In previous posts, I wrote about focusing on the number of projects that best fits your available resources, and about ensuring that these projects best fit your business goals. But how do you treat projects of similar size (or profitability) and equal resource needs that may have similar likelihood of success? From a purely financial view, they could all have a similar return, and opportunists might argue that you should tackle them all, on a first-come, first-served basis. But is this the right approach?
I personally embrace the “Good-to-Great” philosophy that companies should focus on areas where they can be among the best in the industry. If your company has decided that offering basic me-too products (ones that are similar to what the customer is currently using) and competing on price or service, then maybe all of the opportunities are equal and a first-come, first-served approach may work. But if your focus is on differentiating yourself with quality, performance, or industry knowledge, you need to be more selective regarding which projects to pursue and who works on them, ie, developing “in” sight. Let’s look at why using 2 examples.
John works as a chemist for a basic ‘me-too’ company. Over the course of a year, John works on 15 projects on a first-come, first-served basis. The projects cover a dozen different technologies serving 10 different markets. At the end of the year, John has skimmed many market and technology areas but has not become an expert in any of them. The products he developed are most likely standard grades made using whatever technology was easily available (and thus can be easily matched or surpassed by the competition), and any projects requiring in-depth technical knowledge probably failed. This is not because John does not have technical ability, but reflects that he has been asked to cover many areas and was not allowed the time needed to become an expert in any of them.
Mary works as a chemist for a performance-oriented company. She too works on 15 projects during the year, but her projects focus on a single technology and are directed to just 3 markets. Over the course of a year, Mary develops a strong expertise in her base technology, and she also understands the needs, test methods, and regulations of her 3 core markets. She is becoming a strong expert who has unique insights and technical depth, allowing her to develop products that bring a sustainable competitive advantage. Mary has grown significantly through the year, and the company benefits from her expertise and the advantages that her advanced products can bring.
The examples show the benefit of focus for an individual contributor, but the concept can easily scale to any size. Even large global companies who work in many markets and technologies practice this by establishing groups or divisions that focus on a limited number of markets or technologies. What examples can you share that either support or diverge from this point of view?
I personally embrace the “Good-to-Great” philosophy that companies should focus on areas where they can be among the best in the industry. If your company has decided that offering basic me-too products (ones that are similar to what the customer is currently using) and competing on price or service, then maybe all of the opportunities are equal and a first-come, first-served approach may work. But if your focus is on differentiating yourself with quality, performance, or industry knowledge, you need to be more selective regarding which projects to pursue and who works on them, ie, developing “in” sight. Let’s look at why using 2 examples.
John works as a chemist for a basic ‘me-too’ company. Over the course of a year, John works on 15 projects on a first-come, first-served basis. The projects cover a dozen different technologies serving 10 different markets. At the end of the year, John has skimmed many market and technology areas but has not become an expert in any of them. The products he developed are most likely standard grades made using whatever technology was easily available (and thus can be easily matched or surpassed by the competition), and any projects requiring in-depth technical knowledge probably failed. This is not because John does not have technical ability, but reflects that he has been asked to cover many areas and was not allowed the time needed to become an expert in any of them.
Mary works as a chemist for a performance-oriented company. She too works on 15 projects during the year, but her projects focus on a single technology and are directed to just 3 markets. Over the course of a year, Mary develops a strong expertise in her base technology, and she also understands the needs, test methods, and regulations of her 3 core markets. She is becoming a strong expert who has unique insights and technical depth, allowing her to develop products that bring a sustainable competitive advantage. Mary has grown significantly through the year, and the company benefits from her expertise and the advantages that her advanced products can bring.
The examples show the benefit of focus for an individual contributor, but the concept can easily scale to any size. Even large global companies who work in many markets and technologies practice this by establishing groups or divisions that focus on a limited number of markets or technologies. What examples can you share that either support or diverge from this point of view?
