Chapter Five. A Comprehensive Approach to User-Centered, Integrated New Product Development

Companies need to structure and navigate the Fuzzy Front End of the new product development process. This chapter introduces a four-phase integrated process that begins with opportunity identification and ends with the realization of a well-developed product concept. At the end of this process, a product is ready for “go/no-go” program approval and intellectual property protection. By effectively structuring the early stages of the process and embracing more qualitative approaches, downstream activities become more efficient and less error prone. This leads to a greater chance of success in the marketplace.

In this chapter and the next two chapters, we discuss an integrated process to move to the Upper Right. We give you an approach so that you can put these ideas to work for your company. In this chapter, we provide a method for structuring the early phase of new product development, what has become known in industry as the Fuzzy Front End. In Chapter 6, “Integrating Disciplines and Managing Diverse Teams,” we discuss how to manage this approach. In Chapter 7, “Understanding the User’s Needs, Wants, and Desires,” we provide an in-depth discussion and description of qualitative methods used to gain a deep understanding of the target user and translate that understanding into product criteria. The most powerful recent area of product research is in the field of new product ethnography. This form of applied anthropology blends traditional ethnographic methods with new technology and interdisciplinary research teams to turn a descriptive process into a predictive field that helps to determine Value Opportunities. New product ethnographers must go beyond observation; they need to deliver “actionable insights,” or insights into behavior and lifestyle activities and preferences that lead to product attributes. Through these descriptions, their work becomes valuable to other members of the product development team. The results of new product ethnography complement, and often occur prior to, traditional marketing analysis. Further methods for understanding the task and uncovering customer needs, wants, and desires are also discussed.

We are keeping the focus on physical product development, but this same approach applies to the development of interface opportunities and services. The difference is not in the structure or tools, but in the different types of disciplines involved in using them. In interface design, industrial designers are replaced by interaction designers, sometimes referred to as graphical user interface (GUI) designers, and engineering designers are replaced with human computer interface (HCI) designers and programmers; the marketing function can vary, but the business leads are still generally part of marketing and sales.

In service design, teams have more variation; a variety of designers could be involved, including architects and interior, product, graphic, and GUI designers. The engineering technical group can also be more diverse and can include HCI, programming, electrical, and mechanical experts. The business dimension can also vary, although it includes marketing and sales. Recent texts on service design consistently utilize the methods we present in this book. We further discuss the development of services and their role in the product–service ecosystem in Chapter 8, “Service Innovation: Breakthrough Innovation on the Product–Service Ecosystem Continuum.”

1. A truly horizontal and interdisciplinary structure

2. A commitment to maintain a focus on what customers and other stakeholders value

3. A system that begins with an emphasis on qualitative methods of discovery and development and evolves toward quantitative methods of refinement and manufacture and/or distribution

The team that is assembled for this process must be representative of the three core competencies needed to deliver products: marketing research, engineering, and design. The team should include additional areas of expertise that reflect the nature of the product. The core team should be relatively small and should stay together throughout the process, with expertise added and subtracted as needed. Each discipline involved in the program often sees its own area of expertise as the most important and thinks that the methods of that discipline are superior to methods used by other areas. The primary bias that must be addressed is discipline-specific importance. Team members must trust each other, have mutual respect for the value of all the fields involved, and learn to appreciate the value in having a variety of methods to bring to the table. Team members must be good listeners and advocates for their own point of view and must not feel threatened by criticism. The most important attribute they must have is the ability to place their expertise at the service of the customer.

Team members always have their own opinions on the products they develop. Making sure that the end customer is always considered is an important way to prevent personal bias from influencing a program. Many personal insights are valid but must be confirmed by a good understanding of the customer. The success of the team depends on knowing how to integrate insight and shed bias. A product that is driven by an overemphasis on either aesthetic expression or technological process will not succeed. Translating customer requirements into the right core technology, considering type and placement of features, and selecting from an appropriate set of sensory aesthetic choices can occur only with a good understanding of and continued dialogue with the people who will use the product.

The hardest aspect of this approach is the use of qualitative methods. Early in the process, as the team is attempting to find direction and then gather knowledge, it is important to avoid getting bogged down with large statistical surveys and to not start identifying and detailing solutions. The use of qualitative methods allows for broad investigation with little investment; these approaches are easier to summarize, evaluate, and communicate within the team, to stakeholders, and to management. Team members who come from technical fields might find this difficult and often fail to trust the process.

We use the term integrated here. Although we generally talk about interdisciplinary teams, the important issue is that the team includes the right players and is integrated together. Our inclusion of engineering, industrial or communication design, and marketing covers the bases of what issues must be addressed. But different players can fulfill these.

Note that iNPD is not just for new, clean-sheet innovation, but works for evolutionary revisions as well. The process guides new product innovation but is equally important to appropriately inject new useful, useable, and desirable value into an existing product to maintain its place in the Upper Right.

Figure 5.1. Complete product development processes highlighting the span between product planning and program approval.

It is becoming harder to find time for the issues raised in the Fuzzy Front End. The use of quantitative methods and fear of manufacturing or software errors make it easier for companies to commit time and resources to the back end of the process. The challenge all competitive companies face is finding the time to effectively manage the front end and giving programs the proper start. This is because companies usually do not have a clear methodology or champion for this process.

This approach is compatible with existing processes that companies might already have in place. Many companies have some type of stage gate process, a process formally introduced by Cooper.¹ The four phases presented here integrate into what are typically indicted as pre-gate 0, gate 1, and gate 2. The methods in this book help you navigate these early stages and give you a process to move into and through these early gates.

The focus of the process, at least initially, surrounds the management of options. The process is much like a series of funnels (as in Figure 5.2), where opportunities are expanded through a gathering process and then filtered down to one or a few ideas based on the team’s analysis and interpretation. These remaining ideas are then expanded again in more focused depth, with one investigation (gathering, analyzing, and interpreting of information) leading to the next area of focus. The process is critical, in that the many pieces of information generated provide inspiration and understanding as the emerging idea develops. Some companies save these discarded pieces of information for use or idea generation in future projects. Figures 5.1 and 5.2 show where many of the tools introduced in this book fit into the process. As you read further into this chapter, reference these figures to help bring the process together.

Figure 5.2. Structuring the Fuzzy Front End as a series of funnels: The four phases are Identifying, Understanding, Conceptualizing, and Realizing the Opportunity.

The first phase focuses on the identification and selection of product opportunities. The main tool used in this phase is the SET Factors presented in Chapter 1, “What Drives New Product Development.” For those seeking new product opportunities, this phase is critical. For those who have already identified a product opportunity or for those involved in the modification of an existing product, this phase can still lend insights into directions to take to refine and specifically define the opportunity.

The second phase focuses on the understanding of the product opportunity. A POG was identified in the first phase, but how does that opportunity translate into criteria for a product? The focus of this effort is the user. The main tools to understand what the user needs, wants, and desires center on a set of qualitative research techniques that present an in-depth understanding of the typical user rather than a statistical overview of a mass population. These qualitative techniques are the focus of Chapter 7 but are introduced in this chapter along with complementary approaches that together define the context and characteristics of the developing product.

The third phase shifts into the more traditional product development process by introducing techniques for product conceptualization. The outcome is a single concept to be realized in the fourth phase. Our approach to this phase builds on standard approaches found in the literature on product development. The following differentiate us from these standard approaches:

1. The connection to the user—At each step of the process, we guarantee that the evolving concept meets the early product specifications, and we constantly obtain feedback directly from the core user and expert group. Engineers, in particular, often ignore the first two phases and disregard the significance of a user-based definition of the product prior to conceptualization. The result is often a process that compromises success by focusing too early on the detailed development of a product and misses its target in the marketplace. Therefore, although we take into account the importance of approaches such as 6σ and DFM (Design for Manufacturing), and further find these methods critical to the long-term quality-of-manufacture or implementation success of the product, we argue that these approaches are effective only if (and are actually meaningless unless) the product concept itself is effective in meeting the needs of the user. People will not buy a well-made product that they don’t want!

2. The product definition—We begin conceptualization from a powerful position of having defined what we are trying to develop based on substantial user research. Doing so makes the process more efficient, again with fewer design changes and conflicts emerging downstream and with a higher likelihood of market success of the product. We have found that taking time from the downstream phases of the development process and allocating it to the early phases (especially Phase II) makes the process more efficient and effective, with higher-quality products in concept, and gives the team an easier time meeting quality manufacture or implementation specifications later.

3. The integrated framework—We introduce tools and methods for overcoming discipline bias and conflict. Team support and intrateam respect improve the environment for interdisciplinary product development. Negotiation tools that meet everyone’s needs and expectations work within that environment to make the process more efficient and satisfying to the team members. Chapter 6 explores issues in team performance and interests-based negotiation strategies critical to success within interdisciplinary teams.

The fourth phase is the realization of the product, a proof-of-concept phase. It details the single concept that results from the third phase, to result in a working functional model or, for a service, scenario-based storyboards; a form model; a justification of the integration of the function and form models; a manufacturing plan; and an initial marketing plan, including initial financial figures and a possible rollout strategy. The goal of this phase is to prove feasibility of the product, have buy-in of the customer, understand the potential sales and profit of the product, and articulate function and form innovations that differentiate the product from the competition. The result is enough information to judge whether the product is likely to succeed in the marketplace and whether the company should commit resources to move the product to market. This commitment can be significant in terms of both financial expenses and personnel resources. Also, with the timeframe to bring the product to market, the company is committing its future reputation for creating successful products. The effective use of this process, however, increases the likelihood that a product will succeed both at this critical juncture and in the marketplace. By articulating the innovations at this time and supporting that argument through prototyping, the second result of this phase is to begin the patenting process for utility and design patents and copyright protection, among others.

Further phases that occur after concept sign-off, including 6σ approaches, manufacturing detailing, integrated prototyping, product layout, part reduction, service implementation, sales and marketing, and lifecycle concerns, are not discussed in this book. Instead, references to the literature are provided. Of course, many of these issues cannot be ignored up front. As argued in Chapter 7, any secondary stakeholders with a significant effect on the development process should be included up front in the development team, either by inclusion of the stakeholder or by detailed specification of their concerns. These secondary stakeholders have an effect on and react to the product design, but they are often not the primary driver in its development. Secondary stakeholders often include manufacturing, environmental, and lifecycle engineers; distributors and point-of-purchase sales units; and user support personnel. Taking these concerns into account up front significantly increases the efficiency of the downstream process. Fewer design changes occur downstream, where any major change is a significant cost and involves a time drain on the process. However, the details of many of these processes still occur after the design concept is completed, where there is an abundance of literature to connect to our process.

The biggest challenge in starting a new product development program is preventing preconceived ideas from driving the process. The team must learn to look at a new product as a new field of knowledge to investigate. Some of these stumbling blocks can prevent this from happening:

• Fixation on a detailed solution to a problem that is not yet well defined

• A heavy-handed management approach that details the program description and preliminary direction, and directs the team without allowing the team members to own the project

• A team member who has a bias against or is ignorant of different disciplines and tries to design the product from a particular discipline perspective, feeling that that team member’s field is the most important and must direct the process

• Management sending a clear message to team members that, although they are on an interdisciplinary team, their future is in the silo report structure of their own discipline.

If any of these issues develop and are not addressed early, they will have a negative effect on the program. When the most stressful periods occur, teams with unresolved problems often break down and the customer gets left out of the discussion. Personal issues take over, and most decisions are made through power plays that usually require going out of the team to call on upper management to resolve issues. The interest of the customer is abandoned, and, at best, a routine or safe solution is chosen.

If the team members are to become comfortable with each other and their relationship with management, they must be comfortable moving from general and vague ideas to more focused decisions using a shared decision process that involves using their expertise in concert with the knowledge acquired during the process and their understanding of the user. Team members should welcome feedback early, look for problems, and not become defensive or overly protective of their ideas. The team must become an environment that supports each member, allows for “mistakes,” and supports out-of-the-box thinking.

The first two phases of the iNPD process should be full of learning and surprises as teams develop possible paths and insights that they would never have imagined before the project. If teams are just cruising on what they know and lack a sense of discovery and excitement, they are not being positively aggressive and open in exploring and exchanging ideas. Teams should get to know each other and trust each other in the first phase. They should engage in team-building experiences and should have such an event outside the workplace. Team members from different disciplines who open up to each other, and to the new set of information that the other disciplines bring, should be able to make a significant improvement on the current state of any product. A highly functional team will soon develop a shared expertise that is greater than any management insight. The team members will become the experts of the new product context as it evolves. The developing team needs to be understood and respected as the evolving experts.

The first step to developing a product is to identify the opportunity for that product. The competition or upper management might provide the step for you. However, you might be part of the team whose job it is to come up with the next breakthrough product for the company. Or maybe you work for a small company looking for a new product—or even its first product. In these cases, you must come up with an insight that will make it worth your while to spend the next several months or years—and to spend significant company resources—developing a new product concept.

In the first chapter, we introduced the SET Factors, those of Social trends (S), Economic forces (E), and Technological advances (T). We highlighted several examples of how scanning the evolving state of these factors helps identify product opportunities. Scanning these factors is done through secondary sources such as current popular press and newspapers, specialized magazines, and technical journals. Discussions with primary sources can also be revealing, along with individual insights. The initial primary research for this phase, however, is quite qualitative, based on informal conversations and observations. Identify “pains,” or aspects of an experience that are detrimental or lacking in some way. The result of understanding the evolving state of the SET Factors is the identification of Product Opportunity Gaps, or POGs. These POGs specify all major paths that the team might take in developing a product.

The goal is to first generate as many opportunities as possible in a short amount of time, to filter the ideas to a few of more serious interest and then to investigate each at a cursory level to enable the generation of an initial scenario. The generation of ideas merges initial SET scans with structured ideation. Techniques of brainstorming and ideation are used to generate ideas.^{2, 3, 4} We typically tell teams to generate upward of 100 opportunities. Of course, for targeted product areas, this number might be difficult to achieve. However, the more POGs the team identifies, the better the source for opportunity selection and the better the likelihood that it has scanned broadly enough to select the right one to focus on. As stated by Terwiesch and Ulrich in their book Innovation Tournaments,⁵ “If you produce more opportunities, you’ll see more exceptional ones.” Statistically, the higher the number of ideas you can produce, the higher the likelihood that you have some really great ones to consider.

The list of 100 or more POGs must be filtered to a reasonable number. The initial filter is a combination of common sense; an understanding of the potential resources that might be available to pursue an opportunity; the potential for a useful, usable, and desirable product; and buy-in and potential contribution from the team itself. Obviously, a housewares company would not (yet) find much of a market in designing kitchen goods for use in outer space, a toy company would not have the expertise or financial backing to develop an automobile, and a team of mechanical engineers and industrial designers would not be the most appropriate group to design a new computer chip. If months are allocated for the complete product development cycle, a limit in potential complexity makes sense. That said, it can be insightful to consider ideas outside the comfort zone and expectation of the company and team. The idea here is not to envision or conceptualize potential solutions, but rather to establish the boundaries and scope of the problem. Concept ideation is not required to pass judgment on the feasibility of thinking further about many opportunities; if there is doubt but enthusiasm toward an idea, it is worth keeping alive at this point.

The purpose of the initial filtering is to reduce the number of ideas to about a dozen. At this point, the team should then take these dozen ideas to the next round, with an individual (or pair of individuals) spending one or two days exploring each opportunity in more detail. Try to find an expert or a potential target user. Ask about the problems that person or those they advise have doing a task and how effective the current solutions are. Characterize who the target market might be and roughly how big it is. Read the literature that targets the issues surrounding the opportunity. In general, spend this time gaining as much expertise as you can in each area so that, as a team, you can make an informed decision about which opportunity has the most potential for your company.

The goal of this process is not to gain personal buy-in in any one area. Instead, your job is to remain unbiased and to share your findings with the team as a whole. Personal commitment to any one project at this point can make your contributions ineffective. Instead, you must view your effort as an extension of the team. Even if the opportunities you explore are not selected, your effort was not in vain. Instead, your energy and diligence might save the team from wasting a significant amount of resources. One effective method is to make sure that the team members who propose a given idea not be the ones who investigate it.

When this period of due diligence is completed, the team reassembles and each person or subgroup presents its findings about each project. The team can now make a more informed decision on which opportunity seems to have the most potential. Again, the team must judge each opportunity based on time and financial resources; the potential for a useful, usable, and desirable product; the potential market size; potential contribution from each member of the team; potential creativity in solving the problem; the risk and potential for success for the company in pursuing this idea; and maybe even excitement from each team member. Other criteria might evolve out of specific needs of the team or infrastructure of the company.

We recommend using a weighted matrix (see Figure 5.3) to help further filter these dozen ideas. The weighted matrix is a simple method, with each column representing an opportunity and each row representing criteria used to judge the opportunity. Each opportunity is rated from 1 (low) to 3 (high) in each category. Each row can be further weighted from 1 to 3 according to the relative importance of that category versus another. Scales and range of weights can vary, but it is important to remember that these are very qualitative decisions used only as a filter to remove the clearly less preferred opportunities. More importantly, they give the team an organized method to discuss the contributions of each opportunity. After each opportunity is rated, its value is multiplied by the weight for a given row. Columns are then summed to give an overall numeric value for comparison. The opportunities with the higher total values are the ones the team is more interested in. The ones of lower value are of less interest and should be removed from further consideration (or saved for future products).

Figure 5.3. A sample weighted matrix.

The weighted matrix should never be used to conclusively choose a single opportunity based only on its numerical outcome; the process is subjective at this point and qualitative. Yet we have found weighted matrices quite useful in filtering out inferior concepts and stimulating discussion within the team. Even Ben Franklin is said to have used a simple weighted matrix that looked at the pros and cons of a problem.⁶

The process can take two steps: first, filtering the dozen ideas to two or three, and then, possibly after further investigation, reducing the selection to a single best opportunity. It is also possible that the team will reduce the list of opportunities to two or three and that management will then examine the details of each and decide which one the team will pursue. This last approach is recommended only if the team is excited about each of the remaining ideas. If the team now hesitates about any idea, it should be removed from consideration. At the end, regardless of who makes the final decision, the team must buy into the opportunity. Not doing so will cause downstream problems. Everyone will spend a significant amount of time pursuing the evolving product. The most successful product results from a team that enjoys the process and project of focus but, most importantly, sees its potential benefits based on the stakeholder research already completed.

At the end of the process, the team develops a single scenario, using the method presented in Chapter 7, that captures the essence of who the user is, what need the product fills, why it is needed, how it will make a difference to the user, and where and when it will be used. Again, there is no concept ideation and no specific ideas of what the product will be, what it will look like, or how it will function. All that exists is the notion that if a product existed to fill the void in the user’s life, it would be a viable product for the market.

For teams given the POG by management, the initial qualitative exploration of the opportunity remains important. Furthermore, the team should still go through the exercise of evaluating the POG based on the criteria laid out earlier. The team must still buy into and get excited by the opportunity and evolving project. It is important to do this from the beginning, to enable a focused effort in the next phase. Early in the process is the appropriate time to make sure that all team members buy into the project. Shifting personnel early in the process is much easier than later in midstream. We recognize that it is not always the choice of an employee to participate in a product development project. However, understanding the process and committing to the project is still critical for it to succeed.

At the end of Phase I, two results emerge: a description of a product opportunity and a scenario. The product opportunity must be stated in the most general terms and must be based on the product experience instead of product criteria. It describes the product opportunity in terms of the gap without describing specifically how the product will fill the gap. The challenge is to find the right balance between an opportunity that is stated in terms that are too specific and one stated in a way that is too general. The goal is to let the statement and scenario set up Phase II. For instance, saying that you will improve the way elderly people use an oven is a general statement that leaves too much variation. Saying that you will design a tool that electromechanically lifts food out of an oven is too specific. A balanced statement looks like this: The product opportunity is to improve the way elderly women lift things out of the oven.

The scenario that follows would sound like this:

Mary is 75 years old and lives alone. She loves to bake and often entertains her family for holidays. She has developed arthritis and is no longer comfortable reaching into the oven to lift things out. Losing the ability to bake things has been very depressing for her to contemplate. Mary is hesitant to have her family over and no longer feels confident entertaining in her home.

Here are the components of the scenario:

The product is for older women who have lost the strength and flexibility to lift. They become the core market. Review of the literature should focus on this group. The expert advisors for this program are health care workers who work with the elderly and doctors who work with seniors and are experts in rheumatology. It is also important to know about ovens, specifically the type of ovens that older women might own. It also requires looking at ADA guidelines. Other stakeholders are people who install ovens and sell appliances, organizations that promote products for seniors, and doctors and health care workers that might prescribe this for patients. The primary customer base is the women themselves; it is important to find women who fit in this category. Some might have already developed naïve but novel ways of addressing the opportunity. Although the discussion is applicable to men as well, the majority of the elderly population is female. Any particular issues for women might make the product better meet the majority needs, wants, and desires of this population.

By combining the statement and the scenario, the team now has direction in where to look to gain a better understanding of how a product might improve this situation. However, there is no clear sense of what the product might look like, how it should be powered, and what material it would be made out of. The opportunity statement and the scenario will be revisited to make sure they are being adhered to and that they serve as the core of the team’s understanding of the program. Both the opportunity statement and the scenario continue to evolve after each phase.

In Phase II, a high-performance team breaks into subgroups to research the paths suggested by the product opportunity and scenario. The goal is to cast as wide a net as possible and then focus on the paths that provide the best insights. Here the team interviews and observes expert users and, in combination with secondary research in the literature and primary research in interviewing stakeholders and expert advisors, starts to generate directions for the team. Teams need to model the experience for the user and identify the Value Opportunities. The goal is to develop a model of behavior that reflects an understanding of the lifestyle and relevant activities of the core user, and the human factors and ergonomics that underlie the human action during the experience. If the experience is a woman lifting things out of the oven, then the process of baking in the oven needs to be understood.

As awareness begins to grow, the team produces models of the experience and starts to develop an understanding of the Value Opportunities for the product. The factors of importance that will make the product useful, usable, and desirable start to emerge. The scope and perceived need must be quickly established to prove that this product opportunity could truly benefit the user and that a sizable market exists. Understanding how a product like this will be purchased is also important. For example, determining the patterns of oven use and how people bake determines how to make the product useful. Understanding the aesthetic needs of women and others who might purchase this product helps to frame the issues of desirability.

A very large part of the process of understanding the opportunity is to understand the user and other key stakeholders who influence the purchase, adoption, and use of the product; this is the focus of Chapter 7. Techniques such as task analysis that break down the user’s interaction with a product or activity, ethnographic research that observes and models the behavior of a target market, lifestyle reference that summarizes the cultural and social interests of the user, human factors research that articulates the ergonomic interaction of the user with a product, and further scenario development that tells a story of how a customer might use a product each help to define the specifications of the product. Identifying key experts to provide a more holistic view of the user as part of a group can be an effective means of broadening the scope of people interviewed. They also can provide a conduit to identify appropriate users to target in the qualitative research. Physicians and therapists can provide expertise, and groups of patients (with their permission) can provide feedback in health and medical product design. Instructors in adult education courses can provide expertise in certain hobbies and supply a pool of potential users through their classes. Specialty store owners can provide knowledge of habits and activities in areas such as cooking, clothes buying, and furniture trends, for example. People in manufacturing industries can provide insights into different aspects of production flow.

Three other aspects of the opportunity are considered at this point. The first comes from scanning and understanding technology. Competitive products and patents begin to describe the state of the art. Understanding technologies available or emerging but used in other types of products broadens the team’s understanding of what a product might be and what is feasible to consider in developing a product.

At this point, rough prototyping also begins. How can you prototype a product if you have no concepts to build? The prototyping at this point is at the block level, helping to understand bounds on the size of the product. Initial studies explore how a person might handle a product of a given size or proportion, or navigate windows in an interface through a storyboard. Figure 5.4 shows some block-level prototypes of a hand-held augmentative communications device designed by Daedalus (shown in Chapter 11, “Where Are They Now?”). These Phase II models are weighted with lead to allow end users to start “using” the product, at least at a conceptual level. They also help the team bound the size and weight of admissible technologies and understand the possible limits in sizes and features.

Figure 5.4. Block-level prototypes that are precursors to a hand-held augmentative communications device.

(Reprinted with permission of Daedalus)

Finally, a more refined scenario is developed that captures the essence of the product opportunity in a short story that focuses on a potential user. As discussed in Chapter 7, the scenario helps ground the process and keep it focused. The process of epic storytelling can highlight key aspects of the challenges and desires for the potential customer that become core to the scenario. Along with the development of the scenario comes initial market research into the size of the market, the buying habits of the target user, and the financial capacity of the target market. What type of products does the customer purchase? How many potential customers might be in this market? What income levels do the target users make? Where do they spend their money now?

Teams have several ways to begin to understand the characteristics of the market. Qualitative research methods are the most meaningful way to find insights into a POG. However, broad-based market databases can be useful as well. Traditional demographics tend to be irrelevant at this point in the process. Instead, marketing databases that augment our understanding of the culture and lifestyle issues are more useful—for example, consider Stanford Research Institute’s Values and Lifestyles (VALs) database and PRIZM by Claritas Corp. These databases break the consumer market into segments based on values, beliefs, point in life, and financial capability, not traditional breakdowns of age, income, and education. This broad statistical understanding of detailed purchasing trends can nicely supplement ethnographic research to provide a rich picture of the targeted market. Such databases, however, should be used with caution and only to supplement in-depth qualitative research of target users, not replace it.

The result of all this research is a growing understanding of the user experience, the emotion surrounding the experience, the product attributes that enable the emotion, and realization of those attributes through physical or software design and definition of market resources. This realization can be described through the Value Opportunities. The VOs of a POG, supported with an analysis of the particular POG against the current competitive environment, suggest a deeper insight into the target user, the product opportunity, and the differentiation needed to move the product to the Upper Right. The VOA is also the mechanism that establishes product requirements based on a high level of resolution of the product, namely what the product must accomplish to succeed.

The result of this phase is a behavioral model of the target user, a detailed understanding of that user’s needs, wants, desires, dislikes, and resource capacity. The scope of technology available is understood. Bounds on the overall dimensions of the product or scope of interaction for a service are also known. The VOs for the product that will be used to develop product concepts and to judge the effectiveness of any concepts generated are understood. This rich level of understanding of the product opportunity up front enables a more targeted and efficient approach to the next phases of product development.

It is important that participants from all disciplines (and, for small product development teams, all members) participate in this process. Historically, marketing alone has defined the product characteristics and specifications. Although marketing’s participation is important, it alone is not sufficient. The methods we present go beyond and complement traditional marketing. They result in a deep and broad understanding of the context for a future product that the team will develop, a context that all key team players must understand. Transferring that context to the design team is difficult. We have often observed in the traditional approach that the design team interprets the description from marketing, with each person interpreting it in his or her own way, and the tie to the user is lost. An analogy is the children’s game of “telephone operator,” in which one person whispers a phrase to his neighbor, who whispers it to her neighbor. By the time it gets to the end of the line, the phrase has completely changed. The same happens here. When engineers and designers interpret a description that a marketing person wrote as an interpretation of user data, the connection to the user is lost. Larger teams might find it impractical for all team members to spend time researching in depth the lifestyle and essence of the customer (for example, in the auto industry, where teams reach more than 200 in number). Even with these teams, however, it is not unreasonable for all members to participate in short interviews, customer discussions, or observations. All team members should be trained on the importance of this technique and proper execution of the methods.

At the end of Phase II, all team members should have a shared understanding of the requirements of the product. They are starting to become the experts. They have developed models and diagrams of the product experience. By the end of this phase, the team has a vague sense of what the product will be like. Put in terms of human embryonic development, the cells will have differentiated and the parts of the body are there, but there is no sense of what the baby will look like. The high-performance teams start to lose their discipline-specific roles, and a lot of crossover behavior results. Marketing research, visualization of ideas, and technical feasibility are often shared activities that are invited and seen as nonthreatening by the group.

The scenario established early in Phase I would be developed further to be more specific, and the product opportunity statement would be clearer. The scenario would sound more like this:

Mary has arthritis in the lower spine and shoulders that limits her range of motion. She also has lost strength in her back and arm muscles. A device is needed that fits in the context of a standard oven that will compensate for her limited motion and reduced strength and allow her to easily put in and remove a variety of pans and baking dishes. The device will have to lift items that range in weight from 1 to 15 pounds.

The product opportunity statement might now sound like this:

The team will develop a product that will integrate with a standard oven and will be easy to install and clean. It must have a simple mechanism and must cost no more than $50 to buy and install. Any installation should be easy enough for a family member to do. Although the primary market will be senior women with arthritis between the ages of 70 and 85, the primary purchasers may be family members.

At this point, the scenario and product opportunity statement are complemented by a series of models, diagrams, facts, and statements gleaned from research documents, to frame the issues that will serve as the guidelines for assessing the concepts developed in Phase III. For example, the size of standard ovens will be known and the team will also know that a typical oven hasn’t changed in size in more than 50 years. The Value Opportunities are also framed out and must be interpreted into product characteristics. The security, safety, and independence emotion VOs and the ergonomics VOs are critical to the acceptance and use of the product. The social impact VO separates this potential product from most other kitchen appliances. The opportunity for a unique visual and tactile aesthetic, and related identity, can create a new market. Finally, the quality and core technology VOs will need to be clearly articulated to target an elderly user and her family. A task analysis and ethnographic research, all covered in Chapter 7, will provide a detailed model of how an elderly woman uses the oven and compare this to a younger, more agile and strong woman. The analyses will also provide insights into how a product that fulfills the opportunity would improve the task for the elderly user.

Phase III starts to resemble a product concept phase in a typical program, but there are two main differences. First, the concepts are the result of healthy team interaction and stakeholder insights. Second, the concepts are tested against criteria established in Phase II through individual feedback and focus groups composed of users, expert advisors, and other key stakeholders. The goal in this phase is to develop a series of evolving prototypes representing the concepts. The team continuously tests as many concepts as it can, starting with simple representations and moving to more detailed versions through the phase. This process should be iterative and go through as many cycles as possible. The emphasis is on getting feedback, turning the feedback into a new generation of prototypes, and then testing again. Some companies use rapid prototyping, some use virtual prototyping, and others use blue foam models. The emphasis is on speed of turnaround. If rapid prototyping is expensive and time consuming, use simple methods. For digital interaction, use storyboards. The feedback is more important than the method. This is particularly true in the early rounds.

The feedback to the team through these cycles is invaluable. Many companies ignore this part of product development research and often hurry the process or hide the results instead of respecting and supporting the feedback it provides. The difference between Phase II and Phase III is that the second phase develops an understanding of the opportunity, whereas the third phase develops an understanding of the product itself. During this stage, the team becomes truly expert. By the end of this phase, team members will have a solid understanding of stakeholders and knowledge of the aesthetics, features, materials, and technology that will induce a customer to buy the product.

This phase requires a return to ideation methods to generate as many concrete concepts as can directly or indirectly meet the criteria set up in Phase II. When the team combines concepts and reduces the number to a reasonable level (say, eight to ten) based on how likely they will meet the expectations set up by the specifications from the VOA, each concept can be explored in more detail. Each concept is visualized by sketches and rough form models that begin to capture the essence of the product. High-level functionality is specified, including mechanisms or other capabilities that might enable the product to behave as desired.

At this point, the team returns to the user group for more quantitative feedback. Here more traditional focus groups and surveys help the design team understand what aspects of the concepts potential users like or dislike. This is also an opportunity for the users to help the team design the product by asking for suggestions on how to improve the product. When presenting each concept, all sketches, form models, and functional specifications should be presented at the same level of specificity. Having one design better fleshed out than another shifts the preference scale toward the more detailed concept, by default. Prototypes do not have to work, and many details can be either ignored or represented graphically. However, the prototypes should be neat and should clearly represent the features that the team is focusing on at this stage of the development process.

The key to quick prototyping and feedback is to enable several iterations in the development process. The team should use the feedback from the first round to again conceptualize ways to evolve and refine the product. At each iteration, user feedback reinforces what aspects of the product are working well and what needs to be changed. The surveys and focus groups augment the specifications laid out in the second phase, which are used to judge the success of the concept.

In parallel, this phase includes the process of reverse-engineering competitive products or technologies of interest. Reverse engineering is a useful way of making sure the team stays on top of the evolving field. Most larger companies already reverse-engineer their competition. For example, automobile companies constantly take apart their competitors’ products to understand what new features they are introducing, what new technologies they are using, what manufacturing processes and materials they select, and what aspects of the product fail. The process of reverse engineering first requires breaking apart a product to understand how it works and how it is made, and then using that analysis to understand how the current product can be improved. Details on reverse engineering and function analysis of physical products can be found in Pahl and Beitz⁷ and Otto and Wood.⁸

Knowledge of technology derived from the reverse engineering process is then fed into the concept development process, helping to shape and add detail to the evolving product. Mechanisms, information flow, and logistics begin to take form. Technologies begin to be specified. As the iterative process continues, the technical features become more refined. In this phase, manufacturing and other production considerations become relevant. How will the product be made? What materials will be selected? What are the cost implications? Does the state of manufacturing need to be pushed (as was done with OXO)? At the same time, the designers are developing the look and feel of the product, refining the details as the process evolves. Marketing is beginning to think about pricing, distribution, and rollout strategies.

The process must remain integrated. If engineering works alone on the functional design while industrial design works alone on the form and marketing makes assumptions on features or aesthetics, the three likely will never integrate. We have observed many teams in trouble because each discipline does its own thing. Only after the three parties have sat down together and talked through a solution does a successful concept emerge. As product tensions mount, so do tensions within teams. The tools and methods from Chapter 6 are critical to managing conflict in the team. Tension in the development process is natural and important. One aspect of a design solution causes problems for other parts. For example, mechanisms might need to be conceptualized, but as one type of mechanism is selected, its proportions and space requirements might affect the initial form studies. Negotiating product-based conflict is an effective way to determine successful product solutions. However, the conflict should be based on meeting the interests of the user rather than personal, power-based struggles, and the negotiation must be managed in terms of time and emotion.

Weighted matrices used in Phase I are again of use here; now the columns represent each concept and the rows represent criteria derived from the specifications of Phase II. The weighted matrix becomes even more useful in this phase, providing a means for each discipline to articulate its views of the product in a form that team members can discuss. Thus, the weighed matrix becomes a support tool for interdisciplinary communication. Note that, as the product concepts become more refined and the criteria become more specific, the weighted matrix takes the form of a Pugh chart, developed by Stuart Pugh,⁹ as a means of comparing competing concepts based on technical considerations. Now one concept or standard solution is chosen as the datum to which all other concepts are compared and scored as better (+1), worse (–1), or the same (0). As with the use of weighted matrices for opportunity identification, no concept should be selected based entirely on the numeric outcome of the matrix. Instead, the matrix should be used to filter out the inferior concepts and to enable the team to discuss the pros and cons of each preferred concept.

Focus groups help define the market. Alternative approaches for the market are considered, formulating an argument of why the new product is superior to the current state. A better understanding of the lifestyle and expectations of the market—for example, through segmentation tools—and the costs of competitive products all lead toward an initial marketing strategy and price target.

The opportunity to improve Mary’s ability to bake might lead to concepts that attach to a counter or lift from a floor. Other options might include permanent attachments in the oven or, better yet, attachments that fit into a standard oven using the guides for current racks. The latter concept, being the most inviting from a usability and cost analysis, would lead to further ideation on how to get a rack from inside the oven out and up to a counter height while still supporting the weight of a casserole dish. This might include assist devices from outside the oven and innovative mechanisms from within. At the end of this phase, a good understanding of one or two primary mechanisms will be known, a basic aesthetic for the user group will be identified, and a cost target will be known.

Traditional methods for conceptual design, product refinement, and market planning can be found in books such as Otto and Wood,⁸ Ullman,¹⁰ Ulrich and Eppinger,¹¹ Urban and Hauser,¹² Wheelwright and Clark,¹³ and Dieter and Schmidt.¹⁴ Readers not familiar with these processes should read these texts. However, the tie to the user and the requirement that user-based specifications, developed in Phase II, must be met, along with an iterative, refining process of continual feedback from the user and stakeholder groups, differentiates our approach from traditional, more discipline-specific methods and ties together the methods.

A single concept emerges, as the product of the team, at the end of Phase III. The concept meets the look, feel, and technical expectations of the target market. What remains are the details: the material and color, the sizing and packaging of parts, the curves and flow of the shape, the product name and logo, the manufacturing specifications, the detailed marketing rollout strategy, and the final cost of and expected profit from the product. For digital designs, this focuses on the software implementation of the concept described in the storyboards. For services, every detail of the system is determined and each touch point and technology component is identified and integrated, to enable its implementation.

In this final phase, the product concept is refined to the point that it becomes a real product. The form is refined, again through user feedback, to capture the semantics and style laid out in Phase II. The mechanics of the product are specified and sized, meeting the functional requirements of the product. The market is examined in more detail, with a strategy to move the product to market and, eventually, become profitable. The results of this phase are a detailed form model; a detailed, working, functional prototype; a manufacturing plan; for digital and service products, a mockup that details each step in the flow of use of and interaction with the product; and a marketing plan with financial information specified. The approaches used to develop these prototypes are standard (see the references given in the previous section). However, again, the user-focused specifications from the second-phase VOA are a constant check on the success of the process. Often the process breaks into more discipline-oriented activities: Designers detail the aesthetics and make the form models, engineers analyze and detail the performance and create the functional prototypes, and marketing devises the marketing plan. Marketing also must determine what value the product has to the customer, to determine an initial price point. Although not preferred, the skills of team members might require such a breakdown to keep the process efficient. The team still functions, however, as an integrated, high-performing unit that stays intact and in constant communication. It is critical for the team to have matured to the point that it works as an integral unit so that as team members each pursue their discipline tasks, they do so only through consideration of how their decision impacts those of all the other team members and how the Phase II specifications and scenarios affect the process.

At the end of this phase is a major milestone, commonly referred to as a “go/no-go” decision point. If the form and function models differ, then, at a minimum, the team must present a design on paper (or, more likely, on computer) showing how these models will integrate. Management might want to see an integrated prototype before final commitment for the program. Often, however, individual models drawn on paper or CAD will suffice. The quality of the prototypes is critical to the decision-making process. Form models do not have to work, but they must show each feature in sufficient detail to capture the overall theme and feel of the product. Function models do not have to look like the final product, but they must be neat and clearly illustrate how the product behaves.

The oven aid will have a detailed mechanism designed with all parts specified. A function model will prove that the device is effective in sliding out of the oven and up to counter height while carrying a casserole. It will then be able to be brought into the oven with the same load. The mechanism will also need to illustrate how a weak elderly woman can lift the weight without dropping it. The form of the product will be specified enough to capture the semantics of ease-of-use, security, and safety, with a contemporary look and feel clearly articulated and represented. The approach to distribution and sales for the targeted elderly women will be specified as a cost of $49.95, purchased where appliances are sold, and advertised in Modern Maturity and in doctors’ offices.

Figure 5.5 shows the final concept.

Figure 5.5. Oven aid concept to allow elderly and arthritic users to more readily remove and place objects in the oven.¹⁵

At this point, the company can decide whether the project should move into the development-to-market phase. Major costs are committed for tooling for physical products or for a production team, if digital. Plans for manufacture and quality assurance are developed and implemented. Marketing costs are committed for distribution and advertisement.

At this point as well, the company can apply for patents. Both design and utility patents should be considered. Patent protection is an important step toward protecting not only the functional innovations, but also the product form and identity. Trade secrets are another route best used for manufacturing processes and chemical compositions. Mechanical and electronic products are readily reverse-engineered and should have a distinct look and function that can be protected through patents. Digital innovations can be copyrighted, kept as a trade secret, and, in some instances, patented. Service innovation might be patented as process business method patents. In Marketing Aesthetics: The Strategic Management of Brands, Identity, and Image,¹⁶ Schmitt and Simonson nicely summarize the benefits of patent protection as a way to support the product and company brand. Brand is hard to build; technology is hard to develop. Intellectual property protection is the only way to protect this investment of the company.

At the end of this phase, a company must decide whether to commit significant human and economic resources to realize the product opportunity. In some companies, iNPD might take weeks; in others, it might take a year. No magic formula exists. However, companies must realize that investing 20%–25% percent of the overall product development program in the four phases outlined here will save significant time and money later. Many companies have a final phase in which a limited run of actual products is produced and evaluated. Mistakes late in the process are extremely difficult to fix and require significant time and cost to resolve. Many products limp into the market with last-minute repairs that become apparent soon after purchase. Other times, competitors release features that must be accounted for because the team neglected to understand what features the customer really wanted. When a company fails to adequately fill a Product Opportunity Gap, it is extremely difficult to recover with subsequent products. This can have a significant impact on the brand of the company. The iNPD process is a wise investment to make sure the gap is successfully filled the first time.

This is the point of product commitment, where all of the sweat and energy of the team and the company’s investments in money and time pay off. This is also the point of departure of our book. As the process moves forward from here, the tie to the user cannot be lost. Furthermore, in the next phase of design refinement, the battles between cost and feasibility often lead to compromises and frustration. The critical task is to protect any innovation from the earlier phases. To minimize compromise and maximize integrated solutions, it is critical to maintain appropriate respect and negotiation practices from these earlier phases, as discussed in Chapter 6. The ability to identify and prioritize primary user and stakeholder concerns, determined in Phases I and II (and further developed in Chapter 7), helps to maintain the integrity of the initial product concepts.

Resources come in many forms. The most obvious is money—and, of course, everything the company does ties in to finances. Time is money. People are money. It makes the most sense, however, to explore each of these topics (time, money, and people) separately, to make tangible decisions on how much of each should be allocated and when they must be allocated. In examining each topic, note that the bottom line is that this is not a science; we have seen repeatedly that companies that try to use results from a fixed formula in a strict way end up with projects that are over budget and late, with teams that are overworked. We also note that the distribution of resources varies by industry and product type. The design of a vegetable peeler takes a significantly different (lesser) resource allocation than the design of a vehicle. Several people and several thousand dollars are sufficient for a product such as the GoodGrips peeler, and several hundred people and several hundred million dollars are involved in just the early design conceptualization process for a car. Similarly, the design of an international package logistics tracking and delivery system takes a different resource allocation than the development of a new online store. The experience of the company also influences these allocations. As individuals build expertise and the company builds a base of user understanding, the earlier phases might go faster, at least for redesign efforts.

It takes experience in the process and an understanding of what is possible in an industry to sufficiently make allocation decisions. That said, our experience has given us rules of thumb in each of these categories, rules that seem to nicely scale with increased resource allocation. The bottom line is that the more time, money, and people you can steal from downstream and move to the front end, the better the process will become for you. Often companies try to compress the front end to have the resources to fight deficiencies downstream. Teams that stay true to a stage gate but without a focus on the Fuzzy Front End still find that “job one” (production delivery) slips away, that the product is delayed often by missing features that customers want or having inconsistencies when the product is finally tested. Our position is that allocating more resources to the front end leads to a better-executed product with fewer downstream catastrophes. If you are new to the process, it may seem like a gamble, but our experience and the experience of companies that use the methods discussed in this book have shown that the gamble is worth taking. It takes as many resources to develop a mediocre product as a great one! A properly executed and supported user-centered iNPD process leads to a successful product in the marketplace.

As products gain complexity, even the prototyping costs increase significantly. For evolutionary products—ones that are built off of a previous platform or that keep components from a previous product—the prototype can (and should) reuse those parts. For revolutionary products with newly designed components, as parts integrate into a unit that begins to look like the final product, reused or off-the-shelf parts become less desirable. Instead, individual prototype parts must be detailed and made, usually by a manual process. Even in our fourth phase, in which product concepts are realized but not detailed to the point of manufacturing, integrated prototypes can become quite costly. One rule of thumb to determine what finances will be required to develop a product is to examine how detailed of a prototype is required. If separate function and form models (accompanied by arguments of how to integrate the two models into a common platform) are acceptable, the process can be done with very little financial commitment to hardware. If a working integrated product is required, the financial commitment increases significantly. More products are being represented digitally in CAD. With this approach, the cost is limited to the time it takes to create accurate models. Much of the LoneStar truck, discussed in Chapter 9, “Case Studies: The Power of the Upper Right,” was designed through CAD, with physical prototyping used only at the end of the process. However, a physical mockup is still required: It is the only way to gain a true sense of the feel of the space and to sense the emotion of interacting with the product.

The question of who to hire full time and whether to look in-house for product design versus looking toward suppliers or consultants falls back on defining the core of your business and your financial capacity. If you are a small operation that focuses on technology, hiring an industrial designer for your staff might be difficult. Instead, you might look at many of the several hundred product development firms across the country and around the world to assist in the process. As you look more seriously toward user-centered products, it behooves you to hire at least one designer. The designer can speak not only the language of the design consultant, but also the language of the user. Furthermore, the designer can bring a different perspective and focus on the application and further development of your technology. If user-centered design is your focus, a connection to the user should be considered a core corporate competency. Again, P&G does both. It has a strong in-house industrial design staff but also actively works with external product development firms such as IDEO. For further information on industrial design services, contact IDSA, at www.idsa.org.

• The iNPD process increases the likelihood of program approval and intellectual property protection.

• Resource allocation is critical to success in the Fuzzy Front End.

2. A. F. Osborn, Applied Imagination, 3d ed. (New York: Charles Scribner & Sons, 1963).

3. J. L. Adams, Conceptual Blockbusting: A Guide to Better Ideas (Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1986).

4. E. De Bono, Six Thinking Hats (New York: Little Brown & Co., 1999).

5. C. Terwiesch and K. Ulrich, Innovation Tournaments (Harvard Business School Press, 2009).

6. J. E. Russo and P. J. H. Shomaker, Decision Traps: The Ten Barriers to Decision-Making and How to Overcome Them (Place: Fireside, 1990).

7. G. Pahl and W. Beitz, Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach, ed. K. Wallace, 2nd edition (London: Springer-Verlag, 1995).

8. K. Otto and K. Wood, Product Design: Techniques in Reverse Engineering and New Product Development (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001).

9. S. Pugh, Total Design: Integrated Methods for Successful Product Engineering (New York: Addison-Wesley, 1990).

10. D. G. Ullman, The Mechanical Design Process, 4th ed. (New York: McGraw Hill, 2009).

11. K. Ulrich and S. Eppinger, Product Design and Development, 5th ed. (New York: McGraw Hill, 2011).

12. G. L. Urban and J. R. Hauser, Design and Marketing of New Products (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1993).

13. S. Wheelwright and K. Clark, Revolutionizing Product Development (New York: The Free Press, 1992).

14. G. Dieter and L. Schmidt, Engineering Design (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2008).

15. Based on the concept of Chris Cramer, Christine D’antonio, Mark Eggert, Napoleon Leoni, Allan Tait, and Eric Watts.

16. B. H. Schmitt and A. Simonson, Marketing Aesthetics: The Strategic Management of Brands, Identity and Image (New York: The Free Press, 1997).