New Product Development requires a lot of ingredients. Some of those are the virtues associated with invention: creativity, inspiration, tenacity, expertise, and even genius.
But an equally important ingredient is the process to achieve success. New Product Development (NPD) processes matter just as much as the excellence of the engineers that use them.
The Contenders
Broadly speaking, there are two competing paradigms for a Product Development process. Each has its own pros and cons.
Stage-Gate
Stage-Gate is the most common linear process. It is highly proactive, prioritizing:
- Detailed product specifications and front-end plans
- Sequential phases with Go / No-Go gates between them
- Development activities adhering to agreed specifications
- Strictly defined deliverables and acceptance criteria
The Stage-Gate process may also be called “Phase-Gate” or – more commonly – “waterfall.”
Agile
Agile is easily the most popular of the iterative processes. It represents a more adaptive but less predictable process that involves:
- Limited up-front planning
- Early prototyping and frequent testing to generate stakeholder feedback
- Cycles or “sprints” of design/build/test for independent chunks of functionality
- Adapting to changing requirements throughout the entire process
There are several other processes with similar goals and strengths, including Lean Startup and Design Thinking.
So which is the better approach? As with most things, the answer is, “it depends.” Let’s examine these processes in different scenarios.
Abstract vs. Physical Products
When we refer to “abstract products” we mean those that consist of information. Agile is inherently iterative, meaning it can be developed a bit at a time with features and functions added throughout the process. The concept was developed for software, which is famously iterated through versions. Changes can be made and implemented quickly, with minimal overhead cost.
Physical products, on the other hand, must be fabricated. They often require tooling, components, or manufacturing capacity that can take months to acquire. Schedule and budget implications of iterative development can be prohibitive, so the labor associated with careful Stage-Gate planning typically has more value.
Technological Maturity
Stage-Gate usually assumes a Technological Readiness sufficient to embark on the New Product Development journey. The tools and technology needed for product development should be established early in the process.
That said, it’s not unheard of to commence a project that relies on some less-mature or untested technology. Improving and mastering that technology requires Research & Development to be a part of the product development process. It’s reasonable to conclude that the less mature the enabling technology, the more iterative the development process must be. Put another way: R&D is inherently Agile.
“When writing a book, revision is expected and completion is subjective. When building a bridge, revision is intolerable and completion well-defined.”
The Race
Stage-Gate
We might compare a Stage-Gate project to a marathon race. We can predict duration because we know both the route and the finish line. Or, in context, we know:
- exactly how a product should behave,
- generally how to make it behave that way.
Unfortunately, running the race is rarely that simple. Most new product development starts with an imperfect knowledge of technical and business goals. Product definitions may be incomplete. Feature sets can evolve and expand. Financial pressure may drive changes to the product or production.
Those changes may be disparaged as “scope creep” but are, more fairly, an acknowledgment that we start every NPD marathon unsure of exactly where that finish line is.
Agile
If Stage-Gate is like running a marathon then Agile is more analogous to exploring an island. The explorer has a compass and a general idea of the destination. But there is no route, milestones, or even any certainty that they’re on the best path. The explorer travels, evaluates progress, course-corrects, and repeats.
The Agile process is well-suited to projects in which:
- Broad goals are understood, but the overall feature set and behavior are fluid.
- It is practical to make progress on smaller elements of functionality that will later become part of the whole.
The concept of “scope-creep” does not exist in Agile because the entire process exists to accommodate change. It is possible to make progress and be successful even in the face of wildly changing requirements. But it can often be difficult to know how far away that finish line is.
Real Products and Hybrid Processes
Gantt chart, courtesy Wikimedia CommonsA simplistic rule is that Agile is for software; Stage-Gate is for everything else. Even if that were true, most products are not just one thing.
Porticos prefers a Hybrid Development Process. Our process manages some more flexible or iterative development in Agile sprints, but in compliance with larger, Stage-Gate milestones.
Since milestone dates are defined, something else must be kept fluid. We distinguish desired from required functionality. Required functionality will be available at a milestone. Desired functionality… may or may not.
This allows us to design a circuit, lay it out, integrate it within a sophisticated mechanical package, and expect to have working firmware at the right time to evaluate the entire product.
Conclusion
So is Agile better than Stage-Gate? It depends upon the complexity, physicality, and definition of the new product. The right solution is to work with an experienced project manager to lay out a project plan that both defines and accommodates the development of a specific product.
Porticos has been doing this for two decades and can use our insights in the new product development planning process. We’re able to refer to similar projects as a benchmark for time and cost and can finetune a project plan to provide early scoping information. That is our goal and a core principle: New Product Development Can Be Predictable.
