Designing with the customer or patient in mind should be the design process of the future.

By Kim Ukura, Associate Editor, PD&D

Last October I sprained my ankle playing indoor soccer. It was a stupid mistake – stepping on a teammate’s foot and falling badly – as well as my first serious injury in my new hometown of Madison, WI.

After limping slowly around for a couple of days without much improvement, I reluctantly sorted through my insurance paperwork to find a physician and booked an appointment at a local clinic.

I distinctly remember how disoriented I was by the entire experience. First, the parking lot confused me, and I parked at the wrong end of the hospital, meaning I had to walk the longest possible distance to reach my appointment. When I finally made it into the exam room, the doctor gave me a quick once-over and declared it a “standard sprain” but suggested an MRI just to be sure.

When I asked how to navigate to that wing of the hospital, a busy nurse pointed down a long hallway without a second glance. I had to walk all the way back to the opposite end of the clinic, on a badly-sprained ankle, to have the second test done! As I shuffled away, no one bothered to ask if I wanted a wheelchair or some assistance. I was frustrated, hurt, and deeply annoyed.

Medical design – whether we’re talking about the places patients visit or the devices doctors use – can be a tricky business. When designing a product that is used by a variety of people, each with different interests, what considerations do medical design engineers make?

I got thinking about these issues once again after I came across a video created by Worrell, an industrial design firm in Minnesota. In the video, titled “Design We Can All Live With,” Worrell brought together a patient and a physician to discuss the information imbalance in the patient and physician relationship and what their firm could do to help.

The video debuted back in September 2010, but it came to my attention after reading an article by the line, an online magazine highlighting the “new economy in the Twin Cities.” The article discussed Worrell’s approach to human-centric medical design; the company contends that “focusing on the human experience leads to breakthrough products.”

As the article points out:

Anyone who’s ever had to navigate a confusing hospital complex or request health records from a provider has probably reached this conclusion at some point: our health care system wasn’t designed for patients.

And generally, they’re right. Health care design has tended to revolve around the concerns of physicians, insurers, and attorneys, but arguably the most important stakeholders, patients, have largely been left out of the process.

Obviously, Worrell isn’t the only company using a new design rubric in their product development process. Last year I wrote a story featuring a product design firm, Product Development Technologies, that highlighted a research-driven processes whereby the company uses ethnographic techniques to learn what consumer needs are before designers even pick up a pencil to start designing.

These two techniques, although they used different terms, have a lot in common. Both start from the premise that the consumer should have a say in how a product works. Both admit that product designers don’t always know best. And both can be extremely involved processes that might delay time-to-market for important products.

Even so, designing with the customer or patient in-mind seems like it should be the design process of the future. Now that customers can go online to research their options, make intelligent comparisons, and invest in the devices they feel most comfortable with, their needs are at the forefront – whether design engineers like it or not.

The challenge going forward will be to continue to innovate while meeting the demands of all stakeholders in the product design process.

How often do patient or customer concerns come up during your product design process? Should engineers be incorporating this feedback into new products, or continuing to do what they think is best? Email your thoughts to kim.ukura@advantagemedia.com.

By Bruce Hamilton, OldLeanDude.org

The following is a true story but told with time compression – a nine month period shortened to three – in order cover the events in less than two pages:

Paul was a shift supervisor with 32 years on the floor. Hitting schedules was his job. His manager, Bob, related this to me: “Paul is a hard worker who has held nearly every position in production. He wants to do the right thing, but he struggles as a supervisor. His employees don’t listen to him and his department is always running behind schedule. I don’t think he’s up to the challenge.”

When I first approached Paul with the idea of continuous improvement he sighed, “Oh boy thanks. Why me?”

I lied a little bit. “Your manager thinks your experience as a supervisor will be valuable for our pilot project.” Paul just rolled his eyes.

“Is there anything in particular that you would like to work on to improve?” I asked.

“What do you mean by improvement?” Paul responded.

“I mean what keeps you awake at night when your worry about your work?” I said.

Paul thought for a moment and replied, “We’re missing our deliveries . . . which is what I should be working on right now rather than talking to you.”

“What are the major causes of late deliveries?” I asked.

“People,” he shot back, “all they do is complain.”

“Maybe they’re trying to let you know about legitimate problems” I said.

“Hah!” said Paul.

“Okay,” I said, “I have an assignment for you if you’re willing to try it: For the next two weeks write down every complaint you hear, and then ask each “complainer” to show you what they’re talking about. Then, if you’re able to, try to address their complaints. I’ll be back in two weeks and you can let me know then what you’ve discovered.”

“I’ll give it a try,” Paul responded reluctantly.

- – - – - – - – - -

When I returned two weeks later, Paul approached me list in hand with a bounce in his step. “I have a few things to show you,” he said, “Come take a look.”

In the factory, Paul walked over to some plywood risers holding material bins. Pointing to a woman in assembly, Paul declared, “Arlene here complained that material containers on the floor made pulling parts hard on their backs, so I built these risers.” He went on.

“Manny complained that burrs on these parts doubled the time it took them to assemble, so I sent that material back to machining to fix the problem.”

“John complained that these machined parts containers were too heavy and he was the only one who could move them, so they broke the container down into two smaller ones.”

“Who is ‘they’?” I asked. “My employees”, Paul responded.

Paul went on to show me a half-dozen more improvements, including a lazy-Susan part dispenser that he’d built on his own time in his basement. Pointing to it, he said, “This was a pretty good complaint.”

“Can we call it an idea rather than a complaint?” I offered. “These are nice improvements. What did you discover from the assignment?”

“They have some legitimate complaints,” answered Paul, “I’ll keep working on them.”

“Great. I’ll be back in a month,” I said. “You can update me then.”

- – - – - – - – - -

When I returned, Paul showed me a six page list. “There are some really good complaints here, “ he said, “but I can’t keep up with them.”

“Can you get some help from your employees?” I asked.

“Maybe,” Paul said, “Manny has offered to help, and we are kind of caught up at the moment.”

“Who is we?” I asked “Our employees . . . and me,” Paul said.

- – - – - – - – - -

Two months later, I stopped in to visit Paul’s department. The floor looked different: uncluttered and visually clear, with lots of little inventions to assist the workflow. Paul looked different too; he was smiling.

How are the complaints going I said jokingly. “They’re not complaints,” he replied, “they’re good ideas, and now we’re hitting our schedules almost every day.”

“So, what have you discovered?” I asked.

Paul beamed, “My employees are brilliant!”

- – - – - – - – - -
Later, Paul’s manager confided his discovery, “Paul has shown me something I didn’t know he had. He’s become quite a leader.”

Do you know Paul? Let me hear your thoughts.

by Greg Harris, Vice President of Marketing, Jameco Electronics

Life has a way of coming full circle. As kids, our focus is all about fun. At some point, however, most of us turn serious. In fact, we turn on people who have too much fun and think of them as "immature." By the time we become seniors many will shed their seriousness, and while some could be labeled as "eccentric," most are just having fun.

I spent a long weekend recently talking to Jameco fans at the annual Maker Faire in San Mateo, California. One thing I heard consistently is that many people don't have time for pure fun in their daily life. Since the Maker Faire is a celebration of fun, it was a little hard to argue with the importance of the concept, but clearly many of us are frustrated that fun is not a daily priority.

At the risk of disagreeing with so many of the loyal Jameco fans I met, I think there is no reason to put off some serious fun until the retirement years.

The Maker Faire, in its sixth year, drew over 100,000 people and encourages the shedding of corporate seriousness to celebrate the making of things less mundane and just for the fun of it. I couldn't have asked for a better place to meet Jameco customers.

After two days of talking to customers who, quite frankly, were longing to have more fun in their life, I started to think about the importance of having fun in life.  

As a young man coming out of college I had two job offers. I struggled to decide which job to take. I was presented with two very different industries in two different geographies with two very different titles working in two very different organizations. One seemed fun; the other, not so fun.

How did I decide? I followed the money. One paid $3,000 more a year and that tipped the scale. As a cash-poor college student, it may not be surprising that my entire career strategy hinged on a few thousand dollars, but as I progressed in my career, I found myself thinking less with my head and more with my heart. Having fun at the office became increasingly more important.

There is nothing better than finding a way to have fun at your job. Now I can't say that I had the courage later in life to tell my wife, "Honey, I decided to take the job that pays less because it seems like I would have more fun." But in fact, that's what I did.

I realize not everything and every job can be fun. If fun at work is impossible, then in my opinion fun at home becomes critical. I suspect that Makers at the Maker Faire must have horrible jobs because it was clear that most have gone way over the top in pursuing fun outside of the workplace.

The faire is there to celebrate the wackily inclined and to inspire the rest of us to reprioritize taking time to have fun.

The typical Jameco customer was drawn like a moth to light when they saw bag upon bag of electronic components. It was easy to see that there was a project or a longing just by analyzing the glint in their eyes. But what came out of their mouth were concerns about time. While I understand the guy who complained about the rigors of caring for new-born twins, there were few who could articulate why they haven't made fun a higher priority.

Personally, I'm committed to fun and while talking to Jameco fans was certainly fun, I had even more fun taking pictures. The Jameco team works hard every day to make fun an important part of every day. It's clear that employees who are having fun work just a little bit harder.

As a customer I hope you'll notice a little bit of chuckle in our step. Having a good laugh or encouraging a wacky new electronics project are all part of what we love about working at Jameco.

Life is too short. The time for fun is now. How could you disagree?

Do you need a recommendation for a fun project? Do you have an example of a fun electronics project? Write me and I'll do my best to connect people with fun projects to those that need a recommendation for fun.

by Patrick Hunter, Vice President and General Manager, Quickparts

Can an organization serve more than one master? For the past century the manufacturing community has been trying to serve multiple masters, but not being very successful at it. Manufacturers feel they have to serve the customer but they invest all of their time and resources into their manufacturing technologies.

They buy new equipment and software, hire new people, and constantly focus on driving the efficiencies of their manufacturing capabilities. The desire to make manufacturing better seems to outweigh the ability to serve the customer sufficiently.

The good news is that the world reaps the benefits of the most advanced, most efficient manufacturing in the history of mankind. This efficiency increases the output of a factory while lowering the costs. It also helps entire industries maintain their output capacity for their market without the scalability challenges of human resources.

The U.S. continues to increase the manufacturing output even though there are reports about how manufacturing jobs are declining. Perhaps measuring the output by the number of workers is an antiquated approach, which can be seen on YouTube where videos of factories that operate with almost no humans can be found.

Who has paid the price, though not always financially, of these technological implementations and increased efficiencies? It's the customer who, for decades has suffered with their manufacturing partner being focused on the process and not on them.

The customer wants to think they are more important than the process, and the manufacturer wants to believe they are decent business people, but you can look at the behaviors of the manufacturers and the experiences of their customers to determine the reality.

If you have dealt with a manufacturer for any duration, then you have had a customer experience that may have gotten you what you needed, but was not similar to something you have experienced from a consumer-focused company of the likes of Nordstrom’s.

You may actually feel that you are bothering the manufacturer with your requirements of speaking to a human, wanting an accurate quote, wanting an update on your late shipment, etc. It may seem as a burden to them and come across as such.

The reality is: The customer is manufacturers’ paycheck, which is quickly forgotten when the new machine arrives, or the process needs to be improved, or they want a larger factory.

Of course it’s not the manufacturer's fault. Being a manufacturer today is very tough and demanding. We work in a truly global market where the company in Indiana is competing head-to-head with the company in Shenzhen. The ability to communicate and share pricing information is near instant and the access to information is overwhelming.

The design of products is also more difficult with the evolution of CAD and materials. Manufacturers today are not just making simple boxes, but complex, organic parts. However, not providing the attention to customers they deserve is not a good business practice. Manufacturers should invest the same energy they put in their manufacturing process into their customer management process.

Interestingly, we have a real-world experience of the phenomenon described above. Quickparts has always been focused on the customer, and started the business with technology designed to make it easy for customers to buy parts. Quickparts only had the customer to serve, so they were the one and only master.

By focusing on the customer, loyal fans were developed and Quickparts was able to maintain a Net Promoter Score at the same levels of non-manufacturing focused companies, such as Amazon and GE. They were also able to implement powerful strategies that enhanced their communication with the customer.

One of my favorites is the HMD program, which stands for “how’s my driving” taken from the stickers on the back of delivery trucks. Quickparts wanted their customers to be able to easily send an email that offered feedback on how the company was doing. Emails went directly to the entire executive team. Most responses were very positive accolades for the team, while some were complaints in which the customer got an immediate call and resolution.

The point is, if manufacturers are focused on the customer, it’s not hard to find ways to make it easier for the customer. If manufacturers are focused on other parts of their business, then the customer will always be down the list and these easy strategies become impossible implementations.

Manufacturers need to be aware of their challenges and what master they choose to serve. Perhaps they should intentionally break their company into divisions that allow the master to be determined by the purpose of the division instead of sacrificing the entire company by serving the wrong master.

by Anna Wells, Executive Editor, IMPO

As someone who spent the better part of college studying modern literary theory — a vocation so rich with complexity yet sparse in practical application — I can sympathize with the other liberal arts devotees out there: the ones with the music performance or art history degrees. Perhaps when I have a child in college and I am footing the bill, my understanding will lessen… but I hope not. For the sake of erudition (and the ability to use words like erudition in a sentence), I don’t regret the essays on Death in Venice, or the day I read The Sound & The Fury in UW-Madison’s Memorial Library stacks.

Still, perhaps if I were selecting my college classes today, I’d have something a little more practical in mind, especially after the Great Recession taught us that good jobs don’t hide waiting for us in a Trojan horse somewhere… not like they used to anyway.

Time.com recently released its list of the current 10 most lucrative college majors, along with the 10 least. As manufacturing engineers, would it surprise you to know that 8 of the 10 titles end with “engineering”? Here are the top ten, relative to earnings level:

• Mining and Mineral Engineering
• Metallurgical Engineering
• Mechanical Engineering
• Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering
• Electrical Engineering
• Chemical Engineering
• Aerospace Engineering
• Mathematics and Computer Sciences
• Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences and Administration
• Petroleum Engineering

This list came as an interesting follow-up to an article I read on CNN last week that highlighted a growing problem where undergraduates across the country are choosing to leave science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) programs before they graduate with those degrees. Many students in those STEM fields struggle to complete their degrees in four years, or drop out, according to a 2010 University of California, Los Angeles, study. In fact, nearly 22 percent dropped out after five years.

According to the CNN article, James Brown, executive director of the STEM Education Coalition, said a big problem is that educators don’t often realize the urgency of fostering the next generation of American scientists and engineers: “Universities and faculty have to understand this is a national priority,” Brown said.

One of the reasons these programs have such a high failure rate is relatively straightforward: the course work is hard. But as a matter of national priority, we should be careful about how much failure we perpetuate. While nobody wants an un- or under-qualified electrical engineer, there’s something to be said about a little support to help these kids flourish.

As it becomes more evident that highly-trained workers are the sticking point for America’s ability to thrive in some of these competitive global fields, it’s up to us to do whatever we can to encourage some of them to hop off the corporate ladder and take a stab at careers in automation and design. Think of all of the would-be STEM leaders of today who migrated to business school when high finance was the place to be. Now, it seems the tables have turned. And at this point, it is we who should be full of sound and fury over the fact that these jobs are funneling overseas partly due to a public education system that undervalues these types of skills.

I’m certainly not telling you to yank your daughters and sons out of their dance programs and debate clubs. But as business leaders, perhaps you could consider ways in which you can lead the charge. Open up your business for tours and career days, mentor teenagers (show them the list!), or donate some money to keep your local high school shop program in place.

There’s nothing wrong with spending your college years honing your skills in the area of your choosing, but parsing a novella by Robbe-Grillet is not going to get you on that top ten list, most likely. STEM rules the day, and we’d better get behind it before our competitive opportunity gets re-shelved and forgotten like so many stacks of vintage books, waiting to be read.

What are your thoughts? Post your comments below or send them to anna.wells@advantagemedia.com.

by Mike Schmidt, Associate Editor, Manufacturing Business Technology

I’ve been a die-hard sports fan all my life. As I’ve grown and matured over the years, my highly-emotional, rabid fandom has evolved into something more statistically-oriented and analytical in nature. But that also means I have less and less tolerance for coaches and executives who don’t look at sports the same way. Call my attitude snobbish or egotistical, but if I’m going to invest my time and energy in following sports, I prefer if high-level management takes a rational approach to running my favorite teams.

So few things in life make me cringe more than when my beloved Milwaukee Bucks, Milwaukee Brewers, or Green Bay Packers throw mounds of money at an overvalued free agent player (I could name names, but I won’t), or trade for a player with an albatross of a contract. These moves can have devastating and long-term effects on organizational goals and results. No one stands to benefit when such a move is made; even the overpriced player is adversely affected. He or she often becomes a lightning rod for fan and media criticism, and it often overshadows the contributions the player brings to the team.

So forgive me if I fail to properly understand the reasoning behind what is currently taking place in corporate boardrooms across the United States. I can’t seem to wrap my mind around the fact that CEOs at the nation’s largest companies are receiving more compensation than in 2007 – before the all-too-recent “Great Recession.”

A recent Associated Press analysis found the typical pay package for the head of a company in the Standard & Poor's 500 was $9 million in 2010. That reversed two straight years of declines, but was still significantly more than the typical pay package of $8.4 million in 2007 – when the nation’s economy was booming. Furthermore, the increase was 24 percent over 2009.

This begs the following question: What lessons, if any, did Corporate America take from the Great Recession of 2008-2010?

The companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 (allegedly) employ some of the best and brightest business minds in the country. Retaining executive-level talent is important, but the economy isn’t exactly running like a high-performance engine right now. Cost control and fiscal responsibility, as opposed to overaggressive and short-sighted investment in internal talent, should rule the day. This is not only the proper approach in these still-uncertain economic times, but at all times.

Sports fans like myself hope, pray, and cross our fingers that our favorite teams’ general managers hold strong when faced with the temptation to overpay for players. The highly competitive nature of the sports world puts pressure on organizations to dole out the dollars in an effort to lure and retain talent.

It’s no different in the business world. Most, if not all, U.S. companies suffered greatly as a result of the rampant fiscal irresponsibility of the pre-recession years. Those lean times should have led Corporate America to embrace a more rational approach to running their organizations. Obviously, that hasn’t happened.  So much for a lesson learned.

What are your thoughts? Post your comments below or send them to mike.schmidt@advantagemedia.com.

by Amy Lawrence, Features Editor, Manufacturing.net

I suffer from Not-Enough-Hours-In-The-Day Syndrome. I barely have enough time during the day for daily maintenance, let alone preventative maintenance. 

Since I have a company computer, I assumed that all of my antivirus software was current and that I was protected from threats. I didn’t think I needed to download any anti-spyware or anti-malware programs. I was wrong.

It all started innocently enough. It was the day of the Kentucky Derby. I watched the race, but since none of the horses that I bet on were anywhere near the top three, I decided to check online to see if they actually finished the race.

I had Internet Explorer set to open to MSN, and I found an article on Derby highlights. As soon as I clicked on the article, IE closed. I chalked it up to a random technology gremlin and attempted to open IE again. Then everything spiraled out of control.

A nifty piece of scare-ware called “XP Total Security” kept popping up with pretend virus scans that supposedly found something like 56 viruses and security threats on my machine. I tried to do a scan with my antivirus software to get rid of it. No luck. I tried to check my security settings under Control Panel. It blocked me from opening it. I tried to go to Google and download something to make it disappear. It blocked me from opening IE too. 

IT spent over an hour with me on Monday morning trying to get rid of it. Thankfully, “XP Total Security” is no more and my computer is back to normal. But what if something went wrong? 

I’ll never know if having Malwarebytes on my computer would have stopped the problem in its tracks, but it would’ve been nice to have the option. I had nothing on my computer other than my antivirus, which the IT department told me was out of date anyway. 

Luckily, my technological trauma wasn’t too bad by other disaster standards. After all, I’m just me, not an owner of a company. Even if you had something as simple as my computer dilemma, think about what that could mean. An order could get deleted. Or an extended delay due to computer problems could cost you a customer.

Of course, you can’t really plan for everything. There will be injuries and illnesses, natural disasters, financial issues, etc. But with all that already hanging over your head, you have to guard against what you can.