MIT Sloan Management Review

Management of Technology and Innovation

Beating Murphy’s Law

By W. Bruce Chew, Dorothy Leonard-Barton and Roger E. Bohn

April 15, 1991

HAVE YOU EVER tried to introduce new technology on the plant floor? Just a guess: everything that could go wrong, did. You developed an action plan, but it proved virtually useless. Of course it did, say these authors. With all the possible problems that can arise, no plan that addresses specific contingencies is adequate. What you need is a plan that emphasizes organizational learning. By systematic learning from every angle, during all phases of implementation and well after, you can not only implement the technology successfully, you can continuously improve all your business processes. W. Bruce Chew is Assistant Professor and Dorothy Leonard-Barton is Associate Professor at Harvard Business School. Roger E. Bohn is Visiting Scholar at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Center for Technology, Policy, and Industrial Development.

Buy article & permissions

IN THE PRESS, managers trumpet the success of new technologies. But all too often the private answer to “How is the new equipment working?” is “Badly.” Managers lament that their experience is living proof of Murphy’s famous Law: “Whatever can go wrong, will.” Yet the introduction of new technology is essential for long-term survival. Several examples illustrate how Murphy can intrude.

A southern furniture manufacturer decided to implement computer-controlled fabric cutting equipment. The head of the project, a top engineer, visited firms that had already successfully installed the equipment, developed a detailed action plan, and projected the expected efficiency gains (see Figure 1).

Nine months later the expected gains had yet to materialize. The problems could be traced to a multitude of unforeseen circumstances. The software to support the cutting equipment was not prepared on time. The changes in production scheduling, which were made to keep the equipment’s utilization high, required more indirect labor than originally planned. New cutting tables were too wide. The cutting department found that their old jack-of-all-trades approach resulted in too much waiting time and that they had to work as specialized teams. Downstream from the cutting department, the sewing staff found their productivity reduced—the fabric was poorly cut, primarily because the suppliers sent nonstandard widths. Upstream and downstream, direct and indirect, cost and quality;... To read the complete article, login or sign-up using the form below.

From The Magazine

Fall 2009

Special Report: Sustainability

8 Reasons That Sustainability Will Change Management

Michael S. Hopkins

Transparency, accidental innovation, trust, collaboration — as sustainability affects how the world works, so will it affect how business works in the world.

Intelligence: Management

Debunking Management Myths

Martha E. Mangelsdorf

In this interview, Henry Mintzberg questions some of the conventional wisdom about managerial work.