Posts

The Cost of a Free Screening Trial

/in /by

We understand that at large companies, trying out new products can be complicated. The development process is full of trial and error – but if you add to that the administrative red tape, interfacing with SAP, etc., it can be almost impossible. That’s why at Micrex, we help you shed the red tape and focus on the trial itself.

We’ve said it many times: we believe in quick turnaround and fail-fast. The more ideas you try out, the greater chances you have of succeeding. That is why we offer free screening trials.

But make no mistake: screening trials are not “free” for us, and we take them very seriously. I believe they are the single most important thing we do at Micrex.

This is what you get with a free screening trial at Micrex:

  • I (president of Micrex) evaluate and supervise your trial plan
  • A senior Micrex operator runs your trial
  • Your material is tested on multiple configurations of our equipment with various settings and temperatures. With our expertise, we can complete these trial runs rapidly
  • You receive your sample back quickly and with a write-up of results

    • We figure the average screening trial costs Micrex in excess of $2,000

    The bottom line: screening trials are serious business for us at Micrex.

    Get the details and find out how to get started here.

     

Luck

/in /by

When Napoleon was asked what kind of general he preferred, he said, “Just give me a lucky general”.

406px-Jacques_Louis_David_-_Bonaparte_franchissant_le_Grand_Saint-Bernard,_20_mai_1800_-_Google_Art_Project

While I am not a big believer in luck per se, this blog makes many references to luck. It is understood that invention is all about the unexpected occurrence. Having the insight to recognize these events and to run and seize opportunity could be considered making your own luck.

In “The Black Swan” Taleb argues that the inventor in Manhattan has a huge advantage over the inventor living on a mountain top. The Manhattan inventor gets invited to cocktail parties. At cocktail parties he meets investors, and investors are what you need to be a successful inventor.

The One Best Way (Part 6): Cowboy Coding

/in /by

Software development is hard. Whether it is combining incredible levels of creativity and complexity, or talking about the high rates of failure – the debate about software design and development techniques has a lot of relevance to other disciplines.

We have already touched on the use of a grand design. This is sometimes referred to in software as “Waterfall Design”, as all parts of the product are supposed to flow together and work as one in the end.

At the other end of the spectrum is “Cowboy Coding” where the lone programmer is given freedom to do what seems right. There are “nicer” versions. For example, “Agile Programming” has the patina of an intellectual framework.

B. F. Skinner said, “A first principle not formally recognized by scientific methodologists: when you run into something interesting, drop everything else and study it.”

Just another Harvard trained cowboy.

Hope Is Not a Strategy – Odds of Success (Part 2)

/in /by

Recently I corresponded with a reader who was concerned about the implied negativity around the “odds” of success described in these posts.

I have done quite a bit of research on the odds around product development and am comfortable with my numbers. It is not much different than saying that 1 out of 5 small business startups succeed. I have actually been pushed toward these terrible odds by the senior people I have worked with in product development.

My view is to embrace the numbers. Success comes from dealing well with failure. Run through the things that don’t work. Kill dumb ideas. If you have only one or two new products, it is really hard to prioritize and pick between the winners and failures. View it from a portfolio perspective — an investor who buys one stock is gambling.

Or you could choose to look at it another way: how does one actually calculate the success ratio? What is the numerator, and what is the denominator? A researcher working at the bench may see lots of failures. The chairman, who validates the decision to launch a fully refined product, sees completely different ratios.

It is a lot like sales. When I was young and naive, if someone called and asked about my product, I figured that was about as good as a sale. Now when I have a new lead, it does not even register until there has been a great deal of qualification. As we manage a sales effort, we recognize that it takes multiple leads to result in a sale, and we organize accordingly. We need to recognize that similar metrics apply to new product development.

Room For Error

/in /by

Lee De Forest was the inventor of the first amplifying vacuum tube. In a digital world it is hard to fathom that it all started with the development of this device. This led to radio, television, and the first computers.

1973_airmail_stamp_C86

When De Forest created his first version, a two filament vacuum tube, his theory on why it worked later proved to be wrong. The “breakthrough” came with the addition of a third filament which allowed for the signal to be amplified. De Forest then built a second flawed theory on top of his initial theory. He was later quoted as saying “didn’t know why it worked, it just did.” Needless to say patent litigation followed.

Similarly medieval navigators were able to use the sun and stars to sail ships over much of the world, even though many at the time believed the world was flat and the sun orbited the earth.

We have written about  the role of luck or chance in development.

It seems we even have to provide room for error too.

While the nice phrase for this is paradigm shift, we have to ask — how tolerant is your organization around error and failure?