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

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.

A large part of duck tape prototyping is doing it for cheap. This could mean $20, $200 or even more… but it is still a lot cheaper than a professional prototype. The cost of duck tape prototypes is mostly materials. There is no expensive CAD, engineering or design to be done, only fabrication time. The hidden cost of duck tape prototypes is the time, but since most inventors do this stage in their basement or workshop time isn’t a wallet type expense.

You can save time by doing your homework on materials, supplies and parts that you expect to need. Most can probably be found walking around the box stores in your area, but you could save some money and some alteration time by finding the materials online. Beware however to check the specifications / drawings of these parts to make sure they are what you think they are, and not just a pretty picture.

The major difference between duck tape prototyping and all other types of fabrication is the variety of materials you will use. You can use wood, plastic, metal and everything in between.

Also beware that you will probably use more materials than you expect. You will make mistakes on your early prototypes, having a few extra materials will help avoid wasting more time by going back to the store or waiting for shipping. Having extras will come in handy, but always save your receipts and return unused materials, that money can come in handy later in the development process.

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….

As we are beginning the CAD work for a new product today, I thought I would relay two important insight that are often missed by first timers.  Moving from 2-D to 3-D can be strenuous, so here is some help.

1.  Often 2-D drawings don’t account for requirements like board size, hand size, etc.  It might not be possible to get your napkin drawing into a functional product identical to your sketch.  When you incorporate those into a 3-D CAD, often the style can be altered.  Unfortunately, form follows function (don’t know where that comes from but it is a rule of thumb) and so let the style change but retain its core features.

2. Another very important point of CAD design is to go phase by phase.  As we have never prototyped this part before, we are looking for the first round of testing.  Will the design work?  Will the product be comfortable to use?  Is the sizing correct?  These are a few of the basic questions we would like to answer, or facilitate our client to answer.  However often first timers having heard of design for manufacture (DFM) and perhaps because they are eager to get the product on the shelf get lost here.  Do you need part structural analysis, draft / rib design, snap fit design?  No!  Why invest in making a part production ready, when you don’t really know it will work!  More importantly, the testing will often require changing the design a little.  If you change a dimension, all of the production ready designing needs to be altered as well, costing more and more. If you wait to do make the design production ready until it has passed at least the first round of prototyping, you will save a lot of money, time and head ache.

Just a few hints from your friendly neighborhood invention product development consultants at Flashpoint Development.

The Stack Master development story continues with Industrial Design, Product Design, Virtual Testing, Prototyping, Prototype Testing and Prototype Redesigns (we like to call them enhancements). If you are new to the story, check out our past posts:

Development Project Introduction

New Product Research

Feasibility Analysis, Customer Needs and Design Tools

You will be caught up quickly and enjoy this post.

Industrial Design

The preliminary design was based off our competive and market needs, customer needs, and our designer’s creativity.  After presenting the concepts to the CEO of PaperPro, we decided on a product direction.  We created several variations of the direction and the Uber Fusion Curves won overall.

Product Design & Virtual Testing

We identified the critical components of the technology that needed to be designed them in Solidworks.

We knew that we had to scale up the power spring (to 100 pages) without requiring too much more force.  But how much?  Well COSMOS answered that question through our virtual testing.  We created a graph based on those results showing the relationship between thickening the spring and the force of the spring.

Prototyping

With a good understanding of the product design and an updated CAD virtual prototype we sent The Stack Master off to China to be prototyped.  We used clear stereo lithography, a common practice because it allows you to see into the prototype and observe the mechanism working.

Prototype Testing

Testing the Stack Master prototype was quick, informative and effective.  The striker (part that shoots the staple) and other plastic parts needed to be metal didn’t last long, so we commissioned those parts to be made by CNC machining.  This lead to more testing, but it wasn’t long before we had a decent list of required enhancements.

The enhancements should be organized to maximize an effective solution to the cause of the issue. A format that we use is

1. Part, organize the changes by major part
2. Issue, what went wrong?
3. Cause, why did it go wrong?
4. Resolution, how are we going to fix it?

Sometimes it is easier to answer questions three and four with a graphical illustration.  An example of the visualization that we used is:

Once we had a good idea of the issues and ways to improve the prototype, we began the engineering changes.

More to come on our Prototype as we prepare for production and market launch.