Introducing new tech to your company: 3 strategies

SPECIAL FOCUS

Introducing new tech to your company: 3 strategies

Large corporations have Long recognized the vaLue of innovation. However, how does a research and development project become a technology solution that teams on the ground actually use?

Astudy was conducted to investigate this question, which analyzed several data sources from a large, multinational oil company. The researchers reviewed 7,000 drilling projects over a decade, examined the career histories of over 30,000 engineers dating back to 1979, and conducted a series of interviews with current engineers, managers, and executives. They discovered that the company had consistently demonstrated an interest in innovation, spending billions of dollars on R&D each year and generating nearly 10,000 patents to date.

Furthermore, they discovered that when the company adopted advanced technologies developed through its R&D efforts, drilling costs fell by 15%, resulting in an average savings of $90 million per year per subsidiary. With low oil prices, those savings were significant. Despite this significant investment in innovation and unmistakable evidence that innovation pays off financially, the researchers discovered that the company sometimes struggled to gain internal traction for new technologies developed by its R&D teams. Their research identified several common roadblocks and three strategies that are especially effective at encouraging new tools and systems adoption.

BEGIN WITH THE USERS

Large corporations often take a top-down approach, developing new technologies based upon high-level strategic and financial concerns before passing them on to subsidiaries and teams.

This can work, but the researchers discovered that the frontline engineers tasked with implementation were very hesitant to follow the instructions of some distant R&D researchers on how to do their jobs. And it's easy to understand why. These projects already have a lot of

uncertainty and risk, and if something goes wrong, it could sink millions of dollars into the sand.

To overcome this apprehension, the researchers discovered that a bottom-up approach was frequently far more effective. Another engineer they spoke with described how his subsidiary's head of technology was generally opposed to using new technologies from headquarters, arguing that they were a waste of time and money. As a result, whenever R&D proposed new technologies to the subsidiary, the proposals were rejected even before they were discussed on the ground.

However, when this engineer visited headquarters and had the opportunity to observe a new system that R&D was developing to prevent water seepage into oil wells, he was captivated. When he returned from his trip and shared the new technology with his colleagues, they decided to disregard the head of technology and go ahead with the solution anyway. They quickly noticed a significant reduction in water seepage, and their success convinced the boss to jump on board and approve the technology throughout the subsidiary.

The critical point here was that, like most advances, this new technology was not simply plug-and-play. For the solution to work outside the lab, project engineers had to conduct a series of experiments and fine-tune the solution for their specific location. If the people on the ground aren't thrilled about a project like this, they can always use the need for adaptation as an excuse to decline the project. However, once people are on board, they will embrace the challenge and do the work required to ensure the advancement's success. That is why R&D teams must begin by interacting with the people who will be using the solutions rather than the bosses who approve budgets. If the R&D team can persuade a few people, they will be able to test whether their new creation improves things in the real world. And once they've had success with one field unit, they'll have a much stronger case when it comes time to talk to others.

CHOOSE THE BEST EARLY ADOPTERS

Of course, starting with users is only the first step. R&D teams must identify which users will be most receptive to specific new technologies to maximize their chances of success. This could be people

SPECIAL FOCUS

who are particularly dissatisfied with the status quo — the engineers described above, for example, have had to deal with water seepage for so long that they were open to trying something new — or people who have a specific interest in the proposed new technology.

Suppose an R&D team is developing a digital version of a critical analog control system. In that case, it may begin with the operational group that pioneered the old system, as those teams are likely to have the most context to understand the benefits of the update.

In addition, the company studied by the researchers implemented two different programs to align R&D teams with the most suitable field engineers. First, the company identified engineers with operational and research experience, and the R&D teams ensured that those engineers were kept up to date on new developments relevant to their research areas. Second, the company established R&D outposts that would allow researchers to rotate through different units, which would enable them to promote new technologies and better understand the current operational needs of field engineers, allowing them to tailor their pitches and solutions to the needs of individual teams.

REDUCE THE FINANCIAL BARRIER

Finally, one of the most frequently cited reasons for teams failing to comply with requests to adopt new systems is that implementation often necessitates both man-hours and significant capital investment. These obstacles, however, do not have to be insurmountable.

There are numerous creative ways to obtain the resources required, such as through a grant, an internal incubator, external funding, and so on. In the case of water seepage, the R&D team persuaded an internal venture fund to fund the initial trial, which helped the R&D team win over the field engineer's group.

Another effective strategy is to group projects of various sizes. The researchers discovered that while R&D teams may be eager to see a technological advance tested in a large project, project managers are unlikely to desire to take on so much additional risk. To solve this issue, the R&D team would locate a small project elsewhere to serve as a guinea pig, and the big project would fund the first round of implementation.

This created a win-win situation: the costs to the big project were relatively low, so the damage was limited if things went wrong, and if it succeeded, they would have the proof of concept they needed to implement the technology more widely. Meanwhile, it provided the small project with access to technology that would otherwise be prohibitively expensive, which meant that the managers on these teams were often more than willing to take on the additional risk. Most R&D teams are unable to subsidize the implementation costs of new technologies fully, so it is critical to explore creative solutions like this to gain the support of local champions.

R&D teams cannot take their users for granted when it comes to internal technology rollouts. To gain internal traction, businesses need to treat these users as partners, understanding and addressing their actual needs rather than presenting solutions that do not work for them, by identifying potential early adopters from the bottom up and tackling the financial and non-financial obstacles that prevent people on the ground from successfully implementing the solution.