Failure of the mini water-oxidation product
The first two generations of the mini water-oxidation product failed thus affecting the sustainability of the Filtration Unit. The case study shows clearly that several reasons led to this failure. To begin with, Peter Vyas managerial approach failed to support the needs of the team. He delegated different roles to the team without presenting his leadership inputs (Bartlett and Beckham 4). The malpractice played a major role in the failure of the prototype.
As well, issues to do with market assessment were analyzed and assessed by Janice Wagner. This approach made it impossible for the team to have a clear understanding of the different consumer needs. The development process for the water-oxidation product was also poorly coordinated. The team focused on a new version of the product after the original one failed. These modifications increased costs thus affecting the success of the product. The planning and analysis processes were poorly implemented thus affecting every product development goal.
The management approach by Peter Vyas
The management approach embraced by Peter Vyas played a significant role in the failure of the first two generations of the product. Vyas failed to present the best inputs throughout the product development process. He always instructed the team to focus on various product development activities. The members of the team possessed the best competencies and skills. However, the manager failed to offer appropriate guidelines for product planning and testing (Bartlett and Beckham 4).
The leader was never involved in the development process. He failed to develop the most desirable discipline thus affecting the quality of the targeted results. The team was forced to identify its product development strategies. The team was forced to select new partners to make the project successful. The absence of participative leadership, therefore, affected the success of the product (Chaudhry and Javed 261).
The leadership styles of Peter Vyas
The leadership styles embraced by Peter Vyas and Cynthia Jackson differ significantly. Vyas can be described as a laissez-faire leader. Vyas allowed the team to make its own decisions. The leader was always unaware of the major opportunities and challenges associated with the targeted project. However, the leader delivered minimal inputs thus affecting the success of the project. The approach made it possible for the team to come up with innovative ideas (Harper 26).
However, the leadership approach affected the planning and implementation process for the product. On the other hand, Cynthia Jackson embraced the power of participative leadership. She monitored every phase of the product development process. She provided new insights and recommendations to produce the best results (Bartlett and Beckham 7). As well, she addressed the major challenges affecting the launch of the original product. She also obtained clear explanations and analyses from the team. However, this leadership approach consumes time thus affecting performance.
Project management
Project management (PM) is a powerful practice that dictates the success of every innovative product (Tarsik, Kassim and Nasharudin 7). Project managers should be aware of the major issues associated with the targeted product. Project management focuses on various issues such as scheduling, scope, and risk, and cost before the targeted product is launched. The most important subject to monitor is scope and risk (Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt and Engen 573). This is the case because the product should address the needs of both the firm and the targeted consumers. Risks should also be outlined to ensure the product development process is successful (Horth and Vehar 6). Project managers should also monitor other issues such as scheduling and costs to deliver tangible results.
Works Cited
Bartlett, Christopher and Heather Beckham. “Applied Research Technologies, Inc.: Global Innovation’s Challenges.” Harvard Business School 1.1 (2010): 1-11. Print.
Chaudhry, Abdul and Husnain Javed. “Impact of Transactional and Laissez Faire Leadership Style on Motivation.” International Journal of Business and Social Science 3.7 (2012): 258-264. Print.
Eagly, Alice, Mary Johannesen-Schmidt and Marloes Engen. “Transformational, Transactional, and Laissez-Faire Leadership Styles: A Meta-Analysis Comparing Women and Men.” Psychological Bulletin 129.4 (2003): 569-591. Print.
Harper, Shanta. “The Leader Coach: A Model of Multi-Style Leadership.” Journal of Practical Consulting 4.1 (2012): 22-31. Print.
Horth, David and Jonathan Vehar. “Becoming a Leader Who Fosters Innovation.” Center for Creative Leadership 1.1 (2014): 1-24. Print.
Tarsik, Nor, Norliya Kassim and Nurhidayah Nasharudin. “Transformational, Transactional or Laissez-Faire: What Styles do University Librarians Practice.” Journal of Organizational Management Studies 1.1 (2014): 1-10. Print.