Episode 2 – The Rugby Game
/
RSS Feed
“Agile” can be said to have started when in 1986 Hirotaka Takeuchi and Ikujiro Nonaka published an article in the Harvard Business Review called “The New New Product Development Game“. Takeuchi was a professor in the strategy unit of Harvard Business School and Nonaka a university professor in Tokyo. They were looking at the development of innovative products and the approaches which had been used to create them.
This podcast is AI-generated based on material from the “Agile Plays” website and book and also refers to the HBR article “The New New Product Development Game“
Transcript
Welcome back everyone to Deep Dive. This time, we're gonna be taking a look at a paper that might seem a little, out of left field. Oh. It's called the new new product development game. And, Interesting.
It was published way back in 1986. Wow. 1986? That's, that's going back a bit. Yeah.
You might be thinking, you know, what could a paper from almost 40 years ago possibly have to say about product development today. Right? Right. But and trust me on this. The ideas in this paper, by Takuchi and Nonaka, they're more relevant now than ever, especially in our tech world.
Absolutely. It's amazing how much foresight they had, really. It's like they predicted this fast paced, collaborative world we're working in today. It really is. And that's exactly why we're doing this deep dive.
We're gonna unpack this rugby approach to product development that they talk about and hopefully, you know, see how it can help everyone create those truly groundbreaking products. Because the old ways of doing things, well, they just don't cut it anymore. The traditional approach was a lot like a relay race. You know, marketing finishes their part, hands it off to engineering. Engineering does their thing, tosses it over to production.
Each department is kinda stuck in its own silo. Yeah. I get that. Like a slow, predictable handoff. Yeah.
But we all know that in today's world, things change so fast, right, that rigidity just doesn't fly. Exactly. It's just not adaptable enough. And that that's where the whole rugby analogy comes in. It's this idea of a rugby team, you know, moving down the field as a single unit.
I like that. They're passing the ball back and forth, constantly adapting to what the other team is doing, and that's the kind of dynamic fluid approach Tekuchi and Nonaka are advocating for in product development. So instead of these isolated departments, we have a cross functional team working together from the very beginning to the end, constantly iterating and improving along the way. Precisely. And one of the most interesting and maybe even a little radical ideas they propose is this concept of built in instability.
Built in instability. Mhmm. I don't know. Who wants instability in their product development process? Right.
It sounds a little counterintuitive. Right? Instability sounds like a recipe for, I don't know, disaster Yeah. Not for innovation. You'd think so, but it's not about creating chaos.
It's about setting challenging goals. Give your teams the freedom to, to figure things out on their own, and then and this is key. Step back and let them work their magic. Takuchi and Nonaka use this example of of Fuji Xerox. They challenge their team to build a copier, right, but in half the usual time and at half the cost.
Wow. That is ambitious. Talk about pressure. Oh, it was. Absolutely.
But that pressure, that's the whole point. This ambitious target, what it did was it created this this healthy tension, this drive to really push the boundaries and come up with innovative solutions that they might not have even considered otherwise. I love that. So it's like it's like when you're watching a really close rugby match. You're on the edge of your seat.
You have no idea what's gonna happen next, but you're completely captivated by the intensity and this this feeling that something amazing is about to happen. Yes. Exactly. Right. And it's that kind of environment that allows for these self organizing teams to truly thrive.
Now when we talk about self organizing, we don't mean just letting everyone do whatever they want. Right? There's no guidance. The paper really emphasizes 3 key conditions that need to be in place for this approach to really work. Okay.
Lay it on me. What are the what are the ingredients for a truly self organizing team? So first off, you absolutely need autonomy. Teams have gotta have the power to make their own decisions, the freedom to experiment, to try things out, and to to pivot, to change direction when they need to without constantly going back and asking for permission. Yeah.
That makes a lot of sense. Trying to be agile when you're drowning in bureaucracy, that's not gonna work. Exactly. Exactly. Think about, think about the team that developed the IBM PC.
They were practically given the keys to this this remote warehouse and basically told go create something revolutionary. And that freedom, that's what allowed them to do things like use outside suppliers for parts for key components. Mhmm. In a more traditional company, that would have taken forever. So autonomy gives teams the power to move fast and break free from those constraints.
Precisely. But autonomy on its own, it's not enough. You also need what Tecuci and Nonaka call self transcendence. Self transcendence. Okay.
What's that all about? So this is about teams constantly pushing beyond those limits, setting really ambitious goals, and then striving, really striving to exceed them. So it's not just having the freedom to act, but also that drive to constantly, like, raise the bar. Right? Exactly.
It's a mindset. It's about embracing challenges and seeing the possibilities, right, where other people might just see limitations. They give the example of the Honda City Development team. Team. They were told to build a car that young people would love.
That's it. Seems a little simple, but, I mean, how do you even define what young people want? Right. It's a huge challenge. But this team, they embraced self transcendence.
They didn't just take an existing car and tweak it. They came up with a completely new design, this, what they call short and tall design that really challenged the conventional wisdom about what a car should be. Wow. So they really did transcend those limitations. And, I mean, it paid off.
Right? The Honda City was a huge hit. It was. And that success came directly from that willingness to push beyond the obvious, to challenge assumptions, and to create something truly innovative. And then there's the 3rd key ingredient for a self organizing team, and that is, cross fertilization.
Cross fertilization. Now it sounds like something you do in a garden. Yeah. I know. Right?
But think about it. It's about bringing together people from all different backgrounds, different disciplines, different ways of thinking, and then you let those different perspectives kind of, like, interact. And that's where the new ideas come from. I see. So instead of a room full of engineers, you'd have marketers, designers, even salespeople in there Yeah.
All throwing in their unique viewpoints. Exactly. Think back to that Fuji Xerox FX 35100 project team. They had people from planning, design, production, sales, distribution, evaluation, all working together in the same room. Can you imagine evaluation, all working together in the same room.
Can you imagine that energy? Sounds a little intense. Yeah. But I can totally see how that kind of collaboration and that cross functional collaboration could lead to those breakthroughs that just wouldn't happen otherwise. Absolutely.
And cross fertilization isn't just about different roles. It's about different personalities too. Remember the Honda City team, they actually specifically looked for people with different personalities, you know, to make sure they got that variety of viewpoints. So it's about creating that spark, that dynamic tension that comes from bringing all those different perspectives together. And that's what makes these self organizing teams so powerful.
It really is. But it does bring up a question. How do you make sure these teams, with all this freedom and autonomy, how do you make sure they don't go completely off track? How do you guide them without stifling that creativity? Yeah.
That's a that's a really good question. Almost like a paradox. Right? Right. Yeah.
How do you control a team that's that's supposed to be self organizing? Well, that's where this idea of, subtle control comes in. It's not about, like, breathing down their necks or, you know, dictating every single move. It's more about creating an environment where those self organizing teams can can really flourish, but, you know, at the same time, making sure they stay aligned with the company's, like, big picture goals. Okay.
Subtle control. I like that. How, how do you actually do that? Well, there are a few strategies that the paper outlines. One is to be really careful about who you put on these teams.
You need people who are not just experts, you know, in their fields, but they also need to be, like, self starters, people who are comfortable with, you know, not having all the answers right away and who actually who actually enjoy working collaboratively. Got it. So it's about finding those folks who are naturally drawn to this kind of work style. Right? Exactly.
You can't force somebody to be okay with with autonomy and self direction. Another thing that's really important is the physical space, you know, where they work. Create a space that really encourages that open communication. Remember that Fuji Xerox example, everyone was working together in one big room. That kind of environment, it can really it can really break down those barriers that exist between departments.
Yeah. I can see that. So it's not just the team itself, but the whole the whole work environment. Absolutely. And then and then, of course, you need clear goals, clear expectations.
I mean, even though these teams have a lot of freedom, they still need to know where they're headed and and what success looks like. Right. So it's kinda like, it's like a jazz ensemble. Mhmm. You know, they've got the freedom to improvise Mhmm.
But they're still playing within the structure of the song. Perfect analogy. And and lastly, management needs to provide that ongoing support and feedback, but in a way that doesn't feel like micromanaging. You know? Be a coach, not a dictator.
Okay. So you're not telling the team what to do. You're giving them the tools and the guidance, and then they figure it out for themselves. Exactly. And a big part of that is is creating a culture where it's okay to make mistakes.
You know? They're seen as learning opportunities, not like big failures. Yeah. That makes a lot of sense, especially in this kind of environment where you're you're experimenting all the time, iterating. I mean, you're gonna hit some roadblocks along the way.
Oh, absolutely. And the paper actually talks about how Honda, they encourage their engineers to embrace mistakes. They even have this saying, a 1% success rate is supported by mistakes made 99% of the time. Wow. That's that's a pretty powerful way to think about it.
So it's all about taking those risks, learning from your your missteps, and constantly refining your approach. Exactly. And all of this feeds into the next key characteristic of the rugby approach. It's called, multilearning. Think of it as this culture of constant learning, not just for individuals, but for for teams and the whole company.
Multilearning. Okay. What makes that different from, you know, just regular learning? It's about going beyond just, you know, sending people to conferences or having them take online courses. Right?
It's about learning across different levels. Individuals, you know, expanding their skill sets, teams sharing their knowledge with each other, and the whole company, like, becoming this learning organism. So it's it's like baking learning into the very DNA of the company. Exactly. And they give some great examples in the paper.
Like, 3 m, they have this famous 15% time policy where engineers can actually spend part of their work week on their own personal projects, you know, exploring new ideas, messing around with technologies that might not be directly related to what they're working on. That is so cool. It's like saying, hey. It's okay to be curious. Go follow your passions.
And it often leads to breakthroughs that no one saw coming. Another great example is Canon. Their engineers are known for spending time in toy departments just, you know, looking at gadgets and, just seeing how things work. Toy departments. I mean, that's not exactly what I picture when I think of, like, a high-tech company.
Yeah. But it's that idea of of learning from unexpected sources. You never know where that next big idea is gonna come from. Right. So you gotta stay open to those new possibilities, not just in your own little world, but everywhere.
Exactly. And this multi learning, it's not just about absorbing information. It's about sharing it. Hana and Canon are both really big on documenting their learnings, you know, making that information available to other teams. And you're creating this kind of, like, collective brain and knowledge base that everyone can tap into.
Precisely. And that leads us to the the final characteristic of the rugby approach. It's called organizational transfer of learning. And it's basically about making sure that all that all that knowledge and experience that you gain during a project, it doesn't just, you know, disappear when the project's over. Right.
Turn those hard won lessons into, like, lasting organizational wisdom. Exactly. And the paper talks about 2 main ways to do this. One is, osmosis. So, for example, you might take a key member from our really successful team and and put them on a new project so they can, you know, bring all their experience with them.
It's like cross pollinating the the organization with knowledge and expertise. Exactly. And then there's standardization, which is basically about, you know, putting those best practices from past projects into, like, formal processes and procedures. The paper gives an example of, Canon. They developed this whole standardized review process based on what they learned from their Auto Boy project.
So you're taking those, like, ad hoc learnings and making them into repeatable best practices? Exactly. But the paper also warns against too much standardization. You know? Things change so fast.
What worked for one project might not be relevant for the next one. Companies need to be, you know, flexible. They've gotta be willing to unlearn those old lessons and embrace new approaches as things change. So finding that sweet spot, right, between capturing that valuable knowledge and staying adaptable to change. Exactly.
And that's what the rugby approach is all about. It's about creating that dynamic, collaborative, and learning oriented culture that can actually thrive in a world where, you know, change is the only constant. So we've covered all six characteristics now, built in instability, self organizing teams, overlapping development phases, multi learning, subtle control, and the organizational transfer of learning. That was a lot. It was.
But what's really striking to me is how relevant all of these ideas still are. I mean, think about agile, think about cross functional teams, this this emphasis on constant learning that you see in, you know, modern workplaces. It all lines up perfectly with with this rugby approach. Like they were looking into a crystal ball. Yeah.
But how can, you know, how can people listening actually apply these principles? It all sounds great in theory, but what does it actually look like in the real world? I That is the question, isn't it? The $1,000,000 question. And I think the the really cool thing about this approach is that it's so adaptable.
You know, it's not about just copying exactly what what these companies were doing back in the eighties. Right? It's it's about understanding those core principles. Autonomy, self transcendence, cross fertilization, subtle control, multi learning, knowledge transfer, and then figuring out how they can work for you in your context, with your teams, your projects. Yeah.
It's a framework. Right? Not a set of hard and fast rules. Exactly. And, you know, think about your own team, your own project.
Do you have enough autonomy to make decisions? Can you move quickly? Are you encouraged to, like, really push yourself? You know, push yourself beyond your comfort zone and learn new things. Are you actively actively looking for different perspectives?
You know, fostering that cross fertilization of ideas. Those are great questions for anyone, really, whether you're, you know, leading a team or you're just a member of a team. And I love that, you know, they actually acknowledge, Takuchi and Nonaka, that this approach might not be the right fit for every single project or every company culture. Oh, yeah. For sure.
And they they point out that it can be, you know, pretty demanding. It requires a lot of commitment from everyone. A willingness to embrace ambiguity and, you know, a tolerance for those inevitable bumps in the road that you get when you're, you know, when you're trying to do something truly innovative. So it's not a, you know, magic bullet, but if you're willing to put in the work, the rewards are huge. Absolutely.
I mean, we've seen how this approach can lead to faster development, more innovative products, and, honestly, a more engaging and fulfilling experience for for everyone on the team. And isn't that what it's all about? Creating something that matters and, you know, building a a a work environment where people can can thrive and do their best work. Couldn't have said it better myself. But before we wrap up, I wanna I wanna leave you with one final thought.
Takeuchi and Nanaka, as insightful as they were I mean, they couldn't predict everything, right, about the future of work. So I think it's important for all of us to think about how this rugby approach might need to to evolve to meet the challenges of today's world. You know what I mean? Yeah. That's a great point.
I mean, what what new obstacles might teams face? What new opportunities might, you know, pop up as technology and and the way we work continues to change? Those are questions for, I don't know, another deep dive. I'm in. But for now, I hope this deep dive has given you a a new way to think about product development, one that really embraces collaboration, adaptability, and that that constant learning.
Yeah. Well said. So the big takeaway here is that the rugby approach, while it's not, you know, a walk in the park, it offers a really powerful and relevant model for for innovation and teamwork even in our in our crazy fast paced world. And as always, we wanna hear from you. What do you think?
How does this rugby approach, how does it apply to your work, your industry? What what new insights or challenges, do you think are worth exploring? Thanks for joining us on this deep dive into product development. Until next time, keep those ideas flowing and keep pushing the boundaries.
Leave a Reply