Variationsin outlook arise through differential contact and association; the maintenance ofsocial distance through segregation, conflict, or simply reading differentliterature leads to the formation of different cu ltur es". No one would realisticallypropose in this day and age that industrial researchers work in a rarified atmospherebut there are many instances where the notion of marketing is so foreign to their experience that mistrust and fear of loss of control can cancel out any attempt to influence R & D programm es. As Clarke[15] pointed out: "Ma rketing representsanother way of thinking another discipline... .less exact and more qualitativethan the researchers' own; it can embody such exotic concepts as social behaviourand attitu des . And to cap such difficulties, the marketing work will probably be carried out by someone else, outside the researcher's own organisation, who talksanother jargon and who is continually complicating the whole thrust of his technicalthinking."A number of observers have suggested that research engineers and scientists arelargely concerned with the furtherance of knowledge and opportunities for creativework. In some cases this is thought to outweigh any material and social benefitssenior management may wish to offer as reward. Raudsepp's studies[17]-indicatedthe exception "wh en intrinsic satisfactions are missing or reduced, involvement w ithsalary and other contextual or climate factors of a job receive increasingly greateremphasis". This overwhelming attachment to the work itself has undoubtedly led toa degree of introversion, coupled with strengthening of the researcher's loyalty to hisimmediate work group and profession in preference to the organisation whichemploys him. Twiss[18] reinforces this view in his statement: "The technologistregards himself primarily as a professional rather than a businessman. His trainingand n atural inclinations enable him to relate with similar professionals in other companies more easily than with other managers in his own organisation." Similarbehaviour is not unknown in large project w ork where managers consider their basicskills in handling projects to carry more personal status than any association with acurrent em ployer. They liken their role to that of consultant, and move from projectto project within a range of employers and industries.Salaman's[19] simple definition of the professionalisation process is useful inunderstand ing how reference groups are formed within the boun ds of R & D culture:"The member of a profession undergoes a lengthy period of training and socialisation during which he picks up a value system and world view, a perspective. Hebegins to see himself in terms of these standards and in terms of his professional title, and to value this identification. As a result of this he is oriented towards theother members of the profession as his significant others: it is their esteem he strives


9/13


for, and their judgement he values." Nevertheless, a researcher's identification witha particular profession does not preclude his loyalty being weaned away from timeto time by a unique set of circumstances surrounding a product or company. For example, there is some attraction in working for a company that is market leadertechnically; and who is to say the design and development engineers working on theSpitfire aircraft, the first JCB excavator or an advanced IBM computer system hadnot more than a mild affection for their product?Extending the discussion on professional and occupational differentiation is important because as groups strive to increase their prestige, the element of competition tends to promote internal cohesion and social barriers between them. Firstly,the type and level of work will dictate which reference groups carry the highest statusand those which are on the ascendancy. Secondly, we are witnessing the emergenceof new professions some in the scientific and technological fields but most in themarketing and general management support functions. Many of these have electedto stand alone, while others find positions as sub-groups under the umbrella of oneof the long-established professional institutions and societies. Thirdly, in recognition that at some point in time specialists assume managerial roles, attempts havebeen made by the British Institute of Management to draw together a wide cross-section of senior managers the ultimate aim being creation of management as aprofession.The British Institute of Management, Institute of Marketing, Institute of SalesManagement, Market Research Society, etc., are all relatively young organisations;and like their older counterparts in science and engineering, they currently have littleinfluence over their membership. It is interesting to n ote, how ever, that in the widercontext of professional activity, the regulation of professions offering personal services, such as medicine and law, has evolved a cachet of respectability and exclusivity unmatched in society. Whether it is desirable for professionals employed in industry to follow the same path is open to debate. Some professional institutions seegreater control as a prerequisite of improved status, others struggle to separatemembers' professional requirements from those lumped under the heading of condi-tions of service and normally negotiated by trade unions. Whatever advantagesmembership of a professional institution may bring, it does seem that generalmanagers and marketing specialists in industry have closer identification with theiremployer than found among R & D groups. This is usually attributed to their job inrepresenting the company and its products in the presence of customers and con tactsin the outside business world.Marketing personnel also tend to be drawn from diverse backgrounds. Some willhave progressed through the sales route and grafted on product knowledge; othersmay be technical people wishing to become more commercially oriented; and in recent years, marketing has attracted business graduates, management scientists,psychologists, social scientists, mathematicians, statisticians, etc. Marketing seemsto be a more fragmented profession than most but its growing pains are largelyrelated to its adaptation to the challenge from the market place as well as fromwithin. Viewed from the organisational and human relations angle, the roles ofMarketing and R & D management have a number of similarities. On the one handgroups must be permitted to maintain their individual identity and on the other, this


10/13


must be diluted from time to time so as to encourage inter-group working tow ards acommon goal a delicate balance between integration and segmentation.Marketing, Selling and Marketing ResearchA popular misconception concerning marketing is that it is synonymous with personal selling, when in fact the latter is merely one part of the former. This is not, ofcourse, assisted by departments which are in all respects sales but are calledmarketing because it is fashionable and prestigious to do so. True marketing issomething much more. It encompasses selling and sales adm inistration, p roduc t andmarket planning, advertising and promotion, marketing research, customer service,distribution etc. This is not to denigrate the role of personal selling in industrialmarketing. In addition to "Clinching" orders, the salesman is the company'spresenter and interpreter, a source of feedback from the market and an importantperson during the launch of new products.Miller and Rice[20] described the salesman's transient and long-term relationshipwith customers and the problems associated with remoteness from his company. T osome customers he is the company and is expected to take criticism for late delivery,product quality and m any other factors ou tside his control. For long periods, his only link with the company may be the impersonal telephone and since he spends mostof his time with customers or in transit, there is little opportunity to share frustrations with colleagues. Sometimes he is more friendly with custom ers, other contacts,or even competitor's representatives for whom he may have "potentially a closer affinity than anyone else, because they share the same kind of role with the samecustomer; and sometimes, albeit guiltily, they meet in cafes and public houses to exchange their experiences".The foregoing comments raise the vital question of which people from Marketingshould be encouraged to participate in multidisciplinary groups? Salesmen, becauseof their closeness to the customer, are often considered to be prime candidates butthere are difficulties to be overcom e, not the least of which are logistics and tra ining .Company-based salesmen can fairly easily fit group meetings into their call schedulebut regionally-based salesmen incur ad ditional travelling time and inconvenience. Inboth cases, the perceived value of group interaction will be compared with lost calltime and there may be other factors to be ironed out such as lost commission. Therewill always be certain salesmen who possess a natural inclination for group work,whereas others need extensive training to accept a broader role. It is important tomake everyone aware of the criteria for selection as this aspect can be highlydemotivating. For example, are the chosen few being groomed for greater things?In a mixed channel situation, is too much emphasis placed on the views ofcompany-based salesmen due to their accessibility to marketing management? Howtypical is a regional salesman's view of the total market? If seconding salesmen tomultidisciplinary groups is successful then it will carry kudos and perhaps be muchsought a fter. The risk is that mediocrity will almost certainly result in m embershipbeing viewed as a chore.Inviting sales managers and technical service managers to represent Marketing ison the face of it, a more fruitful course of action. They can give an overview and arenormally sufficiently close to customers to present an accurate picture of the


11/13

32 | European Journal of Marketing 16,5

market. Whether they can divorce themselves from the short-term operationalnature of their work will depend on the extent of formal marketing procedures andhow these are perceived to influence their selling task. In general, managers whoregularly provide information and have a hand in market/product development andplanning , will have favourable attitudes towards any activity which will secure theirlong-term future. It also follows that they will be more committed to accepting thelater, less pala table, aspects of planning namely implementation and control. Thesame argument applies to R & D managers who have project deadlines to meet; andsalesmen who m ay be required to push particular prod ucts, introduce new products,drop old ones and investigate new markets. People who have participated in theplanning and development process and committed themselves to it, are working tothe same set of rules.An essential prerequisite of planning is marketing research, and it is in this areathat all functions can make a useful contribution. Any relevant source of information which helps clarify the likely course of future events should not be ignored. Inparticular, the nature of industrial markets makes advances in technology and consideration of derived demand (knowing your customer's customer) of crucial importance. This implies recognition that marketing personnel are not the only peoplewith an antenna in the outside environment. In the words of Skinner[21]: "Itsometimes happ ens that the significance of an invention is appreciated by engineersor chem ists long before its effect is felt in the marke t. Close liaison with technical experts can therefore assist the marketing manager to predict the advent of alternativeproducts and to distinguish serious threats from false alarms."

Having recognised the need for marketing research, the next tasks are problemdefinition, formulation of objectives and a pilot study, leading to a systematic datacollection programme. It can be seen that the marketing research process has aimsvery closely allied to the early stages of the innovation process. Moreover, it focuseson information for decision making; covering company strengths and weaknesses,internal and external opinions on market opportunities, competitors' activities, etc.Marketing research is one of the few objective ways of placing identified marketneeds alongside internally generated product proposals. The research report provides a basis for co-operation shared knowledge and eliminates the risky andexpensive alternative of speculative product development, then searching for amarket.TrainingThe question of training is at the heart of group effectiveness. Extract an individualfrom his day-to-day routine and place him unprepared into a totally unfamiliarsituation and any number of reactions will result. In short, selection of groupmembers cannot be left to chance or at best, to some intuitive feeling that a particular person will survive. To eliminate shock and generally ease transition into thebroader role in which a participant might find himself, companies are at lastrecognising the need for ap propriate training courses. Through exposure to a varietyof experiential learning situations it is possible to train individuals to d iagnose self-behaviour, relate this to their effect on others and develop a range of interpersonalskills of value in group work.


12/13


There is a tendency in some companies to assume that team building and othergroup development training is a below-Board level activity and that Directors aresufficiently well rounded so as to make it unnecessary for them to be drawn into thetrainer's net. Clearly the Board's role as a supervisor of the company's affairs andestablisher of objectives and strategies, implies an obligation to recognise that innova tion in its various forms demands com mitment from all corners of the organisation, including the Board itself. It is reasonable to suggest that many of the barriersto be dismantled at functional interfaces are also present at Board level. Teambuilding in this area would, therefore, seem essential because good work done atother levels can be negated by poor decisions on the part of top executives.ConclusionsAs companies move further along the route towards market orientation, theperspectives of R & D and Marketing must widen, and substantially overlap. P ersonnel from each function must be brought closer together through the formation ofgroups and allocation of tasks; and by providing a climate conducive to social interaction. Above all, the basis for interaction should be meaningful, and not contrived just because interaction of some kind is thought beneficial.The multi-(and inter-) disciplinary group approach remains the most popular wayof breaching social barriers and cross-fertilising ideas. Properly managed, memberscan retain their identities as specialists and contribute a great deal to new productsynergy. Many companies are also rediscovering the value of dyadic problem-solving exercises and encouraging joint visits to customers, conferences and exhibitions.Throug hout the innovation time period, m any events can threaten group comm itment and delay commercialisation. This is partly to be expected, since companieswhich have chosen to invest in R & D and bring themselves closer to the market haveshunned the pastoral life. A rough passage for new products is not inevitable but itdoes mean that greater attention must be paid to information flows and managinginterfaces.Managerial decision-making is carried out against a background of imperfectknowledge of technology, markets and human behaviour. Enlightened managersrecognise that our understanding of barriers to innovation is equally imperfect, requiring a combined preventative and curative approach. Preventative measures include applying realistic policies, procedures and criteria for new product development; and ensuring that techno-commercial evaluation is supported by the bestavailable information . Curative m easures are necessary to handle contingencies andresolve any conflict that is almost certain to arise due to working in an uncertain environm ent. Each implies the training and appo intment of people sufficiently capableof diagnosing situations from both the business and human relations angle.And finally, behavioural and comm unications blockages are not as freely discussed as they m ight be . If companies spending vast amou nts of m oney on R & D andMarketing were to allocate more resources to maintaining their organisations, thenmost of the frustrations mentioned at the begining of this paper might be alleviated.


13/13


References1. Advisory Council for Applied Research and Development (ACARD), Publication, Industrial In -novation, HMSO, December 1978.2. National Science Foundation (USA), Barriers to Innovation in Industry, 1973.3. National Econom ic Development Office (NEDO), Report of the Working Pa rty on "O rganising R& D", 1972.4. Mansfield, E., Industrial Research an d Technological Innovation, Longmans, 1969.5. Lawrence, P. R. and Lorsch, J. \V., "New Management Job: the Integrator", Harvard BusinessReview, November/December 1967.6. Hayhurst, R. and Wills, G., OrganisationalDesign for Marketing Futures, Allen & Unwin, 1972.7. Argyris, C , "To day 's Problems with Tomorrow's Organisations", Journal of ManagementStudies, February 1967.8. Davis, J. H ., Croup Performance, Addison-Wesley, 1969.9. Janis, I. L., Victims of Groupthink, Houghton Mifflin, 1972.10. Schon, D. A., "Champions for Radical New Inventions", Harvard B usiness Review, March/April 1963.11. Burns, R. O., Innovation: The Management Connection, Lexington Books, 1975.12. Slocum, D. H., New Venture Methodology, American Management Association, 1972.13. Mulkay, M. J., The Social Process of Innovation, Macmillan, 1972.14. Raudsepp, E., "The Engineer in Research", Machine Design, 11 November 1965.15. Clarke, F., "T hree Golden Rules of C ontracting' ' ,New Scientist, Supplement: Contract ResearchReview, 2 May 1974.16. Shibutani, T., "Reference Groups and Social Control", Paper 7 in Human Behaviour & SocialProcesses, Rose A. M. (ed.), Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1971.17. Raudsepp, E., "Conformity and the Engineer", Machine Design, 14 and 28 October 1965.18. Twiss, B., Managing Technological Innovation, Longmans, 1974.

19. Salaman, G., "Symbolic Intera ction", Unit 5, Course D283, Open University Press, 1972.20. Miller, E. J. and Rice, A. K., Systems of O rganisation, Tavistock, 1967, Chapters 5 and 6.21 . Skinner, R. N., Launching New Products in Competitive Markets, Cassell, 1972.

Understanding Barriers

Documents

Transcript of Understanding Barriers