Earlier we made the point that in practice it is a mistake to separate the design of products and services from the design of the processes which will produce them. Operations managers should have some involvement from the initial evaluation of the concept right through to the
Virtual prototype
CAD
Skunkworks
production of the product or service and its introduction to the market. Merging the design of products/services and the processes which create them is sometimes called interactive design. Its benefits come from the reduction in the elapsed time for the whole design activity, from concept through to market introduction. This is often called the time to market(TTM).
The argument in favour of reducing time to market is that doing so gives increased com- petitive advantage. For example, if it takes a company five years to develop a product from concept to market, with a given set of resources, it can introduce a new product only once every five years. If its rival can develop products in three years, it can introduce its new product, together with its (presumably) improved performance, once every three years. This means that the rival company does not have to make such radical improvements in performance each time it introduces a new product, because it is introducing its new products more frequently.
In other words, shorter TTM means that companies get more opportunities to improve the performance of their products or services.
If the development process takes longer than expected (or even worse, longer than com- petitors’) two effects are likely to show. The first is that the costs of development will increase.
Having to use development resources, such as designers, technicians, subcontractors, and so on, for a longer development period usually increases the costs of development. Perhaps more seriously, the late introduction of the product or service will delay the revenue from its sale (and possibly reduce the total revenue substantially if competitors have already got to the market with their own products or services). The net effect of this could be not only a considerable reduction in sales but also reduced profitability – an outcome which could considerably extend the time before the company breaks even on its investment in the new product or service. This is illustrated in Figure 5.9.
A number of factors have been suggested which can significantly reduce time to market for a product or service, including the following:
● simultaneous development of the various stages in the overall process;
● an early resolution of design conflict and uncertainty;
● an organizational structure which reflects the development project.
Figure 5.9 Delay in the time to market of new products and services not only reduces and delays revenues, it also increases the costs of development. The combination of both these effects usually delays the financial break-even point far more than the delay in the time to market
Interactive design
Interactive design can shorten time to market
Simultaneous development
Earlier in the chapter we described the design process as essentially a set of individual, predetermined stages. Sometimes one stage is completed before the next one commences.
This step-by-step, or sequential, approach has traditionally been the typical form of product/
service development. It has some advantages. It is easy to manage and control design pro- jects organized in this way, since each stage is clearly defined. In addition, each stage is completed before the next stage is begun, so each stage can focus its skills and expertise on a limited set of tasks. The main problem of the sequential approach is that it is both time- consuming and costly. When each stage is separate, with a clearly defined set of tasks, any difficulties encountered during the design at one stage might necessitate the design being halted while responsibility moves back to the previous stage. This sequential approach is shown in Figure 5.10(a).
Yet often there is really little need to wait until the absolute finalization of one stage before starting the next. For example, perhaps while generating the concept, the evaluation activity of screening and selection could be started. It is likely that some concepts could be judged as ‘non-starters’ relatively early on in the process of idea generation. Similarly, during the screening stage, it is likely that some aspects of the design will become obvious before the phase is finally complete. Therefore, the preliminary work on these parts of the design could be commenced at that point. This principle can be taken right through all the stages, one stage commencing before the previous one has finished, so there is simultaneous or concurrent work on the stages (seeFig. 5.10(b)). (Note that simultaneous development is often called simultaneous (or concurrent) engineeringin manufacturing operations.)
Figure 5.10 (a) Sequential arrangement of the stages in the design activity; (b) simultaneous arrangement of the stages in the design activity
Sequential approach to design
Simultaneous or concurrent approach to design
Simultaneous (or concurrent) engineering
Figure 5.11 Sorting out problems early saves greater disruption later in the design activity
Early conflict resolution
Characterizing the design activity as a whole series of decisions is a useful way of thinking about design. However, a decision, once made, need not totally and utterly commit the organization.
For example, if a design team is designing a new vacuum cleaner, the decision to adopt a par- ticular style and type of electric motor might have seemed sensible at the time the decision was made but might have to be changed later, in the light of new information. It could be that a new electric motor becomes available which is clearly superior to the one initially selected.
Under those circumstances the designers might very well want to change their decision.
There are other, more avoidable, reasons for designers changing their minds during the design activity, however. Perhaps one of the initial design decisions was made without sufficient discussion among those in the organization who have a valid contribution to make. It may even be that when the decision was made there was insufficient agreement to formalize it, and the design team decided to carry on without formally making the decision. Yet subsequent decisions might be made as though the decision had been formalized. For example, suppose the company could not agree on the correct size of electric motor to put into its vacuum cleaner. It might well carry on with the rest of the design work while further discussions and investigations take place on what kind of electric motor to incorporate in the design.
Yet much of the rest of the product’s design is likely to depend on the choice of the electric motor. The plastic housings, the bearings, the sizes of various apertures, and so on, could all be affected by this decision. Failure to resolve these conflicts and/or decisions early on in the process can prolong the degree of uncertainty in the total design activity. In addition, if a decision is made (even implicitly) and then changed later on in the process, the costs of that change can be very large. However, if the design team manages to resolve conflict early in the design activity, this will reduce the degree of uncertainty within the project and reduce the extra cost and, most significantly, time associated with either managing this uncertainty or changing decisions already made. Figure 5.11 illustrates two patterns of design changes through the life of the total design, which imply different time-to-market performances.
Project-based organization structures
The total process of developing concepts through to market will almost certainly involve personnel from several different areas of the organization. To continue the vacuum cleaner example, it is likely that the vacuum cleaner company would involve staff from its research and development department, engineering, production management, marketing and finance.
All these different functions will have some part to play in making the decisions which will shape the final design. Yet any design project will also have an existence of its own. It will have a project name, an individual manager or group of staff who are championing the
project, a budget and, hopefully, a clear strategic purpose in the organization. The organ- izational question is which of these two ideas – the various organizational functions which contribute to the design or the design project itself – should dominate the way in which the design activity is managed?
Before answering this, it is useful to look at the range of organizational structures which are available – from pure functionalto pure projectforms. In a pure functional organization, all staff associated with the design project are based unambiguously in their functional groups.
There is no project-based group at all. They may be working full-time on the project but all communications and liaison are carried out through their functional manager. The project exists because of agreement between these functional managers. At the other extreme, all the individual members of staff from each function who are involved in the project could be moved out of their functions and perhaps even physically relocated to a task forcededicated solely to the project. The task force could be led by a project manager who might hold all the budget allocated to the design project. Not all members of the task force necessarily have to stay in the team throughout the development period, but a substantial core might see the project through from start to finish. Some members of a design team may even be from other companies. In between these two extremes there are various types of matrix organization with varying emphasis on these two aspects of the organization (seeFig. 5.12). Although the
‘task force’ type of organization, especially for small projects, can sometimes be a little cumbersome, it seems to be generally agreed that, for substantial projects at least, it is more effective at reducing overall time to market.11
Figure 5.12 Organization structures for the design activity Functional design
organization Project design organization
Task force
Matrix organization
Summary answers to key questions
Check and improve your understanding of this chapter using self assessment questions and a personalised study plan, audio and video downloads, and an eBook – all at www.myomlab.com.
➤ Why is good product and service design important?
■ Good design makes good business sense because it translates customer needs into the shape and form of the product or service and so enhances profitability.
■ Design includes formalizing three particularly important issues: the concept, package and process implied by the design.
■ Design is a process that itself must be designed according to the process design principles described in the previous chapter.
➤ What are the stages in product and service design?
■ Concept generationtransforms an idea for a product or service into a concept which captures the nature of the product or service and provides an overall specification for its design.
■ Screeningthe concept involves examining its feasibility, acceptability and vulnerability in broad terms to ensure that it is a sensible addition to the company’s product or service portfolio.
■ Preliminary designinvolves the identification of all the component parts of the product or service and the way they fit together. Typical tools used during this phase include component structures and flow charts.
■ Design evaluation and improvementinvolve re-examining the design to see if it can be done in a better way, more cheaply or more easily. Typical techniques used here include quality func- tion deployment, value engineering and Taguchi methods.
■ Prototyping and final designinvolve providing the final details which allow the product or service to be produced. The outcome of this stage is a fully developed specification for the package of products and services, as well as a specification for the processes that will make and deliver them to customers.
➤ Why should product and service design and process design be considered interactively?
■ Looking at them together can improve the quality of both product and service design and process design. It helps a design ‘break even’ on its investment earlier than would otherwise have been the case.
■ Employ simultaneous developmentwhere design decisions are taken as early as they can be, without necessarily waiting for a whole design phase to be completed.
■ Ensure early conflict resolutionwhich allows contentious decisions to be resolved early in the design process, thereby not allowing them to cause far more delay and confusion if they emerge later in the process.
■ Use a project-based organizational structurewhich can ensure that a focused and coherent team of designers is dedicated to a single design or group of design projects.
Chatsworth, the home of the 12th Duke and Duchess of Devonshire, is one of the finest and most palatial houses in the UK, set in over 1,000 acres of parkland in the Peak District National Park in central England. The original house was built over 400 years ago and rebuilt starting in the 17th century. The house is vast, with 175 rooms, lit by over 2,000 light bulbs, and with a roof that covers 1.3 acres.
Chatsworth’s many rooms are full of treasures including famous works of art by painters including Rembrandt, and tapestries, sculptures, valuable furniture, musical instruments and even 63 antique clocks which need winding every day.
The gardens cover over 105 acres with over five miles of footpaths that guide visitors past fountains, small and large (the largest is 28 metres high), cascades, streams and ponds, all of which are fed by gravity from four large artificial lakes on the moors above the grounds. The gardens are a mix of formal and informal areas. There are sculptures, statues, rock gardens, a maze and garden views that constantly change with the seasons, all managed and maintained by a team of 20 gardeners. Both the house and gardens are open from March to December and are just two of the experiences available to visitors. Others include the orangery gift shop, restaurant and farm shop, which are open all year round, and the surrounding parkland which is open to visitors for walking, picnics and swimming in the river. The whole estate is owned and managed by an independent charity.
Close to the house and gardens, with a separate admis- sion charge, is the farmyard and adventure playground. The farmyard is a popular attraction for families and provides close encounters with a variety of livestock including pigs, sheep, cows, chickens and fish. The staff provide daily milking demonstrations and animal handling sessions. The woodland adventure playground is accessed through the farmyard and is one of the largest in the country with a range of frames, bridges, high-level walkways, swings, chutes and slides.
Simon Seligman is the Promotions and Education Manager at Chatsworth. As head of marketing he is closely involved in the design and development of new services and facilities. He explained the way they do this at Chatsworth.
‘It is a pretty abstract and organic process. Looking back over the last 25 years we either take occasional great leaps forward or make frequent little shuffles. The little shuffles tend to be organic changes usually in response to visitor feedback. The great leaps forward have been the few major changes that we decided we wanted to bring about.’
One of those great leaps forward was the decision to replace the children’s adventure playground attached to the farmyard. Simon explained, ‘The existing adventure playground was clearly coming to the end of its life and it