Search results

Every company engaged in the development of new products can expect some failures. Since each successive stage of development increases in cost by roughly ten times, the cost of failure can be greatly reduced if fatal flaws are recognized early, and doomed projects are aborted before they waste a firm's resources. By subjecting a developing product to a periodic review of its status, management can assess whether or not it is worth continued funding. The technological aspects of the potential product must be scrutinized carefully for, while products fail to be commercial for many reasons, technical flaws invariably lead to dead ends.

We read case studies to train ourselves to make better business decisions. But some cases, like this one, aren't a model for decision analysis. The Wind Technology story recounts the rather commonplace process of developing a business plan based on, if you'll pardon the pun, pretty thin air. (We deliberately chose a low‐tech case so the business issues wouldn't be overshadowed by the complexities of a high‐tech process.) But don't be condescending when you critique the Wind Technology business plan. Who among us hasn't fallen prey—like its management—to “The Better Mouse Trap” school of marketing syndrome? The symptoms: You become infatuated with a product idea and write a ten‐year P&L statement before you talk to 100 potential customers. And there's another trap to this case. It's the “I can't make a decision because I don't have all the facts” cop out. In the real world you never have all the facts, the ducks are never aligned, and the winds of business are fickle. As a treat for readers who “solve” the Wind Technology case on their own, we asked two experts to let us publish their commentaries as a coda. Compare your analysis with theirs and write us a letter if you think your insights are worth sharing with your fellow managers.