3M stopped being an innovative company a long time ago.
Now, we just buy other companies for their IP portfolio, and then try to part it out and sell off collections of complimentary tech.
Anyone still expecting our R&D to make a comeback should retire, because that ship sailed a long time ago. We haven't invented anything worth mentioning in decades, and we're not about to start now.
Sad truth, @1kpi+1t1zZgzN.
But we have managed to produce hundreds of Gigabytes of documents (Word docs, PPT slides) about potential future products, growth strategies and technology roadmaps !
A quick google search of Aldara will give you that answer.
What happened to that wort cream that Jimbo was pushing as the "next BIG thing" at 3M?
Post from TheLayoff.com
OG version is over 20yrs old now. It’s an interesting invention story. I’m sure the developers have a beautiful Art Fry like story to explain how it came about but the process engineer in me says it was less about lab work and more about process work. Very elegant solution but not exactly rocket science. We need more stuff like that. Sometimes the PhDs make things too damn hard. Customers don’t give us extra credit for developing materials as if we were writing a thesis paper. They want stuff that works, solves their problems, at a reasonable price.
That's the problem with putting all of your eggs in one basket
Under Vale our whole division was working on the only one program that should have 100m sales, as today we have not got 1/10 yet. And we are not even the key player in the market.
Rather than complaining about how much is spent on R&D, how about taking the lead and choosing a mixture of small and large programs for them to focus on. It’s sounding like the model of all or nothing huge programs isn’t working. A mixture is what built 3M.
There was a LOCA (liquid OCA) attempt too. Complete disaster.
Inventing and successfully commercializing aren't the same thing.
When was OCA invented?
We make the most beautiful slides. Went to a technical review meeting, the TD was mad because the color and font doesn't match in the presentation.
Nothing meaningful has been accomplished relative to spending 1B yr on r and d. Cut tech mgmt by 50 pct, close most outside USA labs, consolidate crl, close 201 etc
Varys is so correct. “Make a little, sell a little”, the familiar tale goes.
Agree strongly with Varys. That strategy coupled with cutting costs without regard to consequences, have been devastating. Stupid, stupid, stupid
Disagree about ashish. He placed a few bets that will pay off. One is still ramping up, with initial order (!) of $60M. I hope it’s still going strong.
Solid take.
The analogy holds, a team with a just a .333 batting average just hitting singles and doubles would win the World Series every year.
Similarly 3M could have chosen to keep growing at a healthy pace with a steady, reliable output of $10M product lines. The id--tic obsession of senior management trying (and completely failing) to predict $100M dollar winners is a key part of 3M's downfall.
The "fewer, bigger" NPI strategy is like always insisting on a home run.
OP's title is "We haven't invented anything worth mentioning in decades". The examples of Cubitron II, Novec, Avagard, etc were in the last 15 years. Innovations that go into EVs (fire re--rdant material, light weighting, etc), while not se-y, does help the company grow. Look, even Apple hasn't had "breakthrough" innovations in awhile but they continue to grow.
My point is that 3M continues to innovate. New product categories (aka class 5) are notoriously difficult. And quite frankly, 3M does stink at class 5, but as a lab person, I take offense to "we haven't invented anything worth mentioning in decades". What I do see is that 3M management can't pick winner projects. As a result, the strategy to have fewer, bigger NPIs have not resulted in growth. IMO, 3M should go back to 'make a little, sell a little' model so the market can decide ... not 3M management.
@2twi+1t6O3lkn -
Of course we've heard of Cubitron, Command, Avagard, and Novec. But 3M debuted the first wave of Command products in 1996 around the same time that Novec Engineered Fluids were introduced as a replacement for ozone depleting chemicals like CFCs. Cubitron II was all the rage in 2010 when George Buckley was CEO and Chris Holmes was VP of ASD. Avagard has been around since at least 2012.
The OP's point is that there haven't been breakthrough, innovative new products to drive sales in a long time.
Ever heard of Cubitron? Command? Avagard? Novec Fluids? Most of 3M inventions are not in the consumer space, which explains why the general public do not know 3M inventions.
Under utilized plants are a common sight now within 3M. Even in the top37 large plants. Sad to see
What you are talking about? Just this morning, my division got 21 granted patents though none of them has market values.
We whine but the reality is 3M is past its innovation days. As somewhere in the last decades. 3M lost its way and is now an aged company, with nothing more in it but surviving the day. We kept going out for innovation, which from its own history of M&As , 3M never was capable to identify the right tech or line it wanted to win in. Just rubbish level, short lived stunts by our execs to please shareholdera has been ita down fall. Such an unpleasant place to be in. Like watching water spiral down the drain. Yes i already left the org, but I gave more than 2 decades and still find it painful to watch.
I agree but that’s the result of minimal investment in R&D and squashing a ton of NPI programs that they didn’t want to spend the money on to push all the way through.
Oh that's just silly. 3M has indeed invented a lot of cool, useful products and technologies in the near past. But only a few have made it to market due to the severe limitations on division R&D resources and the intense focus on cost savings vs. new product development and introduction to market. If it wasn't class 3, nobody in a division paid attention since it didn't impact their sales immediately.
Remember - from ~1000 new product intros in 2015 or so to ~100 in recent years.
This is a clear case of leadership (ha) following what the CEO and CFO are directing. Anything to reduce costs and blip sales to makes the quarter's numbers.