Brad Goldense

"A History of Design for Manufacturing and Assembly" is a 1750 word article with 3 images. In short, job and task specialization began in the 1870s at the onset of the Second Industrial Revolution. A century later, engineering and manufacturing had become so specialized that they rarely talked with each other. New product designs were “thrown over the wall” to manufacturing, and then the talking started. Iterating hardened designs to be producible in an efficient manner took forever. Schedules… Show more

"A History of Design for Manufacturing and Assembly" is a 1750 word article with 3 images. In short, job and task specialization began in the 1870s at the onset of the Second Industrial Revolution. A century later, engineering and manufacturing had become so specialized that they rarely talked with each other. New product designs were “thrown over the wall” to manufacturing, and then the talking started. Iterating hardened designs to be producible in an efficient manner took forever. Schedules slipped and costs increased. The Design for Manufacturability and Assembly body of knowledge bridged the gap between these two key product creation functions. The purpose of the article is to document a short history of the evolution of design for manufacturing and assembly [DFM and DFA], and to postulate how DFM/A practices might change with the advent of additive manufacturing. Early DfAM practices are already in process.

3 IMAGES: Cover Image, 150-Year Graphical Timeline, Original Westinghouse Wheel Show less

Approximately 150 Complimentary Publications are available to the public on GGI's web site. Complimentary content feeds through Twitter [@GoldenseGroup] and two blogs in Tumblr almost immediately. Many of them may be found in this publications section in LinkedIn.

Approximately 150 Proprietary Publications, for purchase, may be found through "The Wisdom iStore" which is the secure internet store located on GGI's web site. Major categories include Market Research, Technical… Show more

Approximately 150 Complimentary Publications are available to the public on GGI's web site. Complimentary content feeds through Twitter [@GoldenseGroup] and two blogs in Tumblr almost immediately. Many of them may be found in this publications section in LinkedIn.

Approximately 150 Proprietary Publications, for purchase, may be found through "The Wisdom iStore" which is the secure internet store located on GGI's web site. Major categories include Market Research, Technical Publications, and Seminar Coursebooks. Show less

This is the final monthly column I'll be writing for Machine Design. For 72 consecutive months, I've done my best to pen something of value for MD readers. Machine Design's readership spans many demographics and engineering cultures, from those starting-out their careers to those closing-them out, from big corporations to makers in their garages. What do we all have in common? We're engineers and scientists working hard to create the best possible designs. Each month, I tried hard to include… Show more

This is the final monthly column I'll be writing for Machine Design. For 72 consecutive months, I've done my best to pen something of value for MD readers. Machine Design's readership spans many demographics and engineering cultures, from those starting-out their careers to those closing-them out, from big corporations to makers in their garages. What do we all have in common? We're engineers and scientists working hard to create the best possible designs. Each month, I tried hard to include several things that readers would say "I have to make a note of that."

I first became aware of Machine Design when I graduated college and started working at Texas Instruments in the 1970s. Looking back, hard to believe, but I had several hundred people reporting to me within six months and was chartered with the turnkey design and start-up of new manufacturing plants. My family business had prepared me well for standing-up new buildings, but starting-up new plant sites and debugging production was a whole different thing. And much of the production equipment had to be custom-designed for TI's many state-of-the-art products. This is where I first encountered Machine Design. Just about every product design and equipment engineer was reading it. Many had their own MD libraries. Design inspiration and courage continually flowed from its pages. I lost track of the number of times an issue was placed in front of me to make a point.

I wasn't thinking at the time how important MD really was in the big picture, but I knew how important it was to me. When I left Texas Instruments, 2D CAD was just beginning. Drafting boards and typewriters were being replaced by early computers and design stations. As years rolled by, I kept MD close and referred to it for design benchmarks and barometer readings to keep track of how fast things were changing. Between Machine Design and its sister publication Electronic Design, there is always a recent piece on some of engineering's thorniest problems. Show less

Bodies of knowledge ebb and flow over time. When you step back and look at them, the maturation of a specific discipline or technology is counted in decades. Last month (MD Apr 19) this column codified a history of product design dating to the early 15th Century. Here is a snapshot of what is happening in the early 21st Century, and the likely effect on product design and product designers.

Several cool physical technologies are just coming of age. Their origins date to the 1980s. Rapid… Show more

Bodies of knowledge ebb and flow over time. When you step back and look at them, the maturation of a specific discipline or technology is counted in decades. Last month (MD Apr 19) this column codified a history of product design dating to the early 15th Century. Here is a snapshot of what is happening in the early 21st Century, and the likely effect on product design and product designers.

Several cool physical technologies are just coming of age. Their origins date to the 1980s. Rapid prototyping is becoming Additive Manufacturing, and is changing the factory. Composite materials and advanced polymers are increasingly replacing metal parts.

Several cool software technologies are just coming of age. 2D CAD is now quite another thing. The PTC-Ansys alliance product appears to be close to being the first real-time 3D design and analysis. The same happened earlier with EDA design software. And the digital world now ties product creators right into the factory, which has reciprocated with advanced process design and manufacturing systems. Show less

A history of industrial product design, now maturing into specialties like: User Interface Design, User Experience Design, Sustainable Design, Digital Design, 3D Additive Design, and more. The first 500 years in 600 words, and where we are headed.

Not all designs are born equal. No one knows this better than the Makers and managers of small-mid firms competing against large companies with big budgets, global channels, and purchasing clout across the supply chain. Technology, media, and governments increasingly influence product success as well. Assuming your products get a fair hearing in the marketplace, are you known for impactful designs?

There are several types of power. Organization theory offers five types: position power… Show more

Not all designs are born equal. No one knows this better than the Makers and managers of small-mid firms competing against large companies with big budgets, global channels, and purchasing clout across the supply chain. Technology, media, and governments increasingly influence product success as well. Assuming your products get a fair hearing in the marketplace, are you known for impactful designs?

There are several types of power. Organization theory offers five types: position power, associative power, expert power, reverent power, and personality power.

Steve Jobs’ definition of industrial design on the IDSA site gets at the wide-ranging subject of power. “Design is the fundamental soul of a human-made creation that ends up expressing itself in successive outer layers of the product or service.” Reverence and expert power are at the top. They assure interest in the outermost layers. If you see what you like, personality power makes you look more deeply. Position and association power lag, noting that makers and small-to medium-sized companies will argue that all products are not created equal. Show less

When was product design not important? Product design has always been important. It is almost a law of nature. When was quality not important? This too is practically a law of nature. The elevation of both areas began back in the 1980s.

For industrial design, service firms such as Design Continuum, IDEO, and a couple-dozen others formed into an industry as enabling 3D and surface design technologies also came of age. And user-interface (UI) engineering began its related roots as… Show more

When was product design not important? Product design has always been important. It is almost a law of nature. When was quality not important? This too is practically a law of nature. The elevation of both areas began back in the 1980s.

For industrial design, service firms such as Design Continuum, IDEO, and a couple-dozen others formed into an industry as enabling 3D and surface design technologies also came of age. And user-interface (UI) engineering began its related roots as electronic devices emerged.

For product quality, first Deming, Juran, Crosby, and others brought great techniques. Then came Jack Welch at GE, and Six Sigma spread widely a decade later.

Currently, factors indicate that the competencies of product design are on the way to their next heyday. Several new groups of design requirements are converging in the same timeframe. Show less

Hardly a day goes by without overhearing the word apprentice, apprenticing, or apprenticeships. In some cases, it is simply renaming long-standing training programs to be in vogue with the buzzword of the day. Much of it is something new, however, for both good and not so good reasons.

• The Original Model
• The Specialization Model
• The Collaborative Model
• The Displacement Model

In the 1980s, before globalization began in earnest, most companies in the U.S. had corporate goals to make more than 50% of their revenues in non-U.S. markets. Business with Canada and Europe was always significant but remained less than half of revenues for most companies.

As Asian markets began opening up in the 1990s to U.S. and European companies, and Asian companies became large enough to compete globally, a tumultuous period of change began for corporations around the globe that… Show more

In the 1980s, before globalization began in earnest, most companies in the U.S. had corporate goals to make more than 50% of their revenues in non-U.S. markets. Business with Canada and Europe was always significant but remained less than half of revenues for most companies.

As Asian markets began opening up in the 1990s to U.S. and European companies, and Asian companies became large enough to compete globally, a tumultuous period of change began for corporations around the globe that has gone on for 30 years. A partial reversal of that wave is now beginning. Show less

These are exciting times for product developers in many industries, not just for all the new technologies and capabilities being incorporating into new products and product lines these days, but also for the management science around the practices and processes used from creation through launch.

There is a long time lag from the initial concept, through funding and development, then waiting for several years of sales and profits to analyze the results. Four to a dozen years pass… Show more

These are exciting times for product developers in many industries, not just for all the new technologies and capabilities being incorporating into new products and product lines these days, but also for the management science around the practices and processes used from creation through launch.

There is a long time lag from the initial concept, through funding and development, then waiting for several years of sales and profits to analyze the results. Four to a dozen years pass, depending on your product life cycle. Until big data and analytics first achieved critical mass a decade ago, it was hard to find good data sets to analyze. Moore's Law doubling rates these past ten years, coupled with ever-improving analytics and early AI capabilities, has really improved what can be researched. As well, these data are available to a much wider global audience of business researchers. We are entering a period where management science in research and development stands to blossom. Still far from a comprehensive understanding of the impacts of most decisions and techniques, multiple studies in related areas are beginning to emerge for many important R and D topics.

The impact of innovation announcements and awards on the stock price of public companies is an emerging area of study. Show less

This is an exciting new age for product developers and their companies, not just for all the new technologies that can be incorporated in designs, but also for the management science surrounding the creation and launch of products containing those new technologies.

Big data and analytics, having reached critical mass a decade ago and now doubling in capability every year, are now available to a much wider global audience of business researchers. Management science is also beginning to… Show more

This is an exciting new age for product developers and their companies, not just for all the new technologies that can be incorporated in designs, but also for the management science surrounding the creation and launch of products containing those new technologies.

Big data and analytics, having reached critical mass a decade ago and now doubling in capability every year, are now available to a much wider global audience of business researchers. Management science is also beginning to blossom. We are far from a comprehensive understanding of any decision or technique, but several studies in roughly the same areas are emerging in many important R&D management areas. “The value of design” is one of those areas. Emerging science shows you get the best market value by communicating your design intent to the marketplace in advance, and then turning out a design that scores big in awards competitions. That said, no one has studied the combination of pre-launch announcements and winning design competitions. But there is an interesting study for each area and you’ll likely draw the same conclusion. Show less

A lot is happening in Design for Manufacturability (DFM) these days. The body of DFM knowledge originated in the early 1970s and has been growing steadily ever since. Hitachi, Westinghouse, and Stuart Pugh (Pugh Matrix) were early explorers. On the academic side, professors Geoffrey Boothroyd, Peter Dewhurst, Winston Knight, and a handful of others built-out initial approaches into methods that could be applied systematically to assembling products. They then laid out sets of methods for… Show more

A lot is happening in Design for Manufacturability (DFM) these days. The body of DFM knowledge originated in the early 1970s and has been growing steadily ever since. Hitachi, Westinghouse, and Stuart Pugh (Pugh Matrix) were early explorers. On the academic side, professors Geoffrey Boothroyd, Peter Dewhurst, Winston Knight, and a handful of others built-out initial approaches into methods that could be applied systematically to assembling products. They then laid out sets of methods for manufacturing components of different technologies. The Medal of Technology awarded by Bush 41 in 1991 for Boothroyd and Dewhurst’s work on Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA®) assured there was no looking back.

Additive Manufacturing (AM) will soon require a methodology for systematically designing products to optimize how they are produced using AM. Rapid prototyping and 3D printing are about validating design parameters and basic concepts of production. The production process adds a whole level of design detail. Initial Design for Additive Manufacturing (DFAM) work began about three years ago. Its Wikipedia page began in September 2016. Seminars are starting. Show less

The arrival of Additive Manufacturing (AM) as a valid alternative to the original five manufacturing processes is really going to shake up the factory. Within 3 to 5 years, engineering and manufacturing leaders will look out at their production floors and wonder if they should tool-up or modify an assembly line for a new product or just buy the 3D or Metal AM machines they need for the volume they anticipate.

The 6 Types of Manufacturing Processes (Aug '18 MD) discusses the history and… Show more

The arrival of Additive Manufacturing (AM) as a valid alternative to the original five manufacturing processes is really going to shake up the factory. Within 3 to 5 years, engineering and manufacturing leaders will look out at their production floors and wonder if they should tool-up or modify an assembly line for a new product or just buy the 3D or Metal AM machines they need for the volume they anticipate.

The 6 Types of Manufacturing Processes (Aug '18 MD) discusses the history and readiness of 3D rapid prototyping to mature quickly into reliable Additive Manufacturing and its resultant transformational effects on several industries. This article (Sept '18 MD) focuses on AM's impact on historical manufacturing processes. Show less

For decades there have been five basic types of manufacturing processes. They are distinct. Great design engineers understand the nuances of these processes and tailor their designs accordingly.

There are economic considerations that precede design engineering. Is sales forecasting high volumes? Do we need a continuous production line(s), or will we make the product in discrete lots or batches? All the decades of “familiar decisions” that answered such questions quickly are about to get… Show more

For decades there have been five basic types of manufacturing processes. They are distinct. Great design engineers understand the nuances of these processes and tailor their designs accordingly.

There are economic considerations that precede design engineering. Is sales forecasting high volumes? Do we need a continuous production line(s), or will we make the product in discrete lots or batches? All the decades of “familiar decisions” that answered such questions quickly are about to get shaken up. If the choice of manufacturing process type was complicated before, that complexity is about to get multiplied.

3D Printing has arrived. Last month (MD July 18), this column cited industry data indicating that rapid prototyping technologies are on the cusp of achieving widespread additive manufacturing capabilities: 875% growth in five years, 30 new equipment manufacturers in the past two years, and companies with more than 100,000 3D-printed units already in the marketplace. Plastics, composites, and now metals give designers a wide range of choices and capabilities in each basic material type. It is this final achievement in metal that will drive a systemic global impact. And, it is already in its early stages. Yes, the part/bed sizes of 3D printers and speed-to-volume still have room to grow. But scale will arrive in the next few years. It’s nearing 40 years since 3D printing was conceived in 1981, but widespread additive manufacturing is now close at hand. Show less

Rapid prototyping technology, building parts by creating a series of successive layers, began in the 1980s in Japan and immediately became a subject of interest in the U.S. The first patent, which coined the term stereo lithography (SLA), was granted in 1986 to Chuck Hull in the U.S. His 3D Systems company created the first prototype equipment in 1987 and launched the first commercial equipment in 1988.

By the early 1990s, a half-dozen technologies based on layering principles were in… Show more

Rapid prototyping technology, building parts by creating a series of successive layers, began in the 1980s in Japan and immediately became a subject of interest in the U.S. The first patent, which coined the term stereo lithography (SLA), was granted in 1986 to Chuck Hull in the U.S. His 3D Systems company created the first prototype equipment in 1987 and launched the first commercial equipment in 1988.

By the early 1990s, a half-dozen technologies based on layering principles were in the early stages of commercialization. Many subsequent approaches evolved from using liquids as the base material to using powders. Until the advent of powders, it was technically impossible to consider metal prototypes. The race to achieve metal prototypes now began. Twenty-five years later, the industry has achieved metal additive prototypes and is on the cusp of widespread Metal Additive Manufacturing (Metal AM). Show less

Patents, trademarks, and copyrights are hardly new. Trademarks came first, in the 1200s in England. Patents were next, in the 1400s in Italy. Copyrights emerged in the early 1700s in England. For the United States, laws passed in the 1790s protected patents and copyrights. Trademark laws arrived in the 1870s following legislative activity throughout Europe. These are the three primary types of intellectual property (IP) that can be "registered" with governments for protection. Each are made… Show more

Patents, trademarks, and copyrights are hardly new. Trademarks came first, in the 1200s in England. Patents were next, in the 1400s in Italy. Copyrights emerged in the early 1700s in England. For the United States, laws passed in the 1790s protected patents and copyrights. Trademark laws arrived in the 1870s following legislative activity throughout Europe. These are the three primary types of intellectual property (IP) that can be "registered" with governments for protection. Each are made public and available statistics for all countries make it possible to track global activity. What is happening is not a surprise. There are several factors, besides globalization and competitiveness, that fuel the growth.
Show less

How does your company determine how much to spend each year on R&D? Likely, a group of senior executives get together and offer their thoughts on what the figure should be for the next year. After a back and forth discussion focusing on the right amount for R&D, other corporate financial considerations are then put on the table that compete for monies that might go to R&D.

Now, with everything on table, the group decides what it will spend for R&D. So, one question is answered. What will… Show more

How does your company determine how much to spend each year on R&D? Likely, a group of senior executives get together and offer their thoughts on what the figure should be for the next year. After a back and forth discussion focusing on the right amount for R&D, other corporate financial considerations are then put on the table that compete for monies that might go to R&D.

Now, with everything on table, the group decides what it will spend for R&D. So, one question is answered. What will we spend next year? But, the more important question is not answered. What is the right amount to spend on R&D? Each year management answers the “how much” question, but for decades management has never known if it is the “right amount” to spend. Show less

R&D spending is a hot topic right now. Not since the 1990s has such a steady and possibly increasing amount of funding been on the horizon for inventive scientists and engineers. It is a great time to be in the profession. It is a global trend.

Seven or more years of consecutive increases in R&D spending appear to be lining up in the United States, after a five- year decline from 2010-2014. Our knowledge of what this consistency means is better than it was in the 1990s. Few could spot a… Show more

R&D spending is a hot topic right now. Not since the 1990s has such a steady and possibly increasing amount of funding been on the horizon for inventive scientists and engineers. It is a great time to be in the profession. It is a global trend.

Seven or more years of consecutive increases in R&D spending appear to be lining up in the United States, after a five- year decline from 2010-2014. Our knowledge of what this consistency means is better than it was in the 1990s. Few could spot a technology boom was coming much before it actually arrived. Today, we better understand that consistent spending does make a difference. And, that the effects of uniformity apply to all companies—unless there is a deep core competency in an area of volatile spending.

With better management science, industry will hopefully be able to nurture and sustain this portending boom period. Not all technology kittens were meant to become cats, but friendly budgets tend to feed more kitties.

Seven or more years of consistent spending will result in many of these emerging technologies entering your workplace and product pipeline. Show less

R&D spending is a complex subject. Considerations must be made regarding whether money goes toward basic research, applied research, advanced development, or product development, as well as how much money is spent each year. It also matters in which sectors that money is spent.

Funding must also be maintained continuously, as few technologies and products go from start to finish within a year. It matters if the money is spent to increase a competency, or to start one. Then, one must… Show more

R&D spending is a complex subject. Considerations must be made regarding whether money goes toward basic research, applied research, advanced development, or product development, as well as how much money is spent each year. It also matters in which sectors that money is spent.

Funding must also be maintained continuously, as few technologies and products go from start to finish within a year. It matters if the money is spent to increase a competency, or to start one. Then, one must wait five to eight years to calculate the results.

These matters apply from a company view, a sector view, a country view, and a global view. Each domain has largely the same set of challenges and considerations.

Everyone generally agrees on two things. First, reductions in spending for multi-year periods have lasting consequences. Second, year-to-year up and down fluctuations have tangible implications. The effect is the same in corporations as it is for the venture capital (VC)-funded "maker" community. If VC funds dry up for extended periods, countries see a decline in start-ups, then IPOs, then Unicorns. So, R&D trends in spending matter quite a bit. Show less

According to the R&D Magazine 2017 Survey for the 2018 Global Funding Forecast (GFF), $553 billion will be spent on R&D in the U.S. this year—more than a half-trillion dollars. 



This is the 4th straight year of 3% +/- growth in R&D Spending.  With the positive outlook predicted the next several years, this stretch may run 7-8 years.  The last time this happened was the 1990s, and it led to the technology boom of the late 1990s.  Exciting times ahead!

Deciding the best level of spending each year for research and development (R&D) and product development has challenged management for decades. It is a complex subject with many variables.

One of the challenges is to tie spending to results. Projects get funded, development proceeds, products launch, and commercialization takes place. Years go by before the full set of data is in place to find out if the money was well spent. Companies have dozens to hundreds of projects going on… Show more

Deciding the best level of spending each year for research and development (R&D) and product development has challenged management for decades. It is a complex subject with many variables.

One of the challenges is to tie spending to results. Projects get funded, development proceeds, products launch, and commercialization takes place. Years go by before the full set of data is in place to find out if the money was well spent. Companies have dozens to hundreds of projects going on simultaneously. As the relationship between spending and results is complex to determine, top management often varies R&D spending to modulate variations that occur elsewhere in the business - without knowing the impact on R&D and innovation levels over time.

The Research Quotient Model may help to mitigate some of these challenges. Show less

Determining how much to spend each year on R&D and product development is an issue that has plagued management for decades. In last month’s column, a number of traditional methods used by R&D leaders to determine R&D spending levels were discussed. This month, we examine an approach that is barely five years old.

Determining how much to spend on R&D and product development each year is an issue that has plagued management for decades. It is a difficult question.

One of the big challenges has been tying R&D spending to results. Projects are funded, development occurs, products are launched, and commercialization ensues. Years pass before the data is in place to tie spending to results. Companies have tens to hundreds of projects going on at the same time. The relationship between spending and… Show more

Determining how much to spend on R&D and product development each year is an issue that has plagued management for decades. It is a difficult question.

One of the big challenges has been tying R&D spending to results. Projects are funded, development occurs, products are launched, and commercialization ensues. Years pass before the data is in place to tie spending to results. Companies have tens to hundreds of projects going on at the same time. The relationship between spending and results is unknown, so many executives modulate R&D spending to mitigate variations elsewhere in the business without knowing the effect on R&D over time.

Since the 1970s, academics and practitioners have experimented with various formulas and approaches to tie spending to results. In small sample sizes, such as a single product, the numbers can be assembled and crunched. But even that is not definitive for many. Is success measured by revenues? Profits? Units sold? Market share? Technology leverage? Customer satisfaction? Something else? There will likely never be a perfect solution, but we need something better than what we currently have. Show less

Dozens of companies and awards programs recognize new product innovations. The following five stand out. All five competitions are global with equal access. Any size company can afford to enter. Only products ready for commercial sale may compete. Achievement of any level of recognition is rewarded in the marketplace.

It is nearly impossible to wrap one's arms around the multitude of different aspects of how humans communicate with each other, never mind the dynamics of multiple people interacting over time to achieve a common goal. The crux of the problem lies in the five human senses: sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch. The sixth sense of intuition or perception is also in play.

Over the past decade numerous studies and research efforts have consistently found that R&D productivity, a synonym for efficiency, is declining—across all industries. Indicators come from a number of sources across several different domains.

The importance of Intellectual Property (IP) has increased significantly in the past 20 years. The technology boom of the late 1990s showed the world that packaged IP was often worth more than the products that contained it. IP moved from the back office to the corner office.

Business processes were changed to enable IP caretakers to work more closely with IP creators. The workforce was educated to give everyone a better understanding and appreciation. File folders and spreadsheets were… Show more

The importance of Intellectual Property (IP) has increased significantly in the past 20 years. The technology boom of the late 1990s showed the world that packaged IP was often worth more than the products that contained it. IP moved from the back office to the corner office.

Business processes were changed to enable IP caretakers to work more closely with IP creators. The workforce was educated to give everyone a better understanding and appreciation. File folders and spreadsheets were replaced with IP management systems. More active selling, licensing, and bartering of IP spawned new service industries to facilitate IP transactions. The table was now set for many new performance measures. Show less

Metrics change slowly. This is especially true in R&D and product development, and for many reasons. New business processes take years to evolve and become the new normal. Then, new measures get adopted. The infrastructure behind metrics is complex. People have to change what they track and record, then IT has to put it into a system. Management is uncomfortable with new metrics that do not have several years of past data. Few choose to recreate that data rather they wait several years for it… Show more

Metrics change slowly. This is especially true in R&D and product development, and for many reasons. New business processes take years to evolve and become the new normal. Then, new measures get adopted. The infrastructure behind metrics is complex. People have to change what they track and record, then IT has to put it into a system. Management is uncomfortable with new metrics that do not have several years of past data. Few choose to recreate that data rather they wait several years for it to accumulate.

As well, R&D and product development are among the least understood major business functions. Business leaders hesitate to change measures in areas where they did not have direct experience on their way to the top of the corporate ladder. As a result, the leaders of innovation departments chartered with inventing the future have enjoyed less oversight than they probably should have—for a long time. Until now. Show less

Monitoring and measuring how engineers spent their work day was considered normal and to be expected during the 20th century. Time studies were numerous. In the 1990s, the relationship between corporations and workers began to change. Cell phones had become widespread, email replaced faxing, internet availability was accelerating, and the growth of globalization necessitated work in multiple time zones—from home as required. Reciprocally, employees had become empowered with personal systems and… Show more

Monitoring and measuring how engineers spent their work day was considered normal and to be expected during the 20th century. Time studies were numerous. In the 1990s, the relationship between corporations and workers began to change. Cell phones had become widespread, email replaced faxing, internet availability was accelerating, and the growth of globalization necessitated work in multiple time zones—from home as required. Reciprocally, employees had become empowered with personal systems and no longer needed to be hesitant to use company systems for personal items during the work day. If an employer was asking for time “after hours,” then it was only fair for the employee to have more flexibility during “work hours.” And, here we are. Show less

Every time there is an industry-wide adoption of a new capability or technology, metrics soon follow. Some 50-plus new metrics, which always lag the business initiatives in practice, are typically tried out by companies and analysts as they learn their way to success. People talk. Researchers research. Articles are written. Eventually, the cream rises to the top after a couple decades and five to 10 become frequently used.

For the past decade, which translates into two to five product cycles for most industries, broad-based innovation has been on the decline. The research of Dr. Robert Cooper, the creator of Stage-Gate, indicates that companies typically spent almost 60% of R&D funds on New-to-the-World, New-to-the-Market, and New Product Lines. The remaining 40% went to Additions to Existing Product Lines and Improvements to Existing Products. These figures are now inverted. Most companies now focus on extending… Show more

For the past decade, which translates into two to five product cycles for most industries, broad-based innovation has been on the decline. The research of Dr. Robert Cooper, the creator of Stage-Gate, indicates that companies typically spent almost 60% of R&D funds on New-to-the-World, New-to-the-Market, and New Product Lines. The remaining 40% went to Additions to Existing Product Lines and Improvements to Existing Products. These figures are now inverted. Most companies now focus on extending the life of existing products and assets, and they will until GDP clearly outpaces inflation again. There are now indications that top-line pressures may lessen in a year. Let’s get a jump on likely good news by revisiting the alternatives companies have to spur innovation.

Just about everything companies do to innovate falls into six groups: Basic Research, Applied Research, Advanced Development, Product Development, Product Enhancement, and Product Invention. The first five categories are a continuum of capabilities and/or technologies progressing from the nascent to the mature. Product Invention, aka Skunk Works and other names, spans nascent to mature by itself. Show less

New tools, techniques, processes, and metrics are invented and tried-out all the time. Some get great press out of the box because of the person or organization they are connected to. We hear about some of them and then a few years later we wonder where they went. Some have more quiet beginnings and disappear before we ever hear of them. About 99% follow this course within seven years. One can find them in internet searches, but that doesn’t tell you if they are being used.

There are a… Show more

New tools, techniques, processes, and metrics are invented and tried-out all the time. Some get great press out of the box because of the person or organization they are connected to. We hear about some of them and then a few years later we wonder where they went. Some have more quiet beginnings and disappear before we ever hear of them. About 99% follow this course within seven years. One can find them in internet searches, but that doesn’t tell you if they are being used.

There are a few methodologies that rise from the myriads and stand the test of time. We all know about them. Robert Cooper's Stage-Gate, Donald Clausing's Concurrent Engineering, John Hauser's QFD, Genrich Altshuller's TRIZ, and 3M's Vitality Index for new products. Well, we should add another to the list, Technology Readiness Levels. It has finally made the club. Show less

The definition and design of products, and the level of automation at the factories that turn out products, will be transformed across commercial, consumer, and medical industries over the next 20 years. The sooner companies figure out an initial systematic approach to enable appropriate two-way communication between the product and the factory that makes it that can be continuously renewed as the Industrial Internet (IIoT) and Internet of Things (IoT) and their numerous protocols head towards… Show more

The definition and design of products, and the level of automation at the factories that turn out products, will be transformed across commercial, consumer, and medical industries over the next 20 years. The sooner companies figure out an initial systematic approach to enable appropriate two-way communication between the product and the factory that makes it that can be continuously renewed as the Industrial Internet (IIoT) and Internet of Things (IoT) and their numerous protocols head towards standardization, the better off they will be. Show less

Risk assessment and mitigation in corporations is a highly complex topic. And rarely are the answers exact, no matter how much effort is expended to assess the types and levels of risk. Perhaps that is why so few corporations do a good job at it. A recent column in Industry Week indicates that only 39% of corporations can quantify their risk. Within the enterprise, myriad daily internal decisions affect risk. External risks are no less challenging, with political, economic, regulatory, weather,… Show more

Risk assessment and mitigation in corporations is a highly complex topic. And rarely are the answers exact, no matter how much effort is expended to assess the types and levels of risk. Perhaps that is why so few corporations do a good job at it. A recent column in Industry Week indicates that only 39% of corporations can quantify their risk. Within the enterprise, myriad daily internal decisions affect risk. External risks are no less challenging, with political, economic, regulatory, weather, and competitive risks becoming more common since the age of globalization. Perhaps today’s external risk can best be described as “VUCA,” a term first coined by the U.S. Army for Volatility, Uncertainty, Complexity, and Ambiguity.

With regard to product development risk, there is good news and bad news. The good news is that it is a smaller subject than corporate risk. The bad news is that half or more of corporate risk emanates from strategic product development risk. Show less

The R&D 100 Awards have long been considered the most globally prestigious recognition of inventions and innovations. Companies compete from all over the world, making the event a true melting pot of the best minds and products from every corner of the Earth.

Sponsored by R&D Magazine, the awards have contestants compete in one of five categories for the “R&D 100 Awards” in Analytical/Test, IT/Electrical, Mechanical/Materials, Process/Prototyping, and Software/Services.

There are… Show more

The R&D 100 Awards have long been considered the most globally prestigious recognition of inventions and innovations. Companies compete from all over the world, making the event a true melting pot of the best minds and products from every corner of the Earth.

Sponsored by R&D Magazine, the awards have contestants compete in one of five categories for the “R&D 100 Awards” in Analytical/Test, IT/Electrical, Mechanical/Materials, Process/Prototyping, and Software/Services.

There are also three levels of “Special Recognition Awards” in bronze, silver, and gold that recognize novelty, usefulness, and other notable achievements. Show less

Metrics for product development were quite simple in the 1980s. Companies measured R&D spending, counted their patents, counted their projects, and the rest took care of itself in the era of long product life cycles. As life cycles began to shorten, a host of other metrics such as time-to-market and schedule slip became important.

In the 1990s, when advances in the science of managing R&D proved the importance of product requirements and definition to product success, new metrics for… Show more

Metrics for product development were quite simple in the 1980s. Companies measured R&D spending, counted their patents, counted their projects, and the rest took care of itself in the era of long product life cycles. As life cycles began to shorten, a host of other metrics such as time-to-market and schedule slip became important.

In the 1990s, when advances in the science of managing R&D proved the importance of product requirements and definition to product success, new metrics for specification changes and degrees of conformance to requirements evolved to become part of everyday management.

When short product life cycles became the norm, it became clear to companies that they needed stronger pipeline and portfolio management measures to assure a continuous flow of new products. Industry started measuring the number of product concepts and quantified the expected revenue and profits from the project mix at every stage in the pipeline.

In the early 2000s, global competition became real and companies needed to further improve their process and product acumen. Measurement went to the next level of detail to assess raw technologies and capabilities that would underpin products of the future. As technology detail came into focus, so too did intellectual property (IP). IP both protects and enables the monetization of assets before (or in conjunction with) their being designed into products. Today it is hard to imagine product development metrics without measures that track concepts, requirements, technologies-in-process, pipeline dollar values, new product sales/profits, and IP licensing. Show less

Product development processes were not a big deal until 1983, when several noteworthy articles outlined the merits of competing based on a best practices product development process. In 1986, Robert Cooper trademarked the Stage-Gate process, thus sparking the industry wave. Like all bodies of knowledge, time brings evolution and maturation. Some bodies take six decades to fully mature, which is also true for development processes. The surprisingly rapid arrival of the Internet of Things (IoT)… Show more

Product development processes were not a big deal until 1983, when several noteworthy articles outlined the merits of competing based on a best practices product development process. In 1986, Robert Cooper trademarked the Stage-Gate process, thus sparking the industry wave. Like all bodies of knowledge, time brings evolution and maturation. Some bodies take six decades to fully mature, which is also true for development processes. The surprisingly rapid arrival of the Internet of Things (IoT) and Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) between 2015 and 2020 necessitates another incarnation of the product development process. The time is now for some Design Thinking. Show less

It has become clear to many this past year that the predictions of the speed at which the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) and Internet of Things (IoT) will develop will prove truer than not in the decade ahead. Hmmm. Ten years. 2026. If your company’s time-to-market for new products is two to three years, then it has somewhere between three and five development cycles to assure that it does not fall behind.

In this column, we look at a narrow slice of one part of the IIoT and IoT… Show more

It has become clear to many this past year that the predictions of the speed at which the Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) and Internet of Things (IoT) will develop will prove truer than not in the decade ahead. Hmmm. Ten years. 2026. If your company’s time-to-market for new products is two to three years, then it has somewhere between three and five development cycles to assure that it does not fall behind.

In this column, we look at a narrow slice of one part of the IIoT and IoT challenge. Big Data, neural networks, smart machines, and artificial intelligence all require “source data.” In short, a great amount of the IoT discussion comes down to sensors.

Sensors of all types and sizes will be needed to generate the source data upon which the IoT’s intelligence will largely be built. Companies that make the most progress in the next 10 years in embedding and augmenting their hardware and electronics with data gathering and generating capabilities will likely be the market leaders in the following decade. Show less

Since Carnegie Mellon University founded its Software Engineering Institute in the 1980s and introduced its "Capability Maturity Model (CMM)" process, maturity has been both a subject of study and practice around the world. While generally applicable to all engineering disciplines, it has been most widely applied and practiced in software engineering. To be selected as a supplier of defense and mission-critical systems, or as a supplier to the medical and other life-and-death industries… Show more

Since Carnegie Mellon University founded its Software Engineering Institute in the 1980s and introduced its "Capability Maturity Model (CMM)" process, maturity has been both a subject of study and practice around the world. While generally applicable to all engineering disciplines, it has been most widely applied and practiced in software engineering. To be selected as a supplier of defense and mission-critical systems, or as a supplier to the medical and other life-and-death industries, companies must be certified at a high level of maturity.

While I've been on board with this body of knowledge since its inception, I've always found it to be insufficient for really getting at the business of making money from investments in R&D. The CMM is a "project-level" or "product-level" definition of maturity. Show less

What is “Effectiveness”? It is the degree to which something is successful in producing the desired result. Effectiveness in product development is still elusive. Pharmaceutical companies believe they should get a larger percentage of trial drugs successfully through clinical trials. High-tech and consumer industries believe they should have better than a 90% failure rate. In general, industry average failure rates run around 40% to 50%. Yet, except for a small number of products where… Show more

What is “Effectiveness”? It is the degree to which something is successful in producing the desired result. Effectiveness in product development is still elusive. Pharmaceutical companies believe they should get a larger percentage of trial drugs successfully through clinical trials. High-tech and consumer industries believe they should have better than a 90% failure rate. In general, industry average failure rates run around 40% to 50%. Yet, except for a small number of products where management just crosses their fingers, products approved into the pipeline are expected to create revenues. And, half or more of the time they do not. Show less

Measuring the productivity of product development is a complex and multi-faceted task, significantly different from manufacturing operations. Output from manufacturing is increasingly automated and can be summarized as emanating from “equipment assisted by people.” Output from engineering and the cross-functions that work with engineering to bring about a product that can be repeatedly made is usefully summarized as emanating from "people assisted by equipment.” The people in R&D and product… Show more

Measuring the productivity of product development is a complex and multi-faceted task, significantly different from manufacturing operations. Output from manufacturing is increasingly automated and can be summarized as emanating from “equipment assisted by people.” Output from engineering and the cross-functions that work with engineering to bring about a product that can be repeatedly made is usefully summarized as emanating from "people assisted by equipment.” The people in R&D and product development turn out the designs, not the equipment. Therefore, measuring the productivity of people is highly important. Show less

Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA) is a technique well entrenched in most companies that design and build products. Originating in the late 20th Century, DFM originally focused on optimizing the design of components for rapid low-cost production, while DFA focused on optimizing designs for rapid low-cost assembly.

As the DFMA body of knowledge matured, the focus expanded to optimizing designs for reliability and serviceability. For example, changing the oil filter on a car is a… Show more

Design for Manufacturing and Assembly (DFMA) is a technique well entrenched in most companies that design and build products. Originating in the late 20th Century, DFM originally focused on optimizing the design of components for rapid low-cost production, while DFA focused on optimizing designs for rapid low-cost assembly.

As the DFMA body of knowledge matured, the focus expanded to optimizing designs for reliability and serviceability. For example, changing the oil filter on a car is a dirty job. Hot engines and tight access spaces caused many service technicians to wish the oil filter was on top of the engine and easy to reach when one pops the hood. Well, by trying to optimize serviceability, it turned out reliability was reduced. Gravity takes the heavy dirt particles to the lowest point possible and a filter on top of an engine won’t catch them. And so, oil filters remained where they always were. The point is that when one tries to optimize a specific parameter, another parameter is usually degraded, and trade-off decisions have to be made.

These days, all kinds of electronics, sensors, and software are making their way into product designs. New plastics, composites, and special alloys are replacing traditional iron and steel designs. Increasingly, there are forces to make designs more environmentally friendly to manufacture and to be recyclable when the product comes to the end of its life.

This article examines the impacts of emergent breakthrough innovation techniques on the DFMA body of knowledge. In one of my previous columns, 10 distinct breakthrough innovation techniques were described. These techniques will increasingly affect the designs of new products and their ability to be manufactured or assembled. Some techniques will have great impact; others will have low or neutral impact. Show less

During the 1970s, as Japanese companies began eroding traditional western markets, the focus was on Just-In-Time and other rapid-cycle logistics and manufacturing techniques. In the 1980s, efforts shifted to product development and “Stage-Gate” was born (Robert Cooper, Winning at New Products, 1986). Initially, the emphasis was on moving away from “throwing designs over-the-wall to manufacturing.” By the early 1990s, leading companies had achieved rapid cycle time. It became clear to industry… Show more

During the 1970s, as Japanese companies began eroding traditional western markets, the focus was on Just-In-Time and other rapid-cycle logistics and manufacturing techniques. In the 1980s, efforts shifted to product development and “Stage-Gate” was born (Robert Cooper, Winning at New Products, 1986). Initially, the emphasis was on moving away from “throwing designs over-the-wall to manufacturing.” By the early 1990s, leading companies had achieved rapid cycle time. It became clear to industry leaders that the primary cause of poor cycle time was actually the product definition. Unless the product definition was robust, no amount of good engineering or organizational speed could turn an inadequate definition into a successful product.

The product-definition era ended 15 years ago. As software and the internet began to take over the world (both easier technologies to iterate to successful outcomes), up-front planning started to take a back seat. As a whole, society began to change as well. Critical thinking was gradually replaced by rapid doing. As 3D printing grew, making iterations faster for leading companies that could afford the quite expensive equipment, competitive advantages could be maintained. Today, 3D printing is down the cost curve and is available to all companies and to individual Makers working out of their homes. The playing field is nearly level again. Everyone, large and small, can now quickly and economically make physical models. Soon, 3D printing will turn out saleable market-ready products. Where does that leave us? It seems we are about to go back to the future, defining the right product. Show less

layton Christensen introduced “disruptive innovation” to the world in 1995. Last year, 2015, marked its 20th anniversary. Over the past two decades, many companies and makers have targeted the creation of new-to-the-world products. This has resulted in a number of approaches that are all disruptive in their own way. At this time, nine different techniques for achieving breakthrough innovation have evolved.

Triz is an innovation technique that professionals systematically apply according to a defined set of principles. Originally developed in Russia by Genrich Altshuller in the 1940s, Triz took a number of years to cross the ocean and become available in English. By the early 1990s, Triz had gained a foothold in the U.S. and slowly began spreading globally from its Russia- and U.S.-based "centers of excellence." Triz is now practiced in at least 50 countries.

Twelve trends affecting the science of managing R&D and product development are described in my January and February articles. In this capstone article, we look at what these trends mean to the evolution of product creation and commercialization.

Continuing on from our previous installment, here are the remaining six top trends in the science of product development and R&D management. When looked at collectively, these 12 trends will give you an idea of how much change is on the horizon for engineering and product development organizations.

There are lots of trends and new ideas when it comes to the science of managing R&D. Some got started when a technological advance changed the best way to manage or make decisions. Others arose from new thinking in management science in the light of macro changes taking place in business and political structures, practices, and economics.

Below are six of the top 12 of these trends. As you read through the trends, keep "Big Data" in mind. It is a "macro trend" that will affect every… Show more

There are lots of trends and new ideas when it comes to the science of managing R&D. Some got started when a technological advance changed the best way to manage or make decisions. Others arose from new thinking in management science in the light of macro changes taking place in business and political structures, practices, and economics.

Below are six of the top 12 of these trends. As you read through the trends, keep "Big Data" in mind. It is a "macro trend" that will affect every industry and segment of the globe. It underlies more than half of the trends discussed, and, to a lesser extent, it will affect all 12. As an exercise, give some thought as to whether each trend is technology-driven or thinking-driven. In some cases, it’s both. Show less

Intestinal fortitude for innovation is on the decline in most industries. The lackluster economy has made many companies skittish to embrace risk in their product portfolios. How bad has it become? In the 1990s, almost 60% of R&D budgets were allocated to New-To-The-World, New-To-The-Market, and New Product Lines (Robert G. Cooper, Reference Paper #46: "Creating Bold Innovation In Mature Markets"). Today, that number is below 40%.

Nielsen recently did a study of innovative products, the… Show more

Intestinal fortitude for innovation is on the decline in most industries. The lackluster economy has made many companies skittish to embrace risk in their product portfolios. How bad has it become? In the 1990s, almost 60% of R&D budgets were allocated to New-To-The-World, New-To-The-Market, and New Product Lines (Robert G. Cooper, Reference Paper #46: "Creating Bold Innovation In Mature Markets"). Today, that number is below 40%.

Nielsen recently did a study of innovative products, the "Nielsen Breakthrough Innovation Report," published in June 2015. It examined 3,522 initiatives and identified 12 "Breakthrough Winners." Ten of the winners were edibles of some type. Other winners included Duracel’s Quantum battery and Paris' Advanced Haircare from L’Oreal. What happened to all the other categories of products you and I buy? For the time being, the innovation tent has been rolled-up in most industries.

Alas, 30 years of corporate focus on the bottom line has left many companies challenged when it comes to attacking top-line initiatives with confidence. How will companies overcome the current conundrums of flat to small revenue growth and shrinking profits that have been pervasive for the past few years? Perhaps "roadmaps" might help instill the confidence necessary to once again take on additional risk.

Roadmapping, a "look forward" approach coined in the 1980s, took a number of years to catch on. Some might say it is still in the process of catching on. Prescriptive instructions on how to do roadmaps are hard to come by as every company, at this level of thinking and abstraction, is truly unique. On the flip side, if everyone used the same prescriptive process, there would be no opportunity for competitive advantage. Show less

Let's consider for a moment the corporate journey to improve innovation that has taken place, and where we are now.

Productivity improvement was driven into logistics in the '70s and '80s, into manufacturing and operations in the '80s and '90s, and into the supply chain in the '90s and '00s. As a result of those efforts, companies that create and commercialize products achieved the lion's share of their improvement entitlements in the "downstream half" of the company.

Improvements… Show more

Let's consider for a moment the corporate journey to improve innovation that has taken place, and where we are now.

Productivity improvement was driven into logistics in the '70s and '80s, into manufacturing and operations in the '80s and '90s, and into the supply chain in the '90s and '00s. As a result of those efforts, companies that create and commercialize products achieved the lion's share of their improvement entitlements in the "downstream half" of the company.

Improvements in R&D and product development, beginning in the '80s and extending to the '00s, similarly focused on productivity via improved execution by striving for faster time-to-market and speeding-up product life cycles. By the early '00s, companies could foresee that the opportunity for big improvements was also nearly exhausted. The only place to look for the next big opportunities was further upstream in the company.

Of course, industry leaders and visionaries could see this coming a decade earlier. Prahalad and Hamel first published on core competencies in the early 1990s. Moore crossed the chasm in the middle of the decade. Utterback created systematic models while Christensen was creating disruptive models by the late '90s. The tech boom gave industry confidence that innovation leads to great wealth. The train was on the tracks. Corporate demand for better innovation capabilities was predicted years in advance.

In the early 2000s, companies began focusing on pushing the best possible portfolio of products through their fairly well optimized development and operations pipelines. The quest for higher-value, more-innovative portfolios began. Show less

Officially, “colocation” is the proper spelling, but “co-location” and “collocation” are also recognized spellings. Regardless of how you spell it, it boils down to the science of communication probabilities and qualities between individuals.

Tom Allen, at MIT in the late 1970s, put the first benchmark on the table. He found that the probability of communication depended on whether any two people had any common organizational bonds, such as working in the same department or on the same… Show more

Officially, “colocation” is the proper spelling, but “co-location” and “collocation” are also recognized spellings. Regardless of how you spell it, it boils down to the science of communication probabilities and qualities between individuals.

Tom Allen, at MIT in the late 1970s, put the first benchmark on the table. He found that the probability of communication depended on whether any two people had any common organizational bonds, such as working in the same department or on the same team. He called this “intra-group” communication; otherwise it was “inter-group.” And if people sat more than 10 meters from one another, there was only a 5% chance of inter-group communication and a 10% chance of intra-group. Unless people sit close to each other, they rarely communicated.

About 10 years later, companies began to actively manage these distances. Office-furniture companies such as Steelcase were naturally interested in the subject as modular furniture was becoming the corporate norm. Steelcase’s analyses found that 50 feet was the maximum distance that any two individuals on the same project should be separated. This was close to Allen’s 10 meters.

By the early 1990s, while videoconferencing, the Internet, and email were emerging, a study conducted by GGI found 300 companies examining roughly 50 distinct approaches to simulating colocation. A new industry was developing to facilitate effective colocation regardless of physical distance. Since then, a myriad of “solutions” have entered the marketplace.

Alas, the enabling technology has advanced more quickly than its target audience’s behavior. If one examines the relationship of individuals to their work assignments and places, individuals have not changed significantly since 1930 studies driven by unionization efforts. Individuals without systemized and policed corporate policies still largely behave as they did 80 years ago with regard to the task in front of them. Show less

In the 1990s, life was simple. Marketing, or product management, maintained the “product portfolio.” In the largest companies, there was perhaps also a technology portfolio. The “R” part of the R&D organization would work with marketing to plan future products based on the projected availability of technologies still in development.

Today, having both a technology and a product portfolio is considered the rock-bottom minimum regardless of company size. Just about all companies actively… Show more

In the 1990s, life was simple. Marketing, or product management, maintained the “product portfolio.” In the largest companies, there was perhaps also a technology portfolio. The “R” part of the R&D organization would work with marketing to plan future products based on the projected availability of technologies still in development.

Today, having both a technology and a product portfolio is considered the rock-bottom minimum regardless of company size. Just about all companies actively maintain these soft assets—only the degree of formality differs. And over the past decade, these portfolios became more closely tied together with the advent and acceptance of roadmapping (which charts the path new technologies and products take as they evolve into commercial readiness). In between each and every portfolio snapshot in time, the roadmap provides guidance on activities needed to reach the portfolio’s next incarnation.

It would be great if we could just call it a day with two portfolios and the roadmaps that tie them together. But that is no longer best practice. We now also need a project portfolio and an intellectual property (IP) portfolio to be a best-practices company. Show less

It may be surprising to learn that many engineers with great talent and a depth of experience have a hard time answering questions about the type(s) of manufacturing environments that exist in their company.

Most manufacturing environments fit into one of five general categories. Repetitive, Discrete, Job Shop, Process (batch), and Process (continuous).

Most companies use more than one of these environments to get a single product out the door. This is certainly true considering… Show more

It may be surprising to learn that many engineers with great talent and a depth of experience have a hard time answering questions about the type(s) of manufacturing environments that exist in their company.

Most manufacturing environments fit into one of five general categories. Repetitive, Discrete, Job Shop, Process (batch), and Process (continuous).

Most companies use more than one of these environments to get a single product out the door. This is certainly true considering today's use of the supply base versus the historical practices of vertically integrated companies. Vertically integrated companies often had all five environments. Show less

There are two fundamental categories of post-launch reviews. The first we shall call "Team Self-Assessment Project Reviews."

These reviews are primarily for product developers to explore their lessons learned from working together on a project that has just completed. The second we shall call "Management Business Reviews of New Products."

These reviews are primarily for management to explore the financial and marketplace results of the new product in both a relative and absolute… Show more

There are two fundamental categories of post-launch reviews. The first we shall call "Team Self-Assessment Project Reviews."

These reviews are primarily for product developers to explore their lessons learned from working together on a project that has just completed. The second we shall call "Management Business Reviews of New Products."

These reviews are primarily for management to explore the financial and marketplace results of the new product in both a relative and absolute sense, and to contrast the results to those that were promised when the project was approved.

Ideally, there is minimal overlap in the content of the two review categories. However, and this is especially true where the team that created the product stays together to enhance and service the product during its life cycle, much of what should be covered in structured Management reviews is done in Team reviews. Show less

Not many years from now, business and program planners will have a new challenge when preparing product and business plans. Planners have long been estimating ROI by forecasting product revenues and profits. But soon, product and business plans will contain two forecasting spreadsheets. There will be the familiar one on product revenues and profits and a new one listing revenue and profit forecasts for intellectual property (IP).

Let’s define “financial liquidity” as the ability to more… Show more

Not many years from now, business and program planners will have a new challenge when preparing product and business plans. Planners have long been estimating ROI by forecasting product revenues and profits. But soon, product and business plans will contain two forecasting spreadsheets. There will be the familiar one on product revenues and profits and a new one listing revenue and profit forecasts for intellectual property (IP).

Let’s define “financial liquidity” as the ability to more easily treat IP as a commodity in the marketplace, and define “monetization” as the ability to assign a dollar value to a block of IP and the rate the initial value depreciates over time.

Liquidity and monetization are different challenges. One requires a marketplace in which one can exchange assets and commodities. The other requires the ability to assign a recognized value that can be generally accepted. There might be a day that we see certain types of IP traded like gold, silver, and soybeans. The market would have much less volume, but the principles would largely be the same.

So how do we get there? Show less

There are two fundamental categories of post-launch reviews. The first, "Team Self-Assessment Project Reviews," primarily lets product developers explore lessons learned from a just completed project. The second, "Management Business Reviews of New Products," are for managers to explore the financial and marketplace results of a new product and contrast the results to those promised when the project was approved.

Ideally, there is minimal overlap in the content of the two review… Show more

There are two fundamental categories of post-launch reviews. The first, "Team Self-Assessment Project Reviews," primarily lets product developers explore lessons learned from a just completed project. The second, "Management Business Reviews of New Products," are for managers to explore the financial and marketplace results of a new product and contrast the results to those promised when the project was approved.

Ideally, there is minimal overlap in the content of the two review categories. However, and this is especially true when the team that created the product stays together to enhance and service the product during its life cycle, much of what should be covered in structured Management reviews is done in Team reviews. To breathe a bit more life into this statement, consider that management makes the business decisions. They could invest scarce R&D funds in many places. They choose to invest in a certain project because of a business plan presented to them. If management does not subsequently compare the promised vs. actual results, they diminish their capability to "see" similar or analogous estimating shortfalls in future business plans and decisions. The learning loop does not get closed for management.

Manufacturing and operations professionals in just about every company have achieved closed-loop decision-making. The opportunity to do the same is still on the table for most executives who direct engineering and product development professionals. Show less

Does your company tightly control its manufacturing operations and work centers? If so, each work center is measured and the company knows exactly how much good and bad products the center produces. These figures are the center’s “yield.” Of course, companies aim for 100% positive yields from each center. And, products which have been manufactured for a long time often approach that ideal.

Now, let's take this same basic concept of a center’s yield and apply it to product development… Show more

Does your company tightly control its manufacturing operations and work centers? If so, each work center is measured and the company knows exactly how much good and bad products the center produces. These figures are the center’s “yield.” Of course, companies aim for 100% positive yields from each center. And, products which have been manufactured for a long time often approach that ideal.

Now, let's take this same basic concept of a center’s yield and apply it to product development. There are series of centers that take new product concepts and bring them to market. But for these, 100% yields are not expected, nor would we wish them to be. Product development is much more probabilistic. Not every product brought to market is expected to be a financial success. If it were, innovation would dry up as companies would take no risks.

Many studies over the past five decades have found that somewhere between 35% and 55% of products are not financial successes. That figure can be as high as 90% in high-tech and consumer products. Those high failure rates create an opportunity to improve yield without risking the loss of innovation.

There are opportunities in most companies to get more revenues and profits from the product pipeline without increasing investment or headcount. Those opportunities have one common element, better decision making. Show less

Has your company been around for a long time? Did your products start off as purely mechanical, then evolve to electromechanical, then to electronic, and are now software-driven hardware? Are the historical underpinnings of your testing and quality organizations rooted in manufacturing operations and validating physical products? If so, then rebalancing the test suite may shorten your time to market.

Rebalancing a test suite is not easy. It requires much thought and patience, and it is… Show more

Has your company been around for a long time? Did your products start off as purely mechanical, then evolve to electromechanical, then to electronic, and are now software-driven hardware? Are the historical underpinnings of your testing and quality organizations rooted in manufacturing operations and validating physical products? If so, then rebalancing the test suite may shorten your time to market.

Rebalancing a test suite is not easy. It requires much thought and patience, and it is not inexpensive. But lengthy time to market is also not inexpensive if the revenue streams of all products could be brought forward another one or two months. Because ROI justifications are unique to each company, rebalancing will be worth it for some firms and not others.

When was the last time your company systematically analyzed all the tests in the company's product testing suite? Of course, like inventory management, there will be A and B and C items, and obsolete inventory as well. But the question remains: When was the test suite last analyzed systematically? Show less

One of the things that satisfy engineers and product developers the most is to see their newly released products sell like hotcakes. It goes right to the core of why they pursued careers in science and engineering, to create things that better the lives and capabilities of others.

One of the things that satisfy finance and business professionals the most is to see the products they decided to invest in become successful. One of the things that satisfies investment bankers and brokers… Show more

One of the things that satisfy engineers and product developers the most is to see their newly released products sell like hotcakes. It goes right to the core of why they pursued careers in science and engineering, to create things that better the lives and capabilities of others.

One of the things that satisfy finance and business professionals the most is to see the products they decided to invest in become successful. One of the things that satisfies investment bankers and brokers the most is to see companies with a continual stream of winning products year after year.

Perhaps these are the reasons why a metric that did not exist before 1988 is now the number one corporate R&D performance metric in North America. In support of its decades long reputation for invention and innovaton, the "Vitality Index" was created by 3M to bring emphasis to the percentage of total company sales that come from new products each year. Show less

Strategy is a wonderful word. It sounds great in meetings, as does its adjective form, strategic. Everyone's mind snaps to attention the moment either is heard. Then everyone nods, saying we have got to have the right strategy. And if some plan is called strategic, then we must certainly do it.

Management and consultants throw the s-word around casually all the time. Most of the time, these folks are actually talking about tactics; or even worse, operational levels. There are certain… Show more

Strategy is a wonderful word. It sounds great in meetings, as does its adjective form, strategic. Everyone's mind snaps to attention the moment either is heard. Then everyone nods, saying we have got to have the right strategy. And if some plan is called strategic, then we must certainly do it.

Management and consultants throw the s-word around casually all the time. Most of the time, these folks are actually talking about tactics; or even worse, operational levels. There are certain instances in which both tactics and operational items are strategic. But, usually they are not.

Several companies and service firms do understand how to create strategies and then put them into effect. People who have worked for those companies see it immediately and their thought processes are changed for the rest of their careers.

We can easily see that Apple has a strategy for its product portfolio. Microsoft, in the old days when they just had the Office suite, also had a clear product portfolio strategy. But most companies lack a clear strategy. Can you describe your company's product portfolio strategy? Do you see that strategy enforced in decision-making meetings? For example, do certain valid product opportunities, such as needs expressed by sales and favorite pet projects, get the thumbs down to keep the portfolio on strategy? Can you see strategy being enforced? You would know it if you saw it. Show less

The already unclear lines separating research from development are getting even blurrier as more companies allocate some part of their R&D budget to take on riskier projects, and invest in the necessary infrastructure to manage these riskier activities. New products are now being launched out of recently formed "Innovation" organizations", and more are coming from existing “Advanced Development" organizations.

Challenges of "Anywhere" R&D

Several factors have complicated matters… Show more

The already unclear lines separating research from development are getting even blurrier as more companies allocate some part of their R&D budget to take on riskier projects, and invest in the necessary infrastructure to manage these riskier activities. New products are now being launched out of recently formed "Innovation" organizations", and more are coming from existing “Advanced Development" organizations.

Challenges of "Anywhere" R&D

Several factors have complicated matters for industry observers trying to stay abreast of what might be coming to market by simply paying attention to product development pipelines. These factors include:

- The changing corporate approaches described above.
- The desires of developers to bring solutions to market, not just pieces of a solution.
- The globalization of R&D that has, in effect, decentralized R&D.
- Naming conventions for organizations that differ by industry and country.

The jury is still out as to whether today's approaches to R&D will prove more productive than historical approaches. Historical approaches to pre-product development generally restricted the scope of activities to reduce uncertainty and improve the predictability of key enabling features, capabilities and technologies—and then turned those enablers over to product development. Show less

Are all new product ideas ready to go into your company product development process? Certainly not! For some products, the technical and feasibility risks are still too great to have any hope of estimating an accurate schedule. But other products, especially "New-To-X" ideas or "Next-Gen" solutions that entail market risk, are immediately put into a product launch timeline. The chips left to fall where they may.

"Do Your New Products Sell Like Hockey Sticks?" addressed a number of… Show more

Are all new product ideas ready to go into your company product development process? Certainly not! For some products, the technical and feasibility risks are still too great to have any hope of estimating an accurate schedule. But other products, especially "New-To-X" ideas or "Next-Gen" solutions that entail market risk, are immediately put into a product launch timeline. The chips left to fall where they may.

"Do Your New Products Sell Like Hockey Sticks?" addressed a number of scenarios in which products do not get purchased for a number of months after their launch. This "no or low sales period" puts a drag on a company's development culture and extends the timeframe to meet a product's financial goals.

While some scenarios are hard to avoid, like capital budgeted products that must wait for "funded years" to start, many product launches with no or low sales can be avoided. At the least, they can be mitigated.

Decision makers are much better at identifying products that need additional technology development than they are at identifying products needing more market development. Let's focus on the market development area where capabilities generally need shoring-up across industries.

What is market development? First, it entails becoming aware of the value of a product in your company’s pipeline among your customer base or marketplace before the product is launched. Marketing, advertising, and branding organizations must lead early-on to create visibility. Second, it is articulating how a novel solution will solve specific problems or create further efficiencies for end users. Sales and product management organizations must invest time to educate. This differs from selling. Third, some tangible and applicable case studies must be developed to let customers and market participants internalize the product’s value. Outbound messaging and teaching from the developing company are usually not enough to create a comfort level that accelerates purchasing decisions. Show less

Have you heard the term “hockey stick sales” before? This is when there are relatively few sales right after launch, but a few weeks or months later, sales increase significantly. (The blade of the hockey stick represents a graph of the flat sales period; the handle represents the rise.)

The blade is often avoidable, but not always. If your company’s products must get “spec’d-in” to a customer’s final assembly, flat initial sales may be expected as the customer assimilates the product… Show more

Have you heard the term “hockey stick sales” before? This is when there are relatively few sales right after launch, but a few weeks or months later, sales increase significantly. (The blade of the hockey stick represents a graph of the flat sales period; the handle represents the rise.)

The blade is often avoidable, but not always. If your company’s products must get “spec’d-in” to a customer’s final assembly, flat initial sales may be expected as the customer assimilates the product into theirs. This is often the case in the automotive, aerospace, semiconductor, and other heavily tiered industries. Only when the customer’s model is released do your pull-through sales start rising up the handle. Flat sales may also be expected in municipal, government, and capital-intensive industries awaiting the next fiscal year budget or capital approval cycle. When the next year’s plan is approved, your sales begin.

Blades are also expected when products are new-to-the-world or too innovative for their value to be immediately recognized. It takes a while for the marketplace to warm up to your offering and, hence, sales are flat. Geoffrey Moore’s 1991 book, Crossing the Chasm, addressed this “chasm” of no sales while the marketplace assessed a new product’s value equation. Show less

Companies want techniques that work and produce real marketplace value. Companies actively analyze their own experiences and results from new tools and techniques they invest in. Numerous consulting and market research firms have actively studied nearly every aspect of corporate innovation for 10 years now. GGI’s 2008 study became a leading indicator of the tools that are approaching mainstream today. Research by many is starting to show patterns. There is not enough accumulated knowledge yet… Show more

Companies want techniques that work and produce real marketplace value. Companies actively analyze their own experiences and results from new tools and techniques they invest in. Numerous consulting and market research firms have actively studied nearly every aspect of corporate innovation for 10 years now. GGI’s 2008 study became a leading indicator of the tools that are approaching mainstream today. Research by many is starting to show patterns. There is not enough accumulated knowledge yet to determine anything with certainty. But it’s this ongoing and collective rationalization by industry as a whole, evolving since 2004, that has finally opened the doors to developing initial “innovation” standards.

Just last spring, the Product Development & Management Association (PDMA), one of the foremost professional associations for product developers, put the first rail car on the track by announcing its “Innovation Management Framework (IMF).” It has six sections: Culture, Leadership, Resources, Processes, Monitoring & Measuring, and Improvement. The IMF just received its first “industry-wide airing-out” at PDMA’s annual conference this past October.

Professionals involved with innovation should definitely take a minute to internalize what PDMA has put on the table. At the least, there is now a baseline to which you can compare your company, assuming it’s actively trying techniques to improve innovation. Show less

The question posed in the headline has been debated by many over the years. Few have dared to commit their conversations on the topic to writing. That’s likely because folks who write up early findings on a new area or approach to a scientific study, and are later proven incorrect, often have difficulty regaining their prior ground. However, they do push the state of thinking ahead, albeit without reward.

Almost without exception, discussions about invention and innovation that have… Show more

The question posed in the headline has been debated by many over the years. Few have dared to commit their conversations on the topic to writing. That’s likely because folks who write up early findings on a new area or approach to a scientific study, and are later proven incorrect, often have difficulty regaining their prior ground. However, they do push the state of thinking ahead, albeit without reward.

Almost without exception, discussions about invention and innovation that have taken place in my circles over a long period of time have clearly concluded that innovation comes first: Invention follows innovation. Don’t you agree? (Machine Design’s readership is quite sophisticated and is involved with both subjects. Should you be so inclined, the editorial staff would welcome your thoughts.)

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines invention as “a product of the imagination; device/contrivance/process originated after study and experiment.” Innovation is defined as “the introduction of something new; a new idea/method/device.”

What both concepts have in common is “new.” Interestingly, the word “new” is not part of both definitions. But, everything about the definitions imply something new. Can we agree that there are no “old innovations” or “old inventions?” If so, that bounds the discussion to the number of ways the word “new” be sliced. Let’s investigate three cases of “new.” The three cases are: New-To-The-Company, New-To-The-Industry or a Market, and New-To-The-World. Show less

With many more companies allocating a small part of their R&D budget to take on riskier projects, and the growth in corporate infrastructure to manage these riskier activities (MACHINE DESIGN, July 17, 2014), the lines are starting to blur between two terms that historically were well differentiated. New products are now being launched out of "innovation organizations" and "advanced development organizations," and not just product-development organizations. As of now, research organizations are… Show more

With many more companies allocating a small part of their R&D budget to take on riskier projects, and the growth in corporate infrastructure to manage these riskier activities (MACHINE DESIGN, July 17, 2014), the lines are starting to blur between two terms that historically were well differentiated. New products are now being launched out of "innovation organizations" and "advanced development organizations," and not just product-development organizations. As of now, research organizations are not generally launching products to market.

Due to a combination of the changing corporate approaches described above, the desires of developers to bring solutions to markets and not just a piece of a solution, the globalization of R&D that has decentralized R&D, and naming conventions for product organizations that differ by country, one can no longer just pay attention to product-development pipelines to stay abreast of what might be coming to market. The jury is still out as to whether today's approaches will prove more productive than historical approaches that restricted the scope of projects to reduce uncertainty and improve forecastability of key enabling features and technologies — and then turned these enablers over to product development.

Research and development is a continuum, and highly analog rather than digital in construct. Historically, R&D could generally be segmented into four categories: Basic Research, Applied Research, Advanced Development, and Product Development. "Skunk Works" was perhaps a fifth category, a discussion for another day. Show less

The July 7, 2014 issue of 2PLM introduced the scope and focus of recent Goldense Group Inc. (GGI) research on R&D Operating Environments, Organic Innovation, Open Innovation, Intellectual Property, and "The Top Corporate Metrics used to measure R&D and Product Development".

At GGI, our goal in each primary research effort during the past fifteen years has been to focus four areas of the research effort on emerging new practices, or on rapidly evolving or changing existing practices, to… Show more

The July 7, 2014 issue of 2PLM introduced the scope and focus of recent Goldense Group Inc. (GGI) research on R&D Operating Environments, Organic Innovation, Open Innovation, Intellectual Property, and "The Top Corporate Metrics used to measure R&D and Product Development".

At GGI, our goal in each primary research effort during the past fifteen years has been to focus four areas of the research effort on emerging new practices, or on rapidly evolving or changing existing practices, to learn rates of change and/or growth.

In our recent research effort, the "2014 Product Development Metrics Survey", the four topics of R&D Operating Environments, Organic R&D Innovation, Open R&D Innovation, and R&D Intellectual Property Practices were chosen as they satisfy those parameters. In addition, they are having an impact on the R&D metrics that corporations use.

The July 21, August 4, August 25 and September 8 issues of 2PLM addressed the research findings regarding these four areas.

In this sixth and final piece of the six part series, the research purpose is more akin to benchmarking than to discovering new and changing industry practices. In each research effort of the past fifteen years, our researchers have presented a list of the "metrics that CXOs are most likely to use to oversee R&D output, productivity, effectiveness, and efficiency." Respondents are asked simply to put a check mark next to any metric that is generally part of management team and corporate reviews. The "Most Frequently Used Corporate R&D Metrics" results from tabulating the responses. The list of metrics is far from static over the past fifteen years. Show less

In the July 7, 2014 issue of 2PLM, the scope and focus of recent research on R&D Operating Environments, Organic Innovation, Open Innovation, Intellectual Property, and the Top Corporate Metrics used to measure R&D and Product Development was introduced. The July 21, August 4, and August 25 issues addressed industry research findings regarding R&D Operating Environments, Organic R&D Innovation, and Open R&D Innovation respectively. In this fifth of a six part series, selected GGI findings on… Show more

In the July 7, 2014 issue of 2PLM, the scope and focus of recent research on R&D Operating Environments, Organic Innovation, Open Innovation, Intellectual Property, and the Top Corporate Metrics used to measure R&D and Product Development was introduced. The July 21, August 4, and August 25 issues addressed industry research findings regarding R&D Operating Environments, Organic R&D Innovation, and Open R&D Innovation respectively. In this fifth of a six part series, selected GGI findings on Intellectual Property practices in R&D will be discussed.

The study, entitled the "2014 Product Development Metrics Survey", was conducted by sending questionnaires to a wide range of companies developing products throughout North America. Participating companies had headquarters throughout the Americas, Europe, and Asia, but their response was for North American R&D-Product Development operations. Complete data sets were received from 200 companies. Consumer, industrial, medical, chemical, and automotive/vehicular products were the top respondent industries. Participants completed 31 questions across the five primary research subjects. The research period was September 2012 to October 2013. The results were published March 3, 2014 in a 138-page report. This research is statistically valid and provides a Margin Of Error for each research question. Show less

Design reviews rank near the top of product-development techniques for keeping projects on schedule and within budget, but only if they are performed properly and early in the process.

Some companies consider their examination of prototypes to be a design review. It’s not; it’s a quality control review of an "as-built" product. If the prototype does not meet specs, the design team issues a change order to rectify the issue findings. And change orders take two days to two months to… Show more

Design reviews rank near the top of product-development techniques for keeping projects on schedule and within budget, but only if they are performed properly and early in the process.

Some companies consider their examination of prototypes to be a design review. It’s not; it’s a quality control review of an "as-built" product. If the prototype does not meet specs, the design team issues a change order to rectify the issue findings. And change orders take two days to two months to complete. So these late reviews do not reduce time to market, they extend it.

Perhaps the U.S. Government is to blame for this practice. Design reviews were first documented in Air Force MIL-STD-1521 and many commercial companies adopted and adapted them. MIL-STD reviews included those of prototypes and initial production-run products. All of this made sense, given the arms-length nature of government product managers from the contracted design and development companies.

In the commercial world, product design and its associated costs get frozen when 10 to 25% of the development budget has been spent. Prototypes-to-spec, most often, are built after this point in the process. Finding a defect then means a formal fix cycle must start, not a design change. Of course, developers need to review as-built products, and always will. Design reviews, however, should greatly reduce the number of defects that must be fixed when discovered in a quality-control review. Show less

In the July 7, 2014 issue of 2PLM, the scope and focus of recent research on R&D Operating Environments, Organic Innovation, Open Innovation, Intellectual Property, and the Top Corporate Metrics used to measure R&D and Product Development was introduced. The July 21 and August 4 issues addressed industry research findings regarding R&D Operating Environments and corporate practices in Organic R&D Innovation. In this fourth of a six part series, selected GGI findings on Open R&D Innovation will… Show more

In the July 7, 2014 issue of 2PLM, the scope and focus of recent research on R&D Operating Environments, Organic Innovation, Open Innovation, Intellectual Property, and the Top Corporate Metrics used to measure R&D and Product Development was introduced. The July 21 and August 4 issues addressed industry research findings regarding R&D Operating Environments and corporate practices in Organic R&D Innovation. In this fourth of a six part series, selected GGI findings on Open R&D Innovation will be discussed.

The study, entitled the "2014 Product Development Metrics Survey", was conducted by sending questionnaires to a wide range of companies developing products throughout North America. Participating companies had headquarters throughout the Americas, Europe, and Asia, but their response was for North American R&D-Product Development operations. Complete data sets were received from 200 companies. Consumer, industrial, medical, chemical, and automotive/vehicular products were the top respondent industries. Participants completed 31 questions across the five primary research subjects. The research period was September 2012 to October 2013. The results were published March 3, 2014 in a 138-page report. This research is statistically valid and provides a Margin Of Error for each research question. Show less

For at least the past 10 years, innovation has been the mantra of western companies. To get that innovation, corporations have often appended and/or pulled activities out of their product-development process (PDP) rather than build innovation into their process. There are numerous examples.

Some companies have added phases to the front of their processes for brainstorming and/or feasibility investigations. Others assessed their personnel for innovativeness, and then sent the needy folks… Show more

For at least the past 10 years, innovation has been the mantra of western companies. To get that innovation, corporations have often appended and/or pulled activities out of their product-development process (PDP) rather than build innovation into their process. There are numerous examples.

Some companies have added phases to the front of their processes for brainstorming and/or feasibility investigations. Others assessed their personnel for innovativeness, and then sent the needy folks to training. Many beefed up their research and advanced development organizations (Machine Design, July 17, 2014) in hopes of generating more innovative ideas and technologies for their PDP. Yet others simply added words like “innovation” or “invention” to rename their PDP, thinking that different branding will yield different results. Most are still not satisfied with how much they’ve improved over the past decade. Too many believe they have been in decline.

Why not place more emphasis on improving the innovativeness of the product-development process itself? There are recent corporate precedents for what can be done. The Lean and DFSS initiatives, for example, resulted in several additional activities being added into company PDPs. Do the same for innovation activities.

Two tactics can be used to beef up the innovativeness of a company’s PDP. First, companies should add innovation activities at appropriate places in their PDP. Second, companies should emphasize existing activities that spur appreciable innovative thinking. Show less

In the July 7, 2014 issue of 2PLM, the scope and focus of recent research on R&D Operating Environments, Organic Innovation, Open Innovation, Intellectual Property, and the Top Corporate Metrics used to measure R&D and Product Development was highlighted. The July 21 issue addressed R&D Operating Environments. In this third of a six part series, selected GGI findings on Organic R&D Innovation will be discussed. Organic Innovation is the ability of a corporation to invent and innovate from… Show more

In the July 7, 2014 issue of 2PLM, the scope and focus of recent research on R&D Operating Environments, Organic Innovation, Open Innovation, Intellectual Property, and the Top Corporate Metrics used to measure R&D and Product Development was highlighted. The July 21 issue addressed R&D Operating Environments. In this third of a six part series, selected GGI findings on Organic R&D Innovation will be discussed. Organic Innovation is the ability of a corporation to invent and innovate from within, including the use of contracted personnel to supplement employee-equivalent responsibilities.

The study, entitled the "2014 Product Development Metrics Survey", was conducted by sending questionnaires to a wide range of companies developing products throughout North America. Participating companies had headquarters throughout the Americas, Europe, and Asia, but their response was for North American R&D-Product Development operations. Complete data sets were received from 200 companies. Consumer, industrial, medical, chemical, and automotive/vehicular products were the top respondent industries. Participants completed 31 questions across the five primary research subjects. The research period was September 2012 to October 2013. The results were published March 3, 2014 in a 138-page report. This research is statistically valid and provides a Margin Of Error for each research question. Show less

In the July 7, 2014 issue of 2PLM, the scope and focus of recent research on R&D Operating Environments, Organic Innovation, Open Innovation, Intellectual Property, and the Top Corporate Metrics used to measure R&D and Product Development was highlighted. In this second of a six part series, selected GGI findings on R&D Operating Environments will be discussed.

The study, entitled the "2014 Product Development Metrics Survey", was conducted by sending questionnaires to a wide range of… Show more

In the July 7, 2014 issue of 2PLM, the scope and focus of recent research on R&D Operating Environments, Organic Innovation, Open Innovation, Intellectual Property, and the Top Corporate Metrics used to measure R&D and Product Development was highlighted. In this second of a six part series, selected GGI findings on R&D Operating Environments will be discussed.

The study, entitled the "2014 Product Development Metrics Survey", was conducted by sending questionnaires to a wide range of companies developing products throughout North America. Participating companies had headquarters throughout the Americas, Europe, and Asia, but their response was for North American R&D-Product Development operations. Complete data sets were received from 200 companies. Consumer, industrial, medical, chemical, and automotive/vehicular products were the top respondent industries. Participants completed 31 questions across the five primary research subjects. The research period was September 2012 to October 2013. The results were published March 3, 2014 in a 138-page report. This research is statistically valid and provides a Margin Of Error for each research question. Show less

An earlier column last September (“Innovation is Changing Preproduct-Development R&D,” Sept. 5) addressed the widespread growth over the past 12 years in industry innovation activities that precede product development. Historically, only companies in the life-sciences industries and a handful of others commit significant resources prior to product development. Today, three-quarters of all companies have innovation and design resources engaged in development before they have defined products… Show more

An earlier column last September (“Innovation is Changing Preproduct-Development R&D,” Sept. 5) addressed the widespread growth over the past 12 years in industry innovation activities that precede product development. Historically, only companies in the life-sciences industries and a handful of others commit significant resources prior to product development. Today, three-quarters of all companies have innovation and design resources engaged in development before they have defined products that go through product-development processes.

This growth in predevelopment activity is likely a manifestation of Western companies trying to improve their ability to innovate. It also likely results from years of self-inflicted corporate pain when companies try to bring innovative products to market quickly — having to set product-release dates despite being unable to accurately predict how long development would take. Finally, the lean and Six Sigma movements of the past two decades have helped companies execute but have made innovation in product development more difficult.

Regardless of the reason, predevelopment processes are a step forward in the management science that companies use. Innovation typically requires some type of divergence. Product-development processes, however, are convergent in nature. Dedicated corporate functions and processes that enable divergence for innovation purposes are long overdue.

This corporate “experiment” of the past 12 years with preproduct development has evidently worked fairly well. Taking “schedule busters” out of product development is now preferred. How do we know? Well, it is almost an unwritten rule that within companies, the creation infrastructure in companies for activities lags creation of the activities themselves. If an activity does not bear fruit, its infrastructure is typically never built. Growth in these infrastructures over the past five years has been significant. Show less

The discipline of systems engineering came of age in World War II when the United States entered the war late and could not get everything done it needed to do quickly enough. A number of disparate disciplines were rapidly integrated into “logical units” under the heading of systems engineering to enable the shortest possible design-to-production cycles.

Systems engineering became the nerve center of product creation. Key responsibilities included requirements management and trade-offs… Show more

The discipline of systems engineering came of age in World War II when the United States entered the war late and could not get everything done it needed to do quickly enough. A number of disparate disciplines were rapidly integrated into “logical units” under the heading of systems engineering to enable the shortest possible design-to-production cycles.

Systems engineering became the nerve center of product creation. Key responsibilities included requirements management and trade-offs, product architecture, modular design, high-level design, work breakdown structure, communication to individual technical disciplines and supporting departments, and often program management.

The result was a discipline that assured the design principles, parameters, and requirements of new products were implemented in a logical, efficient, and scalable manner — and as fast as possible. Numerous product platforms that have lasted for decades in our country, as well as our corporations and society, originated from the soundness of systems engineering approaches. Just about every engineer, or technical, and scientific professional wishes their products would withstand the same tests of time. Show less

Five metrics affect every member of the R&D and product-development communities, regardless of their level of responsibility. GGI surveyed manufacturers about metrics in 2013 and has done so regularly since 1998. Interestingly, our research showed no change in these top five metrics throughout the great recession. The top five metrics fall into two categories, “input” and “output.”

Just over a year ago, the U. S. aligned itself with the rest of the world on protocols for filing patents. Prior to that, the U. S. had been first-to-invent, which meant a patent could be contested if there was documentation showing another party actually invented the novelty beforehand but had not filed.

If a company invented something novel but had not filed, the invention could have been protected internally in a variety of ways. First, employee nondisclosure agreements and/or… Show more

Just over a year ago, the U. S. aligned itself with the rest of the world on protocols for filing patents. Prior to that, the U. S. had been first-to-invent, which meant a patent could be contested if there was documentation showing another party actually invented the novelty beforehand but had not filed.

If a company invented something novel but had not filed, the invention could have been protected internally in a variety of ways. First, employee nondisclosure agreements and/or contracts can protect it, though these are not airtight. Second, a company can mark it “company confidential” or “company proprietary.” Those designations add another layer of protection by clearly designating the novelty as recognized company intellectual property. Finally, a company can designate it a trade secret. For intellectual property, the designation of trade secret is the highest level of IP protection short of actually registering it. Show less

Product developers have been practicing make-versus-buy analysis for decades. Typically, it focuses on whether to outsource the manufacture of components or subassemblies already designed and developed in-house. However, since the early 2000s and the publishing of Open Business Models: How to Thrive in the New Innovation Economy by Henry Chesbrough, these make-versus-buy considerations have been moving upstream into design and development. This is what industry now refers to as Open Innovation… Show more

Product developers have been practicing make-versus-buy analysis for decades. Typically, it focuses on whether to outsource the manufacture of components or subassemblies already designed and developed in-house. However, since the early 2000s and the publishing of Open Business Models: How to Thrive in the New Innovation Economy by Henry Chesbrough, these make-versus-buy considerations have been moving upstream into design and development. This is what industry now refers to as Open Innovation (OI): Should our company invent a new feature our customers want, or has another company already done it? Can we acquire it or license something that already exists that meets our need? Is partnering or allying with the competitor the best alternative if they have something close that does not exactly (yet) meet our needs?

Or, should we make the investment and incur the likely time-to-market penalty for doing it all ourselves from scratch?

What is the best way to realize our design intent?

OI is not quite make-versus-buy for scientists and design engineers, but it is highly analogous. As OI overcomes the resistance to adapting a not-invented-here idea, it will become easier to access and act on ideas from outside the company. As these practices grow and mature, product developers will begin making different decisions when presented with the design challenges any new product presents.

Many companies are beginning to wade into the waters of OI. The idea is in its infancy and clearly there are mixed results across industries. Only Procter & Gamble has publicly touted its financial successes arising from open approaches. As of now, there is little in the way of infrastructures within companies that let scientists and engineers quickly locate appropriate alliances or find ready-to-go plug-and-play solutions. The train is on the tracks however. GGI took a snapshot of industry’s evolving capabilities in 2013. Show less

Among the most-satisfying experiences for an engineer is to be part of a product that’s New to The Industry or New To The World. The satisfaction of seeing your creation touted by the media, consumers, and the like is hard to match. Yet, a very small percentage of products released to market are truly new.

How do you increase the odds of designing a completely new product? Consider these questions. Does your company:

-Execute focus groups better than its competitors?
-Do a… Show more

Among the most-satisfying experiences for an engineer is to be part of a product that’s New to The Industry or New To The World. The satisfaction of seeing your creation touted by the media, consumers, and the like is hard to match. Yet, a very small percentage of products released to market are truly new.

How do you increase the odds of designing a completely new product? Consider these questions. Does your company:

-Execute focus groups better than its competitors?
-Do a better job mining the plethora of data available from customer tracking and point-of-sale systems than its competitors?
-Have significantly more capable people in it than other companies in your industry?

If the answer to these questions is generally no, you and your company may want to investigate Lead User Analysis (LUA).

Several companies have developed successful new products, thanks to LUA. Bose Corp., for example, can trace its meteoric rise in the stereo-equipment industry to an analysis that showed in the 1960s that there was a large market of high-end audiophiles who would pay thousands of dollars for speakers with accurate sound reproduction. Sony used LUA in developing the WalkMan, a product that kicked off the wearable electronics movement in the early 1980s. MiniMed’s wearable insulin pump in the early 1990s, now a Medtronic product, was also developed in part due to LUA.

LUA has been around for several decades, yet few companies have systematically deployed it. Instead, companies continue to center on focus groups, data mining, emotional intelligence studies, and the like. That’s because these techniques are familiar and do not require something different be done for every project, and management readily accepts them. However, they rarely result in truly new products. Show less

Design engineers, program managers, and organizational leaders are likely seeing an increase in processes used to guide research and development. GGI has researched the subject since 1998 and we’ve seen a new wave of them the past five years, spurred by the need for western companies to improve their innovation to compete.

The change is not as pronounced for Product-Development processes. In 2008, 76% of companies had one or two processes to guide development projects. Forty percent of… Show more

Design engineers, program managers, and organizational leaders are likely seeing an increase in processes used to guide research and development. GGI has researched the subject since 1998 and we’ve seen a new wave of them the past five years, spurred by the need for western companies to improve their innovation to compete.

The change is not as pronounced for Product-Development processes. In 2008, 76% of companies had one or two processes to guide development projects. Forty percent of companies used one process and 36% used two. This year, the number of companies running with a single process decreased to 35% as companies added more processes. Most notably, the number of North American companies using four or more processes nearly doubled.

Historically, European companies have always used four to five processes such as new platform, platform derivative, regular new product, product extension, and cost reduction or value engineering as representative categories. The reasons for the slight rise in North American processes are unclear. It is hard to believe North American leaders actively guided their companies toward more processes. We believe the increase stems from the evolution of globalization. More European companies are operating in North America and it appears to be affecting product-development processes. Show less

The vast majority of all R&D spending across the globe goes to projects and programs. So, project and program measures are perhaps the most important metrics for facilitating R&D performance.

If a company performs poorly on a project, this fact is immediately visible to its employees. If less-than-desired performance continues across multiple projects over time, the failures usually become visible to outsiders as well and begin to affect branding, reputation, and pricing. A company can… Show more

The vast majority of all R&D spending across the globe goes to projects and programs. So, project and program measures are perhaps the most important metrics for facilitating R&D performance.

If a company performs poorly on a project, this fact is immediately visible to its employees. If less-than-desired performance continues across multiple projects over time, the failures usually become visible to outsiders as well and begin to affect branding, reputation, and pricing. A company can usually recover from a single product that does not live up to expectations. When product development repeatedly falls short of expectations, the whole company feels the pain.

When it comes to measuring output, sometimes companies confuse projects with products. The distinction between them is important for two reasons. First, a project doesn’t make money. It is a mini cost center that accumulates costs and organizes people for a development effort. A project is a temporary organization formed to develop one or more products.

From a measurement viewpoint, companies need measures for projects along with measures of the products being developed. Show less

You’ve probably noticed that there is a growing interest in measuring functional and technical competencies for scientists, engineers, and designers. This trend is a response to the flattening of organizations that have leaned themselves out. In lean organizations, there are typically fewer hierarchical levels but more practitioners at any given level.

This flatter structure is often described in terms of ratios. Lean organizations typically have management-to-staff ratios of 1:7 to 1:11… Show more

You’ve probably noticed that there is a growing interest in measuring functional and technical competencies for scientists, engineers, and designers. This trend is a response to the flattening of organizations that have leaned themselves out. In lean organizations, there are typically fewer hierarchical levels but more practitioners at any given level.

This flatter structure is often described in terms of ratios. Lean organizations typically have management-to-staff ratios of 1:7 to 1:11 or higher. “Managers” in these organizations typically earned that title based on strong technical or functional skills. In nonlean organizations, expert managers could completely oversee the work of direct reports and still have the time and bandwidth to spot and avert errors that would otherwise escape from their departments.

In lean organizations, complete oversight is not always a realistic expectation. Hence, lean organizations need a way to put equivalent quality checks in place using a different method. Today, the goal is to ensure practitioners have the best possible chance of avoiding or catching errors themselves. Show less

Until about 10 years ago, most companies practiced product development. But they considered any exploratory activities that preceded it to be too risky, too lengthy, and have too low an ROI. It was easier to listen to customers’ needs and then develop products that would have known markets when launched. Plus, many management programs pushed them in that direction. The “customer-satisfaction” and “total-quality-management” movements of the 1980s, followed by “voice of the customer” and “product… Show more

Until about 10 years ago, most companies practiced product development. But they considered any exploratory activities that preceded it to be too risky, too lengthy, and have too low an ROI. It was easier to listen to customers’ needs and then develop products that would have known markets when launched. Plus, many management programs pushed them in that direction. The “customer-satisfaction” and “total-quality-management” movements of the 1980s, followed by “voice of the customer” and “product definition – requirements management” and “time-to-market” focus of the 1990s, placed great emphasis on delivering what was explicitly asked for as fast as possible.

Only a few industries — such as pharmaceutical, biotech, chemical, and semiconductor — have routinely and necessarily focused on underserved markets instead of underserved customers. These industries operate on the philosophy of “build it and they will come.” As such, they have invested in the preproduct development activities of basic research, applied research, and advanced development to a much larger extent.

In the late 1990s, the pendulum began to swing. Globalization had put great pressure on profit margins. Markets began to be shared by more companies, and more competitors began appearing regularly. The tech upstarts and resultant boom of the late 1990s had given industry a taste for the profits and prestige that “new” products could bring. It is no wonder the 2000s spawned a focus on innovation. What company doesn’t want higher brand value and market share, a higher stock price, and growing revenues with higher profits, not to mention the pride their engineers and designers feel when customers worship their products?

Of course, companies are more interested in profits than in the self-esteem of their engineers and developers. So after the tech boom, market-leading companies increased investments and formalized their advanced processes. Now, a decade later, advanced processes are permeating industries. Show less

The study of innovation has been growing steadily for a decade and will continue to grow for at least another decade. Researchers are mapping the brain, developing artificial intelligence, simulating combinational molecular chemistry, engaging in crowdcasting and crowdsourcing using the Internet and a host of other activities that are leading to improved abilities to innovate across industries. The tools and enabling technology available to folks sitting at their desks, and to groups and teams… Show more

The study of innovation has been growing steadily for a decade and will continue to grow for at least another decade. Researchers are mapping the brain, developing artificial intelligence, simulating combinational molecular chemistry, engaging in crowdcasting and crowdsourcing using the Internet and a host of other activities that are leading to improved abilities to innovate across industries. The tools and enabling technology available to folks sitting at their desks, and to groups and teams chartered with bringing improved products to market, are getting better every day.

Right now, we know enough about innovation to talk about early market results. We cannot yet determine what the best long-run tools will be to achieve it consistently. But there are already 300 of these tools available that are being kick-tested by companies today. Some are gaining traction. Offerings span self-help, group-help, and sharing and structuring knowledge. Some products actually increase the available domain knowledge in brainstorming sessions and enable companies to better innovate themselves out of specific problems. Show less

Rapid innovation delivered with a maximum amount of proprietary IP has been a mantra for western corporations over the past decade. Many of those corporations are increasingly challenged to keep up. The growing number of legitimate competitors and continuing technological advancements have upped the ante on maintaining the necessary “factorylike innovation.” Size, legacy, budgets, and a host of other factors hinder intrapreneurship and the ability to change quickly. Historically, all… Show more

Rapid innovation delivered with a maximum amount of proprietary IP has been a mantra for western corporations over the past decade. Many of those corporations are increasingly challenged to keep up. The growing number of legitimate competitors and continuing technological advancements have upped the ante on maintaining the necessary “factorylike innovation.” Size, legacy, budgets, and a host of other factors hinder intrapreneurship and the ability to change quickly. Historically, all corporations suffered this same malaise and the playing field remained level. Corporations also enjoyed significant barriers to quick, nimble competitors. Engineering departments, testing labs, and manufacturing plants take months to staff and build; never mind what they cost.

Enter the new kid on the block, the “Individual Manufacturer.” Technological advancements continue to lower the cost of many entry barriers. For example, one new business option is the short-term rental of industrial capabilities. Today, individuals with ideas or inventions can hire design teams and get access to rapid-prototyping equipment and, ultimately, to companies dedicated to contract manufacturing for third parties. Today, this can be done at reasonable rates and for relatively short times.

Many engineers and technically savvy folks already have their own CAD and analysis systems at home and work directly with prototyping and manufacturing-service providers. This so-called Maker Movement is gaining momentum after being loosely organized since the mid-2000s. Since then, Maker cycle-times have gotten shorter and their numbers have been growing. Collectively, Makers are becoming a disruptive innovative force, analogous to the rapid emergence of global competition a decade ago. Show less

Product developers enjoyed a fairly predictable environment for most of last century. After the arrival of the assembly line early in the century, changes in design and manufacturing were incremental and companies of all kinds could easily adopt and then benefit from new practices. But over the past 30 years, product developers have had to stay on their toes as the processes, tools, and environment in which they work have grown more complex and sophisticated.

Companies often wonder how they can facilitate cooperation between sales, marketing, engineering, and operations to better understand customer needs and better define product requirements. This issue occurs hundreds or even thousands of time each year and may involve a large number of people. The process is expensive, but not when compared to the cost of doing it wrong. On a positive note, it is not difficult to do it well, provided a short list of values and practices are understood and agreed… Show more

Companies often wonder how they can facilitate cooperation between sales, marketing, engineering, and operations to better understand customer needs and better define product requirements. This issue occurs hundreds or even thousands of time each year and may involve a large number of people. The process is expensive, but not when compared to the cost of doing it wrong. On a positive note, it is not difficult to do it well, provided a short list of values and practices are understood and agreed upon.

For the past 15 years, the management practices of leading companies have shown the most successful definition-specification processes separate the roles of sales and marketing. Sales, which manages customer relationships and coordinates communications with customers, can be a great means of identifying customer requirements. Sales should not, however, be the final authority on what enters the product pipeline. Marketing has this responsibility, with plenty of input from Sales. Management science shows that everyone with a stake should be brought into the mix. Show less

Initial efforts to rapidly spur innovation had CEOs and R&D heads simply renaming the "Product Development Process" to "The Innovation Process." This did little to help. From there, companies began to adopt more substantial methods including Edward DeBono's Lateral Thinking and Six Hats; Genrich Altschuller's Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ); and Eric VonHippel's Lead User Analysis (LUA).

My company recently reviewed these and other innovation tools, 57 in all, based on cost… Show more

Initial efforts to rapidly spur innovation had CEOs and R&D heads simply renaming the "Product Development Process" to "The Innovation Process." This did little to help. From there, companies began to adopt more substantial methods including Edward DeBono's Lateral Thinking and Six Hats; Genrich Altschuller's Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ); and Eric VonHippel's Lead User Analysis (LUA).

My company recently reviewed these and other innovation tools, 57 in all, based on cost, inventive format, and learning curve. In general, certain tools drive breakthrough innovation while others provide only incremental improvement. Likewise, some tools are appropriate for consumer products while others are best suited for highly complex and technical products. No matter the end use, all techniques align themselves into four main levels:

The first level includes familiar tools for self and group help such as brainstorming, yoga, and meditation.

Tools in the second level emphasize the sharing of domain knowledge. The Six Hats technique, for example, recognizes that many successful people think from a rational, positive viewpoint. By doing so, they may fail to see a problem from an emotional, intuitive, creative, or negative view. This can lead to an underestimation of resistance to a plan, a failure to make creative leaps, or a lack of contingency planning. Six Hats helps decision makers look at a problem from a number of important, alternative perspectives.

At the next level, domain knowledge is shared, analyzed, and organized. The K-J Technique, for instance, is based on the belief that a company's employees have all the answers to management's questions. The trick is to get all of the people with the right perspective to quickly reach consensus.

On the highest level are innovation tools that emphasize the sharing, structuring, and increasing of domain knowledge. Show less

It seems as if everyone has been talking about teams for the last decade. We all work in teams, and there seems to be one for just about everything, from HR to shipping.

But exactly what are crossfunctional, product-development teams? They are teams that don't wait until late in the product-development project to communicate requirements and constraints to Engineering. The team solicits opinions from others inside and outside the company, and brings in ideas from everyone who "touches" a… Show more

It seems as if everyone has been talking about teams for the last decade. We all work in teams, and there seems to be one for just about everything, from HR to shipping.

But exactly what are crossfunctional, product-development teams? They are teams that don't wait until late in the product-development project to communicate requirements and constraints to Engineering. The team solicits opinions from others inside and outside the company, and brings in ideas from everyone who "touches" a product, and most importantly, customers. Now the question is, are companies organizing and balancing teams?

THE REVISED PRODUCT-DEVELOPMENT TEAM
Concurrent-product development and integrated product teams began to gain momentum in the 1980s. That's when the quality movement determined that the late introduction of requirements and constraints hurt product design, cost, and reliability. Although engineering-centric designs might be technically superior and innovative, they often leave out essential attributes. Customers might want reliability, ease of service, environmental friendliness, and a reasonable price, along with a host of other never-before-imagined features. Companies quickly began to realize that satisfying the customer is the real objective and that design engineers alone didn't have all the information to do it. It takes inputs from engineering as well as almost every other discipline in a company to design and build products that meet customer needs.

But what is the best mix for the team? The answer is not easy. Industries differ, technologies differ, and products differ. In RD&E (research, development, and engineering), for example, many managers staff teams are based on ratios and adhere to guidelines such as "two technicians for every engineer." But there is no singular solution. There are some research results, however, that can help managers understand this issue. Show less

Product development is key to business success. It determines every new product's final cost, what features it will have, and whether the company will make money selling it. And many companies track a variety of metrics or variables in the process so that management can measure and manage development.

But what gets measured and when? Are these measurements consistently updated throughout a project's lifetime, or are they perfunctorily checked off a list and then forgotten? And when a… Show more

Product development is key to business success. It determines every new product's final cost, what features it will have, and whether the company will make money selling it. And many companies track a variety of metrics or variables in the process so that management can measure and manage development.

But what gets measured and when? Are these measurements consistently updated throughout a project's lifetime, or are they perfunctorily checked off a list and then forgotten? And when a project is completed and the new product launched, does the development team track the product into the marketplace and bring back information that may benefit future endeavors?

These were some of the questions posed by a recent industry survey conducted by our company. Our initial goal was to determine the degree of standardization that exists in project metrics in individual companies, across industries, and across all companies. Show less