Renovation of Industrial Design as a Discipline

Truly functional products should fulfill a list of experiences that range from the physical to the psychological. To achieve this, there are specialists who focus on maximizing every aspect of the interaction we have with the new product, thus making sure that the user gets the maximum possible gratification for what he/she has paid.

For industrial designers, ergonomics and user interface have traditionally been restricted to the mechanical interaction with products. Said in another way, user interface limited to tangible aspects.

For decades, designers have mastered that of the user experiences. They add lines, arrows, comfortable or uncomfortable textures, etc., whatever it takes to communicate whether you should, should not, or even how to use a product. A fundamental word here is precisely, communication. Products communicate with users, and our product should communicate its functions in the most simplified and complete manner.

Around a year ago, the news that Jonathan Ive, Apple Inc's current Industrial Design VP would include one more responsibility to his already hefty position got all the headlines, becoming now in the company's leader of Human Interface, with the responsibility to coordinate both physical and software design.

Jonathan Ive
(Image taken from Apple.com)

The news was received with a lot of interest, especially because of the anticipated -now unveiled- renovation of iOS, and writers and blogger around the world saw it as the triumph of the “designer” over the “coder”. Personally, I don’t think this is a a matter of profession, but of aptitudes.

Let’s leave Apple’s internal affairs for them and focus on the big picture. It has been a few years now that Jony Ive became one of the most successful and influential trendsetters in the world. It is interesting then, to learn that Jony himself declared he was a bit scared of computers, and as far as we know, he might lack programming skills. His abilities lay in the ability to create communication processes between products and users. And if he has managed to do that in such a superb way with physical objects, I think we should expect more amazing thing in his future digital interfaces.

Another success story: Tim Brown and his prestigious studio IDEO have become famous not only for their outstanding and innovative design, but more importantly, for creating communication processes that go far beyond physical products to include services and experiences, innovating in areas such as banking, hospitality, medical services, and assistance for the developing world.

Tim Brown
(Image taken from IDEO.com)

Starting to see a pattern?

Industrial design and industrial design education are now in the verge of a radical change. Universities have the responsibility to see the industry not only for the next 20 years, but for the next 3 or 5. What will happen in 5 years? For example, how many smartphones, its accessories and apps will be invented, exponentially used, and then become obsolete before a regular 4-year university term?

But that is not the only thing. It is necessary to identify where the new added value and innovation will found be in products, so that design studios can project accordingly. What intangible functions will add value to products for the coming generations of consumers? What is only cosmetic, and what is true ergonomics, interaction, feedback? 

And, a necessary question: Where in this value equation will design and designers contribute? Are industrial designers prepared? At interloft we have worked on a lot of projects in plastic injection, aluminum, metal, electronics, and there is no field that ever stops innovating. Electronic projects made in 2008 have now a cheaper, more complete alternative. Even cables transport more information than they used to a few years ago. It is up to designers and academics not only to keep up, but to innovate where value is sought after. One out of the many approaches is the internet of things. Medical equipment. Many more are out there for us, ready to be found.

Disruptive innovation or conservative approach?

What happens when you have a great product idea that want to develop, but it's a little different from what people are used to? You can either develop it to make it stand out of the crowd instantly, or you can make it look like a regular product with additive features.

Today, we'll talk about two situations that we often see with our clients that will help you identify when it is better to apply disruptive innovation, or to rather use a more conservative approach.

Disruptive innovation

Picture taken from Mercadofilia.com

We humans are creatures of habits. After we find something that makes our life easier and more comfortable, we like to keep it that way even if a better choice appears. We often prefer to avoid investing  our time on learning curves, and stick to the known. Later, we wait for early adopters to switch to the new alternative, try it, give us feedback, and only then we'll invest some time on understanding and implementation. It happens with cars, school systems, banks, and pretty much everything around us. For decades, Mexicans were comfortable with traditional grocery stores ran by local community members, and when convenience stores like OXXO appeared, it took some time for them to take off, especially in small cities.

The same happens with products for everyday use. If we are going to develop a really innovative, disruptive concept, we have to make sure of a number of things before launching it:

1. We have to be crystal clear about new features and functions, making them particularly easy to identify and understand by users, even without using the product itself.
2. That we are able to supply the product or service whenever our potential client has decided he/she wants to try it.

Regardless of how much we love our product's new features, they have to be "readable" to the audience. They have to feel able to use them. The harder the features are to understand, the closer identification our clients must have to our brand. Otherwise, they'll just move to the simpler neighbor. 

Microsoft developed touch screen interfaces
long  before Apple, but its conservative
approach created an opportunity for the iPad
(Picture from notebook-driver.com)

Conservative approach 

Here's a little story: during the development of a product for one of our clients, they suggested that instead of investing upfront a substantial amount of money, we should make a cheaper version of the product, with limited functions and cheaper materials. If the product sold well, it would then be ready for a bigger investment. Are they planning an appropriate test-drive for the audience?

Such approach minimizes risks indeed. However, in today's competitive markets it poses a couple serious disadvantages: 

1. It lets our competitors see exactly what we're doing, and since that product is a limited version of the definitive one, the window of opportunity is open for them to introduce a newer product with the improvements we planned for further releases.
2. It settles customers' mindset on a cheaper, simpler product, making it difficult to introduce the improved versions that usually carry a higher price tag.

There are no simple answers or quick shortcuts when it comes to deciding features for our products. User surveys provide useful information, but they show only a small part of the picture. At interloft we always apply strategic planning for products, foreseeing possible contexts and putting special emphasize on  user interface.

We hope next time you need to implement innovation on products or services, these questions offer some guidelines for your product strategy road map.

Evaluating our own assets for product success

We see successful and not-so successful products all the time, everywhere. 

Products that required a great investment and did not succeed, cheap products that are great, and products that did not advertise but viral marketing put them in everyone's mouth. We know that providing a 100% success guarantee formula for success is impossible, so we won't try to do that. However, after a few years of experience with products, we've seen a few factors that go beyond having a great idea and that evaluating them with a quick, honest glimpse will provide us with a panorama on how good our chances are. As stated in the title, they are internal, within our organization aspects. 

1.- Idea
Everyone's had great ideas. So, we're not going to discuss whether it is good or not. Besides that, what is good? Just build them up and then we'll see.
2.- Conversion
This is where the interesting part comes. Or just like they say in Spanish, the "meat" starts. One thing is to have a great idea, but another one is how easy, convenient, expensive, and realistic it is to bring it to life. Think of the advantages and disadvantages of having helicopters for everyone to get to work, for instance. Or having today, 2011, a smartphone with the power of a 12-core processor. Sure it's a great idea, but the means and the price will surely get in the way.
3.- Investment (time, money and assets)
Tricky one. We need to honestly assess how much it'll be needed to: develop, test, manufacture, pay suppliers, create space on a supply chain, distribute, deliver, and give credit to our intermediaries / final customers before we start to make money out of our idea. Can we handle it?
4.- Distribution
Aha. Last but not least. Actually, together with the Idea, we think this is one of the most important ones. 

• How are we going to sell this? To whom?
• Have we sold something through this distribution chain? Is it the most convenient for this new product? Do we need to invest anything?
• Based on last question, have we got any sales forecast? How to know if it is effectively growing?

Companies like Amazon and Walmart have the power of Distribution Lines. Products might be great, but if they don't comply with these companies' distribution policies, they're not going anywhere. Is your product going through existing lines, or you have your own? Is it strong enough?

We hope you find this useful next time you plan to invest in a new product.