Volume 4, Issue 4 April 30, 2002

article-one:

Once again we open our TCP mailbag, spend a couple days deleting spam, and then let loose our resident crank expert, Dr. Sigma, to tackle your probing queries.

---

Dear Dr. Sigma:

I’m an engineer working on a new assembly setup. Recently my GM went on a tirade and peppered his rant with the words "queuing theory." My colleagues are convinced he made this term up or is completely misquoting some article he read in BusinessWeek. Please settle the bet we’ve made and tell us if "queuing theory" is a real thing, and if so, what does it mean? Lunch at the Sizzler is riding on your answer.

--Waiting to Inhale

Dear Waiting:

While I can’t tell you if your GM’s use of the term was correct, "queuing theory" is in fact real and probably should mean something to you. Don Reinertsen discusses this at length in chapter 3 of his book, Managing the Design Factory, where he describes the origin of this obscure school of statistical mathematics and it’s implications in managing development work.

For your benefit, I’ll focus on what I think is a critical queuing theory concept, which is the "feeding queue." Call me a geek, but I ponder this every time I go to the supermarket. When I buy groceries, I typically have less than 20 items, but am always confused about which line will get me out of there the fastest. The express line has 6 people in it, all with varying amounts of stuff. The non-express line only has 2 people in it, but each has a full shopping cart. The first has less total items to process, but more payment transactions. Maybe I can solve this problem with math, but then what happens if the line I choose has a problem with the register computer, or the person in front of me has to pay with a check that causes a 10 minute delay?

One solution may be a feeding queue, which they seem to have figured out at airport check in, but not the supermarket. In a feeding queue, there is only one line that everyone stands in, and the next person goes to whichever station becomes available next. I’ll leave it to you to figure out how this may apply to your work.

Whoever won your bet better mail me some fries.

--Dr. Sigma

---

Dear Dr. Sigma:

In my company, we put a lot of pressure on ourselves to be first to market with every product. Subsequently, decisions are always made based on time. The problem is that sometimes I just feel like we make too many mistakes and cut too many corners because we are rushed, but my arguments are always shut down because of this time pressure. I still think sometimes this pressure is artificial and does the opposite of what we want. Can you help me argue this more intelligently?

TIA, you’re better than Google.

--Speedy Gonzales

Dear Speedy:

Good for you for not blindly swallowing time-to-market. Like every management principle, if you separate the practice from its context, you open up the door to every "exception" to these so-called "rules." Being first is a strategic tool that does not fit every product, and should not be overused. If you’re a baseball pitcher who can only throw a fastball, you may be unhittable, but only until the batters get your timing down. To be successful over the long haul, you need to learn some new pitches, and how and when to mix it up for what kind of batter in what situation. The same goes for product development.

You’re right that sometimes it’s to your advantage to not be first. Betamax was first. A host of forgotten PDAs came before the Palm Pilot, and the Palm Pilot was first to pioneer the right kind of PDA for consumers, but look at their struggle now. Many other products have come in to take the place of the category pioneer, letting the innovators spend the money to learn the lessons in the marketplace and then swooping in and presenting a more elegant solution at a lower price. It’s difficult to do, but important to know when being "right-to-market" should take precedence over being first.

In my opinion, companies like Sony and Microsoft do the best job of this. Sony will wait many, many cycles of product generations and test products in the marketplace with Bhuddist-like patience before they will give up on it (e.g. any walkman or discman, or their Vaio PC line). And Microsoft is infamous for not getting any software product truly right until the third release to customers. You may argue that they simply have the wealth to pull this off, but it’s still admirable.

Don’t take this the wrong way – sometimes you do have to be first. Many studies over the years have shown how market share dominance was tied to speed-to-market. But common sense tells us that this likely relates more to product line extensions and established markets than new-to-the-world innovations. Just try to know what situation you’re in and how that affects your strategy.

So you think I’m better than an editor-supported, algorithmic automaton? Um…thanks.

--Dr. Sigma

---

 

We share reader reactions to TCP articles on our website.
Please send any feedback to gregg@roundtable.com

---

---

article-two:
On the Web: Bad Designs

Link: http://www.baddesigns.com

• This is a mop sink: http://www.baddesigns.com/mopsnk.html
• What's in the bottle? http://www.baddesigns.com/shampoo.html
• Needle in a haystack: http://www.baddesigns.com/manylts.html
• Watch Out! http://www.baddesigns.com/wachout.html

Know a website we should review? Send the url to gregg@roundtable.com

article-three:
Top Ten Ways to Make Product Development More Exciting
...from the MRT satellite office in Las Vegas, NV