1. Was iF set up for success? What worked?

What should have been done

differently?
IF an independent R & D group was set up for success to increase product variations
by innovating high impact concepts. This would make the Timberlands brand
stronger and bring more business opportunities in long term.
iF expertise had plenty of ideas. Their first successful product was PreciseFit and
Min, as most promising products. After iF was set up the financial condition was
improved drastically. The products that iF developed were boots for police SWAT,
firefighters, team members contributed to the growth of urban segment which was
among the upcoming latest segments. Their relationship with NSC had potential to
turn into an opportunity for Timberland to work with the government.
Lack of collaboration across various groups was major barrier for iFs success.
Structural reorganization will facilitate the connection between innovators and
mainstream businesses. All groups should be involved who are going to part of
developing and bringing into market. They should have charter which describes
responsibilities and roles of each team.
2. Why did Travel Gear fail while PreciseFit looked more promising?
Travel Gear failed to jot a preliminary business plan. They were already doubtful of
the success as it was a lot of work to be accomplished considering its first product.
As quote says Failure is the first step towards success proved correct in case of iF
next product that was PreciseFit. They hired a team of Harvard Business School
students to make a concrete plan before handing this concept to the steering
committee.
In the case of Travel Gear the in-line teams were wary of the survey result and
changed the pricing strategy . iF worked closely with in-line team instead of just
tossing the concept and leaving those teams to work on their own. Healy the team
member remained involved throughout the process which increased the
collaboration and communications channels while developing PreciseFit. The
creation of cross-functional team consisting of senior leaders and product
management personnel contributed to success of PreciseFit. Involving the
departments in the initial developmental stage solved discrepancy between
production and iF s intension.
3. After learning from earlier experience, is iF now in a position to help catalyze
change throughout Timberland by creating innovations that the rest of the company
will receive and use? Why or why not?
IF is not fully prepared to create innovations that the rest of the company can
receive and use. The tension between in-line teams and iF supports my stance in

above sentence. The acceptance of iFs concepts is still unstable although PreciseFit
was accepted by the in-line team, Urban Renewal was not.
The reasons lie in the organization structure. IF is a separate R&D entity. Members
of this team generate ideas without taking into consideration in-line teams.
PreciseFit was success because Healer remedied iFs relationship with in-line team
and wholesalers after steering committee approved this idea. Hence it is important
that both teams solve all the contradiction before officially launching the project.
Current organizational structure has uneven work breakdown, the in-line teams are
over burdened than iF. In-line teams have are not involved in the product
development or positioning the concept while they are responsible for getting the
product out of the company to sell in market. To efficiently catalyze change
throughout Timberland iF should integrate with its in-line team.