Trial by Jury

The list of advantages for using a Trial by Jury+ for major decisions is extensive. It is a major contributor to improvements in evidence. It provides an unmistakable signal of team progress. It focuses researchers on the customer and not on the attractiveness of the underlying science. It stresses the importance of tiers of evidence+. It quashes Early Kills+, Deadline Bias+ and a host of other bad decision making practices. It reduces bad investment behaviors+ on the part of governance officials and corporate funding agents. It has built in measure to improve the quality of decisions over time. There are many more advantages.

These advantages are offset by the cost. You need a prosecutors office that has teeth. You need protections for the court docket: scheduling for a trial date must be competitive. You need teeth to enforce the decisions of the court.

But the advantages of a Trial by Jury far outweigh the costs. Participants are satisfied. Competition drives teams to put forward their best efforts. It's arms-length+ decision making that reduces the personal stake of key players in R&D. Legalistic+ behaviors are checked at the courtroom door. This one decision structure combines the best of all the recommendations for using behavior fundamentals+ to improve R&D effectiveness.

So what's the outline? Jurors are drawn from the general population of the corporation, and perhaps includes outside participation (e.g., buyers and influencers of purchases). The judge is mostly concerned with rules of order, but also ensures neither side unduly biases jurors. The defendant is the R&D prototype+ or product. Defense is supported by the R&D team. The prosecution (i.e., hang this prototype) has a clear incentive to win. Witnesses are drawn and cross-examined by both the defense and the prosecution. In general, the rules of order for a civil Trial by Jury are followed.

Read Best's Evidence and replace the word defendant with R&D prototype: you'll get the idea.

Further Reading