.png)
In Part 1, Project prioritization during COVID-19, you used the checklist provided to identify compromised R&D projects. As you may have noticed some of the statements within the list had differentiating symbols at the beginning. In Part 2, we use the symbols to reorganize the list and through deductive reasoning decide which R&D projects are truly under review. The goal of these thought exercises is not to cancel all projects listed but instead identify which projects are most likely to succeed or have a lasting impact.
The symbols represent three different streams of thought when assessing a project.
1. "#" = is the project defined enough to make a “to be or not to be” decision.
2. "*" (asterisk) = is the project instrumental to the evolution of the company
3. no symbol = identifies projects based on how difficult it will be for them to recover.
# - Is the project defined enough?
Projects that were written next to statements in Part 1 with a pound sign are not ready to be canceled. These projects have not been clearly defined. The desire to cancel them now could be a simple misunderstanding of their goals. Ask your team to pause for a bit and complete the following tasks before continuing your decision-making process.
Connect the technology to a specific possible business outcome.
Define quarterly milestones for the next four quarters.
Draft a budget to support achieving the milestones.
After you have all this information return to the list in Part 1 and see if the project now fits with any other statements in the list.
* - Is the project instrumental to the evolution of the company
Projects written next to statements with an asterisk are uniquely dynamic to the maturation of the company. Due to recent global events like COVID-19, the market assumptions that previously motivated these projects may no longer be relevant. Canceling these projects could dramatically impact long term company growth and development. Before deciding to halt these projects double-check that the market assumptions made have not shifted. See if you answer yes or no to the following two questions.
The proposed technology from this R&D project is relevant even if the current COVID-19 market continues for another year.
The proposed technology from this R&D project does not require the market to return to the previous state of normalcy following the end of COVID-19.
If the answer was yes to both questions these projects are still very instrumental to the long-term success of your company. Take a moment to then focus attention on other projects elsewhere in the list and see if they can be prioritized for defunding ahead of projects listed with an asterisk. If you answered no to either question they are now more of a financial risk than they were previously. This additional level of risk should be factored in when deciding on what work to halt.
No symbol - How difficult will it be for a project to recover?
The remaining projects paired with statements that have no symbol are immediately impacted in the way defined by the question. No symbol statements will aid us in ranking these projects by frequency, employee, and turn around time.
The first ranking of frequency is simply completed by counting how many times a project has been written down next to a question. Those that were written down more often will naturally have the most difficulty surviving due to compounding factors.
The second tier of ranking comes from my personal experiences. I have found that projects specifically associated with the IP generation will have the greatest struggle overcoming the loss of the lead inventor. Unless these projects have strong redundancy in training and/or excellent documentation you should seriously consider halting their work.
The final ranking is time. If the project is already falling behind, the most recent company struggles might compound these issues.
Last but not least ask yourself the following questions for each project under consideration and weigh your findings accordingly.
What impact will your decision have on team members both working on the project and watching its development in the company?
How will investors react to your decision and does your decision require board approval?
Was this project discussed publicly? How will customers and clients perceive your decision?
Final thoughts
I hope you appreciated looking at your team's work through a different lens. My purpose is to help executives visualize how not every project identified needs to be canceled. Sometimes projects just need their goals redefined. The statements considered in Part 1’s thought exercise should better elucidate the IP Flow philosophy where technology transfer is so much more than movement through product development stages. If you would like further support or just to chat about your findings, email me at Jes@IPFlow.biz. I always welcome discussing ways to better follow the IP Flow philosophy and empower your team members to succeed.