Talk:Phase-gate process/Archive 1

This page archived on July 5, 2017. 23:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Commercial

This entry is a proprietary approach to a very old concept. "Phase-Gate" is more generic; we need an article on that first, and then this article can be an attachment of this fellow's proprietary twist and unique lingo on it. In engineering and construction, phased schemes of estimates for development and funding has been around since at least 1958 when AACE (with Esso and P&G authors) proposed a standard 4-phased Estimating system wherein phased estimates of increasing accuracy were used to fund successively more study. I'd write the article if I had time.

Comment to the above by Jenarl: Stage-Gate is the term that some people have written about in the article. The term appeared for the first time in 1988 . Phase-Gate appeared much later - maybe to try circumventing the Stage-Gate trademark. There's nothing wrong with writing about something important that is also a trademark. Yes, there were phased approaches to product development before Stage-Gate. However, for many reasons Stage-Gate is a major improvement over these earlier concepts. This is probably it is so widely used to day. npd freak 22:20, 29 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenarl (talk • contribs)

Building on the comment above: Stage-Gate is actually a trademarked term by the Product Development Institute. It should be referenced with the appropriate registered trademark logo. While "Phase-Gate" is more generic, "Stage-Gate" is not, and it refers to this specific process. I do agree that there should be pages that discuss new product development in more generic terms, i.e. the new product development page, but for copyright purposes, Stage-Gate should be mentioned with correct trademark terms. EmirOzdemir10 (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following this page for some time now, and as a new product development professional, I'm a little shocked to see how incorrect some of the content is on this page. It's unfortunate that there is still confusion on the difference between a "stage-gate process" and a "phase-gate process". I've been following Cooper's teachings for some time, and most of what is written here (although not perfect) is very similar to the stage-gate process. This page REALLY should be called the "stage-gate process", not the "stage-gate model" (there really isn't a model; rather stage-gate is part of a larger innovation model, when you incorporate the piece of new product portfolio management. Then you have a model/system. But that is a discussion for another day. Anyways, that's my two cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.162.144.238 (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No longer necessary, the articles naming convention has now been corrected. Please stop trying to exploit Wikipedia to spam and promote your products. --Hu12 (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, doesn't look like the naming convention has been completely corrected. There are still instances where the term "stage" is used, when it should all be changed to "phase". If it is a "phase-gate" process, then you would have "phases" (not "stages"). If this page is going to remain as "Phase-gate model", then the content should reflect that, not be a mixture of the old "stage-gate model" page and this new one.EmirOzdemir10 (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have cleaned up those inconsistencies. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a couple of additional items that need to be cleaned up. First, there is content that is referenced by References #5, #6 & #7 - when you look through these references, you see that the references talk about "Stage-Gate" and not "Phase-Gate". So if this page is going to be about "Phase-Gate", the content and references should reflect that, and all there should be proper references that discuss "Phase-Gate" and not "Stage-Gate". I think that the references, and any content that uses these should be removed, along with all of the content that references this. The sections where they are referenced that should be removed is "Phases", "Gates", "Advantages and Disadvantages". I understand that removal of these sections greatly impacts the article and the flow of content on the article page, but the content in the referenced work clearly describes "Stage-Gate" and stage-gate processes, and not "phase-gate". If there were a "Stage-Gate" page, then those references would be appropriate. Second, there should be new references that support the content that is now displayed as "Stage-Gate". I see a lot of "citation needed" in this article, which doesn't lend the article credibility, especially if the page once existed as "Stage-Gate", and a simple word change was made to make the article read as "phase-gate". Hope these explanations help. EmirOzdemir10 (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article already explains that 'stage' and 'phase' are synonyms in this context, so I see no problem with referencing valid sources that use either term. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a misunderstanding with what I am aiming to accomplish. I am in no means trying to exploit Wikipedia to spam and promote my company's products/services. Rather, I wish to clarify this specific page, which originally discussed the Stage-gate model. The "Stage-Gate process" is not a product itself. It is a business process that emerged through years and years of research - 3rd party, peer-reviewed journal articles (as per [1]), and reference appropriately. Yet, this page continued to contain inaccurate information. Now, I see that the page has been changed to "phase-gate model" which would then open the door for a new page on "stage-gate model" whereby the explicit differences could be explained. However, given that my affiliations with my organization would limit me to make any sort of contribution to this page, I am imploring the innovation community and those with actual knowledge on the Stage-Gate process to begin a page on this subject. I can provide numerous peer-reviewed articles and appropriate resources to anyone willing to help out - feel free to communicate via my 'talk' page. EmirOzdemir10 (talk) 17:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support - Good to know that there are professionals in this field who share a similar passion for New product development and the stage-gate process (not the "phase-gate" process). I hope that you can help contribute to the re-work of this page (or the development of a new "stage-gate" page) and help get the right content here so people aren't confused when they read this information. As you can see, I appear to have a conflict of interest, so my changes are "biased".EmirOzdemir10 (talk) 16:01, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had personally written content on "building the business case and plan" and "testing". This was anonymously copied from my blog years ago, and pasted into this article. At the time, I was working in NPD. The article went through multiple edits as happens here. The inspirational source and content structure was Cooper's book on Stage Gate, while the text was entirely written by me. I don't care about attribution or references. These two sections do correspond to Stage Gate. Just my two cents if the community wants to properly content source info.Mvellandi (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Details

This entry seems to be far too detailed. Can't the information be more concisely summarised? If necessary, references can be used for more detail. (I don't expect when reading an Encyclopaedia entry for 'Romeo and Juliet' to get the full play, I just want the synopsis!) 203.98.16.22 (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

It has been suggested that Stage-gate process be merged into this article or section. This seems like a good idea. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an expected fall-out rate at each gate?

I'd like to know the following: if I put 100 projects through this model, how many fall out at each gate (and how many should I expect to have at the end)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.6.147.80 (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on how realistic your initial estimates were and how competent your workers were. --Colapeninsula (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Opportunity Management Funnel.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Opportunity Management Funnel.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Opportunity Management Funnel.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Process vs Model

The article has been restructured as it is about a process rather than a model (as identified by previous commentators).

The work needs to continue, as unfortunately some of the copy is a carry-over from an earlier edit from stage-gate process to phase-gate model, and refers to some of the stage-gate process in more detail than required for this article.

Also, the article could be improved significantly with some reference to newer agile approaches to product development that reduce the need for such formal stage gate approaches. Davidjcmorris Talk 06:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]