Product Marketing Failure: HP Drive

753 Words2 Pages

Flight of the Kittyhawk
In an attempt to increase the market share with in the digital memory division (DMD) of Hewlett-Packard, management decided to analyze the potential profitability of developing a 1.3” drive that would surpass the current technology within this continually growing market. Teams comprised of the best and brightest employees, within the organization, were tasked with developing this new product from the ground up. After successfully delivering on their goals, the new drive was ready for the customer. Initial sales were one tenth of the prescribed figures and the 1.3” drive was scraped, even though it was a far superior product to the current technology available at the time of introduction. Throughout this case study I will outline the reasons this project ultimately failed and discuss how some of the mistakes that lead to the drives demise were actually rational decisions.
Most of the decisions that HP made regarding the Kittyhawk project were fundamentally sound. For instance, the senior management was in full support of this project, including the executive vice president of the computer products organization. This ultimately increased the success within the development stages of the drive and allowed the team to seamlessly achieve milestones within the projects timeline. Secondly, the team was comprised of talent that did not possess the traditional development process that a large firm like HP is accustom to. The group was also physically segregated from the company and was given the financial backing to achieve the projects critical objectives. All of these decisions by HP gave the project autonomy from the traditional HP development procedures. This approach help the development teams operate as a sma...

... middle of paper ...

...nths they would need to produce a high volume with low margins and this was not possible at the time of release and the project was scrapped.
From initial assessment the project had all of the indicators of a sustaining product line. Which would justify all of the decisions management made as rational. Making a product with increased critical performance features with our current processes and enhance the value system of HP sounded great! Unfortunately, this was a disruptive technology that should have been developed for less than $50 and marketed to gaming community. This case is a classic lesson on the importance of knowing what direction you development team is going, sustaining or disruptive, and accurate categorization. If the project is incorrectly categorized it effects all facets of business including finance, development, marketing, and, management.

Open Document