They said it wouldn’t happen again, but it did.  The American auto industry wouldn’t be caught unprepared again when another energy crisis were to hit the economy. Sure, consumers were all too complicit by indulging in the conspicuous consumption of oversized vehicles: the Sport Utility Vehicle (SUV).  You probably have seen them in the shopping mall parking lot.  They extend about four feet beyond the length of the designated parking space, and their width bulges beyond each side of the yellow lines.

While the current energy crisis was emerging in 2003, General Motors decided to pull the plug on its experimental EV1 electric car, and while GM pushed the pedal to the metal manufacturing gasoline hogs such as the Hummer, Toyota was having difficulty keeping up with demand for its Prius hybrid.  

Some accused GM of pulling the plug on the EV1 to demonstrate to policymakers that investing in alternative technologies was bad business.   Instead of researching and preparing for the future, they decide that it was better corporate governance to lobby congress against higher fuel efficiency standards.

As GM continued to meet current requirements and ignore the future, Nissan and a number of Silicon Valley startups announced plans to compete in the energy efficient space.  Thus, the entrance of new competitors makes it more difficult for GM to compete when GM finally has the Volt (GM’s revolutionary hybrid vehicle) ready for sale on November 2010.

It wasn’t until rising fuel prices started significantly impacting sales of SUVs that GM’s board members decided to act.  GM is now in the difficult position of having to make up for lost ground after having suffered a number of years of negative earnings and significant write downs.  A declining economy and oil prices at record highs make GM’s strategy even more difficult to realize.

The Lesson

It would be naïve to conclude that GM’s strategy of building and selling products that were highly popular with their customers as the reason for their troubles.  It would have been foolish for GM to do otherwise.  To ignore the truck and SUV market segment would have strengthened their competitors and starved the company of revenue.

Let’s consider these scenarios. If GM were to have an SUV or light truck rated at 40 or more miles per gallon, would GM still be experiencing the decline in sales in that segment that they are experiencing now?  Did they need government edicts to invest in that technology?  If GM had a light truck or SUV rated at 40 or more miles per gallon during the heyday of the boom years, would that have given them a competitive advantage?  Future requirements delivered today can be a competitive advantage.

One mistake was that GM didn’t prepare and invest appropriately for the obvious future requirement: higher fuel standards. Toyota did, and in April of 2007, Toyota finally surpassed GM as the world’s leading auto manufacturer when it sold 90,000 more vehicles than GM.  I’m sure that’s not the only reason Toyota surpassed GM as the leading auto manufacturer, but because Toyota invested in the future wisely, they continue to lead rather than having to play catch-up in a difficult economy.

Summary

Failure to balance successfully future requirements – even distant future requirements – with current requirements jeopardizes your future viability.   In fact, future requirements can be a competitive advantage if you have the ability to deliver them today.  If you intend to lead your industry, ignoring future requirements today is not an option.  

While being market driven is good business, anticipating the future is even smarter business.  Don’t let your customers fool you; the future is where they will be even if you’re not.

References

Businessweek, May 15,  “GM: Live Green or Die“

The price of gasoline is changing.  It’s been increasing for quite a few years now.  From an economic standpoint, it’s not very good.   Scientists say the Earth is warming.  Global warming will make the Earth less hospitable to many animals, maybe even to man.   Not all change is good.

Change is a fact of life in the technology industry, and most changes have been wonderful.  The internet is revolutionizing many aspects of our daily lives for the better.  We have cell phones, Blackberries, and iPods that have improved our ability to communicate and enjoy our leisure time.   The gaming industry must change just to remain competitive, and the gaming experience has improved dramatically over a short time.   Change is often good; change is often necessary.

In the practice of software management some seem to see change as only a positive characteristic, but it isn’t always.  The Agile Manifesto values, “Responding to change over following a plan.”   Yes, but should an Agile practitioner always dismiss the plan?  The Principles behind the Agile Manifesto adds further, “Welcome changing requirements, even late in the development.  Agile processes harness change for the customer’s competitive advantage.”  What if the change isn’t good?  Agile is silent about that, giving the impression that all change is good change, but we know that’s untrue.

I got to thinking about the subject of this article when I was importing some pictures into Windows Vista from my camera.  Vista changed the importing features significantly from Windows XP.  I liked the old import features in Windows XP better.  It was simple and functional.  Here’s how Vista’s features contrasts with XP’s features for importing pictures:

• XP gives me the ability to select a subset of the pictures while Vista forces me to import all the pictures. This creates more work for me if I’m to use the Vista importing tool.   Many of the pictures on the camera are for different events.  I normally don’t get the opportunity to import the pictures as soon as I take them, but even if they were of the same event, sometimes I like to give each picture a different name, so some of the pictures will be misnamed if I use the Vista tool.  Consequently, I no longer use the Vista import feature.
  
• XP gives me complete ability to select the folder while Vista creates a subfolder beneath the folder I select with a formulaic name.  This exacerbates the problem outlined above as not only do I need to change the filename, I would have to move them to new folders.  With XP I can repeat the import operation for each group of pictures to import. 

For me these changes to the import feature are a step backward in functionality. Anyone importing photos as I import them will have the same problem of some photos being misnamed and in misnamed folders.  Is all change good?

Let’s look at the Windows Aero features of Windows Vista.  While it looks cool, I never use the Windows Flip 3D.   The glass effect is cool also, but it doesn’t improve my productivity or make the computer more useful.  Some of the Aero features are helpful.  Alt-tab to switch between Windows is better than XP, and the preview display, when you point to a windows taskbar button, is also a helpful improvement.  Some changes are helpful, while other changes are neither helpful, useful, nor bad.

Change has impacts to a project: change may increase the costs to complete the project; change may increase the duration of the project; change may increase both the duration and costs, some change may have neutral impacts: neither good nor bad, and finally, some change may disappoint the customer.   If a project is going to endure a penalty, doesn’t it make sense to assess the value of the change before committing to delivering it?  Regardless if there are no impacts to the project commitments for accepting the change, should a team commit to delivering something without evaluating whether the change is going to realize positive value for the product?  It is for these reasons that traditional software practitioners support Change Control Processes.

Change Control isn’t about preventing change.  It’s about making good decisions about change.  If the change increases the budget, it’s about making sure the company’s financial plans can support the change.  If the change increases the duration, it’s about making sure customer commitments are not impacted adversely by accepting the change.  Finally, if we don’t evaluate the benefit of the change to the customer, we may commit to change that disappoints the customer.  And if a change has negative customer impacts, doesn’t it make sense to attempt to figure that out up front so that money and time can be focused to higher impact features?   Change is often good; change is often necessary, but only when we understand the value and the consequences of change, can we make good decisions about change.

I’ve been reading a few essays on blogs that say the aim should be good enough.  It’s hard for me to get excited about good enough.  It’s not very motivating. Think about it.  Can you get excited to get up every morning and say, “I can’t wait to go to work today and do a good enough job?”  How uninspiring?

Picture this.  You are a member of a new project team that is planning to build a new product that competes with Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft.  The manager calls a project kickoff meeting with the software development team.  To motivate and focus the team, he outlines the strategy to the troops.   He exclaims, “I don’t want you to get carried away with aiming for perfection.  Our goal is to develop a good enough product to begin to win market share away from Yahoo, Google, and Microsoft.”  It’s like some Dilbert cartoon. 

I didn’t get into the software business to build good enough products, and I’m pretty sure most people in this business didn’t either.   Could you picture yourself interviewing with a company, and the interviewer says, “Our software teams aim to build good enough products.”  As you shake hands and begin to exit the interview, you ask yourself, “I wonder how many people they hook with that line?”

Think about it.  Has Apple dominated the MP3 space because they decided to build a good enough product?   Has Apple actually aimed to build anything that you would consider good enough?  Is Google dominating the search market because their search is good enough?  Is the huge demand for the WII game console the result of a good enough product decision? 

Who get’s inspired to buy good enough?  What kind of demographic is that?  If you’re aiming to sell your products in the local five and dime store, good enough is all that’s required.  The commercial software market is extremely competitive.  Good enough won’t cut it for very long.

People who advocate good enough contrast it with perfection, but there is another choice: excellence.  Choose to build an excellent product.  Choose to build the best product. Not only will it be good for the bottom line, you will find that you are attracting the best talent in the industry.  Morale is high when individuals and teams are aiming high.  The best talent doesn’t aim to be good enough; they aim to be the best.  Aim to be good enough, and those who aim for excellence will leave your company and your products in the dust.