“Fast” does not necessarily mean “good”. Reducing the high flop rates for innovations and increasing the outlook for market success requires a delicate balance between time-to-market and fit-to-market. While stepping on the accelerator is really necessary in some phases, at other times it is important to slow down and allow diligence to have the right of way.

Product lifecycle management (PLM) is gaining immensely in importance in the telecommunications industry. Although most of the well-known telecommunications companies have implemented a phase model in their product development, timing bottlenecks remain inevitable.

The first commandment for all of the efforts to achieve efficiency and effectiveness in PLM is the oft-quoted time-to-market (T2M). According to a study conducted by Amdocs in 2008, 97% of the surveyed service providers consider T2M to be important (Amdocs, Time to Market and the Customer Experience, 2008).  The term T2M is understood to mean the time period from the product idea to its market launch, holistically considering all of the product development activities. The faster, the better for business success – that, at least, is the widely held opinion.  

The advantages of a shorter T2M are self-evident: in view of market developments with ever shorter product lifecycles, the assumption is that the sooner the product reaches the market, the higher a provider's turnover with a product will be. This belief is based on the product's longer period of availability and earlier participation in the growth and maturity phases of the lifecycle. From a marketing viewpoint, the further points in favor of a rapid T2M are the greater freedom in pricing enjoyed by the first provider of a product on the market and the broader range of opportunities for longer-term customer retention over the entire period of the lifecycle.

A study conducted by McKinsey showed that a six-month delay in the product launch results in a 33% loss in turnover. Assuming sales of US$100 million a year, this would mean an opportunity loss of US$33 million.

Speed at any price?

Confronted with such convincing arguments, every organization should obviously learn to appreciate the T2M and orient its actions along the lines of the speed paradigm. However, critical observers will also want to ask the (legitimate) question as to whether “fast” is indeed always “right”. Speed alone will not ensure that you reach your destination. You also have to drive in the right direction if you want to arrive where you want to go. One cannot help but suspect that it is possible to lose sight of what is essential when you get caught up in a race to achieve the fastest throughput time and have a “fast at any price” mentality.

Next page