Blog

Watering plants may be as easy as filling a glass or turning on a hose for Americans, but for 600 million small farmers in developing countries, it's not so easy.  If they can't simply turn on a faucet or a spigot to get water to their crops, how could it be done in a way that they can realistically use?  And, who is going to develop a product that might change the way they irrigate their plants?

The San Francisco Chronicle has covered the story of DripTech, a company that is developing an affordable drip irrigation system for farmers in developing countries.  According to the International Water Management Institute, 600 million small farmers lack irrigation water and are therefore mired in poverty.  

Conceived in the Stanford graduate class, Entrepreneurial Design for Extreme Affordability, Driptech founder, Peter Frykman, began tinkering with off-the-shelf water timers and tube components from stores like Home Depot, to see if he could develop a system that solved irrigation challenges for farmers who were not able to grow crops during long dry seasons.  Of course, given the target market, cost was a major constraint to work within.  Not only did Peter need to solve the challenge of creating a system that would achieve crop irrigation in a simple fashion, but he needed to develop a product that could be manufactured easily and sold cheaply, to spur widespread adoption. International Development Enterprises had already developed a system over the last ten years that provided an irrigation system for poor, developing country farmers, and had successfully sold their system to 85,000 farmers in India.  However, an added layer of complexity in IDE's system has hindered them from reaching a wider consumer base.  

DripTech's technological breakthroughs have resulted in a reduction of total parts and installation time by over 80%.  Given their improvements, they are now setting their sights on the 100 million poor, rural farmers in India, as well as other possible customers in other countries and contienents.  DripTech's product development success is also helping them to gain media attention and investors are beginning to take notice.  The company has been featured in BusinessWeek, Forbes, and Red Herring, and they have advanced to the finals of the Draper Fisher Jurveston & Cisco Global Business Plan Competition.  

DripTech is a great example of how working within extreme constraints to develop products can result in simple, elegant solutions, that could help to solve major, world challenges.

Want to see how others are creatively solving water challenges?  Check out PlayPumps International to see adevice that combines play on a merry-go-round and water pumps.  Also, Charity: Water is another interesting organization that uses it's PR and marketing prowess to connect companies and people in developed countries with communities in Africa that need water solutions.

BusinessWeeks' Technology section ran an article this month, Deconstructing Apple's Tiny Ipod Shuffle (h/t Supply Excellence), that takes a shot at explaining how Apple has managed to create its latest, buttonless MP3 dynamo.  Based on data supplied by ISuppli, a company which opens up consumer electronics products and estimates the cost of components (not including costs associated with design, software, manufacturing, and shipping, the hard cost of the latest Shuffle is estimated at $21.77, or 28% of retail price ($79).  Some interesting points:

• Apple's mp3 player competitor, Samsung, who makes semiconductors, supplies Apple with some of their most important and highest cost components: the main application chip and flash memory.
• The lithium ion battery is the smallest which iSuppli analysts have ever seen and the passive components, resistors and capacitors, are exceptionally small--indicating Apple's use of cutting edge components across the board.
• Except for the power switch, there are no actual buttons on the Shuffle.  All volume and track controls have been moved to the headphones cord.

In my mind, these all add up to what Apple does a wonderful job of in their handhelds: making great, cutting-edge products at prices that the masses are willing to pay.  Pretty simple.  One of the resources they've developed which I think allows them to accomplish this is their intimate understanding of their customers.  Understanding that the forfeiture of button controls on the device itself, to reduce cost/size, would be acceptable to consumers, and perhaps even seen as adding the aesthetic of the device, is impressive. "It's almost like six dollars worth of flash memory tied to some flash and a battery and not much else," Rassweiler says (iSuppli's analyst). "It's very basic and downsized."  In a consumer electronics market where devices are usually outfitted to death with features--Apple has achieved excellence in distilling devices down to the necessary, or the few most desired features, while at the same time opening up new form factors and price points that in turn open sales up to new customers. 

Perhaps I am biased, as I am a mac, Iphone, Ipod user.  But, if they're making a substantial profit margin, I believe they've earned it.  When I get a device that works as wonderfully and reliably as my Macbook, I am happy to pay it.  

Getting quality product from offshore manufacturers entails laying out and adhering to a development process.  Time to market is important, but delivering poor-quality product is probably worse than delaying your ship date a bit.  If I buy a product and it doesn't live up to it's promise (translation: it's a piece of &$#@), you better believe that I'm not going back to that brand. 

To build quality INTO your products, consider the steps in the process that may need to take place and the time you may need to accomplish them.  Below is an example GANTT chart (you should be able to click on it to open it) for a product development schedule of a consumer electronic product I just came up with (this one is pretty cool and if 1% of the human market buys one, man...)

This is a pretty raw chart, meaning it's not based on a whole lot of information, and activity timelines could lengthen or shorten a bit depending on the issues that arise, the kind of product, etc.  This particular product requires complex, high-quality injection molding.

We're at least 6 months out from being production ready.  What's taking so long?  Well...

• Production Package Release: The company has provided a full design package including industrial designs, parts drawings, Bill of Materials, and Specifications.  This is important.  It lays out exactly what the product will do, look, feel, and how. 
• Factory Review/Component Sourcing/Costing:  A factory then needs to review all the materials received, answer any initial questions, go out and contact the appropriate suppliers, review relevant information with them, assemble all of the initial production and cost information, and pass that back onto the company.  It's similar to the telephone game you played in Kindergarten, only harder.
• Looks-like/Works-like Prototype Build: If the company builds a prototype, this will give them a good indication that the factory is nailing down the concept on their end and may provide the company with something to show the market, investors, etc.
• Contract Negotiation/Prototype Approval: There's usually some back-and-forth with the factory regarding costs.  There will also likely be some modifications made to the prototype after the company's review, until the prototype is "approved" by the company.
• Tooling Release (start):  Upon the approval of the prototype, the company issues a tooling release to the factory.  It's time to build those big steel molds so that we can shoot molten plastic into them a million times or more.  The timeline on this may vary quite a bit.  Usually, 3 weeks or so is a minimum.  But, if my satellite imaging/dog feeder/garlic dicer needs to have specific finishes on the plastic to give them that sleek and shiny look, then extra time may be needed to polish and fine tune the tools to accomplish this.
• First Shots on Tools: When the tools are completed, the factory runs them.  They shoot the plastic in them and see what comes out. 
• 1st Engineering Pilot/Parts Review:  The factory tries to put the pieces together to test for "fit and function".  They may also pass the peices onto the company for feedback.
• Tooling Modifications:  More than likely, modifications will need to be made to the molds to get them right.
• Final Shots on Tools: The tools are run again.  Steps like this probably won't take a week.  But it never hurts to have a little buffer time that may be eaten up somewhere else in the process.
• Final Engineering Pilot/Parts Review: The pieces are tested and reviewed again by the interested parties.
• Tooling Release (complete): When the pieces work, the company issues a tooling release indicating that the tools are approved.
• Package Art Release: The company issues the packaging art to the factory.  This may happen at different steps in the process and is not really dependent on the other steps.  However, it's advisable to be moving into this phase earlier rather than late. 
• Print Proof Review/Approval: The factory sends packaging "proofs" back to the company for review.  If the proof looks good, the company signs off.
• Product Testing: The product, in packaging, is needed for these steps.  Depending on the kind of product and the duress it will be under during transportation, use, etc., the factory will put the product and packaging through several tests.  Tests may include drop testing, environmental testing, transportation testing, power testing, throw it against the wall and see what happens testing, put it in the smoke break room and see what colors change testing, and finally my favorite, pour red bull and vodka into it and see if it can stay out at the club until 6am testing). 
• Production Pilot:  Once the product meets the specs in the testing, the production line is set up, run, and debugged of potential issues.
• Production Unit Review/Approval:  The first articles (the first units coming off of the production line) are reviewed and sent to the company in package for approval.  This is their baby and represents what will soon turn into millions of products flying off of the shelves into consumers garages or "what-have-you" drawers. 

I've now hit my bullet point quota for the next year, but there's quite a lot to do here.  Going through a process like this, with several tests and verifications along the way, helps to ensure that what a company gets out of the production line on the other end is what they wanted in the beginning.  Notice that this doesn't even include incoming QC inspections, production line inspections, and 3rd party inspections before shipment.   But if you allow yourself enough time to go through this process correctly and efficiently, you end up keeping your promise to your customers with high-quality products going into their hands.  That's so hot. 

The message of this post came to mind after reading a post by DT at DesignSojourn, entitled 25 Bad Habits of Industrial Designers.  A few of the bad habits mentioned, specifically No. 11 and No. 13 ("not being friends with engineering" and "not being friends with marketing", respectively), got me thinkin'. 

Here is a product development approach geared towards failure which I often see in markets with high price sensitivity: 

Someone designs the product.  Someone engineers the product.  Someone applies for a patent on the product.  Someone prototypes the product.  Someone sources offshore manufacturing on the product. 

                                                              (quick breath...)

The tooling cost or unit cost of the product, even offshore, is out of the ballpark in terms of the organization's cost targets AND/OR the materials or processes called out by the design will not be matched exactly offshore. 

The organization seeks the cheapest source and gets burned on quality, payment, or both, OR, the organization redesigns for manufacturing cost and feasibility overseas.  Design and engineering costs go up.  The patent claims become constrictive or are negated entirely.  Time to market is increased.  And the product manager, CEO, or whoever in charge puts on 20 lbs through stress induced over-eating.

I see this happen often in industries that are very price competitive, because if you are off by 5% - 10%, you're out of the ballgame. 

Some might say this is just part of the development process.  Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but onward we plod with a success rate that looks more like a baseball batting average.

Design is getting a lot of attention these days and that is good. Who doesn't like a well-designed product?   But...this also might encourage designers to feel they don't need friends in engineering, marketing, and manufacturing.  Yes, I'm talking to the guy wearing the black turtleneck. 

What would happen, if 3/4 of the way through the design or prototyping process, a designer called up a few other people in other departments or companies and asked for feedback?  Do they risk having their creativity crushed?  Do they risk a flurry of rejections that could kill inspiration?  Maybe. 

But, what if they learned that modifying their design could reduce the tooling cost by 30%?  Or, if the material they plan on using to give their product that "look", will increase the unit cost by a dollar.  Perhaps they might learn that their product is just plain large and heavy, and reducing it's size will reduce both the unit cost and shipping costs.  Quite often, designing a product to look "cool" adds cost.  Will the market bear that cost?

Good, experienced, industrial designers are often familiar with a lot of these issues.  But in today's world, in which people often need to specialize a great deal in a given craft in order to excel and become distinguished in their field, there is less time and energy to invest in learning about complimentary aspects of the business. 

Thus, the ability to make and collaborate with other specialists is a skill/habit that is becoming more valuable.

If it's price sensitive, you need to start making friends with everything (everyone) that impacts cost.  If it's going to be made overseas (after all, it's price sensitive), feedback from overseas early on will tell you if you're on the right track or not, and will probably save you steps in the long run.   Save that product design from the trash and start getting friendly.

Beating out the likes of MIT, Carnegie Mellon, Georgia Tech and the University of Colorado at Boulder, Santa Clara University (SCU), located in the Bay Area of California, took third place in an international solar house decathlon.  The U.S. Secretary of Energy dubbed the SCU team the "Cinderella story from California".

The Solar Decathlon is an international contest drawing entries from Germany, Canada, Spain, and the U.S., in which students actually construct a small house representing the best in design and construction of an eco-friendly home.  I've posted a video below that depicts what a bunch of students go through to build a cutting-edge eco-house and enter the contest.  Previously unknown for its engineering resources and talent, SCU was a clear underdog from the outset (a German university took first and the University of Maryland took second). 

After taking a couple weeks to rest my blogging brain, I'm proud to come back with a story like this one.  Thankfully, this story offers more than the fact that it has to do with SCU, an institution near and dear to my heart.  When asked what contributed to their unprecedented success, SCU team leader James Bickford replied:

"Our strength was in the diversity of our team," Bickford said. "We are dominated by engineers, but we brought on communications majors, philosophers, anthropologists, artists."

While the group debated various aspects of the project, "those struggles are what made it a good house," he said. "Those diverse and creative thoughts produced a better product than any one discipline could have by themselves."

The benefits of a diverse team in product development aren't a novel concept.  IDEO, a world-class design company that describes itself as specialists in human factors, psychology, business, design, engineering and manufacturing, is renowned for its ability to create diverse teams for the development process and create truly innovative and effective products.

Although the concept of capitalizing on team diversity isn't new, it's so rarely used effectively.  One of the major reasons is the presence of "struggle" that comes with dissenting opinions.  Generally, hashing out conflicting opinions with others just isn't fun.  But, as demonstrated by the SCU students' Cinderella story, the benefits of doing so can be great.  Is everyone agreeing with you?

What is this product?

A) Photon blaster from the set of Startrek

B) One of those solar-powered racing go-karts designed by MIT students, upside down

C) Don't even go there...

The Answer:  None of the Above.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is a ballpoint pen.

The Free Ride pen sells at $150. 

But before I rush off to the website to buy this over-the-top, engineering wonder (brought to my attention by the OhGizmo blog) and make my check-writing experience even more intriguing, I have to ask myself:

Is there a time to "shoot the engineer"? 

I googled this exact saying and got a page of search results which tells me: I am not alone in this question.  Or is it that, in the schoolyard of product development, the marketing bullies have simply come up with new ways to give a "marketing wedgy" of sorts to the engineering kids?  "For once and for all, go play sales and stop breathing down our necks!", the engineers scream.

As OhGizmo blog exclaims, the design and engineering of this pen may have been taken a stretch too far.  This company at least got this pen to market (I wonder how it's selling...).  You've got to hand it to them, because the dirty alley of product development is littered with projects and products that never got into the marketplace and made money for their companies.  If only there was a blackmarket, or even an EBay for works-like prototypes and unfinished CAD drawings...

At some point, you've got to save the next batch of engineering changes for a future product release.  At some point, you need to take the reams of Excel files, Bill of Materials docs, Engineering Requirement docs, and drawings, and stamp "Final" on them.   At some point, you have to look at the money you have in the bank, the calender, and the state of your product design, and figure out that you needed to get your design package to the manufacturer yesterday. 

I'm sure that even the FreeRide pen had only so much time to be designed and engineered before it was built and shipped. 

Your product may be the next space machine or just a better mousetrap.  It doesn't matter.  Just make sure you stop engineering and you start selling before you run out of money or someone designs and sells a better photon blaster than your's.

Courtesy of Paul Young's ProductBeautiful blog, this highly sensitive, insider video was created at Triumph Motorcycles and walks us through their product development process.  Triumph is a British manufacturer of cruisers, the style of motorcycle championed in the U.S. by Harley-Davidson.  Their production line is one of a kind and this video may give you just the edge you need to give your product life.  It's also a good start to a Monday morning.

Paul is also now posting some great insights into the The Challenges of Overseas Manufacturing and the role of a product manager in overseas design, development, and production.  This is a cross-post he and I collaborated on and he is building on a number of common themes and issues which I gave my perspective on in this post.  Part I of Paul's points can be read here.  Part II can be read here. 

I recently had a very interesting conversation with Andrew Krauss, President of the Inventors Alliance and co-founder of InventRight, about the vast number of entrepreneurs and inventors who use the same, ineffective methodology to get their businesses and products going.  We shared a number of observations.  First, many starting out are convinced that they must apply for a full patent immediately before speaking a word to anyone about their product.  Thus, they find a patent attorney who will take them through the patent search and application process for a mere $3,000 to $20,000 dollars, so that after months of time and money spent, the entrepreneur or inventor can then begin to explore how they will actually make money off of their product.  I think Andrew and I arrived at the same conclusion that the question isn't whether patent attorney's fees are a good investment--but the question is when to invest?  The same question could be asked of prototyping as well as when to approach manufacturers?

Stephen Key of InventRight (Andrew's partner) is one of the most successful inventors you will find.  He has developed and licensed products to companies like Disney, Nestle, and Coca-Cola, as well as manufactured and sold his own products.  Andrew and Stephen formed InventRight to teach inventors how to license their products.  Whether you are licensing or building a business around your product, their advice in these areas holds true. 

In a post on the InventRight Blog, Stephen answers a few questions regarding the issues of patenting, prototyping, and marketing.  This post regarded the question of obtaining a provisional patent versus a full patent.  Stephen comments: 

I’m not an attorney and can’t offer you legal advice. I will tell you what I use the Provisional Patent for.

 

Simply put, the Provisional Patent gives you one year to fish off that pier and see if a manufacturer is interested in your idea. It’s super cheap and I can file it myself due to it’s much less demanding requirements.

 

If it’s a statistical fact that 97% of all patents don’t make any more money than the inventor spent on the patent, why would you want to go out and spend 6 grand or more on a patent. I’m not saying you shouldn’t file patents, what I’m saying is that you should get some interest from a manufacturer before you do.

In another post, he addresses the decision of when to pursue a prototype.  He responds to a reader's question on this issue:

A better question to ask yourself is what is your plan once you have a prototype. I talk to many, many inventors that spend a bunch of money on a prototype and a patent before they even have a plan as to how they plan on selling their idea. You need to understand the process of selling an idea before you spend money on patents or prototypes.

One of the biggest and most important challenges in building your business around a product is selling your product.  Selling is hard.  Most aren't comfortable with the rejection, numerous phone calls, time spent, and hard work involved in getting people and companies interested in your product enough to lay down their cold, hard cash for it.  Before you can even do this, you need to figure out the game plan on how you are going to sell your product. 

Before splurging on a prototype, you can file a provisional patent yourself, undertake some preliminary market research, and begin to formulate your gameplan.  How big is your market?  Who are the competitors?  Where are they selling?  How much are they selling for?  And, what messages are they driving at their customers?  Who will you need to contact to get your product out there?  Retailers?  QVC?  PR agencies?  Names?  Phone numbers?  Your sell sheet?  How does the whole puzzle fit together step-by-step? 

During this time, you may want to consider fiddling around with a home-made prototype on the kitchen table if you can.  But there is certainly no need to go out and spend $5,000-$15,000 dollars on the best prototype money can buy at this point.  If you're going to approach a manufacturer and build and sell the product yourself, a simple, looks-like/works-like prototype will suffice in getting the ball-rolling.  They should be able to provide ballpark costing, or walk you through a few steps to get you to the point where they can provide information like this.   The general point to take away is to investigate, as much as you can, whether you will get a worthy financial return on your time and money spent before committing a large amount of your time and money. 

Inventoritis...  Sounds like Gingivitis.   But without the bad breath.  Or, so I hear.

Generally, one of the most difficult challenges in developing a successful product or business is getting out of our own way.  I struggle with this daily.  I watch others struggle with it daily.  We all do--from corporate innovators to independent inventors.   I am certain that my own success as a business person and product developer is largely impacted by my own ability to train myself to get out of my own way.

How do we get in our own way in the first place?

Peter Paul Roosen and Tatsuya Nakagawa, two product marketing gurus, have co-authored a white paper, Inventoritis Exposed, which gives a name to the phenomenon of getting in our own way when it comes to innovation and new product development.  I previously wrote a blog post on the authors' concept of "Inventoritis", which they have incorporated into the paper.  In terms of product development, Inventoritis, is a condition that prevents market-driven innovation, or design for the user experience.  Because it's a challenge, that I believe, one can only control and perhaps eliminate through sustained effort over many years, decades, and perhaps a lifetime, it's worth continually refreshing my awareness and knowledge of it.  "Inventoritis Exposed" offers an interesting perspective on the issue, by analyzing the methods of America's most prolific inventor, Thomas Edison, who the authors assert exemplified the optimal path for commercializing innovative products.   

Before reading the paper, I have to admit, i did not know much about Thomas Edison beyond his invention of the light bulb and a few other items (which I am sure I will use today, but cannot name them).  But, Roosen's and Nakagawa's interesting stories of Edison (much of which is told through the first hand experience of Henry Ford) and analysis of his methods, create a vision of a person who was adamant about his own process of inventing and entrepreneurship, not just his own ideas and assumptions.  Edison's most famous quote:

“Genius is one percent inspiration and 99% perspiration. As a result, a genius is often a talented person who has simply done all of his homework.” 

The point that Roosen and Nakagawa make, is that "...all of his homework" does not just entail perfecting the product for perfection's sake, ego's sake, or science's sake.  The authors note:

What is not as well known, perhaps, is that his penchant for invention was rivaled only by his effectiveness as a marketer. Edison was in the habit of working backward from the market and doing whatever was needed to most expeditiously fill what he found to be the real or actual need. He was known to always be actively researching what everyone else was doing and had done. He sometimes bought and, on occasion, stole technology from others.

Few people today know or appreciate that Edison did not invent the light bulb. Joseph Swan was installing them in homes and landmarks in England before Edison’s first successful test was completed on October 21, 1879, when Edison’s carbon filament lamp successfully operated for only 13.5 hours. Additionally, Edison had bought the Canadian and US patent rights filed in 1874 for a carbon filament lamp by a Canadian medical electrician named Henry Woodward and his colleague Mathew Evans. What Edison did was to create the first commercially viable filament lamp which incidentally did not occur until more than six months after Edison filed his patent.

Henry Ford, a big fan and friend of Edison, offers his perspective: 

Not the least among the many remarkable qualities of the Edison mind is its ability constantly to maintain a perspective. He never has any blind enthusiasms.  An inventor frequently wastes his time and his money trying to extend his invention to uses for which it is not at all suitable. Edison has never done this. He rides no hobbies. He views each problem that comes up as a thing of itself, to be solved in exactly the right way. His approach is no more that of an electrician than that of a chemist. His knowledge is so nearly universal that he cannot be classed as an electrician or a chemist. In fact, Mr. Edison cannot be classified. He knows instinctively what things can be used for and what they cannot be used for.

It seems to me, Edison was a master of a process that helped him stay out of his own way.   He did this in terms of his assumptions of how things should be, and let the market guide him in terms of what products  and product features to pursue.  In addition, he was very adept at implementing a rigorous process that led him, technologically and commercially, to exceptional success.

The white paper offers much more.  And I believe the book, "Overcoming Inventoritis", by these authors covering this subject in much more depth has just become available.