Since the Industrial Revolution, product development methods have continuously evolved, reflecting the transition from the Industrial Age to the Information Age. The internet has revolutionised collaboration in recent years, enabling engineering and design teams to work more closely together. This enhanced collaboration has significantly accelerated the development of products and services.
The Industrial Revolution, which spanned from 1760 to 1840, led to a need for more skilled craftsmen. This period, which originated in Great Britain and spread to Europe and the United States, saw the replacement of artisans with assembly lines using replaceable cogs for basic tasks. Centralised management during this era hindered the overall success of projects, limiting the benefits that could be reaped by all involved. As assembly lines became more prevalent, craftspeople lost the ability to customise products and provide consumers with choices. This centralisation trend reduced craftspeople’s autonomy and hindered their ability to create unique products, resulting in more options and higher quality for customers.
Taylor’s efforts to optimise Henry Ford’s assembly line led to a more robust system, yet workers could not fully utilise their knowledge and creativity. During the late 19th century, this mechanised approach to production became pervasive, symbolising a decline in human agency within industrial settings. In Ford’s factories, for instance, workers’ movements were meticulously timed and monitored using a stopwatch, epitomising the reduction of labourers to mere cogs in the industrial machine.
The two world wars necessitated a limited workforce to produce substantial quantities of materials, leading to significant advancements in factory innovation. Millions of squatters were trained and integrated into the workforce to address urban poverty. The assembly line facilitated rapid production and reduced labour hours but required leadership to train and guide the newly hired workers. In this context, knowledge and skill became as crucial to the assembly line as capital equipment at every production stage.
In the aftermath of World War II, soldiers returned to their previous employment, preserving America’s industrial base. However, this period was marked by a lackadaisical attitude, leading to the neglect of many wartime lessons in factories. The soldiers’ departure from factory roles resulted in the loss of significant acquired knowledge. This shift is noted for its role in increasing the number of working women to 20 million during the four years of the war.
The lessons gleaned from overseas were embraced by other nations and implemented effectively. For instance, during the American occupation of Japan, numerous industrial consultants who had previously aided in boosting American industrial production during the war were instrumental in rebuilding Japan’s manufacturing sector. Toyota, among others, integrated these principles into its operations, mirroring the productivity gains achieved by American industry during the war.
Due to these transformations in Japan, numerous daily decisions regarding quality and efficiency have been decentralised, and individuals have been reinstated to their intrinsic values within the workplace. Companies like Toyota have ascended to dominate the global automobile market due to their lower costs and superior quality. The decentralised decision-making framework has enabled Toyota to devise innovative solutions to challenges and enhance efficiency while maintaining cost-effectiveness. This approach has facilitated the production of high-quality vehicles at a fraction of the cost of their competitors, thereby conferring a competitive advantage in the international market.
In 1986, Takechi and Nonaka revealed that certain companies consistently and rapidly produce highly successful and innovative products. The distinguishing factor was their unique approach to the development process. These companies did not employ a “relay race” model of sequential development, contrasting with the waterfall approach prevalent in the software industry. Instead, they utilised handpicked cross-disciplinary teams that collaboratively iterated on product development. This method was likened to a rugby team moving the ball up and down the field together, and it was compared to scrum formation.
DeGrace and Stahl’s book, *Wicked Problems, Righteous Solutions*, identified Scrum as a model for software development. Jeff and Ken at Advanced Development Methods first applied this model in the early 1990s at Easel Corporation. Schwaber and Mike later wrote a book that popularised Scrum. Although initially developed by Sutherland and Schwaber, Scrum incorporates ideas from various sources. It includes practices such as daily meetings, task assignments, posting work on a wall, and graphing work, which are not novel concepts for teams.
