I was very honored to join Dave Harding from Eleven, Jamie Reed from Mass Art and Red Fish and Managing Partner Tucker Marion this week as panelists discussing Entrepreneurship and Design and their impact on innovation.  This panel discussion was part of the Northeastern EntreTech Forum series.  We talked from both the entrepreneurs and designers perspective and fielded questions from the audience. Here are some thoughts and highlights from the discussion:

An inside look at logo creation and development using ourselves as a case study.

To begin working on the new FlashPoint Development logo I immediately ran off to the nearest bookstore with pen and paper in hand to begin researching logos. I quickly found a series of books named “The Big Book of Logos” written by David E. Carter, the books where filled with thousands of different logos ranging from charities, spots events, to bands. I sifted through each book, page after page trying to find logos that would inspire me, once I did find a logo I liked I would quickly replicate it in my notebook and write the company that it was from. After edition 3 and 4 I had about forty logos that seemed interesting. The biggest challenge in finding a logo style was that most of them are extremely unique to the company, that it should be, and it was difficult to envision FlashPoint having a logo inspired by the ones I was looking at.

It was clear from the first round of research that not only was the logo going to change, but the complete feel of the company and what it communicates was going to be affected by the new logo. The goal was to communicate FlashPoint as a quick and efficient company. The style that was already in place was the use of typical shapes to create this metaphorical symbol of two halves being joined by the center circle, so this was the idea I needed to communicate. I first began with simple shapes and quickly built up to layers and different tones. I went back and forth between my notes from the bookstore, sometimes simply making a different version of an existing logo and hoping that would inspire a new direction. After the first round of ideation I created many different styles of logos. I started with simple circles that created a hopefully peaceful relationship between each other but showed unity, I was also very inspired by the idea of cubes coming together and different pieces fitting in with different shapes. From the first batch of ideas the FlashPoint team liked the idea and look of the circles revolving around each other. We made dozens of different versions, with numerous colors and tried it in 3D and all different orientations but could not find exactly what we hoped.

After a few days of sketching “blue sky” logos the team wanted to go in a more creative direction. The FlashPoint name should be incorporated and to really convey the idea of things coming together. From this I began making dozens of different versions of old or even existing logos and picked my favorites. I tried to pick the most bizarre and artsy ones possible as I felt that this was a creative group of people and that should be conveyed through the logo. From this round of ideation we had a broad variety of styles. We had more design like logos, simple and to the point, and more artsy logos, logos that needed to be looked at to really understand. Even after our more adventurous attempts we felt that we could go further.

An original drawing was uploaded for the team to see and it shot us into a new direction. The idea of conveying the meaning of FlashPoint was suggested. The definition of FlashPoint being: The point at which eruption into significant action, creation, or violence occurs. This idea of the point of creation was born. This new direction brought about the themes of combustion, fire, flames, sparks, and explosions. I struggled to find a way to incorporate the symbols of flame and fire into the new logo without it looking violent or scary. I drew up many different logos and slowly worked through it with the team and we decided the idea of a flame was the direction we wanted to go in. I wanted to try and create a few different styles. After a few rounds of ideation we chose to go with a more representative approach. The final logo concept is a flame flickering, this is to represent the idea of the flame being just lit and just coming into existence. The inside of the flame is rendered a different color as that is the hottest and originating point of the flame, which is FlashPoint.

We explored different color concepts to enhance the emotional design elements.  After of 15 variations we reviewed and decided on dark blue and yellow.  Once the concept and the color was decided on we looked into adding different effects like shading and 3 dimensional perspectives.  We decided to keep the logo as 2D but kept the idea of 3D for the next phase: lettering and wording placement.  The process of lettering and wording placement is an abbreviated design process because we had already decided on several boundaries throughout the first phases of development.  Several lettering options included different fonts, colors, location of Flashpoint Development and alignment of the wording around the logo. 

At the conclusion of the process we had our new logo which is then integrated into all of our marketing materials including letterhead, presentation templates and business cards.  We loved the new logo so much that it became the focus of our refined company identity in our new and upcoming website.

By Greg Moore, Flashpoint Industrial Designer and Sam Ruback, Flashpoint Development Product Development Manager

During conceptual design of your product, cost engineering is essential. Once main obstacle that new ventures face is the cost of your product versus desired selling price. Volume can have a huge impact on this. For the gBook e-book reader, you’ll note the cost reduction in total cost from low volume (1000 units) to higher volume (100,000 units) – particularly in the LCD/controller and main processor. This reduces even further when considering volumes of 500,000 to 1M.

However, the entrepreneur should be cautious when selecting features and selling price. Basing selling price on extremely high volume can be tempting – but you may be in a situation of negative margin from introduction until (if ever) you reach the volume estimate. That means negative cash-flow from the onset – which may kill the company before you ever break-even. So, perform your bottom-up and top-down cost estimates – if there is a huge disconnect you may need to cut back on features/capability and/or adjust target market/demographic (higher selling price) to make the economics work. These iterations and cost engineering are essential at the beginning stages of product design.

Many people and companies assume that when a product is designed and engineered that the product development process is complete.  That is most certainly not the case for physical assembled products – and not expecting this fact can be very frustrating for the inventor and start-up. The product development process continues with production tooling through volume ramp then right into quality control and product improvement.

Once a product or part is designed in computer-aided-design (CAD) and is prototyped, in order to go into production volume tools need to be constructed (these may be injection molds, dies, stamping tooling, etc.). These tools can take anywhere from 5 – 15 weeks to build. Once they are built, the debugging process begins. And here is where things can get frustrating to individuals and companies trying to get a product to market – expect the unexpected. In the figure below, note the testing and refinement and product production ramp phases.  It is common to think that product development is complete once detailed design is complete – it is not.

Figure. 1. Ulrich and Eppinger (2004) NPD process.

Even the most well-thought out design will invariable have issues during the last two phases (fit during assembly, sink marks, reliability issues). For complex products, this fine-tuning can take months or years. For an automobile, it can take two years from first prototype to production ready.  During this time, design and manufacturing issues are resolved in an iterative manner.  It is the response and quick resolution to these issues that is imperative to get a product to market.  Things like tooling issue matrices, daily teleconferences, etc. mean the difference of time and money. For the entrepreneur and start-up – be prepared for the unexpected and realize that it takes time to get something right. Plan for the time and costs of product development AFTER the initial design is completed.

Logos can make your brand stand out, but how do they get that way? How do inventpreneurs go from ideas, descriptions and emotions to a final product? The featured  development of our logo will show you.

The process theory revolves around iterative designs based on refinement and feedback.  The process begins with a description of the company / product.  The description should include high level functional and emotional statements for example: quality, organized, bringing elements together, which developed into two concepts: “center of the team” and “flow chart process”.  For our case, we had our designer read through the existing website and create a first round of designs (left).

We selected our two favorite of the group and encouraged our designer to experiment with colors.  We liked logos 4 and 6, but we were looking for some additional work on the logo to expand on the flow chart concept of number 4 and the center of the team concepts in number 6.

We ended up choosing the blue and green flow chart concept and we really liked it.  We brought it out into the marketplace and solicited feedback.  The feedback that we got was positive, but

we wanted to experiment with adding a little pop to

the logo.  The next round contained a lot of pop both with the logo, text and orientation.  We liked integrating a circle into the middle of the logo to get back to the center of the team concept.

Of course you knew what we ended up with at the very begining of the post, but I hope that this example of both the logo creation process and the development process as a whole has helped.

Post your Logo Story!

By Tucker J. Marion

Today, companies producing physical assembled products such as Black & Decker (B&D) have outsourced production of nearly their entire product line-up to offshore facilities [1].  It has been argued that outsourcing, or the use of outside suppliers to provide services or products, frequently offers a cost competitive alternative to performing the required activities in-house [2].  Predominantly, the overwhelming driver for offshoring and outsourcing were improved cost structures driven by much lower labor rates [3]. For example, in manufacturing U.S. workers making $20 per hour could be replaced by Chinese workers making less than a doller per hour (note references). According to Wu, et al. [4], outsourcing can be viewed as a strategically important activity that enables an enterprise to achieve both short- and long-term benefits.  These strategic benefits include focusing on core company strengths such as innovation and design in order to maintain competitive advantages.  Assigning tasks to an outside firm or to another group within the company may prove effective in accelerating the overall project [5].  This allows companies like Apple to continue to focus on developing the next iPod while not being burdened with direct manufacturing management [6].

The alternate argument is that in actuality, offshoring and outsourcing can increase total costs. A recent study by the Ventoro Institute notes that 36% of executives noted that offshoring strategies have failed [7]. Irrespective of what side of the argument one falls, one fact remains, offshoring and outsourcing has been pervasive and is accelerating. This trend has now shifted towards the sourcing of higher value-added jobs such as software development, pharmaceutical and drug research, and product design. As with manual labor, the ‘low hanging fruit’ are costs. An average software developer in India earns approximately $6,000 annually versus $63,000 in the U.S [8]. Now, research and development (R&D) is increasingly being performed in these countries on high-value projects. Historically innovation and design ownership were a key component in justifying the movement of jobs overseas: “with lower costs we can innovate more.” Now that these functions are moving as well, what will be left for U.S. employees? Will standards of living be further reduced as once high paying jobs are replaced those that are lower rage? Low-skilled works earn 20-40% less in their replacement jobs [3] – it is reasonable to expect similar figures for skilled employees.

In the U.S., we pin our future on innovation and entrepreneurship. These are critical to enhancing quality of life and standard of living not only in the U.S., but worldwide. The cornerstone of innovation and entrepreneurship are the development and commercialization of novel technologies and services through new firm genesis and sustained growth. If trends continue and more R&D is performed offshore, these countries will be given access to innovations that could foster development of new firms locally, rather than the U.S. What does this mean for the start-up? Well, outsourcing and offshoring can be invaluable to the new firm with scant resources. It allows you to focus on core strengths, while accessing expert partners. But, offshoring and outsourcing is no free lunch. There are communication and cultural barriers, potential quality issues, and intellectual property risks. As an entrepreneur, one needs to be diligent in sourcing decisions and look at the total picture of costs and sustainability. A recent example of a sourcing decision is at Tesla Motors, the electric vehicle manufacturer. After looking at total costs, they have decided to assemble battery packs for their vehicles here in the U.S., versus having them shipped from China. Another case is a Flashpoint Development client, where a partnership has been formed with an Ohio injection molder and the state to develop U.S. sourced injection molds at a fraction of the cost using a new nano material. At FlashPoint, we use outsources and offshore resources daily to great effect for our clients. However, blindly going right to an offshore supplier source is often the easy way out, and may not take the whole equation into account.

References

[1] T.J. Marion, H. Thevenot, and T.W. Simpson, “A Cost-based Methodology for Evaluating Product Platform Commonality Sourcing Decisions with Two Examples,” International Journal of Production Research, vol. 45, no. 22, pp 5285-5308, 2007.

[2] S.D. Eppinger and A.R. Chitkara, “The New Practice of Global Product Development,” MIT Sloan Management Review, 47(4) pp. 22-30, 2006.

[3] R.H.K. Vietnor, J.W. Rivkin, and J. Seminerio, “The Offshoring of America,” Harvard Business School Case Study, 9-708-030, 2008.

[4] F. Wu, H.Z. Li, L.K. Chu, D. Sculli, “An Outsourcing Decision Model  for Sustaining Long-term Performance,” International Journal of Production Research, 43(12), pp. 2513-2535,  2005.

[5] K.T. Ulrich and S.D. Eppinger, Product Design and Development, 3rd Edition. Irwin McGraw-Hill, New York, 2004.

[6] S. Levy “The Perfect Thing,” Wired Magazine, November, pp. 136, 2006.

[7] P.J. Hatch, “Offshore 2005 Research: Preliminary Findings and Conclusions,” Ventoro Institure, October 11, 2004, pp. 16-17.

[8] T. Hoffman and P. Thibodeau, “Exporting IT Jobs,” Computerworld, April 28, 2003, p. 42.

Lets go over some basics about prototyping starting with “duck tape prototypes”. Duck tape prototypes are the very first physical representations of your idea. This phase can be filled with lots of satisfaction for optimists and visionaries or disappointment for the pessimists and short sighted.

Duck tape prototypes are made from available materials found at Home Depot, the grocery store or around the house. The parts are altered using a dremel, file or epoxy putty. These newly altered parts are then assembled using epoxy, super glue and duck tape (hence the name).

These prototypes might not work. The limitations of using existing pieces, the alterations that change the structural integrity and the complications of bonding different shapes and materials will produce defects.

Are they failures? Do they have any value if they don’t work? Well I think Edison said it best when asked about his many failures at building a light bulb… “We have only found 586 ways that won’t work and won’t have to be tried again. Soon, we will find one that does.”

These prototypes are very important at the very beginning. They might not prove the concept, work well enough for testing and look nice enough to present to investors but they add value in many other aspects. You can discover if the method is right, major design issues and experiment with different materials.

It may take many or just a few duck tape prototypes to get a sense of what design will actually work. Then the deisgn, engineering and manufacturing aspects come into play….

Many times inventors come to us with their best idea, other times we are presented with the top three and asked which is best. Being confronted with delivering this type of input is difficult for a number of reasons, but mainly because we want to put resources into the best one. The difficulty lies in evaluating the ideas by market size, market pain, price (point flexibility resulting in better margins), development (cost & time), manufacturing costs, competition, potential penetration %, intellectual property.

To evaluate the designs I am going to use a figure from a prior post about evaluating design options. Check out that post to see how to fill in the chart, don’t forget to add in the other variables.

The variables reflect both the good and bad aspects of possible outcomes:

The goal of most of clients is to make money off an invention (market size, penetration %, price points / margin).  However, everyone has a finite amount of funding available, so then the goal is to make the most money with X amount of money (development & manufacturing cost).  We all have an amount of patience and few are willing to wait years to make profit, so then we add time to market to make the goal: make the most money with $X in T months (development time).

No one wants to get to market only to be met by an injunction and a lawsuit claiming infringement or only to be ripped off a few months later (IP status).  Also a product profitability can be seriously hurt when a close competitor alters their product to directly compete with your idea (competition).

Personally, when I first started inventing I had a hard time with this.  I remember bringing 20 ideas to a former mentor and being shocked and overwhelmed when I was told to pick out the top two.  I worked on the two, one of which branched out into two discrete products, so then I had three (lets call them A, B, C).  I believed that if I worked on three ideas, one would pan out and hit it big, a type of portfolio approach.  I continued working on the products and the marketing while seeking advice from S.C.O.R.E.. I realized that I needed some type of prototype, but I only had the technical skills to prototype A, so I focused on A. Eventually I was confronted with an interesting question, “If you were to ask for money (bank or investment) how much would you ask for?” This question led me down the path to find out the manufacturing costs for each of the three ideas. As it turned out A & B would cost far more than I was willing to spend or ask for, so I was left with C, an idea I had spent 20% of my time and effort on.

Another interesting thing happened. By focusing on one idea, I was able to make incredible progress. I know that if I had split my time, resources and sanity between three ideas the end results would have been far less.  Developing a product almost requires living day and night in that market and technology.

Back to our position on evaluation, I think about venture capitalists.  These investors know a specific technology or industry incredibly well.  They know all the players, the issues, past failures, technology trends and opportunities of a very small area.  These investors are sent thousands of plans a year make a few investments and the general success rate of their investments is one out of seven.  Now, we are not market experts, we are product development experts.  While we understand how to get products from idea to manufacturing and can help with some of the marketing i.e. packaging and branding, we don’t understand a lot of different customer segments very well, or at least well enough to make that determination when first exposed to an idea.

As you can see this decision involves a lot of work.  And while we can help define these variables with an opportunity analysis and feasibility study, it is really up to you (and your gut) as to which idea deserves to move forward.  Regardless of what idea you chose (and how you proceed), you are going to have to live with it, work on it and spend money on it.  Using this evaluation system, although not perfect and whose results can be easily ignored is important to acknowledge the strenghts and weaknesses of each idea.

Inventors, engineers and designers often become paralyzed by perfectionism. Getting your product just right has benefits, but also some real costs and evaluating them rationally instead of just constantly going back to the drawing board is important. To do this analysis an inventor needs to fully understand the costs of heading to market with an imperfect product or redesigning.

The costs of perfectionism:

1.  Time to market:  As you make revisions, there are other people willing to go to market with an imperfect product.  If you have ever been working on a product for years and some thing similar but not as good launches, this lesson is a hard one to learn.  Lets say that you launch 6 months later than you competition with a better product, now you are faced with the daunting task of trying to unseat them at retailers.  The conversation will probably go something like, but we have something similar and it selling (well or badly, it doesn’t really matter) and we have already set up operating arrangements with them.  There are lots of examples of products that were late to market and surpassed a first mover (they are well publicized), but as a whole most items on the rack were the first to market.

2.  Development costs: No matter how you decide to improve, whether it be a CAD redesign, a new industrial design, or another prototype these are all extra costs.  Often it isn’t the first redesign that affects the projects overall budget, but when you start redesigning and redesigning it becomes a habit and costs will escalate.

The benefits of perfectionism

1.  Product Improvement.  Hopefully after going back and redesigning the product works better, looks more pleasing is cheaper to produce or another important product characteristic.

2.  Easier Market Launch:  With a perfect product, marketing, selling and getting retailers should be easier.  There will be no bad press about this function or that because everything will work beautifully.  And of course the market is much less likely to reject the idea if there are no flaws.

3. Personal Reflection:  Knowing what you put out into the market or in front of potential licensees is important for your brain.  The anxiety of knowing that one more thing should be done disappears if everything is just right.

Other things to think about

Products rarely go through one generation.  If your product is successful, improvements will be necessary no matter what.  In fact, there is a number of cases when redesigns and subsequent versions made more money than the original (IPod!).  Often times going for perfect is also an indication of focusing on technology push (the solution) over market pull (the problem).  If your focus is on solving the problem, then you know when the product is good enough because it solves the problem.  However, when you are focused on the solution the drive to improve upon a solution beyond what is actually required is a common tendancy.

Where does this conflict come from?

Often this issue arises when you get inventors with different backgrounds.  A former corporate inventor who worked in a business setting knows that the bottom line of development costs drives product launch as much as development actually being done.  While heartbreaking the first time, an inventor in this position realizes that the product will either sink or swim and often the further development would not have influenced the market acceptance.  An entrepreneur inventor focuses on development costs and first to market.  These forces drive the entrepreneur to deliver a product that is good enough, while knowing that improvements can be made for the second version.  When inventing is your hobby, redesigns and further development is part of the fun.  Unfortunately this is often where inventors get stuck, spend a lot of money only to find that their product has been launched an move onto another idea.

How Do You Know If You Are Done?

The quick answer is prototype, test and ask the market.  If you have something that works and people like, then you are done.  If you get substantial (you will never please everyone, but when 9/10 people from your target market say X, its substantial) feedback leading you to a different direction then you might want go back and work on it.

IS YOUR PRODUCT DONE?

As you dive into your research to discover the market, competition and technology around your invention, the materials you have uncovered start to pile up. If you are like me and you like hard copies to take notes on, highlight and organize, then you will start to develop giant piles, binders and folders loosely organized around the different topics. Many inventors, because of their creativity get a little crazy with all this material. However, I’d like to share a few strategic points and tricks (although not unique or ground breaking) that can help.

1. Brainstorm Keywords
2. Google Search, go through quite a few pages
3. Stay disciplined, use a form that tracks citations and summaries of findings

Now the tricks,

Google Search, check out this link that will explain lots of tricks to isolate the important (or unimportant) keywords. They will cut down on the number of irrelevant results.

Research Template: Come up with a research template to keep track of the important products / websites (if you don’t like hard copies).  All this data will be very helpful when you do a full scale competitive product analysis.   An example template…

Google Keywords Used - You don’t want to keep searching the same ones

Product Name: Price - Find the price (most likely a range from different vendors)

Summary What is it in 1 sentence

Vendors - Know who they are because you might want to sell there someday.  Also helps gauge the strength of the competitor (E.G. Amazon or Bob’s Online Warehouse).

Links - You have to keep track of the citations (nothing more frustrating than trying to re-find a hidden product on the web)

More in-depth Summary of Product - What is their product pitch

Technical Specs - How does it work, can you learn anything from how they did it?

Online Reviews - Where is the product struggling, what is it good at?  Is yours better in the important areas???