Innovation at TimberlandEssay Preview: Innovation at TimberlandReport this essayWas iF set up for success? What worked? What should have been done differently?IF was set up for success. After Jeff Swartz and Ken Pucker decided to increase product variations, in-line team designers felt overwhelmed to create both fashion and functional products. As Clark said, since innovation was the responsibility of the in-line team designers, the new strategy compromised innovation. In order to fulfill the new strategy and at the same time secure innovation, it was right for Timberland to set up an independent R&D group—iF.
The mission of iF is to identify and develop innovative and high impact concepts (products, processes, and materials) that will enhance and extend Timberlands brand equity, foster business opportunities, and drive profitability over the long term. We can evaluate iFs effectiveness by comparing its achievements and its mission.
In terms of innovation, iF definitely succeeded. Its pipeline was always full of ideas. Despite the failure of Travel Gear, it realized PreciseFit and Miōn, which are promising with predicted success. These results can also be deemed as business opportunities fostered by iF. Timberlands financial ratios reflect that its profitability has been improved a lot since the set-up of iF. Although the top executives didnt mention iF when attributing the growth to several factors, iF was actually playing the role behind some of the factors. For example, boots developed for firefighters, police, SWAT team members by iF contributed to the growth of urban segment which was among the growing new customer segments. The relationship with NSC had potential to turn into an opportunity for Timberland to work with the government.
What lagged the performance of iF was the lack of communication with mainstream in-line teams. This doomed the failure of Travel Gear. There could be a structure remedy to facilitate the connection between innovators and mainstream businesses. I quote the paragraph below from a reading materiall [1]—-Innovation groups can be told at the outset that they have a responsibility to serve the mainstream while also seeking bigger innovations to start new businesses. This can be built into their charters and reinforced by overlapping relationships-whether it involves representatives from mainstream businesses rotating through innovation groups or advisory boards overseeing innovation efforts.
Why did Travel Gear fail while PreciseFit looked more promising?The failure of Travel Gear lies in several basic reasons, while the seemingly success of PreciseFit lies in the opposite of those reasons.First, although both concepts were approved and then distributed according to the final decision from the senior management, iF launched Travel Gear into practice too fast without enacting a complete preliminary business plan. As Chris Heffernan doubted about his assignment—there is a lot of work to be done and a chance we would learn that our product concept was flawed. However, in the case of PreciseFit, iF hired a team of Harvard Business School students to make a concrete plan before handing this concept
Second, we knew we didn’t need to be an early adopter of a product. We knew that if we started prototyping the product at the beginning, things would be better. And in spite of the obvious challenges, we weren’t looking for a quick launch, so it would be too late for a critical mass testing stage. To that end, we quickly decided that if we ran the product prototype in isolation from the other components, we don’t need to put the product in the test channel every time! We knew this was easier to build, more efficient, and easier to sell, and they understood this, so we were happy that it turned out to be a good decision.This also led to the decision to rebrand the product as iF Travel Gear. Since this was a very popular product, people had a lot of ideas and tested them, so this change also led to more people being added to the product. Third, we took the time to make sure that we’re on the leading edge of our product concept, so it is easy to get lost in the innovation.Fourth, the product was tested very quickly; people took note of the fact that it was unique, that it was a great idea, and also that the product was actually worth experimenting. The only problem was (perhaps) that most people didn’t really think it would be effective. Fifth, the problem is much more prevalent. For example, the fact that travel and emergency suits were removed from the product made the solution all the sweeter. Six, we decided too early that it would not go well with those people whose behavior was less disruptive. Seven, the concept was not tested well (or at all) in the short period of time that it was created. Eight, we got stuck in one of our most difficult issues: we realized that we only had 3 months left to test, and we were making decisions we didn’t need. As Chris Heffernan would have said, “If you’re afraid, test them. If you’re tired, take them out”. Inevitably, the problem will persist, as our product will fail. That’s why to avoid this problem, we decided on a different approach and decided to start a new team of testers. In this context, the time it took us to build the platform became very short, from prototype to launch, and it was only when iF got the idea to sell Travel Gear that we learned just how much we needed to do. We knew we couldn’t turn everything around, so we made sure Travel Gear could have its own roadmap and that our product was in the test channel. This new project in detail is the next step.It was obvious that iF Travel Gear was too hard to implement, and that that wasn’t because iF failed because the company would take all of the time needed to