 |
By Peter B. Clarke, President &
Founder, Product Ventures
As industrial designers, finding the balance between marketability and
manufacturability is at the core of our profession. Even the official
definition of our craft acknowledges industrial design’s role in
bridging this gap:
Industrial design is the professional service of creating and developing
concepts and specifications that optimize the function, value, and appearance
of products and systems for the mutual benefit of both user and manufacturer.
It’s as if designers are playing Design Twister®, with one
leg on manufacturing, another on marketing, and a hand placed on consumers.
Each constituent has an important position, and keeping your balance wins
the game. The manufacturing-related disciplines’ primary focus is
optimization, whether it’s production, cost, process, or functionality.
Marketing wants to grow the business while creating market buzz with breakthroughs
on shelf and features. The end-user desires products that meet their needs
at a cost that they are willing to pay. Often each perspective is in direct
opposition to the other, yet equally critical to success.
The classic design process path is paved with good intentions. At the
outset, everyone means to bridge the gaps and maintain balance. Initiatives
start out being creative, only to be limited by constraints or divergent
perspectives further down the road. This happens for two reasons. First,
conventional wisdom has been to keep business constraints under wraps
from the design team for fear of compromising creativity. Only later,
once concepts are developed, are they viewed through a business reality
lens to determine viability. This typically results in wasted effort,
time and money. Second, despite the determination of the corporate design
manager to bring together manufacturing and marketing within their own
organization, the design process continues to be run from functional silos,
each side championing their conflicting cause.
The optimal model going forward addresses both challenges by breaking
down the walls that separate all parties, while simultaneously giving
each group a forum to express their perspective. This requires the establishment
of a “position-neutral” site that assembles all the tools,
talent, and equipment needed to facilitate communication and iterative
development of manufacturable concepts. It also demands the formation
of the ultimate cross-functional team. In addition to the requisite corporate
marketing and manufacturing players, the team comprises representatives
from consumer insights and design. Last but not least, is the consumer.
Their voice must be heard early and often throughout the design process.
With all representatives at the table, an optimal and methodical approach
to design can begin. This united atmosphere facilitates the harmonization
of business and consumer needs to yield rapid, actionable innovation.
Some forward-thinking corporations are building innovation centers on
their campuses. Although this is a move in the right direction, these
centers often don’t foster open, uninhibited idea generation and
communication. By their nature, they aren’t exactly neutral. It’s
hard to strip away the trappings of corporate culture while still on campus.
The temptation to stay “plugged-in” to daily work via mobile
phone, PDA or laptop, is omnipresent. Titles and organizational pecking
orders are hard to forget. Secondly, these centers do not always have
all the tools necessary for iterative, rapid innovation. To truly work
together and solve challenges in real time, the answer is to co-locate
the cross-functional team and consumers at a facility with in-house 3D
modeling and prototyping ability. A properly-equipped, independent “innovation
destination” that allows everyone to “get away from it all”
and collaborate across functional lines is a powerful catalyst for original
thinking.
With the team co-located, the collaborative design model also requires
a policy of full disclosure. Through a challenge assessment, the team
identifies, up front and in great detail, the business constraints and
opportunities that will direct design and development. These considerations
include existing capital investment, line limitations, brand character,
et al. Clarifying “must haves” and “nice to haves”
early on identifies fruitful areas to pursue and provides clear measures
for concept evaluation.
Contextual observation of consumers is conducted early in the process
by the entire cross-functional team, including designers. Ethnographic
research gathered without designer involvement is a hallmark of the silo
mindset. Instead, the collaborative approach recognizes that the individuals
tasked with designing manufacturable concepts must have a hand in conducting
the research that will lead to the ultimate consumer-focused solution.
As creative problem solvers, designers are uniquely qualified through
their ergonomic training to identify and interpret the human and environmental
factors that impact concept development.
Empowered with knowledge, the cross-functional team can effectively brainstorm
ideas that align business needs with consumer desire. With the right tools
at hand, designers are experts at translating concepts into tangible forms
and choosing the appropriate communication tool for each audience (i.e.
sketches, mock-ups, or prototypes). The final requirement for rapid innovation
is an onsite consumer insight facility where clients and designers can
witness immediate end-user reaction to concept embodiments. This eliminates
process interruptions, additional rounds of research and dead ends, sparking
cross-functional exploration and consumer-directed resolutions on the
spot.
Efficient and cost-effective, the collaborative design model compresses
the time to market of a consumer-validated solution. Proactively removing
roadblocks and working together at an inspiring, properly equipped facility
enables a mutually beneficial outcome. For industrial design professionals,
leading with this strategy can mean the difference between a firm footing
with all project partners or an unrelenting, precarious balancing act.
This article first appeared in the Fall 2004
issue of DMI News.
|
