ANÁLISIS COMPARATIVO DE LAS NORMATIVAS ESTUDIADAS

A project charter is the starting point for a product-develop- ment effort. Its key elements are specific goals, a project scope, deliverables, and a time line, which are discussed next in this subsection.

First the reader should be aware that, when developing a project charter, design teams often seek to follow the Product/Technology Strategy Resource Management Product/Technology- Development Framework Environment for Innovation New Products

Figure 2.1 Key factors for a healthy new-product-development

pipeline.

SMART principle; that is, to focus on specific, measurable, agreed-upon, realistic, and time-based aspects of the prod- uct design. By specific, it is implied that the charter is well defined and clear to persons with a basic knowledge of the project. The term measurable implies that well-recognized, clear indicators are available to denote when the project objectives have been achieved. By agreed-upon, it is implied that all of the stakeholders are in agreement with the goals of the project. The term realistic implies that these goals can be achieved using available knowledge, time, and resources. And, finally, the term time-based implies that the datelines for completion of the overall project and its stages are sound.

The identification of specific goals, that is, specific targets, is very important to prevent so-called project scope creep. Often, these goals are expressed by stating the objectives of the project or, alternatively, by posing several questions to be answered during the course of the project.

The project scope defines the boundary of the project. It is helpful to classify its associated elements as in-scope or out- of-scope using an in-scope and out-of-scope exercise, as illustrated in Example 2.1, recognizing that the boundaries and scope often change as the project progresses.

The deliverables are items to be completed during the project. They help to define the desired outcomes of the project, and are often subdivided into groups to be presented at the gate review following each stage, as illustrated in Figure 2.3(b) in Section 2.3. Normally, the gate reviewers focus their evaluations on these deliverables.

The time line presents projections of the project comple- tion date and the dates for the gate reviews. Of course, these dates are frequently renegotiated at the completion of each stage.

Next, Example 2.1 illustrates the creation of a project charter for the development of a new incandescent light bulb product in the mid-1980s. Note that a complete case study for this product design is presented in Section 17.2.

EXAMPLE 2.1

The time frame for this example is taken to be the mid-1980s, when a market leader in general lighting had just announced a new incandescent light bulb with an improved lifetime from 750 to 1,000 hr. To provide competition, hopefully in the near future, a development team of the leading competitor was created to carry out a design project to increase the lifetime of incandescent light bulbs, with the goal of at least doubling their lifetimes to 2,000 hr while maintaining their costs. Assume you were a member of the team charged with first developing a charter for the project, and:

1. Write a goal statement for the lifetime-improvement project. 2. Carry out the in-scope and out-of-scope exercise.

3. Determine the deliverables and timeline.

Based upon your knowledge of incandescent light bulbs in the mid-1980s (see the history in Section 16.2), prepare a

project charter typical of one likely to have been prepared at that time.

SOLUTION

Before addressing the project charter, it should be recognized that a multidisciplinary design team was probably assembled, involving chemical engineers, material scientists, electrical engineers, product-development persons, and businesspersons. In many cases, the team would include representative developers of the key technologies.

When first considering the objectives, the design team prob- ably observed that the goal statement ‘‘to increase the lifetime of incandescent light bulbs’’ would not follow the SMART prin- ciple adequately. Consequently, it likely would have prepared an improved goal statement, for example, ‘‘to develop a new incandescent bulb having a longer lifetime, at least twice that of existing products (namely, 2,000 hr), while not significantly altering the price.’’ Subsequently, adhering more closely to the SMART principle, it likely created an initial project charter typical of that in Table 2.1.

As is common in initial project charters, the initial scope likely defined only the major boundaries of the project, and, consequently, it was probably decided to refine the scope using the in-scope and out-of-scope exercise. This exercise would not only have further defined the product specifications, but also would have likely clarified the objectives of the development project in terms of the technical requirements, manufacturing requirements, etc. As shown in the case studies in Chapters 13, 15, and 17, the initial scope is often altered as the product design proceeds.

In the in-scope and out-of-scope exercise, given the goal statement and the initial project scope, it is recommended that

Table 2.1 Initial Project Charter

Project Name Longer-lifetime incandescent light bulb

Project Champions Business Director of the Home Lighting

Business

Project Leader John Doe

Specific Goals Incandescent light bulbs with a lifetime

of at least 2,000 hr, or twice that of the current product line, at the same cost

Project Scope In-scope:

 _{Light bulbs for household lighting}  _{Minimal changes to the current}

manufacturing capability Out-of-scope:

 Light bulbs for non-household applications

Deliverables  Business opportunity assessment

 Technical feasibility assessment  _{Manufacturing capability assessment}  _{Product life-cycle assessment}

Time Line Product prototypes for market testing

each team member list the items he/she believes to be in-scope (included) or out-of-scope (excluded) in the project. With the views of the individual team members represented, the entire team discusses the controversial items and achieves a consensus list. Note that in those rare incidents when an item cannot be resolved, it is common to resolve the ambiguities with the assistance of the project sponsors.

In this example, the initial scope in Table 2.1 would likely have been expanded into:

Next, the product-development team probably agreed upon its list of deliverables to be completed during the project. Note that often the deliverables are best defined as the answers to a list of critical questions, providing data and/or recommendations that influence the business decision makers on the project. Because this light-bulb project was likely based upon a limited voice of the customer, that is, typical customer opinions, it would have been prudent to ask if the needs for longer-life light bulbs were real. Stated differently, key questions were likely: How large is the business opportunity for longer-life light bulbs? Is it technically feasible? Is it possible to save energy (although energy savings were not a priority in the mid-1980s, due to the availability of low-cost fuel)? In obtaining answers, it is likely the design team contacted the proponents, or cham- pions, among its customers, seeking answers to these questions in the form of: (1) a business opportunity assessment, (2) a technical feasibility assessment, and (3) a manufacturing capa- bility assessment. In addition, with companies required by law to comply with EHS (environmental, health, and safety) reg- ulations and standards, the team needed to plan for product life- cycle management.

For this project, given that a competitive, new light bulb had just been announced, the time-to-market would have been a critical element. For this reason, the project champions/spon- sors had likely asked the team to provide a product prototype within one year, with the concept stage (to be discussed) completed in three months and the feasibility stage completed in 12 months.

Having completed the in-scope and out-of-scope exercise, the list of deliverables, and the time line, the design team likely prepared its final project charter similar to that in Table 2.2. After receiving approval by the project sponsors, the team likely began the concept stage of the SGPDP, or equivalent, as discussed in the next sub- section.