Design performance related research

1. Design performance related research Dr James Moultrie Institute for Manufacturing University of Cambridge

2. PHASE 4: VALIDATION PHASE 1: EXPLORATORY STUDY 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 REVIEW REVIEW PHASE 2: TOOL CREATION & FEASIBILITY PHASE 3: TOOL DEVELOPMENT APPLY MODIFY APPLY MODIFY Exploratory cases 4 longitudinal cases Feasibility cases 6 semi-structured interviews 3 applications - action research Development cases 3 applications Validation cases 10 semi-structured interviews

3. Design audit – product & process Product development process Project generation Idea generation & management Creative culture & environment Product strategy Project selection 25. Goal attainment Project objectives Time to market Product performance Product quality Project spend Unit cost Product Requirements capture Market segmentation Competitive analysis Investigating user needs Ongoing user involvement Product specification Producibility Differentiation Profitability Utility / benefits Engineering quality Usability Desirability Novelty • Concept design • Concept generation • Aesthetic design Ergonomic design Product architecture design Concept evaluation & selection Product design process • Implementation • Design for manufacture & assembly • Prototyping to reduce market risks Prototyping to reduce technical risks Evaluation Project management Product development process Risk management Design reviews Managing design targets & metrics Teamwork Specialist design involvement Company perception of quality Consumer perception of quality Product quality Process audit

4. Process audit – summary grid

5. Process audit – detailed grid … 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?

6. Product audit …

8. NPD success factors: incomplete Product development process • Project generation • Product strategy / choosing the right projects (9) • Creative / innovative culture (2) • Requirements capture • User understanding & involvement (16) • Market analysis & understanding market needs (10) • Pre-development planning (6) • Clear product specification & goals (4) Project goal attainment Product Product factors • Product superiority or advantage (7) • Product uniqueness / novelty (6) • High perceived value / quality / usability / appeal (4) • Concept design • Concept development and selection (2) Product design process • Implementation • Prototyping & concept testing (4) • Project management • X functional teamwork & communication (23) • Top management support (17) • Strong project management & control (11) • Effective NPD process / decision points (9) • 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) Focus on management of NPD and not successful design Derived from: 47 empirical studies on success in NPD

9. Designer & company relationship & communication Consumer response to product form Moultrie et al, (2002), The innovation-styling spectrum: a framework for the valuation of industrial design involvement in NPD, International Product Development Conference, France Crilly & Moultrie (2004), Seeing things: response to the visual domain in product design, Design Studies Consumer response to product form Aesthetics Ergonomics Consumer perceptions Design trends Brand vs product perceptions Designer intent Alternative views of the NPD procses Role and value of industrial design Selecting and managing designers

10. Product The product itself Value of design awards Link between awards and success ‘Good design’ in different sectors Product success factors

11. Project title: SERIES 4 GIRAFFE Project Leader: FRED SMITH Project number: 7801 Estimate Baseline - existing product Fred Marketing May Jun Jul Aug Sep Engineering Jane Committed Industrial Design Industrial Design Co. Accounts Billy Manufacturing Plan Tom Purchasing May Jul Sep Nov Jan IDEA FEASIBILITY DEFINITION DEVELOPMENT EVALUATION PRODUCTION PROJECT OBJECTIVES CORE TEAM PROJECT FINANCIALS SUMMARY Internal drivers • Replacement revenue for product at the end of its lifecycle • Component obsolescence hurting us • Test new NPI process on low risk project • New competitive product • Change in customer perceptions towards more stylish offerings • Feedback from 5 lead users • New technology available External drivers MEASURE PLAN CURRENT Sales price £50 £45 Unit cost £33 £30 Gross margin 34% 33% Annual sales (volume) 5000 5000 UNIT COST Annual sales (value) £250,000 £225,000 5 year sales (value) £1,250,000 £1,125,000 Total Investment (spend) £270,000 £290,000 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 NPV ( 5 years @15%) £800,000 £750,000 Break even date May 2005 June 2005 NPV 20% less sales £650,000 £640,000 NPV 10% lower unit cost £500,000 £520,000 NPV 6 months late £700,000 £700,000 PROJECT RISKS 5 15 25 Number of high risk items (25 & 15) 6 HIGH • Complete product ready for production • Production tooling and assembly planning • Promotional material and sales documentation DELIVERABLES 3 9 15 Number of medium risk items (5 & 9) 17 PROBABILITY MED PROJECT SPEND 1 3 5 Number of low risk items (1& 3) 35 LOW • 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 BUSINESS CASE LOW HIGH MED IMPACT HIGH RISK ITEMS ACTION 25 Late delivery of motors Purchasing priority 25 Electronic engineer off sick Recruit temp 25 Fail to pass customer test Revise model & retest 25 Tooling cost too high Explore far east sourcing 15 Competitive product launch Begin pre-launch activity 15 Competitive product launch Begin pre-launch activity PLAN May 2003 July 2003 September 2003 February 2004 April 2004 June 2004 Current status: October 1993 PROGRESS MILESTONES Market report Specification Full mock up 6 prototypes for evaluation