According to a popular adage in business, speed to market is the key to success in a competitive arena. Whether the project involves a solitary product or an entire venture, the speedster believes in the power of agility.

The point of dashing into the market is to stake out a dominant position before anyone else gets the chance. In business, as in warfare, it's far easier to defend an entrenched position than to eject an opponent from the same locale.

On the other hand, a different school of thought favors a guarded approach to the objective. The credo of this group is to work out the kinks and sand down the burrs before releasing a brand-new creation into the open forum.

According to the precept of polish-before-you-unleash, you only get one chance to make a first impression on the consumer as well as the critic. If you blow the initial rollout, then you might as well kiss your plans goodbye. In the wake of the flop, it will be difficult – if not impossible – to overcome the tainted image of the product or venture in the public consciousness.

The arguments of the speednik as well as the polisher have their respective merits. Sadly for the strategist, though, the two schemes are at odds with each other.

More precisely, you can’t rush into the marketplace if you take the time to buff up the handiwork to your heart’s content. Something’s got to give.

So how do you reconcile the contrasting views? The short answer is that it depends on the context.

However, the question also deserves a longer answer. And that is a good pretext for reading the rest of this article.

Matching the Inside to the Outside

In order to pick out the right speed, the factors you have to consider may be classified into two broad groups: internal issues and external facets. The intramural context involves a variety of issues ranging from the availability of skilled manpower to the stockpile of financial resources. Meanwhile the external setting embodies a slew of drivers spanning gamut from the pace of technical innovation to the fickleness of consumer tastes.

Of the two types of issues, the environmental context is likely to be more crucial for the planner. As an example, suppose that you don’t have enough manpower or financial clout to beef up the project and speed up the timeline. If the undertaking happens to be compelling enough, though, you might be able to garner additional resources by obtaining a loan, selling some equity, or taking some other action.

By contrast, you have little or no control over the state of the environment. Granted, there might be some partial exceptions to the rule. An example is the use of a financial carrot such as a huge discount in order to convert reluctant prospects into willing customers. Another instance is a massive program of advertising in order to educate the general public on the wonders of your brainchild.

Even so, the vast majority of factors in the external milieu lies pretty much beyond your control. An example in this vein is the barrage of technical advances bursting forth from independent centers of research throughout the globe. Another sample involves the shiftiness of lifestyle preferences among consumers, or the stage of the business cycle in the economy at large.

If you miss a window of opportunity in the marketplace, then even a truckload of money is unlikely to redeem you from the flub. Once the ferry has sailed, you’re left behind with nowhere else to go. Moreover, a virtual window on the market differs from a real ferry by the pier in that the opportunity to take off is gone forever.

Admittedly, you might get a break and come across another opening in the marketplace. In that case, though, the gateway will not be the same opening that you missed but rather a brand-new portal to a different destination.

The history of commerce is chockablock with tales of missed opportunities for individual products as well as broad-based ventures. A telling example in the modern era was the debut, dither and downfall of a glitzy upstart from Silicon Valley.

Full of Sound and Fury

Upon its birth, Transmeta Corporation had a lot of things going for it. To begin with, the venture was a darling of the investment community. The company sported a lustrous pedigree marked by close ties to accomplished figures in technical innovation as well as venture capital. At the outset, the venture was celebrated as the “most important company in Silicon Valley”.

In fact, a pantheon of renowned figures in digital technology and venture capital had pinned their hopes on the venture. A case in point was the support of a software luminary named Linus Torvalds, creator of the Linux operating system that was to become the mainstay of computer systems in leading organizations throughout the globe.

In spite of its strengths, though, the company could not overcome the mismatch between the pace of product development and the advancement of the environment at large. Founded in 1995, the firm went through a drawn-out series of trials and tribulations until finally it became defunct in 2009.

During the early years, Transmeta would boast time and time again that it was in the process of creating a revolutionary widget based on breakthrough technology. In spite of the loud claims, though, it refused to disclose even the outlines of the product under development. The dearth of dope was spotlighted by the fact that the firm refused to publish any pertinent information on its Web site until it went public in 2000.

No one could refute the eminence of the band of technical principals and external investors standing behind the venture. However, the executives at the company had a fishy mien about them as they refused to provide any details of the product under development or in fact any evidence of genuine progress.

In due course, a growing chorus of outsiders began to wonder openly whether there was any real substance behind all the ballyhoo. As things turned out, the misgivings of the doubters were well-founded.

The company spent prodigious amounts of capital raised from the investment community. Yet, for years on end it had nothing to show for all the bluster.

Unfortunately, the long lead time taken for product development would pretty much ensure that the brainchild, when it was finally delivered, would be dead on arrival. In other words, the product was destined to be obsolete by the time it came to market.

With the steady advance of rival technologies, the prospective customers had moved on to bigger and better things. As a result, the market merely yawned when Transmeta did finally unveil its handiwork. In addition to potential users, the ensemble of critics and observers were thoroughly underwhelmed by the result.

Innovation in Parallel

The preceding example illustrates the fact that the rate of product development has to keep up with the pace of innovation in the target market. According to one rule of thumb in information technology, 18 months separates one generation of products from the next. In that case, a project that takes half a decade to come to fruition will lag the state of art by more than three generations.

An apparent exception to the guideline will prove the rule. As a case in point, the chipmaker Intel is renowned for working concurrently on multiple waves of products in parallel. In addition to refining the latest lineup, the company pursues projects to develop the next generation of products as well as the set after that.

At first glance, it may seem that Intel is wasting a great deal of resources on iffy projects that could take roughly half a decade to come to fruition. The strategy could be problematic in a domain in which 3 years represents a couple of generations. In other words, the company could be guilty of dabbling in dreamy projects with distant horizons in spite of the near-term demands of a fast-paced field.

On the other hand, there are some crucial qualifications at work in the case of this particular firm. To begin with, Intel is the technology leader in most of the niches it operates in. Since the company is the main agent of change, it has an unmatched sense of the crucial trends in technology as well as the marketplace.

At least as importantly, Intel is not just working on a 5-year project with nothing to show in the interim. Rather, the pacesetter has concrete plans to trot out a fresh wave of products into the forum every year or two.

For these reasons, no one can accuse Intel of being a doddering slowpoke. The company may have its faults, but a casual approach to product innovation is not one of them.

The need to match the pace of innovation with the rate of change in the environment is of course not limited to the cutting edge of technology. The same goblin casts its spell over traditional industries as well.

From Juggernaut to Dinosaur

The need for speed in adapting to the environment is spotlighted by the difference in performance between the auto industries in the U.S. and Japan. Around the middle of the 20th century, American firms such as General Motors (GM) had no foreign competition to speak of. In addition to controlling the lion’s share of the market in the global arena, the technical superiority of the American icon was uncontested.

As the decades passed, however, GM could not break free of its tried and proven habits. The major flaw was the inability of the firm to wean itself from the compulsion to build bulky vehicles. Across the entire product line, from bantam roadsters to jumbo sedans, GM continued to design cars in the old way.

That approach worked just fine when the U.S. was bubbling over with oil wells spewing out the slick fluid in humongous quantities. As long as petroleum was plentiful, the price of gasoline would be measly. And as long as the cost of fuel was piddly, consumers would have no qualms about buying cars that were needlessly heavy, bulky and inefficient.

As fate would have it, though, the environment changed all of a sudden with the outbreak of the first oil crisis in 1973. The throttling of supply, along with the inevitable spike in the price of oil, was severe enough to batter the economy not only in America but throughout the globe.

In the years to follow, the supply of oil and the price of gas pump would was and wane. On occasion, it seemed to some folks that any shortages that arose would be transient and tolerable.

In spite of the complacent view in some quarters, though, the problem of dwindling supply never went away. On the contrary, the growth of the global economy over the ensuing decades ensured that the demand would continue to expand. To make matters worse, the vendors of oil were finding it increasingly difficult to find new reserves of oil to replace the depleted fields even though they were spending more money for exploration as the years went by.

Yet the consumer in America was in league with the producer of automobiles in their determination to ignore the reality. Each time there was a respite from the oil crisis, coupled by a dip in the price of fuel, gas-guzzlers would make a comeback in the marketplace. The pickup in sales would then pump up the coffers at GM.

Each time that the company enjoyed an uptick in profits, it could and should have used a large chunk of the earnings to overhaul the product line in a serious way. Yet the plodding firm chose merely to dabble with superficial changes in the existing lineup and carry on with business as usual.

On a positive note, a series of government regulations over the years forced GM to make some minor tweaks in order to raise the fuel efficiency of its vehicles. Yet the steps it took were piffling and halfhearted. Whatever the company was or did, it could not be accused of leadership in pushing the automotive industry into the 21st century.

On the contrary, the world had to look elsewhere for a semblance of vision and innovation. As it turned out, progress in the global arena was largely the province of Japanese carmakers such as Toyota.

Admittedly, a steady stream of technical advances also came out of German firms such as Mercedes Benz. On the other hand, the crew of European vendors had a habit of focusing on niche segments rather than the mass market. For this reason, the European impact on the marketplace was limited. As a case in point, there was never any danger that a European carmaker would unseat GM on American soil and eat the blimp’s lunch.

Thanks to the inroads made over the decades, Toyota managed to establish itself as the kingpin of the automotive industry. By contrast, the once-proud GM was reduced to groveling for handouts from the U.S. government.

But it was much too late for cash infusions to save the ailing firm from bankruptcy. The behemoth marked a watershed in the industrial landscape when it bit the dust in 2009.

Ironically, the customs that catapult a company to the top of the league can be the very shackles that bring it down. In the case of GM, the hulk was unable to grow out of its penchant for heavy and clumsy vehicles.

More generally, a pacer has to keep track of the environment and adapt to the turmoil in a timely fashion. A clodhopper that takes too long to learn its lessons will be forced out of the arena and shoved onto the scrapheap of history.

Setting the Pace in Business Strategy

For innovation at the leading edge, the best choice of tempo depends mostly on the rate of change in the environment at large. The factors at work span the gamut from technical advances and competitive threats to consumer preferences and lifestyle changes.

Looking at the big picture, the outbreak of a seminal technology sets the stage for a brand-new industry. After an initial phase of tumultuous growth and change, however, the market begins settle down in due course.

From this point onward, the technical skills that played such a critical role at the outset take on a dwindling role. As the industry matures, a new driver takes over the pole position. The dominant factor at this juncture is a match-up of the capabilities within the firm against the opportunities and threats in the external environment. Put another way, the business has to adapt in a timely fashion to the continuing changes in the marketplace.

To sum up, the speed and scope of market-driven advances separates the winners from the losers. As the industry consolidates and competition increases, the spearhead has to adapt to the evolution of the environment by fixing up fresh products and setting up novel ventures at a commensurate pace.