Art v. Science in Products
Bringing compelling and unique products to market requires a blend of art and science. The art is the vision of what might be; the stirring promise of something that might change our lives or make it easier, faster or less costly to perform some function or task. The science is the practical implementation of that vision; the profitable development, manufacturing and deployment of the product in a manner that is accretive to shareholders. In our world, product vision embodies the art of what’s possible the science of the practical is defined by architecture, design, discipline and execution.
Sometimes the intersection of what’s possible and what is practical is narrow or non-existent. In the case where it’s nonexistent we should run, not walk, away from the idea as very often it is destructive to shareholder value. Where that intersection exists but is small we should tread carefully to build something that can create shareholder value and hope that the foothold we create can expand once technology advances giving us a first mover advantage.
But what about when there is a larger intersection? Which is more important, the art or the science? While there are many people who will take one side or the other, and while I have my own opinion, the best answer is that you need both. Rarely is it the case that you will find someone with a compelling product vision and incredible execution skills as these two things seem to sit on opposite sides of a spectrum. It is much more likely that you will find someone who sits in the middle of the spectrum. These people can paint a vision and execute against it, but they aren’t Steve Jobs on the vision side or Jack Welch on the execution side.
We think some of the best teams are built with two people and potentially two organizations embodying the art and the science. A natural conflict occurs here, but it needn’t be an adversarial conflict. Assuming the appropriate company culture and a healthy respect for each other’s abilities and value-add to the company, it is possible for these people or organizations to work together and for the healthy tension to accelerate the creation of shareholder value. The “science” tethers the “art” and keeps it from wondering off aimlessly with no clear implementable path to value. The art buoys the science and keeps it from sinking and being mired for a lack of product differentiating vision.
As chief executives, it is our responsibility to attract and retain “the best of the best” within both the art and the science and to create a culture where both are valued. We should reward the folks who think and appear to be lost in the clouds to the same level as those who are attempting to keep them anchored to the practical. Neither should be seen as less or more important and the debates between them should be cordial and filled with mutual respect.