The single most important equation for me as a country is

Price – Cost = Profit.

While companies care most about profit, as a country I care most about cost – manufacturing cost. I want to incur the cost of manufacturing within my borders, and for good reason – that’s where jobs and money are.  For a product that sells for $100 with a 20% profit margin, costs ($80) are four times larger than profits ($20).  No big deal you say?  Pretend you are a country and look at the three components of cost from my perspective – labor, materials, and overhead, and then ask yourself if it’s a big deal.

Labor
My people get paid for their time. (For me, as a country, that’s magic.)  They buy food, clothing, and shelter and have a little fun.  In turn, they pay me income tax, which I use to educate my children.

Material
My dirt, rocks, and sticks are used in products and my people get paid to dig, move, mix, and cut. (More magic.)  And the machines to do it all are made by my people. We then make the same trade as above – they buy food, clothes, shelter, they pay me income taxes, and I use the money to pay for healthcare.

Overhead
My dirt, rocks, and sticks are dug and moved to make electricity.  My people get paid, they spend, and I provide services. A good trade for all.

I’m not an economist, and I’m oversimplifying things.  And I know there’s more than a hint of nationalism here.  But, even still, when I pretend to be a country, all this makes sense to me.

If you were a country, what would you do?

Click this link for information on Mike’s upcoming workshop on Systematic DFMA Deployment

Companies want more new products to satisfy the pent up demand (and Wall Street).  Growth through new products is a theme heard around the globe; there’s a relentless push for more products – early and often. Resources be damned, best practices be damned, we’re going to launch more products. Were going to market and will fix it later. The battle cry – Don’t launch, don’t sell!. However, the real battle cry is more aptly – Ready, fire, aim!  We’re going too fast.

I’m all for productivity, but we’re heading for a cliff, a cliff some have already accelerated off of, albeit in an unintended way.

a

We’ve forgotten the golden rule – provide value to customers, or you’re hosed.

a

Customers value function, or “what it does”.  Function first. But in this need-for-speed environment that’s just what’s at risk. To reduce time to market, we eliminate tasks (best practices?) in our product development processes. All good unless we eliminate tasks that make the product function as intended.  All good unless we load our engineers so heavily they don’t have time to design in functionality.  We must be careful here.  If you’re first to market and your product doesn’t work, you should have waited.

I believe launching too early is worse than launching too late because a botched launch can damage your brand, the brand you’ve taken years to build. (Click this link to see a post on brand damaging.) As we know, word gets around when your product doesn’t work (or accelerates on its own).

Satisfying the siren of pent up demand can run you into the rocks if you’re not careful.  So block your ears to her song, and take the time to get your products right.

CEOs have a strong desire to do what it takes to deliver shareholder value, but that’s coupled with a deep concern that tough decisions may dismantle the company in the process.

Here is the state-of-affairs:

Sales are down and money is tight.  There is severe pressure to cut costs including those that are linked to sales – marketing budgets, sales budgets, travel – and things that directly impact customers – technical service, product manuals, translations, and warranty.

Pricing pressure is staggering.  Customers are exerting their buying power – since so few are buying they want to name their price (and can).  Suppliers, especially the big ones, are using their muscle to raise prices.

Capacity utilization is ultra-low, so the bounce-back of new equipment sales is a long way off.

Everyone wants to expand into new markets to increase sales, but this is a particularly daunting task with competitors hunkering down to retain market share, cuts in sales and marketing budgets, and hobbled product development engines.

There is a desire to improve factory efficiency to cut costs (rather than to increase throughput like in 2008), but no one wants to spend money to make money – payback must be measured in milliseconds.

So what’s a CEO to do? 

Focus on product.  Selling into new markets requires new products; even with full marketing and sales budgets, new products are required.  But, hobbled product development engines aren’t going to get it done – they can’t even do what they used to, never mind do more with high levels of innovation.  Here are some steps that can get things on track.

First, some investment must be made to understand the new markets.  They’re called new markets because they’re new – previous experience is not valid and new experience must be created.  So get some experience by watching customers use the leading products and talking directly with them about what they like and what they don’t.  A list of new functions and features is the desired outcome, along with a sale price and target cost.

The new features, functions, and cost target are the input to the product development engine.  The existing product with the strongest overlap with the new features and functions is used as the platform for the new design.  To make a splash, functionality and cost must be improved at the same time (remember, customers are naming their price).  Hopefully the engineering team has the chops to do the new work.  If not, some investment must be made to bolster their capability in the new areas.  Don’t skimp here or the new product will come out wrong (if at all) falling short of functionality and cost goals.

There is another deliverable from the product development engine.  The engine must create A/B performance data from which data-driven sales tools are created.  The best product in the new market is chosen as the baseline product (A) and tested to define the performance specification (maybe 20% better than the baseline product).  The new product (B) is tested under the same test protocol and its performance is plotted relative to the performance specification (20% better than the baseline product [product A]).  If the product development engine does its job, the new produce will have a competitive advantage over the best product in the market, with more function and less cost.

Some investment is needed to develop (and translate?) the data-driven sales tools and some spending is needed to get the sales force (and their new tools) in front of customers.  Don’t forget the sales tracking systems.

Improving the product development engine is vital.  Designing higher functioning products with low cost signatures is not natural for engineers, so care must be taken when defining the challenge.  And the morale of the engineering teams is likely low due to the recent cost cutting.  They may not be in the right frame of mind to accept their challenge, so a thoughtful delivery makes a difference.  A modest training plan to develop their capability goes a long way to putting them in the right frame of mind.

There is no free lunch here, and little new thinking.  Solid blocking-and-tackling is needed from marketing, sales, engineering, and manufacturing along with improved capability in engineering.  Even in a recession, this approach can grow sales in new markets, especially when coupled with strong focus.

Next time you see your CEO, give a smile, a hand shake, and a thank you.

The first question – what makes products “right” for these times?  Capacity is important to understanding what makes products right.  Capacity utilization is at record lows with most industries suffering from a significant capacity glut.  With decreased sales and idle machines, customers are no longer interested in products that improve productivity of their existing product lines because they can simply run their idle machines more.  And, they are not interested in buying more capacity (your products) at a reduced price.  They will simply run their idle machines more.  You can’t offer an improvement of your same old product that enables customers to make their same old products a bit faster and you can’t offer them your same old products at a lower price.  However, you can sell them products that enable them to capture business they currently do not have.  For example, enable them to manufacture products that their idle machines CANNOT make at all.  To do that means your new products must do something radically different than before; they must have radically improved functionality or radically new features.  This is what makes products right for these times.

On to the second question – do you have the capability to engineer the right products?  It’s always a great idea to ask for products with radical improvements in functionality, but it’s another thing altogether to create products with radical improvements – to engineer them.  You must have good engineers if you are to create these types of products.  It’s good if you have been able to hold onto your engineers through the recession, that’s a good start.  If you were not, that’s bad — you must get some.

Designing products with radical improvements is difficult even for the best engineers.  Your engineers are bright but have not been taught how to design these products.  Usually they design them by instinct which is a root cause for the low hit rate and schedule misses.  Everyone is afraid of falling short of the specification and missing the schedule; going after radical improvements is a scary business.  It is scary because success rides on the instinctive skills of the engineer.  But there is a better way.  Engineers can be taught to do this work.

It is my experience that the toughest part of solving technical problems is defining the right problem to solve.  Yet, we don’t take the time to define the problem well enough.  It’s usually a ready-fire-aim approach to problem solving that is long on activity but short on progress.  Paradoxically, the engineers must slow down in order to make faster progress.  The engineers must be taught to painstakingly define the physics of technical problems using simple language (simple nouns and verbs) and simple block diagrams.  This is not easy.  It takes a lot of work to help (force) the engineers to shed the complexity to reveal the simple truth.  And, it takes a lot of energy to calm the managers who think nothing is going on during the problem definition phase.  Managers are more comfortable watching activity than watching thinking. 

In these difficult times it is especially important (and especially difficult) to give your engineers the tools, time, and training to achieve radical improvements.  But take comfort in an engineering paradox – sometimes slower is faster.