Design performance related research

Dr James Moultrie

Institute for Manufacturing

University of Cambridge

Design audit tool

Define & package ‘good design’ principles in a form accessible to industrialists– Describe ‘good design’ from a product perspective– Describe ‘good design’ from a process perspective– Develop a practical approach to assess design capability

Feasibility cases6 semi-structured interviews3 applications - action research

Exploratory cases4 longitudinal cases

Validation cases10 semi-structured interviews

Development cases3 applications

PHASE 4:VALIDATION

PHASE 1:EXPLORATORY

STUDY

PHASE 3:TOOL

DEVELOPMENT

APPLY

REVIEW

MODIFY

PHASE 2:TOOL CREATION

& FEASIBILITY

APPLY

REVIEW

MODIFY

Product development process

Design audit – product & process

Project generation1. Idea generation & management2. Creative culture & environment

3. Product strategy4. Project selection

Pro

du

ct d

es

ign

pro

ce

ss

Process audit

7. Investigating user needs8. Ongoing user involvement9. Product specification

Requirements capture5. Market segmentation6. Competitive analysis

12. Ergonomic design13. Product architecture design14. Concept evaluation & selection

Concept design10. Concept generation11. Aesthetic design

17. Prototyping to reduce technical risks18. Evaluation

Implementation15. Design for manufacture & assembly16. Prototyping to reduce market risks

Project management19. Product development process20. Risk management21. Design reviews

22. Managing design targets & metrics23. Teamwork24. Specialist design involvement

25. Goal attainmentProject objectivesTime to marketProduct performanceProduct qualityProject spendUnit cost

Product

Company perception of quality

Consumer perception

of quality

a. Producibility

b. Differentiation

c. Profitability

d. Utility / benefits

e. Engineering quality

f. Usability

g. Desirability

h. Novelty

Productquality

Process audit – summary grid

Design execution: Concept design

ActivityLevel 1:

None / ad-hocLevel 2: Partial

Level 3: Formal

Level 4: Culturally embedded

Current score(1-4)

Desired score(1-4)

Concept generation

Go with the first idea

Engineering led concept

generation

X-functional involvement

Radical ideas encouraged

Aesthetic design

Looks don’t matter,

performance does

Technology sometimes

‘styled’

Aesthetics critical for

differentiation

Design leaders in our industry

Ergonomic design

Little consideration of

usability

Engineers design user

interface

Early specialist involvement

Total ‘user experience’

design

Product architecture

design

Configuration evolves ad-hoc

Intuitively consider

modularity

Formal architecture

planning

Platform based product strategy

Concept evaluation &

selection

There is only one concept

“Chosen by the Chairman’s

wife”

Internal stakeholders

involved

Internal and external

stakeholders involved

Process audit – detailed grid …

Concept evaluation & selection “Systematic selection & evaluation of the best solutions to satisfy business, market and user requirements”

Level 1:

There is only one concept

Level 2:

“Chosen by the Chairman’s wife”

Level 3:

Internal stakeholders involved

Level 4:

All stakeholders involved

Current score(1-4)

Desired score(1-4)

• There is only one concept to choose from - no process needed!

• Dominant team member chooses

• Aesthetic decisions made “by the Chairman’s wife”

• Decisions subjective based on personal preference

• Little team consensus

• Internal stakeholders involved but aim for team consensus

• Use a standard checklist

• Senior manager still holds veto

• Little/ no evaluation with external stakeholders

• External and internal stakeholders involved

• All aspects considered

• A range of selection tools may be applied

• Decisions matched to product vision

• Data driven decisions, not opinion

Discussion questions:Who evaluates proposed concepts?Are users or customers involved in concept selection?When are concepts reviewed?Is a standard selection approach used and is it an explicit part of the NPD process?What tools and methods are used to support concept generation?Typically, how divergent are you in the search for alternative approaches?Is the design team encouraged to look for novel solutions?

Product audit … Desirability …

Issue Poor performance Score (1-4) Great performance

Aesthetics

No visual novelty - it looks like all the rest 1 2 3 4Novel aesthetics give it a strong identity – visually differentiated from competition

No/too much ‘contrast’ between elements – tone, shape, colour, line 1 2 3 4

Just the right amount of ‘contrast’ between elements – tone, shape, colour, line

No sense of ‘order’ to the design - an incoherent and inharmonious collection of elements 1 2 3 4

A high sense of ‘order’ to the design – a pleasing harmony of shapes, material, finish, colour and structure

Its appearance is inappropriate and does not make sense – it just looks wrong! 1 2 3 4

Its appearance makes complete sense – it just looks right!

Symbolism and status

Ownership has no (or a detrimental) impact on ‘status’ amongst the peer group of target market 1 2 3 4

Ownership improves ‘status’ amongst the peer group of target market

It does not represent or express the tastes or values of its target market 1 2 3 4

It accurately symbolises or expresses the values, beliefs and tastes of its target audience

Appearance is inappropriate for the context or environment of use 1 2 3 4

Appearance is appropriate for the intended context or environment of use

Visual clarity

No clear brand identity or coherence across the full product range 1 2 3 4

Design reinforces and reflects the company’s brand values and identity

Appearance is inconsistent with expected values - e.g. tough, precious, fun etc 1 2 3 4

Design expresses and reinforces specific qualities and values - e.g. fast, accurate, tough etc.

Confusing appearance which gives few clues to describe the purpose and use of the product 1 2 3 4

Appearance helps to clearly describe the product purpose, function and operation

All sensesFeels, smells or sounds horrible – little sensory

pleasure (touch, feel etc) 1 2 3 4Feels as good as it looks: Sensual pleasure through comfort, material or texture

PrideLittle pride of ownership, design is utilitarian and

functional – it gets hidden away 1 2 3 4Design inspires a sense of pride in buying and owning – it may even go on display

Emotional response

Product produces a negative emotional response – it makes me feel cross, frustrated, angry, upset etc. 1 2 3 4

Product produces a positive emotional response – it makes me feel happy, satisfied, reassured etc.

Overall low desirability 1 2 3 4 Overall high desirability

Product

NPD success factors: incomplete

Project goal attainment

Project management• X functional teamwork & communication (23)• Top management support (17)• Strong project management & control (11)• Effective NPD process / decision points (9)

• Pre-development planning (6)• Clear product specification &

goals (4)

Requirements capture• User understanding & involvement (16)• Market analysis & understanding

market needs (10)

Concept design• Concept development and selection (2)

Implementation• Prototyping & concept testing (4)

Project generation• Product strategy / choosing the right projects (9)• Creative / innovative culture (2)

• Competence / skill (8)• Use of outside consultants & alliances (5)• Adequate / appropriate resources (4)• Strong project manager (4)• Rewards (3)

Context• Market pull / dynamic or growing market (11) • Fit to market, user & firm (8)

Product factors• Product superiority or

advantage (7)• Product uniqueness /

novelty (6)• High perceived value /

quality / usability / appeal (4)

Product development processP

rod

uct

de

sig

n p

roc

ess

Derived from: 47 empirical studies on success in NPD

Focus on management of NPD and not successful design

Consumer response to product form

Consumer response to product form

Crilly & Moultrie (2004), Seeing things: response to the visual domain in product design, Design Studies

Designer & company relationship & communication

Moultrie et al, (2002), The innovation-styling spectrum: a framework for the valuation of industrial design involvement in NPD, International Product Development Conference, France

Designer intentAlternative views of the NPD procses

Role and value of industrial designSelecting and managing designers

AestheticsErgonomics

Consumer perceptionsDesign trends

Brand vs product perceptions

The product itself

Product

Value of design awardsLink between awards and success‘Good design’ in different sectors

Product success factors

IDEA FEASIBILITY DEFINITION DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION PRODUCTION

Project title: SERIES 4 GIRAFFE Project Leader: FRED SMITH Project number: 7801

PROJECT OBJECTIVESInternal drivers External drivers

• New competitive product• Change in customer

perceptions towards more stylish offerings

• Feedback from 5 lead users• New technology available

• Replacement revenue for product at the end of its lifecycle

• Component obsolescence hurting us

• Test new NPI process on low risk project

DELIVERABLES• Complete product ready for production• Production tooling and assembly planning• Promotional material and sales documentation

PRODUCT DESCRIPTION & USPs• Industry leading aesthetics• New core technology platform to enable variants targeted at home

office, school and armed services markets• Life costs are the key USP, hence design for maintainability and

serviceability is critical• Sets the tone for the company brand and new identity• Revised motor with 50% increase in efficiency• Target sales price of £50

BUSINESS CASE• Targets of sales of 5000 units per annum• Target to increase market share to 32% from current 27%• Sales price of £50 and gross margin of 34%• Breakeven in January 2006• NPV at 15% of £250K• Business case particularly sensitive to variations in unit cost• Must be launched to market by March 2006 - no margin for error• Satisfies business strategy of consolidation in key markets and

steady incremental growth• Will not generate new revenue

ManufacturingPurchasing

MarketingEngineeringIndustrial Design

BillyTom

FredJaneIndustrial Design Co.

CORE TEAM PROJECT FINANCIALS SUMMARY

Annual sales (volume)Annual sales (value)

Sales priceUnit costGross margin

5 year sales (value)

NPV ( 5 years @15%)Break even dateNPV 20% less salesNPV 10% lower unit costNPV 6 months late

MEASURE

5000£250,000

£50£33

34%

£1,250,000

£800,000May 2005£650,000£500,000£700,000

PLAN

5000£225,000

£45£30

33%

£1,125,000

£750,000June 2005

£640,000£520,000£700,000

CURRENT

Total Investment (spend) £270,000 £290,000

Current status: October 1993May 2003 July 2003 September 2003 February 2004 April 2004 June 2004PLAN

UNIT COST

May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Estimate

Baseline - existing product

PROJECT SPEND

May Jul Sep Nov Jan

Accounts

Plan

Committed

MILESTONES Market report Specification Full mock up 6 prototypes for evaluationPROGRESS

PROJECT RISKS

5 15 25

3 9 15

1 3 5

LOWPR

OB

AB

ILIT

YM

ED

HIG

H

LOW

IMPACTMED HIGH

Late delivery of motorsElectronic engineer off sickFail to pass customer test

Purchasing priority25

25

25

HIGH RISK ITEMS ACTION

Recruit tempRevise model & retest

Tooling cost too high25 Explore far east sourcingCompetitive product launch Begin pre-launch activity15

Competitive product launch Begin pre-launch activity15

Number of high risk items (25 & 15)

Number of medium risk items (5 & 9)

Number of low risk items (1& 3)

6

17

35