industrialization

You are currently browsing articles tagged industrialization.

Yes, it does happen.  According to my wife, often.  In a recent blog, Great products, I opined on a number of products that I own which I consider great. I still stand by that.  But buried towards the bottom, I listed a few almost great but not quite products, one of which being the Xbox.

I think I made a mistake on the Xbox. It might well be a great product.

Not because it has terrific graphics or great games, but because it has endurance.  You see, I’ve been looking to buy an original Xbox for our new office. Not to play, we have a foosball table for that, but for the display case. Back in the day, my team at Flextronics helped industrialize the Xbox under contract for the boys in Redmond.  Mostly grunt stuff–thermal engineering and a ton of production test development. As such its part of our collective DNA here at Zebulon Solutions, and I wanted a unit to put in the display case–helps tell the story of who we are and what we can accomplish.  Naively, I though I could find one  a buck or two at garage sales or thrift shops. But amazingly enough, a 12-year-old Xbox, working condition or no, runs for ~$40. And this is in the technology space where product lifetimes are typically measured in months.

Even better, the dust covered unit we eventually bought at a thrift shop, untested, still works just fine.  As to my game playing skills, well they’re  definitely not great.  Crashed my VW Slug Bug repeatedly.  The vintage Xbox, however, did not crash.

Chuck

Tags: , , , ,

This was the most interesting email subject line I had seen in a while, so I jumped at the chance to be a shark for a day, torturing–er, judging–business plan pitches from MBA wannabes at the local b-school. I do a lot of deal screens for the local venture club, so it was not too far afield, even though perhaps productization was not the number one concern on many of these new companies.

The flip side of that coin, however, is that business plans are, or should be, a top concern of many of our productization customers, especially in the clean-tech sector, where we work with a disproportionate number of startups.  As I commented on in a previous blog, it is challenging for clean-tech companies to raise money despite record high prices for oil. And from our own biased little corner of the world, a fair amount of capital is required to get a product into manufacturing.  Besides productization costs (shameless plug: including the services Zebulon Solutions offers)–DFx, tooling, industrialization, production test development, regulatory approval, design validation testing, supply chain set up, process optimization, etc.–there are boring yet expensive things like buying inventory. All this takes capital for a physical product (software is a whole ‘nother beast…).  So raising money is crucial for many companies, and it all starts with a business plan.

This is not a business blog–there are many such critters out there–but the quick basics of a business plan include:

* Market need: what the itch is that needs scratching

* Product solution: how the itch will be scratched

* Market details: how big the market is, what it looks like, and who the competitors are

* Go to market plan: sales channels and get to production strategy

* The team: investors are in violent agreement that this is the most important  part

* Financials: P&L and balance sheet summary (cash is king!)

* Investment opportunity: how much money is being solicited and what is being offered

As to the b-school competition, I did channel my inner shark , ripping gaping chunks of flesh—OK, more like gaping chunks of marketing lapses and financial gaps.  While many plans were a bit underdeveloped, there were in fact several companies with promise, companies that had made some progress, had a team and a market, and had promise for a return for investors.  Not for me to give details but the top two companies were into blimps and cupcakes respectively.  Two of my favorite things…

Chuck

Tags: , , , , , ,

Shiny

My daughter, when she was much younger, used to joke, pointing into the distance and proclaiming, “shiny,” with the second syllable all drawn out.  Usually followed by “I wants” or some such.  Engineers have a habit of chasing shiny sometimes as well.  Too often it is in the context of looking for a quick, all inclusive solution to a tough problem.  Furthermore what really happens is that shiny causes engineers (and their managers, perhaps even more often) to abandon a tedious, methodological path to solving a problem that is promising but will take time and hard work for a new idea that looms in the distance, bright and beckoning.

The mythical will-o-wisp had perhaps the same effect, farmers abandoning their fields to chase an elusive beckon.  Likewise sirens and their impact on sailors, and even some politicians and their constituents.  Yet that is for a different species of blog.  Here we are focused on productization engineering, and we need to beware the lure of the new, quick fix.  It does happen of course and new ideas / insights / inspirations should not be dismissed just because they are new, but on the other hand a bit of due diligence before leaping off in a new direction full bore is not a bad idea.

Some tools for productization engineer and supply chain professionals to use to keep to a rigorous path toward a  goal–to catching shiny–without sacrificing velocity (very important: as my old boss at Flextronics, Michael Marks, used to say, “It’s not the big who eat the small, it’s the fast who eat the slow”) include FMEAs, both DFMEAs for designers and their cousins, PFMEAs for industrialization engineers; program and project management; design of experiments; and of course defining and most importantly using processes.

Chuck

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

I’ve (been) volunteered to lead a workshop for the Rockies Venture Club’s Investor Pitch Academy focused on “Understanding Team Building Dynamics for Business Growth” in February (see https://netforum.avectra.com/eWeb/DynamicPage.aspx?Site=RVC&WebCode=InvestorPitchAcademy).  Would not have been my first choice on topics to talk about but I’ve been helping pull the whole Investor Pitch Academy together for some months and, well,  here I am.  So I started thinking about what this means for productization teams—test development, industrialization, process development, validation testing, DFx, supply chain development, DFMEAs, and the like—and realized that the challenges faced by start-ups on this are really no different from those faced by companies who are serious about building up their productization teams.  So I thought I would attempt to opine on the subject of building a world class productization team:

  1. Make sure you have management buy-off and an effective productization leader. Otherwise you are wasting your time.
  2. A people hire other A people. B people hire C people, C people hire D people, etc.  Therefore never compromise on quality of hires.
  3. Hiring should be treated in a generic way.  There are in fact a number of alternatives from full time, “permanent hires” to contractors to partners to temps.  Of course be cognizant of IRS or other tax issues—as always the advice here is “consult yoru tax advisor”
  4. While one should never generalize, for productization engineers, more so perhaps than many other professions, a little gray in the proverbial beard is often a real necessity.  Many of the issues faced by productization engineers require decisions made based on experience bringing similar products into production.  This can’t be taught at the university.  So while age, flippancy aside, is not a requirement, having a handful of successful product launches under one’s belt is pretty much mandatory.
  5. Generalists have an advantage here:While the trend these days is to hire specialists, for productization there is a real benefit finding engineers who have a breadth of experience in many of the interrelated design, test and manufacturing engineering sub specialties.  For example a mechanical engineer with both design and test experience adds a lot of value.

While traditional hiring is the default choice, outsourcing (warning, shameless plug follows) to a productization services company like Zebulon Solutions can provide a few benefits.

  • Fractional, a key word to know in any case, can be a big cost savings if you need a particular skill set but not full time
  • If your needs are project based—you need such a skill set for the next six months but not permanently—these are also good choices
  • If you do not have the skills sets in your management team to effective manage productization engineers, it may be more effective to outsource the ownership as well as the actual labor
  • The last reason to outsource is to get access to specific skills and world class expertise that are not easy to find.  For productization, especially in the US, finding engineers who have extensive design and manufacturing experience under one roof with a couple of pockets full of successful launches is increasingly rare.  Many competent design engineers have not only never fully launched a product, and many have never even set foot in a factory (I asked this question once to a roomful of engineers at a client for which I was acting as interim VP of engineering.  The answer was only one had launched a product into production before and only one more had ever been in a factory…)

All for now.  Wish me luck on doing this workshop.

Chuck

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

“Chocolate is life.” 

“Chocolate is healthy.”

“Schokolade ist ausgezeichnet.”

“Chocolate is better than ___.”

 All truisms that we all know.  So how about “Chocolate is tough to make?”

Ok, I’m the first to admit that I had never considered this until I visited Schokoladenmuseum Köln– The Chocolate Museum in Cologne, Germany (http://www.chocolatemuseum-cologne.com/).  For €7.50 one gets to learn about cocoa bean cultivation, transport, history and impact on society.  The really impressive thing is how anyone ever figured out how to make chocolate at all–the bean in its native state is basically inedible and there was, and still is, basically no infrastructure in the regions of the world that grow cocoa to make chocolate.  How someone–hopefully an engineer but more likely a clever marketeer– figured out the extremely complex process to turn the cocoa mass into something edible, much less some delectable, is beyond my ken.

Little known fact-oid I picked up from the museum: 75% of the cocoa farmers and workers have never tasted chocolate.

But for an engineer like me the best part (OK besides the free samples) was the Lindt mini-factory in the museum. Because someone at Lindt has done a sensational job of productizing chocolate.  The assembly line in the museum is superbly industrialized and 100% automated, and this can’t be easy because chocolate is really tough to handle and very fussy about temperature and texture and being abused too much and…

Even more impressive however were some of the 19th century through mid 20th century pieces of equipment. Before software control, CNC machining, six-sigma design and Boothroyd & Dewhurst.  Before I was born (OK so these are really old).  Two machines are shown here: an 1899 cocoa butter press (brown) and a 1948 wrapping machine (blue).  Which just goes to show that all that is good is not new.  And that when properly motivated–undoubtedly with chocolate truffles–productization engineers can accomplish almost anything.

Auf wiedersehen,

Chuck

Tags: , , , , ,

With all due respect to the Avatar movie, unobtainium is not something only found on Pandora.  In fact it’s designed into many products every year right here on planet Earth.  For those of us who identified this mysterious substance years ago, in fact the movie was a bummer as it took away the punch line of a favorite inside joke within the productization community. “Hey, she designed that widget out of unobtainium.  He he.” Or some such–I never claimed to be good with jokes.

In the very real world of product development, designing with unobtainium happens all to often.  Sometimes its literally a material choice; other times an unreachable tolerance spec; all too often its not literally unobtainable just way to expensive for the application.   The last example is frankly the most common–designing in a material used by NASA for some new consumer widget is an overused but nonetheless often accurate analogy.

I recently crossed paths witha  company that had indeed designed their latest consumer widget in part out of unobtainium.  Their prestigious industrial designer had designed a product look that garnered rave reviews, hundreds of thousands of web site hits, and the eternal thanks for the sales team which now had customers beating the proverbial path to their door.  Just one little hitch–no one could make the critical part.  Literally no one: to date three top suppliers had tried and more or less given up.  With a NASA supplier waiting in the wings. The sad thing is that there are probably 100s of ways to modify  the spec to yield a product that is equally attractive, yet everyone kept beating their heads against the “why can’t you meet the spec?” wall.

To all such problems of course there are eventually solutions, but all too often at a great cost and considerable hit to schedule.  It would be far better to take into account the impact of the various specs on vendor pool, costs, yield, throughput and lead time early in the design process.  As in this example, starting to think about this even in the concept stage, with the industrialization engineer sitting side by side with the industrial designer, could in many cases lead to an equally cool design yet one that could be easily built with non fictional materials.

What stories do you have on designing with unobtainium, or designing out unobtainium?

Chuck

Tags: , , , , , , ,

We’ve just updated our website with additional content on productization, product design and industrialization:

1. We’ve taken to heart the chasm analogy we discussed here some weeks back http://zebulonsolutions.com/productizationblog/?p=41 and did a simplistic graphic against it that hopefully captures the concept visually.  http://www.zebulonsolutions.com/index_files/Page827.htm

2. Since I have heard many questions as to “what real productization work have you done?” we’ve added a Case Study page and a presentation with more details on real case studies. http://www.zebulonsolutions.com/index_files/Page665.htm and http://zebulonsolutions.com/Case_Studies.pdf respectively.

3. We added a backgrounder on our automotive and clean transportation expertise, for those of you in that exciting space. http://www.zebulonsolutions.com/Auto_Clean_Transport.pdf

4. And finally we captured some of the oft used acronyms, which started on an earlier post on this blog http://zebulonsolutions.com/productizationblog/?p=59, and put that on the web as well for reference. http://www.zebulonsolutions.com/Acronyms.pdf.

Let us know what you think of the new content, and the new look as well.

Chuck

Tags: , , , ,

This has been the hot topic the last few weeks, both in the ether and also at the NoCo Entre meetup earlier this week (see previous blog) where we got some lively feedback on the topic.  Here’s a list of productization definitions (or product realization) some more tongue in cheek than others:

  1. Turning R&D projects into manufacturable products
  2. Taking a concept and turning it into a production stable product
  3. Turning a science project into a real product
  4. Turning nearly done into done done
  5. What still needs to be finished after R&D says its done
  6. The gap between design and manufacturing
  7. The design phase is usually where 80% of the product development effort is typically spent. The final industrialization phase is where 80% of the problems typically occur. Productization is what is done to remedy this imbalance.
  8. Make stuff work
  9. The art of taking products from nearly done to really done
  10. The remaining 80% of the product development effort after design says a product is finished…
  11. “No results found for productization: Did you mean predigestion?” (www.dictionary.com)

Other definitions? What do you think?

Chuck

Tags: , , , , , ,

Keith and I had the privilege of presenting Zebulon Solutions to a large group of entrepreneurs at the Northern Colorado Entrepreneurs Network’s (NoCo Entre) monthly meetup in Fort Collins last night. 

http://www.nocoentre.net/index.html

NoCo Entre is the brainchild of Peter Olins and Patrick Gill, and offers a unique format where feedback from the audience to the presenters is the main event, not just presenters pushing a pitch down a snoozing audience’s collective throat.  We were challenged by Peter to close our short pitch with a list of specific areas where we needed help.  We listed 4 topics but the ones that caught everyone’s attention were basically “what is productization?” and “how do we get the word out on productization?”

There was a lively discussion on the term productization–not a word that trips fluidly off the lips; not a 21st century marketing sound bite; and frankly not a word people are used to hearing.  Of course it’s perhaps better than staid alternatives like product realization or industrialization.  Some though we should punt and just talk about product development; some thought we should stick to our guns and press on with defining productization.  There were suggestions that we should: buy web properties surrounding this space; rename the company to something racier;  publish a white paper on productization; write a catchy elevator pitch; overhaul our web site; talk to our elected representatives and solicit their help; and work on PR.  All interesting ideas.  We’ll be chewing on these ideas over the next few weeks for sure. Other suggestions welcome too.

I’ll blog soon on more productization definitions.

Thanks again to Peter and Patrick, and to all the attendees for their support and suggestions.  Entrepreneurialism is alive and well in Northern Colorado.

Chuck

Tags: , ,