Apple released a new version of the iPhone yesterday. Many were disappointed because it’s not a major upgrade. There are even complaints that Apple has been slow to introduce a new design for the phone.
Which had me wondering … what if the designers of a cool new gadget had to go through the same steps that I do when developing a property? What would that look like?
I think it would look something like this:
1) Get a great idea for a new product.
2) Learn everything you can about the demand for your product and what people really want.
3) Apply your knowledge and design the product with things that nobody wants.
4) Submit your flawed design to regulators for approval. They are legally bound to comment within 6-weeks, but it takes ten. Their comments are negative about the things nobody wants.
5) Redesign your product by eliminating things you never wanted so the regulators feel they accomplished something.
6) Submit the redesigned product to the regulators. They are legally bound to respond in 3-weeks, but it takes five. They demand you hire outside consultants to provide proof that your product will do what you say it will do.
7) Hire outside consultants. The consultants promise to have studies done in 30-days. It takes 60-days. They say what everybody knew they’d say.
8 ) You resubmit the design with the consultants comments, and you ask for a variance on issues that remain debatable. The regulators give you the variance application but offer no encouragement.
9) You submit the variance request. The hearing to consider the variance is 3-months away.
10) At the hearing, the committee chosen to consider variances believes they have better ideas for the design of your product. After public input that includes one neighbor suggesting your product will cause blindness in goats, they agree by a 3-2 vote to approve your variance.
11) Now you have to send a letter to every conceivable customer or anybody who might ever drive past a place where your product is being used. The letter announces a meeting for public input. Less than 1% read your letter.
12) Recognizing that the public meeting is overseen by seven political appointees, you invite them to check out the product design at your office. Three of them come and appreciate the free coffee and donuts. The other four don’t return your call.
13) At the public meeting, residents from the local mobile home park complain that when they were young nobody needed such a product. The meeting goes so long that it is continued to the following month.
14) The next day the local newspaper carries a story about your product causing blindness in mobile home park dwelling goats.
15) At the next public meeting the pro-goat lobby complains. Two committee members, with ambitions to be elected to the city council, ask lots of questions about macular degeneration among goats. The meeting goes long and is continued to the next month.
16) The next day the local newspaper carries an editorial about the value of healthy goats in a thriving economy.
17) You call the pro-goat lobby and offer your product free to underprivileged goats if they’ll support your product. They accept the offer.
18) At the meeting, the committee approves your product with three positive votes (all recipients of free donuts) against two negative votes (all still catering to a pro-goat vote). Two committee members are absent.
19) With approvals on the variances and support of the committee, your design is submitted to the City Council. They put it on the agenda for a meeting in 90-days.
20) You contact the Mayor and ask for a swift process. She expounds on the horror of inefficient bureaucracies and how government needs to get out of the way of business.
21) You also call the Vice-Mayor and ask for a swift process. He expounds on the evils of capitalism and the need to reign in rampant consumerism.
22) Finally the City Council convenes with your product on the agenda. But the meeting goes long and you are bumped to the meeting a week later.
23) A week later, a different pro-goat lobby shows up and complains that your product is flawed. You find out later that your competitor — who is just now submitting his plans for a competitive product — funded the new pro-goat lobby group.
24) Despite the protests of the faux pro-goat lobby, the City Council asks you to present your product design. You share the design of your product, how it will be used in public, what the cost will be, reveal all proprietary secrets including any patents you have pending, and identify the people who will actually build your product. Your competitor, wearing a 12 inch pro-goat badge in the back, is discreetly taking photos of your patents.
25) Finally the City Council votes. The Mayor abstains by saying she owns a goat and thus must recuse herself from voting. The Vice Mayor says he hates the whole idea of your product but that the system prevents him from voting against it, so he votes in favor. Two other city council members vote in favor of your product. One city council member, who has never made a comment, votes against you. You have approval for your product by a vote of 3-1 with one abstention.
26) The approved permit is only good for a set period of time. If you can’t get your product built within that time frame, you have to start the process all over.
27) You ask the banks for a loan so you can build your product. They say no. Then yes. Then no. Then finally yes.
28) The product is built.
29) They Mayor shows up for the public reveal of your new product. Privately, she asks about job opportunities when her term is over.
30) The next day, the local newspaper carries a story complaining that the product is disappointing and not what they really hoped for. They ask when you plan on coming out with something newer. A side story complains about the over population of goats.