|
|
|
|
|
08/04/2010
 Email to a friend
 Comment on this article
|
Bringing in external industrial design expertise can be an unpopular move, but often a wise one.
 The decision to outsource any aspect of the design process can be a highly controversial one. Not unnaturally, an in-house engineering team will often see such a move as a direct challenge to their expertise, experience or even livelihoods.
Colin Smithers, managing director and CEO of electronic design consultancy Plextek makes the problem clear: "Our biggest competitor isn't any other design house, it's the internal engineering departments of our customers. He thinks we're taking his rice bowl. He thinks we're taking all the interesting stuff. He thinks we're disproving his manhood. It may just be that he's too busy to deliver and the engineering department just cannot deliver because they're overloaded and they choose to take it outside. That doesn't stop the internal engineering department hating the fact. It's eternal. It's the way of internal engineers – they hate not to have the good work. It's natural enough."
However, the fact remains that outsourcing is now a relatively commonplace activity in the industrial sector and the reasons for this are by no means necessarily a negative reflection on in-house teams. Says Stephen Knowles, managing director of Industrial Design Consultancy: "People come to us for a different perspective; a fresh look at the problem. A lot of companies have design departments that have a requirement for every year or six months, so the skills that you have in-house tend to be general skills to push that through and then when you need specific skills like design or aesthetics, those are something that you would only need for a few weeks in each of those projects. So you can't justify having that kind of expertise permanently sat in your company. So being able to call on an external design house to pull those types of expertise in can be quite beneficial."
However, this still may not entirely allay the fears of a team that hears that a design consultancy has been contracted and feels its position has been usurped. "Sometimes you do get a 'not invented here' syndrome," says Mike Cane of Cambridge Design Partnership. "So we're sensitive to that. Part of it is how the contract is set up. Obviously, there's no point in us reproducing technology or expertise that already exists in the company, so we tend to find the experts and work with them. We learn from them and they learn from us."
Knowles concurs, saying: "Internal design departments shouldn't feel threatened because what we do a lot of is kind of fit in different pieces of the jigsaw around the in-house skills. We've got internal engineers, designers, rapid prototyping, etc . But if the client's got those already, there's no point insisting on using our particular people."
The problem is not always resolved, though. Says Colin Smithers: "Sometimes it can't be overcome. Sometimes the internal engineering department simply can't hack it. It's down to personalities. In some cases, it's not a problem and sometimes it works a dream and that's down to personalities. In fact, sometimes it's working really well and then a new personality gets involved and it all falls apart."
From the client's point of view, of course, the ability to mesh together the external expertise and that within the company is even more crucial and playing to the strengths of both parties is vital to this. Display instrumentation manufacturer BEKA Associates has been working with consultancy Product Partners for more than a decade to develop enclosures for its products.
BEKA's engineering manager Andrew Hicks believes that clear delineation of the two roles is key to a successful relationship. "Where Product Partners come into their own for us is on the aesthetic side," he says. "We're engineers. If it's square and it works, it looks good to us. But that product needs to look up to date as well as being fully functional and practical for our market area. While functionally, our products will obviously tick all the boxes, the thing that will make people stop and look is if it looks really good. And that's what they can bring."
Hicks also believes that retaining its sense of ownership is important to overcoming any potential clashes. "At the end of the day, we're the customer. If we want something, then it'll happen. It's important to bear in mind that at the end of the day, it's your project. They're there to deliver something that will suit you."
An example of what a design agency can achieve in bringing a product to market, IDC's work on the SuperSkin motorcycle helmet makes an interesting case study. Designed to reduce rotational impact by incorporating an outer membrane able to stretch and slide over the main helmet shell to prevent these dangerous rotational forces being transmitted to the head and brain, the helmet had been in development for more than 15 years before finally being brought to market this year with the help of IDC.
Asked what he believed IDC had brought to the process, Dr Ken Phillips, the inventor of the system says: "They brought everything. I went to them with a concept and we ended up with a finished product. Without IDC, that wouldn't have been possible."
The development process brought together IDC's engineers, modelmakers and designers to develop a skin-like membrane. CAD software provided a quick means to transforming the concept into a series of tangible designs. But central to the intensive research and development process was the rapid prototyping process. Precision CNC machining paved the way for multiple impact absorbing liners for the helmet to be sculpted from a polystyrene block with optimum absorbence performance, allowing the team to test each design change along the way.
The design required careful selection of materials. A strong synthetic sits on top of the gel-like lubricant to form a protective layer across the surface of the helmet. State-of -the-art vacuum casting was used to create prototypes and the materials tested for resistance and strength.
One of the most common objections to the presence of design consultants is cost. Resentment of an apparently expensive adjunct to an in-house team is a fairly natural reaction and one that design consultants themselves are understandably keen to downplay. Says Mike Cane: "People think that bringing in a consultant is a terribly expensive solution because they simply look at their salary and work out what they get paid an hour and compare it with what the consultant is getting per hour. What they're forgetting is that they're not just getting in an individual, they're getting in a whole set of skills."
Stephen Knowles also acknowledges this image problem, saying: "It's perceived as a costly expenditure because it's very noticeable. But compare it to the cost of having a project to deliver and not having enough people to do it and having to recruit, manage and equip a group of people – and even then there's no guarantee that they're going to deliver! Compared to that, it's very cost-effective."
The ability to pick up and put down design consultants as and when necessary is another key advantage in terms of cost, but can also has positive implications for the design process as a whole. According to Mike Cane, the ability to stop a project when it becomes clear that it isn't working is something companies find easier to do with external consultants than when it is in the hands of an in-house team. "In manufacturing companies, people can get too wedded to a project. There's an attitude that it's their project and they want to see it through. It's much harder to stop a project than it is to start one."
A detailed assessment of whether or not a project is likely to succeed in the first place is another function that design consultancies can bring. Says Cane: "Sometimes companies can find they're four-fifths of the way through the project, they've ordered production tooling and spent a lot of money and suddenly the product doesn't work. Or you go to market research and discover that people didn't really want that product in the first place. And that's a big cost you've got to avoid, so our process is front-loaded to make sure that by the time you get around to spending that money, what you're going to launch really is going to give value and work."
Such an approach can seem costly and laborious, but, says Cane, it pays off. "As soon as you realise the project isn't going to work, you need to be able stop it and stop wasting money. Failing quickly and failing cheaply is the key… a rigorous evaluation process can halve the cost of projects. It's not a small difference. The trouble is that if you tell the customer you should do this extra work up front, they think it's increasing the cost of the project. They say 'I know what I want. Why don't you just design one for me?'"
The attitude and co-operation of the clients is of course fundamental to a successful collaboration and a crucial part of this is a clear brief. Says Stephen Knowles: "The problems come if there's not a clear idea of what you want to do at the beginning and then someone changes their mind halfway through and that's where the costs can increase. You end up spending more money, but don't quite reach the finishing line. That's the biggest danger with clients: when they don't quite know what they want to do."
This is an area that has helped to ensure BEKA's successful relationship with its design consultancy, as Andrew Hicks makes clear. "We tend to detail things out more than a lot of people do," he says. "So [Product Partners] have got a lot of our thoughts and ideas to quite a detailed level when we first come to them."
But, of course, problems can arise in the process from both sides. Tales of design agencies who come in, charge a great deal and fail to deliver the goods are a major cause of reluctance on the part of companies to follow this route. With this in mind, it is worth asking what criteria should be looked at before choosing a design partner.
According to Colin Smithers, knowing what to look for is key. He says: "The majority of people who first look to put out work are in exactly the same situation as a new house owner who is looking to have his kitchen done. It's the first time they've had it done and they don't know what to ask for. It's only by the time they're asking for their second kitchen that they know what to ask for because they know all the things that went wrong the first time. The experience of the buyer is hugely important."
Clearly experience of the product or technology areas is another factor, but, says Stephen Knowles, is far from the be-all and end-all. "The important thing is for there to have been some experience in similar fields. I don't think it's imperative that you've designed exactly what people want before. Sometimes that can lead you down the tried-and-tested route. If you put someone on a slightly different track that can lead them a slightly different way, which in turn can lead to innovation."
Mike Cane offers another warning, saying: "The sign of a good consultancy is to have a smaller number of long-term clients. If you're consistently delivering, people will come to you year after year. And you should be able to ask for references from those clients. If they've got lots of little projects with lots of customers who never come back twice, then that should sound an alarm bell."
Innovation is another key aspect of what it is that design consultancies bring to the development process. However, according to Stephen Knowles, this can be more as a consequence of time and environment than from any innate superiority on their part. He says: "The difference between a company like ours and an internal team: that we're very much focused on delivery of a particular project. We don't tend to get distracted by all the other things like meetings and all the other requirements and roles that most design engineers tend to have in their day-to-day roles.
For all this, however, the outsourcing of design will always be seen by some as a threat, but it is one that many companies have not only learned to live with, but even thrived on. As Mike Cane puts it: "I don't think we're a threat. What is a threat to a company is their products becoming outdated, expensive and uncompetitive. That's how people lose their jobs. So it makes sense for people to work with us."
|
|
| |
Author
Paul Fanning
|
| |
| |
|
| |
This material is protected by Findlay Media copyright 2012.
See Terms and Conditions.
One-off usage is permitted but bulk copying is not.
For multiple copies contact the sales team.
|
| |
|
|
| |
| | | Added: 09/04/2010 | 14:32 | | |  | For want of better adjectives, inspiring, magic, hopeful etc etc. I talk about the April issue of Eureka.
I am 67 years old and I own a micro small specialist manufacturing company in the West Midlands. Between 1968 and 1973 I travelled the Midlands and South West as a hydraulic systems designer, salesman, builder , troubleshooter; almost the best job in the world. The reason why is at that time in history Maggie had not yet near destroyed our manufacturing base. I spent 4 days per week making several visits per day meeting engineers in the widest variety of situations with the sole purpose of designing a hydraulic system for a new application; each day each visit was different.
What was truly amazing was the sheer amount of small companies designing and making such a diverse range of products. Often it was a team of say 6 to 10 comprising 1 or 2 designers and a few shop floor engineers, the management were the engineers (not accountants or human resource). These people would solve almost any design problem that could be taken to them, and my job was part of that design. Some of the work involved companies trying to resolve the difficulties in making the worlds first ever plastic bottle (they were all glass in those days). Another company were trying an innovative way to make the steel car bumpers of the day. Nothing was too difficult for these small design and manufacture teams/companies. Regrettably 1979 – 1981 saw their demise.
It is extremely pleasing to read in the April issue that good design teams still exist, despite their misconception that they think they are so unique. Who do they think designed all the already clever products and machinery that has existed for decades and centuries? As I have developed my own in house processes I have often been disappointed by the lack of design support available (and the cost), I hope your magazine is witnessing a resurgence. For my part I have a number of new innovative (I hate that word, it somehow demeans design engineers) product ideas I am developing albeit that they are not leading edge technology they have market potential, which is more important.
If you wish to help engineers in this country there is one other area that presents all sorts of difficulty to an in house engineer like me. No longer can we pick up the phone and find a source of product or expertise around the corner. Despite the apparent support of the likes of Business Link and the Manufacturing Advisory Service I have only ever resolved my technical problems by my personal research. This includes finding product and materials abroad since they are no longer available here. Unfortunately foreign countries are generally not very interested in supporting us in the UK, even if they are our partners in the EEC. Worse is that our organisations like those mentioned earlier do not support at all well. Sourcing is often the stumbling block for many ventures, it took years for me to develop an specialised in house process for cleaning steel despite the efforts of so called specialist suppliers and Government agencies. We have lost the support we used to give each other in the engineering sector.
I hope you find this interesting and that it in some way is as inspiring to you as your magazine as always been to me. We need every design engineer we can get, there used to be a great many and the quality of some had to be experienced to be understood.
Best regards
Alan Horsell |  | | | | Posted by: Alan Horsell | | | | Report Abuse | | | | | Added: 23/04/2010 | 10:29 | | | | Our small design team and I thoroughly enjoy reading the magazine and the articles regularly spark much discussion among us. We all thoroughly enjoyed the recent article ‘ Softening the Blow’. As product designers, we often work alongside engineers and although this working relationship usually runs smoothly, we do sometimes encounter a negative attitude towards us ‘designer types’ and are sometimes regarded as felt tip fairies!
However, we are confident that we have continuously convinced all of our hesitant engineers that a good design service (such as our of course!) will ensure that their products will look fantastic, have a fresh approach and be given an innovative perspective.
We work very closely with electrical, mechanical, scientific and marine based engineers, devising new products that make our everyday lives that bit easier. We endeavour to implement good technology into our projects and we tend to push the boundaries whenever possible!
| | | | | Posted by: Fiona Innes, Realise Design | | | | Report Abuse | |
To comment on news stories or blogs you need to complete our 60 second registration
process. Once completed this then allows you to download any and all white papers,
register for e-zines and access our detailed supplier directory for FREE.
If you are all ready a registered user then enter your e-mail address and login.
You will need to have logged in prior to entering your comments in the boxes provided.
|
|
|