Critical Success Factors in a Furniture Development Process

Critical Success Factors in a FurnitureDevelopment Process

Furniture design process review through a Finnish-Japanese design project.

Antti Pitkänen Industrial and Strategic DesignUniversity of Art and Design HelsinkiMA Thesis

Tutor: Johanna Vuorio Avarte

2

Critical Success Factors in a Furniture Development Process-Furniture design process review through a Finnish-Japanese design project.

Critical Success Factors in a FurnitureDevelopment ProcessFurniture design process review through a Finnish-Japanese design project.

Antti Pitkänen Industrial and Strategic DesignUniversity of Art and Design HelsinkiMA Thesis

Tutor: Johanna Vuorio, Avarte

3


Table of Contents

1. Introduction 6

Starting Point 6Purpose 6Research Question 7Terminology 8Introduction of the main areas of study 8

2. Invited Overseas Designers program 12

General Background of the Program 12Oribe design Centre and the Universities 13Chair as a Process 14Experienced Design Management as Guidance 26The Many Needs of the Deliverables 27

3. Theory: New Product Development process 31

Definition of New Product Development Process 31The Main Advantages of a Well-defined Process 32Breaking Down the Process 34Roles in the Process 42Deliverables Produced During a Process. 43

4. Case: Avarte 48

Sniffing out the Global Trends 48Flexibility in Creativity 49A Close Circle of Friends 50Heavy Reports and Assessments Forms not Needed 51

5. Case: Fritz Hansen 52

A Philosophical Approach to the Challenges in the Process 52Two Years to Showroom 53A Strong Role of Brand Management in New Product Development 54Detailed Documentation to Commit the Stakeholders. 55

6. Case: Martela 56

Ideas from Many Sources 56Selling the Idea Throughout the Process 58The Many Players of the Development Process 58The Importance of the Brief 60

7. Conclusions 62

Success factors 64Further Recommendations 69

4


List of FiguresFigure 1. Structure of the Thesis. 9Figure 2. Examples of the Mood boards. 16Figure 3. Figure Example of the 2D Illustrations. 17Figure 4. Visualizations of the presented concepts. 18Figure 5. Visualization of the 5th concept. 19Figure 6. Development of the Neo-N concept. 20Figure 7. Pictures of the model making. 21Figure 8. Test model with the frame and the seat 22Figure 9. Marketing material for Neo by Oribe Design Centre. 23Figure 10. Photography of the Neo chair by Oribe Design Centre. 24Figure 11. Photography of the Neo chair by Oribe Design Centre. 25Figure 12. The Generic Product Development Process (Ulrich & Eppinger) 35Figure 13. The New Product development process (Jones / 1997 / p.xii) 37Figure 14. Stage-Gate Process by Cooper 39Figure 15. The Tasks and Responsibilities of the Key functions. (Ulrich & Eppinger)) 45Figure 16. The Lead Roles of the Key functions. (Tim Jones) 46Figure 17. Avarte chairs (www.avarte.fi) 48Figure 18. Fritz Hansen chairs (www.fritzhansen.com) 52Figure 19. Chairs by Martela (www.martela.fi) 56

5


Acknowledgements

I would like to thank all those that have supported and contributed to the creation of this thesis.

The thesis took a year and a half to finish and during this time I have seen places and met

people that have made me feel a fortunate person to be doing what I am doing.

First and foremost I would like to thank Yoko Asano and the staff at the Oribe Design Centre

for the work that they have done to make a project such as the Invited Overseas Designers

program to exist, giving designers such as myself a chance to participate in creating something

truly great.

I would also like to thank the client company, Toyoisu, in making the project such an interesting

experience.

A big thank you also goes to my tutor, Johanna Vuorio, for having kept the door open for me to

come and talk about the ideas and challenges that I was confronted by.

All of the interviewed companies were open in sharing information and in answering my ques-

tions In particular, I would like to thank Christian Grosen Rasmussen from Fritz Hansen, as well

as Pekka Toivola and Kimmo Sundström from Martela.

To my new and old colleagues that opened your pools of knowledge I’m in eternal gratitude, in

particular to Veijo Hertell who proved to be a library of good information and advice during this

time.

To my family and those close to me I would like to firstly apologize, as you have had to par-

ticipate in this rather intense journey, and thank you for making it bearable. To my girlfriend,

Laura, thank you standing by me despite the long trips and ill communicated hours in front of

the computer.

To all the professors and staff of the universities that I have attended during these years of my

masters, thank you for the support and time that you have so generously shared.

To all those people that I forgot or didn’t mention a collective appreciation for all your time and

understanding.

6


Introduction1.

Starting Point

This thesis is a description of a project carried out under specific time, space and cultural con-

straints. It is a description of a journey of learning through different contexts that have shaped

the final outcome.

At the time when the project started I had very little previous experience in working in the fur-

niture industry. My skills and experience were from the product development in the industrial

context, ephemeral architecture and design consulting. Facing the new challenges of the fur-

niture project that I set on, I found myself in the need of finding out what the standard or the

best ways of working within this new context were. The following description is an attempt to

get to the root of the issues behind furniture development, by tackling it from various different

angles and using available resources within certain time constraints.

Purpose

My interest to investigate this theme has risen from the wish to understand the bigger picture

behind the issues related to New Product Development Processes and further to evaluate my

performance and the methodologies that I have used during the course of the Invited Over-

seas Designers program. I believe that having had this experience has improved my skills as

a designer and developed my capabilities to take part in projects of similar characteristics in

the future.

For the community around me I hope this analysis will serve as a description of some of the

areas of product development in the furniture industry. During the course of the research for

this thesis, I found to my surprise that there was actually very little publicly available information

on the methods and underlying processes used in developing products in the furniture industry.

I hope to have brought some light to what those best practices are within this industry and to

have raised some new questions to be looked at in more detail in the future.

To all those students planning to attend the Invited Overseas Designers program or any other

similar program, I hope this thesis will make it easier to decide to set on an adventure to chal-

lenge yourself and the skills that you have grown accustomed to, always remembering to be

7


critical and observant of the mechanisms that affect our role as designers in a much wider

context, in that of a new product development.

Research Question

What are the key factors that promote the success of a furniture development process?

The aspects of success are very much determined by the context by which they are judged

upon. Success relies heavily on the expectations that are imposed to every single project. As

such it can be seen that there are many different grades of success. Let’s discuss this idea a

bit further: Can the process of developing products be considered a success if it manages to

answer the initial brief? Can it still be a success if it hasn’t answered the brief at all, but has

brought out a completely new result which benefits the client company´s core business and

opens new possibilities? Is new product a success, if it is a commercial failure?

Success is something that we aim to in all areas of our daily operations. It is also an area where

design still needs to prove its capabilities in. As the design profession is a moderately new

member the functions of corporate operations, it is often faced with the challenge of proving its

role in creating value in the same way as marketing or technology innovations do. One of the

major problems is that design, in the common perception, is seen to be the influencing factor

on aesthetic and functional aspects of a product in development. Aesthetics on the other hand

has very much to do with the way it is perceived, making it a dimension that is hard to measure.

How do you then evaluate whether a product has been successful or that it possesses what

was desired or needed?

The development of new products is nearly always a job which is done as a part of a larger

entity. Seldom is there just one person or one department involved in the development of a new

product. In order to get to the root of the discussion behind the factors influencing new product

development, it’s also important to see the other tasks that are carried alongside design. Often

these individual actions are carried out as sequential or parallel activities, repeating them-

selves in all projects but in infinite configurations with infinite results. This is why it’s important

to look at the order in which they are done and how they relate to each other, that is to say to

the process. In this thesis I have attempted to answer the question of success in the product

development process in the furniture industry, by looking at the roles that are played within the

8


process, the structure, that is to say the stages that the process is built of, and the outputs that

it creates.

Terminology

For the purpose of this thesis I have used the term design, as the more narrow term linked to

that of applied arts and in further in reference to physical objects. This defines the act of design

in relation to visual appearance and human factors (Cagan & Vogel, 2002, p.139) and excludes

the other definitions used in reference to architecture, graphic design, engineering, service de-

sign etc. Under the definition used during this thesis it will involve industrial design, i.e. design

applied to industrial production and further furniture design as the design act specific to the

furniture industry. The reason to make this distinction is due to the fact that the two disciplines

are often taught as separate degrees, and are seen by those that practice it as separate crafts,

requiring a different set of skills. However the borderline is often blurry and hard to define as

concluded by the work presented here.

Process will be defined during the course of the thesis more in a more detail manner, but for the

time being it can be considered as a sequence of steps that transforms a set of inputs into a set

of outputs. The term of New Product Development Process refers to the process of conceiving,

designing and commercializing a product (Ulrich & Eppinger / 2003 / p.12).

Success is defined by the encyclopaedia as the “achievement of a desired end”. In the case of

this thesis it will be used in reference to New Product Devel-

opment process. Hence, a product that is conceived, de-

signed and commercialized can therefore be considered a

success.

Introduction of the main areas of study

This thesis consists of three parts. First, there is the analysis of the project in which I took part

in realized under the Invited Overseas Designers program. In the second part I have taken

upon to make a literature review on New Product Development Processes and the building

blocks that they are constructed of. The third major part is the description in the form of the

three case studies, of three very different Nordic furniture manufacturing companies and their

“Success- the achievement of a de-sired end”

Encyclopaedia

9


approach to product development process.

In the end these three different areas of study are tied in together through an evaluation of

those methods used and results described in the project, the general theory and the case ex-

amples, and are further discussed in the light of the research question (Figure 1).

The project used as the main case study is the outcome of an Invited Overseas Designers

program organized in-between Oribe Design Centre and University of Art and Design Helsinki.

The client in this case was a moderately small Japanese furniture manufacturer, Toyoisu Co,

Ltd., for whom I performed as the designer. The official part of the project started on the 19th

of September 2006 and continued until 18th of January 2007. The final result of the project is

a chair called Neo that was launched commercially in March 2008 in Japan.

The Invited Overseas Designers program was created to generate new products and products

concepts for the local companies operating in and around Gifu prefecture and to serve as an

opportunity for the designer to acquire skills and experience required working in a foreign envi-

ronment. The program has been running since 2001 and originally the projects were directed

towards the needs of the important ceramics industry operating in the area, but in the last

couple of years other projects such as lighting and furniture design have been undertaken.

Projects realized during this program have varied greatly, imposing a range of different kinds of

requirements on the management capabilities of the design centre. This is due to the nature

of the project as the realization time of the projects are short, distances long and cultures often

Structure of the Thesis.Figure 1.

INTRODUCTION1.

INVITED OVERSEAS DESIGNERS PROGRAM2.

NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT THEORY3.

MARTELA

CONCLUSIONS7.

AVARTE4. FRITZ HANSEN5. 6.

10


very different. Nevertheless, Oribe Design Centre has a very closely studied and designed

program, a process through which they have managed to obtain success for many projects.

A great deal of this is due to the high level expertise within the organization that has enabled

minimize risks and plan up front the whole time during the participation of each of the design-

ers.

New Product Development processes are widely studied in the scholarly community and are

often adapted to the industry requirements to be used in various ways. By researching into

the more popular schools of thought of New Product Development processes I have managed

to develop my understanding of the general structure and the building blocks which form and

influence the New Product Development process. In order to limit the scope of the analysis I

have chosen three models generally accepted by the community. The first of them is the New

Product Development process developed by Tim Jones which is probably the closest to the

product design point of view. The second model is the Stage-Gate model by Robert G. Cooper

(Winning at New Products), a model applicable to many different kinds of product developing

industries. The third model is that of Karl Ulrich and Steven Eppingers’ Generic Product De-

velopment Process (Product Design and Development) which makes a special emphasis on

how different functions inside the companies fit to a single process model. During the course

of the literature review I have also found many interesting ideas in other sources but have kept

them more in a supporting and deepening role in order to keep the discussion in a controllable

dimension.

The theoretical framework has been illustrated and supported with three interview based ar-

ticles. They have allowed me to look at the way new products are developed in three very dif-

ferent, yet firmly established Nordic Furniture manufacturing companies. To this I resorted as

for my surprise I found that there was very little publicly available material on furniture industry

specific New Product Development processes. This is very interesting as the industry is known

to very quickly produce and modify according the market specific needs, and many of the com-

panies operate on an international field. The case companies were chosen according to their

specific field in which they work in, their good reputation and their willingness to share their

knowledge for the purpose of this essay.

Focusing my efforts to observe the project as a process and making the literature analysis

11


together with the interviews has also helped me to reduce the possible subjective interpreta-

tion of the events that took place during my participation in the Invited Overseas Designers

program. On the other hand breaking down the discussion of the development of a chair as a

process has allowed me to define the factors that are crucial for me to as a designer to take

into account when participating in new product development projects.

12


Invited Overseas Designers program2.

General Background of the Program

The development for the Invited Overseas Designers program started out as a design and cul-

tural exchange program in June 1997, but it was not until 2000 when the design development

projects took a form somewhat similar to the present one.

Oribe Design Centre opened its doors in April 2001 and the

first students took part in the program. The product develop-

ment projects further developed to take the present structure

in April 2005, by which design development is carried out in

designer’s country of residence including two visits to Gifu

for meetings during the period of development, and the par-

ticipation of the design advisors. Until 2007 four projects

were conducted under the program every fiscal year, but adding to those some of the projects

that have taken from one year to another to finish and projects that have been carried out with

Japanese designers, there are many more active projects than the four at any point in time.

The Invited Overseas Designers program is designed for each fiscal year from April 1st to

March 31st. It is designed to finish within the fiscal year and each year the contract period of

each designer and contract details are designed reflecting back on the feedback of the previ-

ous year’s projects. Until a couple of years ago the program used to last for 4 months, but due

to the feedback from previous years about the program being too tight, in 2007 the program

was changed so that the part of the program in which the designer participated now lasts for 6

months. The actual projects stay active in the Oribe Design Centre after participation of the de-

signer has ended until they are launched, which some cases has taken up to couple of years.

The success rate of the project developed until launch and commercialization within the pro-

gram is very high and has been on the rise for the last years. In 2003 around 45% of the proj-

ects were completed to a result that made it possible for them to be launched. In 2005 already

75% of the designs were commercialized. As the program is 100% funded by the government

of Gifu Prefecture, the results carry a great importance in justifying how public money is being

spent.

“Purpose: To develop new value-added

products, which po-tentially tap the mar-ket and contribute to

revitalization of the local industry”

13


Despite the major work done and success of the Design Centre the future looks uncertain. In

March 2008 only weeks before the essay was to finish it was announced that the Oribe Design

Centre would be dissolved and integrated into Gifu Economic and Industrial Promotion Center.

As a result, the Invited Overseas Designers Program will most likely to be reduced in size and

probably conducted in a different way in the future.

Oribe design Centre and the Universities

The Invited Overseas Designers Program is organized together with collaborating universities.

In the past there were altogether three universities participating in the program; Royal College

of Art (RCA), University Art and Design Helsinki (TAIK), Domus Academy from Milan and the

American institute called the International Design Network Foundation (IDNF)) . But in the last

years the collaboration has been carried out mainly with the first two universities, with each

university sending one or two students to attend the program.

TAIK became involved in 2001 in the program with the partnership organized by Professor

Tapio Yli-Viikari. The contact to the local government was established in 1998 when the pro-

fessor attended an event organized by the Japan Pottery Association. The following year the

governor of the Gifu Prefecture and his delegation came to visit Finland, and the first of the

agreements in-between the design centre and the University were made in year 2000. The

program has been on hold a couple of times, but due to the interest from the design centre,

the university, including the Rector Yrjö Sotamaa and the political instances in Gifu, TAIK has

been able to renew their contract year after year.

During the years many designers such as Sami Ruotsalainen, Heikki Ruoho, Camilla Groth,

Saara Renvall, Katja Sorvali and Zagros Hatami among others have participated in the pro-

gram, collaborating mainly in ceramics projects, but also in lighting project as it was the case

with Heikki Ruoho and H+ light or Saara Renvalls chair.

14


Chair as a Process

The project has many different stages that are carried out before, during and after the official

participation of designer. These stages and the whole structure of the program is laid out and

planned prior to the start of the program. The following description in the form of a diary depicts

the development of the program that I was involved in.

Summer 2006: Recruitment of client companies and designers

The whole process was started by Oribe Design Centre recruiting for possible collaboration

partners. The staff interviewed a number of local companies that were interested or in need of

new products being developed for them. The client companies were chosen on the basis of

their willingness to develop new products, a clear image of product to be developed (in other

words, they knew what they wanted) and initial willingness to take a risk to invest in the devel-

opment and commercialization of the product in development.

After the client was chosen, a new contract was made, as it is done each year with the over-

seas partner organizations (TAIK & RCA). The negotiations were held and the contracts were

updated with changes for example in the duration of the contract period of the program. After

the contracts were made, schedules drawn, and the various stakeholders of the project in-

formed, the participating universities were asked to market and publicize the project to their

students, setting a deadline by which the prospective designer/students needed to apply for

the program.

The students were asked to submit a portfolio of their work including visualizations, a curricu-

lum and an informal application form, a resume letter explaining each designer’s background

and interest in participating in the program. Each of the universities agreed to supply a certain

number of possible candidates for the program. Out of all of the applicants, approximately 5

were sent to be reviewed by the centre.

The participating designers were chosen according to the needs and requirements of the col-

laborating companies. The designer was to be either a graduate or a prospective graduate of

TAIK, as well as to be capable and available to engage in the design development activities

for the Collaboration Partner(s) for four months and including two visits to Gifu. The designers

were asked to describe any special skills they might possess, required to develop products

15


wanted by the collaboration partners. Designer’s major field of study did not necessarily need

to be in the field of products. In 2006 due to the needs of some of the client companies, ad-

ditional information and references were asked from the designer applicants, on their skills in

cad/cam and rapid prototyping.

August 2006: Project Kick-off

Once the designer was chosen and his willingness to participate in the program confirmed, the

staff at Oribe Design Centre and the collaborative partners developed the theme and concept

for the project.

The designer was sent a copies of the contracts to be signed during the project, and a detailed

schedule of the project together with a brief profile of the Project Manager. The designer was

asked to reconfirm that he was willing to participate in the program in the light of the new infor-

mation, as the designer would be required to transfer all the rights regarding the design(s) to

the collaboration partner for a design fee, possibly lower than prevailing market value. Royal-

ties at this point were mentioned not be an option.

After reconfirming the willingness to participate in the program, the theme was presented to the

designer in the form of a brief. The brief consisted of a short description of the initial concept

and the expectations regarding the designer.

A more detailed description of the contents of the brief and the contracts is made in the deliver-

able section of this thesis.

September 2006: Defining the scope

The designer was requested to submit a set of design concepts to the design centre, together

with a set of supporting mood boards and rough sketches on each of the themes described in

the brief, sent to the designer prior to the contract period.

The designer submitted four mood boards (Figure 2) with picture collages illustrating each of

the four adjectives outlined in the brief, together with some rough sketches of possible product

concepts and a visual benchmarking study of European furniture manufacturer’s products. The

designer asked the Design Centre and the client to describe which of those would be most at-

tractive to the local market and why. The designer resorted to this as he found it challenging to

16


design products out of his own area of expertise and to an unknown market.

Soon after the Designer Centre gave the designer feedback on the submitted work; the design

centre hoped that the designer would concentrate on producing more ideas, wishing to refrain

from evaluating any visual material on the bench marked products presented by the designer.

To assist the designer, the Design Centre provided him with more detailed information on the

specific manufacturing skills of the client company. This accompanied with an indication of the

quality of the sketches that they wish the designer to produce and a description three abstract

directions e.g. “Sweeping forms with soft impression” from which the designer was asked to

produce 10 designs per theme totalling altogether 30 different designs.

October 2006: Creating initial concepts

The designer sent the design centre and the client 30 new design concepts reflecting on the

feedback of the previous presentation. The ideas were presented as 2D visualizations, repre-

senting the over all form rather than any explicit design details (Figure 3). All of the designs

were drawn from the same perspective and used simple line and colour. The illustrations con-

Examples of the Mood boards.Figure 2.

17


centrated in the emotional content and the first impression in an attempt to capture the essen-

tial idea of the concept.

Soon after, the Design Centre gave feedback on the second presentation. The ideas had been

presented to the client and they had discussed them together with the Design Centre’s person-

nel. Out of the proposed designs, the designs which were not seen to be interesting enough

were pointed out, together with the five chosen ones that were seen to have aspects of the

attributes outlined in the brief and to be of interest to the client company.

The designer was asked to make further development on the chosen designs, before arriving

for his first visit to Japan. He was also requested to be prepared to explain the technical details

of the concepts: the configuration, structure of each of the proposed parts together with sug-

gestions on the materials. At this point the designer was asked to focus on the quality of the

ideas and the way they were presented rather than the quantity.

Figure Example of the 2D Illustrations.Figure 3.

18


October / November 2006: Developing the ideas

Upon the arrival to Japan, the designer presented the developed concepts to the design centre

staff; the five chosen designs and additional two designs chosen by the designer which had

been developed into altogether 18 separate designs (Figure 4). The designs visualized as 3D

renders, showed different configuration in structures, materials and finishes of the design con-

cepts.

The designer was taken around the premises and firstly presented the concepts to the pro-

ducer, assistant director and senior coordinator responsible for the Invited Overseas Designers

Program. The designs were discussed and feedback was given. The quality of the presentation

was seen to be of the required standards.

Later on the same day the designer was taken for a visit to a shopping centre to see an ex-

ample of an environment in which the designed products would be situated in. On the basis

of the given feedback and new information the designer finalized the designs for the following

days visit and presentation to be held at the client companies’ premises.

Visualizations of the presented concepts.Figure 4.

19


The following day the visualized concepts and a brief explanation of the source of the ideas,

were presented to the client company. Out of the ideas presented, four were chosen to be fur-

ther developed.

November 2006: Refining the Ideas

The four designs were developed to a level were the actual frame and materials could be dis-

cussed in more detail.

After being immersed in the local culture it seemed for the designer easier to come up with

culturally relevant ideas. The use of colours in objects, the contrast of cultural heritage with

modern day consumer culture and other local aspects seemed to be striking and in many ways

a very inspiring situation to be in. The surplus of stimulus in the new environment resulted in

a situation in which it seemed important for the designer to challenge those somewhat more

obvious options that had already been presented. At the now fifth presentation it seemed that

the client and the managing counterpart of the design centre had already been accustomed to

their role of being surprised and it seemed that this was being almost expected of the designer

Visualization of the 5th concept.Figure 5.

20


to do so.

The designer presented a further fifth concept (Figure 5), something very different from the

earlier ideas. The concept was supported with pictures and moving image explaining how the

idea had developed. The new concept was seen to have the elements of freshness and nov-

elty that the client company had looked for since the beginning. It was decided that the new

concept together with one of the refined concepts agreed at the last meeting would be taken

into closer detail design.

November / December 2006: Deciding on the concept

Towards the end of the first visit the it was agreed that the final design concepts (Figure 6)

were to be developed into prototypes. At this point it was important to confirm the feasibility

of the concept. The designer adapted the design concept to the tested ergonomic dimensions

and made some initial technical drawings of the design which were given to the client for them

to start working on the frame.

December 2006: Making of the Prototypes

Development of the Neo-N concept.Figure 6.

21


In order to test the ideas and finalize of the details of the chosen designs, it was decided that it

is important to make some functional and visual prototypes of the chairs.

Due to the tight schedule and budget in which the project was to be completed it was then

agreed that the designer would use the facilities available to him at the university to make the

seats and the client company would take care of making the frame.

The seat of the designed chair, made out of very organic forms allowed only for limited range

of techniques to be used in order to produce the seat prototypes. After looking at different pos-

sibilities, it was decided that the use of fibre glass on CNC-milled polystyrene mould was the

best option (Figure 7). This allowed for the ergonomic aspects of the seat to be tested at an

early stage, before using the same mould to make the actual seat. The mould for the seat was

made as positive, enabling the seat to be tested. After the necessary verifications were made

and it was seen that the measurements were correct, the fibre glass was laid in many layers on

top of the mould. The layers were built until the seat had sufficient strength, and further it was

removed from the polystyrene mould. The seat was finished by filling the imperfections of the

Pictures of the model making.Figure 7.

22


seat, painted and later packed for safe transport.

January 2007: Modifying for Manufacture

Back in Japan, the designer presented the models of the seat to the client company together

with the technical drawings and images of the model (Figure 8). While the designer had been

working in building the model of the seats the client company had worked on the frame. They

had made many variations on treatments and finishes, and planned out how the frame could be

manufactured in their system. During this visit the last modifications to the frame were made to

adjust it to the shape of the seat and also the colours in which the chair was to be manufactured

were decided.

February 2007: Development Hand-over

Towards the end of the second and last visit, the client and the design centre expressed that

they were pleased with the results that had been produced during the course of the project.

At this point it became important to finalize the details of the designs to that point that it would

be possible for the client company with the help of the design centre to commercialize the de-

Test model with the frame and the seatFigure 8.

23


signs. At this point the lead role of the development of the chairs was transferred to the client

company and the designer and the company held negotiations on the terms that the rights of

the designs would be transferred to the client company.

Summer to Winter 2007: Production Ramp-up and Preparation for Launch

Together with the local suppliers the client company negotiated the most efficient way for the

chair to be manufactured. At this stage the importance of the design centre in consulting the

technical details and the implementation of the design of the chair was vital. The designer’s

role at this point was to be involved only if major changes were to be made to the design. Ex-

change of e-mails in-between the designer and the design centre were carried on during this

period, but many of the decisions in regards to the details were made in situ with the client and

the design centre. Due to technical reasons and limitations of the machinery in use at the client

company, some compromises had to be made in the case of the frame. Also the form of the

seat was modified to be suitable for a greater number of different versions of the same chair.

Much of the marketing material (Figure 9) and the photography (Figure 10&11) were made by

Marketing material for Neo by Oribe Design Centre.Figure 9.

24


Photography of the Neo chair by Oribe Design Centre.Figure 10.

25


Photography of the Neo chair by Oribe Design Centre.Figure 11.

26


the staff at the Oribe Design Centre. The writing and translation of the texts, designing the lay-

out and theme for the marketing material, together with the photography was all coordinated

by the design centre.

Experienced Design Management as Guidance

The project was conducted by the Design Management section at the Oribe Design Centre.

There were altogether six members in this section; a Section Director, two Assistant Directors,

and Senior Coordinators and another staff member that is not directly involved in the . Apart

from them there was also the Headmaster of Oribe Institute of Design, acting as the general

manager of the program and two Project Producers, who managed and are responsible for the

design work produced at and through the design centre. According to their own words the col-

laboration partner-company and designer were the main parties of the project, never-the-less

the staff at Oribe Design Centre had a vital function as a go-between the client company and

the designer and making sure that the project was carried out smoothly. Perhaps this was a

sign of modesty on their behalf, as during the course of program their role in steering the proj-

ect to an acceptable end was of major importance.

The Senior Coordinators role was vital as a communication link to the rest of the organization

and the client company. She took care of almost all of the translation from Japanese to English

and the other way around of the documents, conversations and presentations produced during

the program. She also coordinated the daily activities making it easier for the foreign designers

stay in Gifu, explaining the right places to eat, helping in organizing trips and in general serving

as an irreplaceable link to the local culture,. Despite of the importance of her role in the entire

program coordination, all the decisions related to the project itself were taken for approval to

her seniors.

The Assistant Director, a prefectural government official, was involved in the project for docu-

mentation and to see that the project was taken to a correct end. During this project she was

in one of her first projects in her new role and due to this was present at all the meetings held.

She actively participated when the discussions were held in Japanese.

The Project Manager, with a strong background in design management positions in the car

industry, was of high importance in affecting the course of the project. During the design stage

27


he evaluated proposals and explained the required quality and quantity of the work to the de-

signer. He also attended all the meetings with the client and most of the internal ones with the

project group or the Headmaster. After the contract period ended the Project Manager visited

the client company giving them advice on the modifications to be made during the technical

product development.

The Headmaster of the Oribe Design Centre and the General Manager of the program is an

accomplished designer that used to run his own design studio in Tokyo. His role in the whole

of the program was of crucial significance as he has a lot to say in regards the management of

the projects and was also often involved in evaluating the design proposals

During the project he had a significant role in particular at the concepts stage when parallel

ideas where presented and the direction for the whole project was decided on. The designer

met the Headmaster in total three times during the course of the project; in the beginning when

the designer had just arrived for first his visit to Japan and presented the preliminary ideas, at

the end of that same visit when the direction for the development of two ideas were decided

on and a third time during the second visit when the designer presented the prototypes to the

staff at Oribe Design Centre.

From the client company the President and the Superintendent were actively involved in the

project. The President of the company, previously involved in and in charge of designing their

new products, without perhaps a formal design background, had a great deal of information

about their own local markets.

The Superintendent, in charge of the manufacturing side of the company, had a very signifi-

cant amount of knowledge about the possibilities within the manufacturing capabilities of their

company and their manufacturing collaborators. Both of them took a great deal of time during

the course of the visits to explain about their existing products and their factory. They were very

active in looking for new solutions, and took all the technical problems given by the designer as

challenges to really show what they were able to do.

The Many Needs of the Deliverables

A project such as the Invited Designers Program produces many different kinds of outputs dur-

ing the course of its development. Some of them are made by those taking care of the manage-

28


ment of the project, and some by those in the operative roles such as in the designer and the

client company. These deliverables varied from briefs or reports from individual meetings as

well as to visual presentations and test models.

There were a number of legal documents that were made and signed during the course of

the project. These included contracts such as the Design Assignment Contract, a Commis-

sion Contract and an Agreement for Design Development of New Products. The role of the

contracts was crucial in making sure that the design centres operations, the client companies’

investment and the designers work was secured and that everybody knew their rights and re-

sponsibilities right from the beginning.

The Brief as a Starting Point

One of the most important documents from the point of view of the designer was the brief. It

had an important role in determining the scope and direction of the project. As a document, it

tied in the clients and the design centres view on what the to-be-developed products should be

like and how they would be evaluated.

The brief gave a short description under the titles of design concept, target end-user, key words

to be used, an approximate retail price, and depiction of the design and technical consider-

ations, making it a solid starting point for the designer.

Through a short description of the products and the context in which they were to be used and

an explanation of the end-user, including the type of family unit, their income level and type of

housing, the brief gave the designer the possibility to start envisioning the way the products in

development would be used and what would be required of them. The direction for the seman-

tic values for the chair was given through the use of some general and abstract words describ-

ing the emotions that the products should convey and support.

The brief also defined through an approximate retail price, the relation to other products in

the same category. This gave the designer a point of reference when considering the extent

of the possible options in the use of materials, manufacturing techniques, components, and

mechanisms, highlighting those in particular which could not be used. It also accentuated the

important considerations to do with safety and structural strength of the products at hand.

Together with the product and user related issues, the brief also explained how design and

29


product development had previously been carried out in the client company, their core compe-

tence and skills and a description on their hopes on the results of the project.

Careful Documentation for Future Projects

Together with the brief, a detailed schedule was sent to the designer. In this document there

was the day based progression describing the activities taking place before, during and after

the official participation of the designer. The schedule also described the dates on which the

each of the presentations were to be handed in, when the different contract became effective

and when they expired, the deliverables of the presentations, the dates when the designer

could expect to receive some feedback and initial dates for the overseas visit of the designer.

The development of the project was recorded by the Oribe Design Centre staff in the form of re-

ports. These included memos which were made after a meeting was held with the collaboration

partner, stating what was discussed and agreed, as well as a more extensive report compiled

after each time the designer’s stayed in Gifu. These reports were not public in the sense that

they would have been translated and sent to the designer, but were filed to be used as a record

on future projects and to evaluate the Invited Overseas Designs programs performance.

Written Communication Prevents Misunderstanding

Communication played an important role in determining the direction of the project. Most of the

daily communication was carried through the internet, resulting in a large number of e-mails.

This could be seen as something quite natural, as the distances in-between the different par-

ties were long and in top of that there were the standard challenges often seen in cross-cultural

projects, such as language and cultural barriers which increase the possibility of misunder-

standing. Perhaps seeing the project from this point of view, it could be said that one of the

strengths of such project is that almost all of the communications was carried out in the form of

emails, giving the counterparts a chance to go through the statements and refer back to them.

The emails as such operated as a log of the decisions made during the course of the project.

Visual Material to Illustrate the Development of the Idea

The designer produced during the course of the project a large number of presentation mate-

rial. Examples of this material can be seen in the chapter describing the stages of the project.

30


A major part of the work was in the form of visual presentations from free sketches to 3d dimen-

sional renderings as well as 3D geometry which was used in making the technical drawings

and prototypes. During the course of the project also a number of photographs and moving im-

ages such as video recording and downloaded advertisements were used to explain the ideas

that the designer was working on.

These types of deliverables, typical to the work of a designer, proved that visual media is the

most efficient way of communicating ideas. This was of particular importance as the project

team faced the challenge of afore mentioned cultural and language barriers. The ideas were

presented as desirable images and often the changes to the designs were explained through

the use of free sketching as a tool of communication and agreement on the next steps to be

taken in the development of the designs.

Learning-by-Seeing

The client company on the other hand, responded to the designs by making a large number of

test models and attempts on new finishes proposed by the designer. During the course of the

project they produced hundreds of different options of how the frame could bend using their

manufacturing techniques. In many occasions the designer was also taken in person to see the

production facilities and the process of making the frame, illustrating to the designer the chal-

lenges proposed by designs presented to the client company. During the course of the project

this hands on method proved essential in testing the extents to which the proposed ideas were

feasible and for the designer to be able to modify the designs into manufacturing and finally to

a commercially viable product.

31


Theory: New Product Development process3. The following chapter discusses the main ideas behind the new product development process.

By the end you will have gained an understanding behind the definitions, main advantages and

the elements out of which a new product development process is made out of. These ideas are

further illustrated by couple of the main literature examples and comparison on how they differ

from each other. All of this is done in order to get to the root of what constitutes a successful

new product development process.

Definition of New Product Development Process

Process as a concept has many different meanings and ways of being explained. Encyclopae-

dia defines process as “a naturally occurring or designed sequence of changes of properties

or attributes of an object or system…” or alternatively “a sys-

tematic series of actions directed to some end.” What ever

one chooses, both of the definitions have in common that

they have a starting state, which is transformed into some-

thing else through a series of actions.

Eppingers (2003 / p.12)definition simplifies the meaning of

process into three different simple entities: inputs that are transformed into outputs through a

series of steps. Another way of seeing it can be as an organized way of transformation. In prac-

tice companies employ processes and in particular New product Development processes to

“conceive, design and commercialize a product” (Ulrich &

Eppinger / 2003 / p.12)

Reinertsen uses in Managing a Design Factory (1997 / p.119)

the analogy of languages to describe the nature of a New

Product Development. He presents a comparison to pro-

cesses by describing the function of words being the build-

ing blocks from which according to agreed rules of order,

words are combined to form sentences. As with languages

he describes the importance of creating common rules without killing the flexibility to create

something truly original. He argues that flexibility is a key issue when designing New Product

“New product devel-opment processes are used to conceive, design and commer-cialize a product”

Ulrich & Eppinger

“A Process is a se-quence of steps that transforms a set of inputs into a set of outputs.”

32


Development processes, in particular in the design intensive industry where rarely one project

is similar to another one.

Ulrich & Eppinger argue (2003 / p.12-13) that a well defined New Product Development pro-

cess helps to assure quality by specifying the phases and checkpoints allowing us to confirm

that everything is in line with general level agreed in the company.

“A process is a methodology that is developed to replace the old ways and to guide corporate activity year after year. It is not a special guest. It is not temporary. It is not to be tolerated for a while and then aban-doned”

Cooper on Thomas H. Berry, Managing the Total Quality Transformation( 2001 / p11)

This comment underlines the nature of the process in relation to time. It is something that is

developed overtime, something that is learned and must be nurtured for it to increase its value

and benefits it can yield.

The Main Advantages of a Well-defined Process

The following chapter describes the many advantages that a well-defined New Product Devel-

opment Process can be seen to have.

Eppinger (2003 / p.13) argues that new product development processes can be seen to have

three main uses. He argues that it can be seen as an agreed order or procedures which serve

to narrow down the available product concepts and by this increase the amount of specifica-

tions until an organization can safely confirm that the product concept can be produced without

the danger of failing. This means that an efficient process helps a company make the right

decisions, by giving the right reasons to qualify and disqualify options.

According to Ulrich & Eppinger the can also be seen to operate as an information produc-

tion system, by which strategic objectives, market needs and capabilities are transformed into

product concepts, marketing plans, sales pitches. These are deliverables that help us to go

through the necessary steps so that we are able to satisfy the needs of an organization before

it faces the risks involved in launching a new product.

33


As such it can be also seen as a risk management system through which uncertainties related

to new ideas are reduced, securing safer investments and better market approval. The im-

portance for a careful planning is reinforced by the claim that according to estimates (Jones /

1997 / p.82 on a study carried out by Berliner & Brimson / 1988) up to 70 to 90 percent of the

decisions regarding the costs created in commercializing a new product are made during the

pre-development stages of the project

Cooper describes the notion of a process as a road map (2001 / p.13), a description of the path

to take into account in order to efficiently take an idea to the market, ensuring that the pauses

are taken in the right places as well as for the right reasons.

It is also useful to create coordination among team members or organization as it describes to

everybody at which moment in time their is contribution required. For the management this is

vital in order for them to be able to delegate the right areas of responsibility and tasks among

the team. For the operative team member it is on the other hand vital to understand the impor-

tance and relevance of their own tasks.

A systematic process also helps to plan the milestones and phases according to the general

schedule of the project. This makes it easier to keep track of possible delays and problems

during the development and respond to them in the appropriate manner, ensuring the delivery

of the project at the right time.

Overtime a well documented development process helps the management to evaluate projects

in relation to each other, to foresee possible problem areas up front and to make the necessary

actions and adjustments to organize the appropriate resources to resolve the problems. It also

helps the product development organization to learn from previous mistakes and improve in

order to not to repeat the same mistakes in future projects.

Jones (1997/ p.81) ties these ideas together by saying;

”Projects have to be well planned, managed, and controlled. Only by carefully setting achievable targets and realistic objectives and scheduling a development program according to its specific needs can the necessary budgets be defined and resource requirements identified and made available at the appropriate time. “

34


Additionally Cooper argues that Stage-Gate process (A New Product Development process

that he has named to take possession of the methodology that he has created) is designed to

speed the process of product to market (2001 / p.142). He claims that through the use of his

method, companies can shorten the time-to-market of a new product. This can be seen as pure

sales pitch made to sell more books, but it also reinforces that the value of New Product De-

velopment process is in making companies more efficient in commercializing new ideas. This

is perhaps one of the strongest arguments speaking in favour of the use of an established and

studied process, as increasingly time equals money, separating those companies that survive

from those that don’t.

Breaking Down the Process

Despite the fact that there are many versions of the New Product Development process, all of

them share the objectives are related to the commercialization of new and profitable Ideas. The

following chapter describes building blocks out of which the processes are constructed of.

For the purpose of this study I have chosen three different approaches to New Product Devel-

opment. Ulrich & Eppinger, Jones and Cooper all present their views of what is an efficient con-

struction of a process to develop new products. Their arguments share some similarities but

also have some fundamental differences in the way ideas their ideas are presented, depending

on the emphasis that the authors have chosen to give.

All of the models presented here are made out of stages or phases depending on the terminol-

ogy that is chosen. Stages are those steps that were described earlier; and they are made of

sets of parallel or sequential activities that share a common theme, an objective.

Depending on the author the number of these stages varies. Ulrich & Eppingers Model is made

out five phases with an additional sixth phase, which is called the zero phase which is dedi-

cated to the planning of the project. This model is often seen in many different publications and

could be considered a generic process within the product development literature.

Cooper describes a process that has five stages and an additional pre-process Idea Discovery

Stage and Post-launch Review that as such are not recognized permanent part of the process.

On top of that he also describes a further stage called the Strategy Formulation Stage, which is

not generally involved in the in the generic Stage-Gate model, but is seen to be highly impor-

35


tant in enabling an effective product development.

The model presented by Jones is perhaps the most different out of the models presented here.

He has divided the process into three phases and subsequently into component stages that

have their distinctive outcomes. By simplifying the process into three phases he makes it pos-

sible for his model to be adjusted to many different kinds’ product development projects.

The Generic Product Development Process by Ulrich & Eppinger

As mentioned earlier the model presented by Ulrich and Eppinger has five main phases and a

zero phase which precedes the actual product development process (Figure 12).

The Zero/Planning phase precedes the actual project approval and launch. At this stage the

suitability of possible projects are evaluated against Corporate Strategy and market objectives

and it is also when the assessment of technology developments is made. The requirements for

this phase is to create a description of the company’s attitude in relation to the new project, in

other words to create a mission statement.

After the direction is chosen and the project is launched, follows the first actual phase of

product development. This stage is called the Concept Development Stage or in other words

the Front-End (Ulrich & Eppinger / 2003 / p.16), and sometimes also called the Fuzzy Front

End (Cagan&Vogel / 2002 / p.107) of the process. This stage is defined by its nature in having

many interrelated activities which determine the direction which the particular project is going

The Generic Product Development Process (Ulrich & Eppinger)Figure 12.

Ulrich & EppingerStages Gates0. Planning.

Mission Approval1. Concept Development.

Concept Review2. System-Level Design.

System Spec Review3. Detail Design

Critical Design Review4. Testing and Refinement.

Production Approval5. Production Ram-up.

36


to take. This stage includes studies such as customer need identification, benchmarking stud-

ies on competitive products, and must include economic analysis on the viability of the project.

This is also the stage at which concept generation and identification is carried out. After this

stage, the project is planned out and sufficient resources must be allocated to the project, in

order for it to carry on. Ulrich & Eppinger also argue that this stage benefits from early prototyp-

ing, sort of proof-of-concept prototypes.

The second Stage, the System-level Design Stage looks at the product architecture, i.e. func-

tional and physical elements of a product and further dividing the product into smaller sub-

systems, planning out how the product would be taken into the manufacturing and assembly

process (Ulrich & Eppinger / 2003 / p.165).

In the third, Detail design stage, the product is developed to a stage at which the design can

be frozen which means that the different part geometry, materials and tolerances in production

are decided on. At this stage it also possible to start with the tooling design and acquisition of

the correct equipment to begin later with the production.

In the fourth Stage of this model the developed product is further taken into testing and re-

finement. This stage often produces a large number of test versions which are evaluated and

enhanced to meet the required standard. The suppliers are facilitated with information about

the new product, enabling their ramp-up. Some changes in the design are still possible at this

stage but decreasing in number as the time goes by. At this stage also the sales plans are

drawn and the promotion and launch materials are developed and the workforce is trained to

receive the new product. The importance of this stage is to ensure through the implementa-

tion of Beta-prototypes, i.e. preproduction prototypes the reliability and performance of the new

product.

The fifth and final stage is the production Ramp-up Stage, where the developed product is

taken into production first in smaller amounts and tested with the key customers. At this point

the remaining flaws are evaluated and further corrected before the upcoming launch.

The New Product Development Process by Jones.

The model proposed by Tim Jones constitutes out of three phases: Inception, the Pre Devel-

37


opment phase before any attempts to visualize the concepts is made, the Creation Phase at

which the concepts are created and developed into visual and functional prototypes and the

final Realization phase at which the finalized design is taken into production and launched to

the market (Figure 13).

In the Inception or Pre-Development Phase, market research and R&D take an important role

Tim JonesPhases Stages GatesInception-Pre-Development New product opportunity

Project FieldNeed Identification

Project BriefIdea Generation

Screened IdeasFeasibility assessment

Project DefinitionProject planning

Specification and scheduleCreation-Development Concept

Concept DefinitionDesign

Detailed DesignDevelopment

Design DefinitionModeling

PrototypeTesting

Design verificationRealization- Post-development Production preparation

Pilot buildProduct introduction

ManufactureDistribution

Product launchOperation

Product feedbackEvaluation

The New Product development process (Jones / 1997 / p.xii)Figure 13.

38


in carrying out the major tasks. Design and senior management together with marketing exam-

ine the product opportunity against appropriateness to organization, technological capabilities

and market, resulting in a description of the extends of the opportunity for the new product.

After this the initial brief is created defining the key problems, product opportunities, potential

market and users. Idea generation is started, an activity lead by R&D together with Marketing,

Design and other New Product Development functions. The Ideas are generated and screened

assessing them against market, technological feasibility by parameters agreed by the majority

of the functions. After this the most promising ideas are selected using an agreed product cri-

teria. Towards the end of this phase the development of the product is planned and a product

specification is compiled.

The second phase, the Creation Phase Jones’s model , is the time when the product is devel-

oped to what it is to become. This phase is mainly lead by design to produce a range of prod-

uct concepts. Out of these concepts the most appropriate are selected and further developed

into preliminary prototypes. Only the product concepts that answer the identified specifications

are developed. The product detail is designed and assessed against feasibility and Customer

reactions. At this point often user clinics are formed at which the key product attributes are

investigated through tests and market analysis tools, thus resulting in the production potential

to be determined. When the necessary information requirements are fulfilled the products are

allowed to go into production

During Realization, the post development phase which is the third and final phase of Jones

model, the product is introduced to manufacturing. A pilot product is built, manufacturing, dis-

tribution and promotion is planned and the plans are assessed. At this point also an economi-

cal and reliable production is established and product support is activated for launch. At the

moment at which the product is launched, market research is activated and the product per-

formance is measured, and possible problems areas are determined and recorded for future

development.

The Stage-Gate model by Cooper

Coopers model is made out of five to eight stages, the latter number if the Idea Discovery, Post

Launch Review and Strategy Formulation Stages are considered to be parts of the process.

39


Never-the-less the author claims that “Each stage is designed to gather information needed to

progress the project to the next gate or decision point.” The key stages within the process are

defined as the pre-stage of Discovery, Scoping, Building the Business Case, Development,

Testing and Validation and finally the actual Product Launch (Figure 14). (Cooper / 2001 /

p.133-141)

Another major difference in-between these three models is

the emphasis that is given to the steps in-between the stag-

es and phases. Cooper stresses the significance of these

steps what he calls gates (2001 / p.131-132). These in-be-

tween stages are moments of evaluation when it is judged

whether each stage and their relevant activities have pro-

duced the correct outcome enabling the project to proceed

to the next stage. Cooper defines these check points as Go

or Kill points; quality control checkpoints at which all the information is brought together and the

next steps are decided on. These gates’ role in prioritizing the information and helping to make

the correct decisions is significant. They are moments of evaluating the deliverables against a

standard menu of criteria that is agreed at the beginning of the project or at the previous gate.

This criterion, a set of “Must meet or knock-out questions” are there to get rid of any unfeasible

ideas and outputs, at the same time forcing the project team to create an action plan, a list

“Each stage is de-signed to gather in-formation needed to progress the project to the next gate or decision point.”

Cooper

Stage-Gate Process by CooperFigure 14.

CooperStages GatesPre-Stage: DISCOVERY

Gate 1: IDEA SCREENINGStage 1: SCOPING

Gate 2: SECOND SCREENINGStage 2: BUILDING THE BUSINESS CASE

Gate 3: GO TO DEVELOPMENTStage 3: DEVELOPMENT

Gate 4: GO TO TESTINGStage 4: TESTING AND VALIDATION

Gate 5: GO TO LAUNCH Stage 5: LAUNCH

40


of the deliverables to be produced and to set a deadline for the next stage. The management

of these Gates he attributes to senior management. The other two models have included the

evaluation as generic part of the stages, in which the viability of the project is evaluated at the

point at which the each deliverable is produced.

At the discovery stage the fundamental technical research is carried out seeking new techno-

logical possibilities, and by working with users to discover unarticulated needs. At the same

time strategic planning exercises are performed to uncover disruptions in the marketplace

identifying market gaps and possible significant opportunities.

At the first gate ideas are screened, subjecting the idea to a set of “must-meet” and “should-

meet” criteria. This is done to test the strategic alignment and feasibility of the project, to un-

derstand the magnitude of the opportunity and possible market attractiveness against product

advantage and fit with company policies. If the developed product manages to pass this criteria

and is found worthy of the chase, it is allowed the go ahead.

The first actual product development stage in Cooper’s model scopes the project defining the

extents of the development tasks ahead. At this stage both market and technical information is

gathered. Through carrying out preliminary market, technical, business and financial assess-

ments recommendations are drawn for the next steps.

At the second gate a further screening is carried out evaluating the project in the light of the

new information. Again the product concept is assessed against a “must-meet” and “should-

meet” criteria. In addition to these also sales forces, customer reaction and other technical,

legal and regulatory “Killer variables” which might affect the viability of a successful product

launch are assessed.

The second, Business Case Stage is the stage which opens the door to product development.

This stage involves a detailed investigation of what defines the product, verifying the attractive-

ness of the product concept. Cooper defines this as the “Critical homework stage” at which

the intended target market, the description of the product concept and the specification of a

product positioning strategy are decided on, together with the product benefits to be delivered.

This is the stage where the value proposition is formulated, spelling out of the essential and

desired product features, attributes, requirements and specifications. A competitive analysis is

41


carried out together with a concept testing and technical appraisal confirming the “do-ability” of

the product concept.

The third, Go to Development gate determines whether the project goes to actual develop-

ment. This generally means that the project goes into heavy spending. At this point it is vital to

review the activities carried out in stage 2, checking the quality of the execution and results,

the development, preliminary operations and marketing plans. If the project passes the review

a project team is designated.

At the third, Development Stage the emphasis is on technical work but also on carrying out par-

allel marketing activities such as market research and customer feedback surveys. Prototypes

and working models should be used to ask the users to get more reliable information about

their views of the product in development. After the necessary information has been gathered,

including all the tests results, market launch, production and operation plans, a description of

the production facilities requirements, updated financial reviews and legal regulatory, legal and

patent documents, the project is allowed to into the next evaluation.

The fourth gate prepares the project to go into more of a thorough testing. At this point the

development and continued attractiveness of the product is checked together with the consis-

tency of the product features with what was established at the gate three. From the collected

and revised financial analysis based on more detailed data, a decision is made to approve for

the project to the next stage.

Stage four checks on the entire viability of the product. It looks at the planned production pro-

cess, possible customer acceptance and the economics of the whole project. These results are

produced through for example in-house product tests or other user or field trials. The trials are

performed through limited production or pilot production, allowing also pre-test marketing, test

market or trial sell to see the customer reactions. On the basis of the information gathered a

revised business and financial analysis are made.

The fifth gate is the last gate before launch and hence the last point in which the project can

still be terminated. After this, Cooper explains, it is very hard to turn back. This gate checks on

the results of the previous stages and makes sure that everything is correct.

Stage five is all go, at this point it is just the case of a skillful implementation of the previously

42


made and agreed plans. After the project is launched and the product performance reviewed,

a critical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the whole project and the end results is

carried out.

Roles in the Process

All of the authors agreed that multi- and cross-functional teams are most beneficial for new

product development process. The main functions were seen to be marketing, design, manu-

facturing due to their continuous involvement in the process, but it was also seen that other

functions such finance, sales, services and research and development played key roles in the

new product development (Ulrich & Eppinger / 2003 / p.13). Figure 14 is a description of the

activities carried on in Ulrich and Eppinger Generic New Product Development Process during

the different stages in reference to the functions within a company.

The multifunctional approach to new product development was seen as a strength, as

by eliminating iterations and by making the different functions work on the same project from

the beginning, project development times could be shortened and the process made more

efficient. The authors argued that an efficient process involved a range of concurrent activi-

ties that must be performed simultaneously. Nevertheless it was seen that during the different

stages, different departments must take a leading role in pursuing the new product develop-

ment (Jones / 1997 / p.xiii). Figure 15 shows the different functions lead roles in regards to the

phases and stages of the process described by Jones.

Jones model made of the three Phases described in the previous chapter, argued that in the

first, Inception Phase, is when the R&D and market research departments should be in charge

(Jones / 1997 / p.xiii). These functions, together with marketing, design and top management

should take care of the early stage new product opportunity identification and other tasks de-

scribed in the earlier chapter (Figure 16, p.46).

Jones further suggests that in the second, the creation phase should largely be lead by the

Design department of the company. At this phase the design department, consulting with the

other functions conceives the new product concepts and develops them through to the proto-

type stage.

The third and final, Realization Phase attributes the leading role to production engineering,

43


sales and marketing, whilst decreasing the design functions involved to that of a consultative

role.

This order of functions during the process was seen to be somewhat agreed by all the authors.

They also agreed that it was important, that all of the functions were involved throughout the

process despite that the lead role was changed during the stages. (Jones 1997 p.xiii-xv)

Another important role identified by the authors was the role of the management. Cooper

referred to a study (carried out by Song, Montoya and Schmidt Cooper/p.57) in which 300 of

the top companies where interviewed about organizational issues in regards to new product

development process. Through the results of this study it was seen that the management

played an important role in the new product development process. The top managements’ role

in “championing” the project and to provide strategic direction, as well as creating policies and

procedures to enable an internal culture of cross-functional cooperation was seen of crucial

significance.

All of the authors brought out the importance of a clear organizational structure in developing

the projects. Ulrich and Eppinger described two different organizations; a functional organiza-

tion and a project organization (2003, p.25). In the first organization model, the departments

would be made out of professionals with similar training and experience. A project organization

in which teams, composed of different disciplines, focused in the development of a specific

product or product line. The authors went to further describe other types of organizations, such

as project and balanced matrix organizations which were made out of different combinations

of these two extremes. It seemed like a consensus that the successfulness of the type of an

organizational structure depended strongly on the case, but the organizations that combined

strong management culture and multifunctional project teams were seen to be most efficient

ones (Cooper/ 2003/ p.58).

Deliverables Produced During a Process.

This chapter looks at the different kinds of deliverables produced during the New Product De-

velopment process. They often are many numbers and for that reason it is crucial for us to see

their uses and the function in taking the project further by recording, assessing, communicating

the process and the item developed.

44


Screening the possibilities

In early stages of the development process, that is to say the Fuzzy Front end of the process,

the stages from discovery to development where there is emphasis on project planning and

opportunity identification, the deliverables are geared towards explaining the results of the

different analysis and the identification of the possible opportunities. The authors agreed that

different kinds of market research or voice of customer research as defined by Cooper and

benchmarking studies should be carried and documented. (Cooper / 2001/ p.179)

The documents establishing the opportunity of the new project were defined with different

names by the authors. Ulrich and Eppinger named this as the Project Mission Statement,

which includes a description of the target market, business goals, key assumptions and con-

straints ((Ulrich & Eppinger / 2003 / p.13). This document is also called at times the Business

Case or New product Investment Applications as named by Jones (Jones / 1997 / p.83), a

name representative of the nature of the document in describing the right to exist . This type

of documents are generally started at the beginning of the project and specified as the project

progresses and more information is gathered. Other examples of such continuously developed

documents are the different kinds of risks analysis and plans used often in projects which are

large, complex and carry a high risk factor.

Brief as a Tool for the Designer

Another result of the early stages is a brief, one of the major documents to be delivered to en-

able a successful product development. Briefs are given many names in different contexts such

as job ticket or design and creative briefs. A brief generally includes the following subheadings;

project overview and background, and category review, company portfolio, business objectives

and design strategy, project scope, time line, and budget, and at times also other more detailed

research data which is included in the appendix (Phillips, 2004 p29). At times also another,

separate and more detailed project schedule is drawn, describing all the important events tak-

ing place during the stages of the project, the deliverables to be handed in and so forth.

Reports and Assessments to Serve the Different Stakeholders

Towards the end of the front end stages of the process, when the concept is starting to be

defined to a point that it can be shown and explained, the authors suggest that different kinds

45


Ulrich/Eppinger Functional Activities

Stages Gates Marketing Design Manufacturing Other functions

0. Planning.

Articulate market op-• portunity

Define market seg-• ments

Consider product • platform and architec-ture

Assess new technolo-• gies

Identify production • constraints

Set supply chain • strategy

Research: Demon-• strate available tech-nologies

Finance: Provide • planning goals

General Manage-• ment: Allocate project re-sources

Mission Approval

1. Concept De-velopment.

Collect customer • needs

Identify lead user• Identify competitive •

products

Investigate feasibility • of product concepts

Develop Industrial • design Concepts

Build and test experi-• mental prototypes.

Estimate manufactur-• ing costs

Assess production • feasibility

Finance: Facilitate • economic analysis.

Legal: Investigate • patent issues.

Concept Review

2. System Level Design.

Develop plan for • product options and ex-tended product family

Set target sales • price points.

Generate alternative • product Architectures.

Define major subsys-• tems and interfaces

Refine Industrial • design

Identify suppliers for • key components

Perform make-buy • analysis.

Define final assembly • scheme

Set target costs•

Finance: Facilitate • make-buy analysis

Service: Identify ser-• vice issues

System Spec Review

3. Detail Design Develop marketing •

plan

Define part geometry• Choose materials• Assign tolerances• Complete industrial •

design control docu-mentation.

Define piece-part • production processes

Design tooling• Define quality assur-•

ance processes Begin procurement •

of long-lead tooling

Critical Design Review

4. Testing and Refinement.

Develop promotion • and launch materials

Facilitate field testing•

Reliability testing.• Life testing• Performance testing• Obtain regulatory ap-•

provalsImplement design •

changes - Refine Industrial design

Facilitate supplier • ramp-up

Perform make-buy • analysis

Refine fabrication and • assembly processes

Train work force • - Refine quality assur-ance processes

Sales: Develop sales • plan

Production Approval

5. Production Ram-up.

Place early produc-• tion with key customers

Evaluate production • output

Begin operation • of entire production system

The Tasks and Responsibilities of the Key functions. (Ulrich & Eppinger))Figure 15.

46


Tim Jones FUNCTIONAL INVOLVEMENT

Phases Stages

Market R

esearch

R&

D

Design

Production

Manufacturing

Marketing

Sales

Inception-Pre-Development New product opportunity

Need Identification

Idea Generation

Feasibility assessment

Project planning

Creation-Development Concept

Design

Development

Modeling

Testing

Realization- Post-development Production preparation

Product introduction

Distribution

Operation

Evaluation

The Lead Roles of the Key functions. (Tim Jones)Figure 16.

47


off assessments are carried out. These tests include such as technical and manufacturing as-

sessments together with the concept testing and analysis. The results of these assessments

are included in the developed Business Case.

Physical and Visual Material

The second third of the of the process, the stages at which the ideas are developed, and as

was mentioned the period which is generally lead by the Design Department, there is a num-

ber of outputs related to that field. The classic deliverables include concept visualizing mate-

rial such as mood boards, sketches and quick mock-ups, together with 3D CAD models and

technical drawings. As the development stage gets closer to the end, quick prototypes, turn

into appearance models and further Alpha and Beta prototypes. Beta prototypes are used to

test whether the product works as intended and answers user needs and the Alpha models are

generally built with the already intended parts, but not yet necessarily with the intended assem-

bly process (Ulrich & Eppinger / 2003 / p.15). By the end of the Development Stage generally

an accurate control documentation is made documenting functionality, features, sizes, colours,

surface finishes and key dimensions (Ulrich & Eppinger / 2003 / p.15 &199). This is generally

recorded in formats such as drawing and computer files and other technical documentation

such as technical, assembly drawings and parts lists.

Towards the end of the second third of the whole process which would be in Jones’s model the

borderline in-between the Creation and Realization phase, or alternatively beginning of phase

four in Ulrich and Eppinger model, marketing, sales and manufacturing departments are acti-

vated. At this point marketing creates the promotion and launch material, and sales makes the

plans for the coming launch. Manufacturing produces all the documentation needed to pursue

an efficient ramp-up, including engineering, manufacturing, test and verification plans as well

as material needed to prepare the workforce for the eventual product introduction.

48


Case: Avarte4. Based on the interview held with Johanna Vuorio (Sales Director) on 27.09.2007

Established in 1980, Avarte represents one of the building stones of the Finnish design legacy

that put Finland on the map of the Design connoisseurs worldwide. Avarte has produces many

of world known classics such as Karuselli, and Remmi by Yrjö Kukkapuro that have become

part of the permanent collections at, for example, the Museum of Modern Art in New York, and

the Vitra Design Museum, in Weil am Rhein. Other designers used by Avarte include younger

designers, such as Mikko Paakkanen, Samuli Naamanka and Jenni Roininen that have also

become to some extent in-house designers for Avarte.

Today Avarte is a small furniture assembly, development and sales company that produce

furniture with a very particular personality. With an annual turnover of 2 million euros and a

staff of eleven Avarte represent a closely knit “family-like” organization. Annually new product

development constitutes around 3-5% of the entire turnover.

Avarte bases their product development on four main principles; Ergonomics, Ecology, Aes-

thetics and Economy. These values have represented an important role since the beginning

and have set criteria according to which new product concepts have been evaluated before

further development and production.

Sniffing out the Global Trends

Avarte chairs (www.avarte.fi)Figure 17.

49


Avarte as an organization is geared towards getting most up-to-date information on what’s hot

in the global furniture market. The employees visit international fairs and follow the many differ-

ent kinds of design publications through which they can witness the competitor’s new products

and the way they are being promoted. Other important feedback route is the bidding for public

interior projects, for example universities and museums. In these cases the interior architects

and designers publish their projects and the furniture companies make a proposal based on

the requirements of the designer. A winner is chosen and the others are informed about the

winning proposal, letting everybody know on what is selling well and at what price.

The public launches are generally timed in with the more important Nordic fairs such as Fur-

niture Fair in Stockholm in February and biannual Habitare fair Helsinki in September. This is

quite normal as for many companies of this size participation in events such as these constitute

a major part of their marketing budgets.

Flexibility in Creativity

The development times in Avarte vary a great deal. They can be anywhere from 10 months to

five years as it was with the Sirkus chair by Yrjö Kukkapuro. On average the whole process

takes about one year. The longest and most resources requiring stages of the project are those

involved with technical development of the products. At this stage all of the components are

searched for, and in the case that an appropriate components supplier is not found, the com-

ponent is designed and outsourced for manufacturing.

At Avarte the management attempts not to put too much stress on the designers to comply with

a strict schedule, but have found themselves working with designers that generally are able to

come up with visualized ideas in more or less a months time.

The development for new products in Avarte is started after one of the following instigators has

been identified:

The usual customers and retailers express that they have received requests for a new •

product from their clients.

A designer/employee has come up with a new product.•

Realization that the portfolio lacks a specific type of product that would enhance the total •

50


collection.

In the cases one and three usually a brief is written in which objectives for the product are

stated. The appropriate designer is discussed and the project is presented to the designer

leaving it up to him either to accept or to rejects the project. In the latter case another designer

is selected.

At this point the designer retires to develop ideas based on the brief. The result is generally one

or more 3D visualized concepts which are presented to Avarte. The presentations are left for an

evaluation, in which most Avartes´ personnel are consulted. After the evaluation, the feedback

is discussed together with the designer.

If one of the designs is chosen for further development a functional prototype is constructed

as soon as possible. Once the prototype is finished, all of the components are outsourced and

details are developed, the results are drawn out and parts list are made. Usually at the moment

in which the feasibility of the project is confirmed the communications activities are started.

Generally the communication activities are pursued even if full ramp-up of production has not

been completed. At this point the retailers are notified by which date roughly they can expect

to be able to order and purchase the products.

A Close Circle of Friends

At Avarte everybody opinion is asked for when for example strategic direction or new products

to be included in the collection are decided on. Beyond the immediate proximity of the central

core, Avarte boasts of a close circle of suppliers; metal component manufacturers, plywood

press manufactures, leather and fabric suppliers etc, which have become an integral part of the

product development of their products. Further the company has a large professional network,

made out of “friends”; international design furniture specialist, that express interest in their

products by giving them a channel to precise feedback and their views on the latest trends in

the furniture industry worldwide.

Avartes´ daily operations are directed by the General Manager that together with the Sales

Director decides on the total annual investments in New Product Development. The design re-

lated decisions on the other hand are consulted with Yrjö Kukkapuro. He has collaborated with

Avarte since the beginning and presently works as the special advisor in design related issues,

51


often involved from the first stages of the development of new products. His understanding of

structures, materials and design has proven to be very important, as for small companies such

as Avarte it is vital to be able to see whether the concept at hand has the necessary qualities

to be first of all produced and then to be successful in the market place. This ability and under-

standing has passed on to others which has allowed the team to make more educated guesses

about new products feasibility and appropriateness.

Other significant roles include the technical drawing specialist, an internal function of the com-

pany which makes all the assembly drawings and parts list. Some of the technicians have

ended up doing some more design related activities and in some cases even the actual design

of new products. In addition to them there are also the designers that operate as an external

department of the company, yet often with an established relationship and enjoying a great

deal of confidence from the internal staff.

Logistics specialists as well as upholsterers are used within the process to bring their expertise

when required. Never-the-less most of the time all of the personnel is informed when a new

product is being developed, and often also consulted on their opinion.

Heavy Reports and Assessments Forms not Needed

Due to the relatively small size of the company, the type of laborious documentation which is

required in bigger organizations is not needed at Avarte. The employees are consulted on daily

basis and the decisions are made as the development progresses. The main deliverables of

Avarte during a project is the brief, the designs presented as 3D renders, technical and as-

sembly drawings, parts list which are fed into production controlling system, and the material

used in the marketing of the new products. In the brief they usually describe the price bracket

to which the product belongs to in reference to the competitors, logistic requirements, descrip-

tions about the feeling that the new product is to raise and the desired timetable for the whole

project.

52


Case: Fritz Hansen5. Based on information given by Christian Grosen Rasmussen (Design Manager at Fritz Han-

sen)

Fritz Hansen is a Danish manufacturer of exclusive furniture established in 1872. Fritz Han-

sen’s collection contains a wide range of different kinds of products from chairs, office furniture

to screen walls. With 215 employees and an annual turnover of 81 million euros Fritz Hansen

represents a significant global player in the furniture industry in their own category. The future

seems to be as bright as the past, as the Company recently announced the plan to grow to an

annual turnover of EUR 150 million by 2010.

Fritz Hansen launches two new collections annually consisting of 1-3 new products, together

with 1-3 revitalized products from the existing collection. Beyond the general development of

the portfolio Fritz Hansen also has a number of smaller research and development projects

totalling approximately 10 per year and out of these only 2 out of 10 are usually launched. In

the collections the ratio is much higher and almost all of the projects that are allowed to go into

further development are taken into production and are finally launched. This was said to be be-

cause of the integrated development process, in which the Brand Management, Sales, Design

and D&Q departments are all involved right from the beginning of the project.

A Philosophical Approach to the Challenges in the Process

The three biggest challenges during the development of new products at Fritz Hansen were

Fritz Figure 18. Hansen chairs (www.fritzhansen.com)

53


described to be in

Creating ownership in all departments’ right from the beginning as the different depart-•

ments work with different focuses.

To measure the value of designs.•

To fight peoples personal taste, as it can be dangerous for a company to listen and •

follow the employee’s own personal taste. It’s was found important to find a balance be-

tween objectivity and subjectivity. To create a design philosophy and follow it.

To tackle the last point Fritz Hansen has developed a well defined design philosophy which is

divided into four categories, and are used as guidelines in developing new designs.;

Timeless and Relevant in Time. • The design has to be timeless in aspiration and rel-

evant in time. Solutions should be found in timeless simplicity rather than chasing short-

lived trends.

Pure. Searching for beauty -• appealing to the heart - in timeless simplicity, minimal

excellence and quality in the detail.

Original.• The design should always be unique through a strong visual clarity and honest

in its promise. The design should be innovative in form and function.

Sculptural.• Each design object should be seen as a three-dimensional sculptural object

with a high aesthetic quality and a uniqueness of its own which is acknowledged by its

obvious and immediate recognition.

The Fritz Hansen’s design philosophy from their Web-site accessed on the 07.12.2007.

Other challenges were seen in getting everyone to agree on a design, and for the sales depart-

ment set a price target in the beginning of the project. The cost of design in the whole process

was seen to be low in comparison with the actual product development and the costs caused

by the launch of a new product.

Two Years to Showroom

Fritz Hansen’s development process last 24 months in total. The stages of the process consist

54


of concept and design development, analysis, realization, tooling and testing.

The whole process of developing new products is divided as follows: 8 months concept and de-

sign development, including concept creation and concept clarification, three months of analy-

sis, 13 months realization tooling and testing, resulting in product introduction.

The design phase is divided so that after 4 month’s there is the concept approval and after 8

months of development the concept must be accepted by the Sponsor group.

The Development stage is divided into many sub stages, and launch is made first as an internal

introduction and then as external launch in Fritz Hansen’s showrooms. In total there are around

20 milestones during the 24 months of product development of new products. This includes

anything from concept approval, collection definition, tooling, photo shoots and showroom or-

ders.

The two annual collections are presented on fixed dates allowing the different departments to

know when exactly everything needs to be ready. The fairs are not seen as key events in re-

gards of the launch of new products, as Fritz Hansen has chosen to introduce the collections

in their own showrooms in the sales regions. This is done in order to have the customer’s full

attention and receive accurate feedback on the new products.

A Strong Role of Brand Management in New Product Develop-

ment

The four main departments involved in the process of new product at Fritz Hansen are Brand

Management, Design, D&Q (Development and Quality) and Sales.

The brand management department, lead by the product manager, is involved in the process

since the beginning. This department is responsible of writing a commercial brief, conducting

market research, analysis and focus group interviews, and executing the product and collec-

tion introductions.

The design department is lead by the Product Design Manager. This department is in charge

of identifying designers for each project, developing the design and carrying out initial tests

and pricing, together with other design related matters involved at Fritz Hansen. The designers

are generally involved in the first eight months of the project; i.e. concept creation and concept

55


clarification and again at the launch stage. They are involved in the technical development

stage only if necessary.

Other departments include the development and quality department, lead by the Project Engi-

neer, which is responsible of developing the product from design to tooling and testing, and the

Sales department, which is in charge of selling the collections.

The majority of the issues involved in the project are decided by the Sponsor group that also

makes the decision whether a concept is taken into further development. The most important

decisions are made by the CEO of Fritz Hansen.

Detailed Documentation to Commit the Stakeholders.

During the development of new products at Fritz Hansen many different kinds of deliverables

are needed. The deliverables produced during new product development process at Fritz Han-

sen include; Design and commercial briefs, scope statements, risk analysis, sponsor analysis,

concept approvals, collection definitions, analysis, approval for development, construction de-

tails, tools and packaging, photo shooting, showroom orders and dealer orders etc

The brief was seen to be one of the most important documents as through this the sales, brand

Management and the CEO commit to the project. It also was said to vary a great deal in content

but it always includes following areas: a project description, a description of the technology and

requirements, a target price and a time line, on which the gates and deadlines are described.

Another important document is the scope statement as through this it is possible for the prod-

uct development team to produce the right product in the right time, with the right quality.

New product development projects are given the go ahead according to the market situation

and “collection mix” in other words the general state of the product portfolio. The new ideas are

reflected against the sales estimates, risks, price and quality of the design. The products that

were seen to be most successful after launch represented simplicity and pureness in design

and high quality already in development stage.

56


Case: Martela6. Based on the interview with Pekka Toivola (Design Manager) on the 22.11.2006 and 6.11.2007

and information given by Kimmo Sundström (Product Development Manager).

Martela is the largest furniture manufacturing company in Finland and third in the Nordic coun-

tries. With manufacturing facilities scattered around Finland, Poland and subsidiaries in other

countries such as Sweden and Norway, Martela has also gained a significant role as a Europe-

an player in the furniture industry. Martelas’ turnover in 2006 was almost 120 million Euros with

personnel of around 690. Of the whole turnover product development constitutes 2.5% and

during one year there are generally 10-15 projects. The number of these depends on the size

and nature of each of the projects. The two of the most important business segments for Mar-

tela are those related to office and public space furnishing. These are divided under five main

product categories; Office Furniture, Space Furniture, Schools, Welfare and Auditoriums.

Ideas from Many Sources

At Martela the whole process from idea to launch takes at least one year. Generally the prod-

ucts have to have the technical specifications and be ready to be photographed half a year

before launch, in order to produce all the sales and marketing material in time. New product

development projects start when;

A designer comes to show his/her idea of a new product. This is very typical as the •

Chairs by Martela (www.martela.fi)Figure 19.

57


industry culture is based on furniture designers developing new product concepts and

presenting them to furniture manufacturing companies in the hope of being taken into the

product portfolio and in the end to enjoy the benefits in the form of royalties.

Martela develops a new product concept which takes into account a new need or that is •

significantly better than a previous solution to an old need.

Customers come with a suggestion or a request for a modification. Over time when the •

requests are repeated and a specific new need is identified, this feature is made into a

permanent part of the collection by modifying it to fit the overall product portfolio. This was

seen to be particularly important as in Office furniture the working methods and related

tools have changed and evolved a great deal in the last years, forcing the furniture on

which they stand to evolve along.

Martela internally realizes a new opportunity; a spot that the competitors have not man-•

aged to fill, a need for an update, a change in their collection or a change in requirements

for the product. During this comparison a two-by-two graph is often used to look at the

attributes to be emphasized and to see position which the new product is to occupy in

relation to others.

Technological innovation; an external company comes and presents a new innovation •

to Martela. Due to its sheer size, Martela attracts many companies to come and present

their latest technical and material innovations.

Information of the current and future state of the market is retrieved from various sources. One

important source of information is the proposals and bids for new projects. In the case they

happen to loose the offering Martela is informed of the winner. At this point they would usually

reflect back on the features that the winning products had and compare them to those of the

products that they offered. If it is seen that the products do not differ in, for example architec-

tural suitability, product specific features or delivery times, the conclusion might be that they

haven’t been competitive in price. At times clients are also directly asked why they have opted

for the other companies’ products.

Another source is provided by Martela´s own large organization and the significant amount of

58


office workers that it employs. This means that they have a natural testing group that use their

own furniture, giving them valuable feedback and suggestions on how to improve their own

product line.

Those involved in sales and product development read general publications and visit a number

of different international fairs at which they get to see the competitors products and often even

test them. Pekka Toivola also described the general rules of the industry by which everybody

openly presents their new products, even when knowing that the one making the enquiries

might be somebody from the competition. The lack of secrecy is due to the general opinion that

the competition will find out anyway, so it is better to flaunt it.

Other sources of information are the already mentioned clients that come with their sugges-

tions of improvements and modifications, and market specific studies that are carried out.

These studies are made with external companies specialized in that carrying out focus group

interviews and more widespread market research programs.

Selling the Idea Throughout the Process

After the discovery of new needs, or possible directions for new product development, gener-

ally a brief is written, which is then presented to a designer. The designer presents the ideas

answering the questions pointed out in the brief. At this point it is particularly important how the

designer describes the idea. If the designer is able to describe the idea in such a way that it de-

fines and gives the product a reason to exist, a quick prototype is made and it is then presented

to the product board together with the “Data sheet”. If the Product Board sees the viability and

attractiveness of the product concept, a project is created, planned out and given it the neces-

sary resources to be taken into further development. Production ramp-up and tooling stages,

the stages in which a major part of the costs involved in commercializing a new product are

created, were seen particularly critical in determining the successfulness of a project. Finally,

if the new product concept is seen that it is viable, profitable and in line with the whole product

portfolio, it is accepted by the Product Board and put into production.

The Many Players of the Development Process

Martela has a varied range of teams and expertise roles that are used within the new product

59


development process. Some of these are internal functions and some are external ones.

At the top the list there is the Product Board, which consists of the General Manager, Produc-

tion and Logistic Managers and Heads of each business unit (managers of each of the two

main portfolios). Their role is to make all the top decisions involved in starting new product de-

velopment projects and accepting them into production. The Product Board requires that they

are given at the beginning of a new project a Datasheet and at the end presented with accurate

calculations of what the new product will mean in the overall product portfolio. They also moni-

tor and compare that the results produced by the project teams in the end, correspond with the

initial focus outlined in the datasheet.

Below the Product Board there is the Steering Group which consists of the Product

Manager, Product Development Manager, Logistics manager and sometimes also the Design

Manager. Their role is to see that the work done by the project team is made according to the

plan proposed in the data sheet. If it is seen that, for example, the initially set price target will

not be met, they can order the project team to go back in the development process to achieve

the set targets, or alternatively send them to ask the Product Board to allow them to change to

the initial content of the datasheet. Steering group also observes that the project plan is fol-

lowed, deadlines met and the quality of the deliverables and documents produced during the

process are of the required standard. Steering Group meets once a month with the project

managers of each of the project. In these meetings even the smallest details of the product at

hand are discussed.

Project team is in this case the operative function of the new product development process.

The team is made of the Project Manager, Designer, Purchasing, Logistics, and Technical de-

velopment personnel. Their task is to develop the new products to fit the requirements set in

the data sheet and brief within a specific time frame. The team has a cross-functional structure

allowing all of the relevant points of view to be considered when designing the new products.

In the pre-project stage there is a unit that is made up by the Product manager, Head of Busi-

ness unit, Design Manager and Product development manager. They make the decision on

whether the new project is given the go-ahead and the data sheet is made.

Externally Martela uses a range of different entities that take part in their product development

60


at different stages of the process.

The customers (buyers and end-users) opinion is also consulted. They actively come and

ask for modifications to the existing products to better fit their needs, or are activated to give

information about their preferences through market research that is carried out by specialized

agencies.

At times architects and other design professionals are asked to give their opinion on products

when they are still at a concept stage. They are mostly professionals who have previously

worked with Martela and are known to be loyal to the company.

The Importance of the Brief

Due to the size of the company and the elevated number of new products in development,

Martela has a number of obligatory documents that have to be produced during the process of

idea to market. Some of these documents are technical in nature and others have more to do

with the project management and information requirements of the organization.

Perhaps the most important one from the point of view of the designer is the brief. This is nor-

mally written by the Product Manager and / or Design Manager and presented to a designer

that has already been acquainted with the ways of Martela and has become a usual collabora-

tor. This document usually outlines the price category to which the design should fit in, where

it is going to be used, reference products of the competitions and what kind of attributes it

should have. Particularly in the case of chairs a two-by-two graph is sometimes used in which

on one axis there is price and on the other modern and traditional, portraying the position that

the new product should take. In most cases the brief is seen as a fairly loose document, which

allows for the creative interpretation of each of the designers. This idea is well illustrated by a

comment that Pekka Toivola said during the interview;

“It is almost more important what is not mentioned in the

brief than what is”

Another important document is the data sheet, as it puts

together a range of information that, if accepted, gives the

project the right to go into development and right to start us-

“It is almost more im-portant what is not

mentioned in the brief, than what is”

Pekka Toivola

61


ing the company resources to make it succeed. The datasheet describes the products position

in the portfolio, the products that it replaces, target price, sales and investment estimates and

what the competitors have to offer in that particular need and at what price. However, the main

point of the Datasheet is to describe the reason why this particular concept should be included

in the portfolio.

Beyond that project team together with the designer produces information in the form of visu-

alizations, technical drawings, parts lists and prototypes through which the feasibility is tested

and the design developed until it reaches production readiness. Most of this information is pro-

duced in various different formats as it needs to be fed into the various sales and production

systems in use at Martela.

62


Conclusions7. This chapter brings together some of the main points addressed in this thesis. In order to bring

together and analyze the critical success factors that affect the furniture development process,

I have looked at the key points that have risen at the interviews, the experience of the project

that I participated in and the facts that the various authors have pointed out.

Differences in Product Development Process

During the course of the study I became aware of the fundamental differences of general prod-

uct development used in other industries in comparison to that of the furniture industry.

The case project that I was working on showed a variety of different methods that could be

used to guarantee success in the long term. The interviewed companies, on the other hand,

represented their own approaches to new product development, all of them with their own pro-

cesses, their own ways working and own in built structures that performed in some contexts

better than in others.

One major difference and advantage in comparison to other types of industries is that the fur-

niture designers often presented the new product concepts and worked in the development of

a product without any compensation until the project is on the market. This gives the furniture

companies a good chance of obtaining well-developed ideas without any initial investment. In

these cases, the external designer would have done much of the preparatory work in defining

the product concept, designing it and often even making a prototype.

The three case companies recognized this as a general and normal practise in their industry,

whereas in the three New Product Development theories, not one of the authors pointed this

out as a part of the product development process, underlying the nature of this as an industry

specific practice.

The financial risks to the designer in this case would be substantially bigger than in standard

product design projects, where often the payment is received according to time worked on the

project or based on the agreed stages of the project. On the other hand, a common royalty

based reward system has, at times, proven worth the risk for the designer as once the chair on

the market, some designers have secured revenue for many years ahead.

63


Another major difference was in the importance given to prototypes. Before the project would

be allowed to go into actual development, companies would usually require a prototype to

check the viability of the concept.

On the basis of those results, the Go or No-go decision would be made for the project. After

the product concept would be allowed to go into development, many more prototypes would be

made before the design would be finalized.

The general development cycles of the project also seemed to be a great deal longer than those

in product development, for example in standard product or packaging design. In the case of

Avarte and Martela the development times were at least a year, and in Fritz Hansen the pro-

cess was generally 24 months. A colleague that had worked in Italy, designing office chairs for

some of the leading brands, explained that couple of the projects that he worked in took more

than five years to get to the market, and of course free of charge until royalties were paid. This

underlines that this is not a local phenomenon but a worldwide standard procedure.

Similarities

Despite the clear differences there were many similarities as well.

The Invited Overseas Designers Project as an example of a project carried according to specif-

ic process model was one of the best ones. The structure of the project of the model presented

by Jones on pages 37 and 46 explains a process that is almost identical to that performed in

the program. The first Inception Phase would have been the part of the project in which the

design centre interviewed the companies and established a direction for the project. The sec-

ond part of the project, in which the designer was involved in the events, followed closely the

stages described under the Creation Phase of the Jones’s model. In the period after the official

participation, the design again followed a structure of the third, Realization Phase.

The case companies’ product development processes had many similar elements that were

mentioned in the different theoretical models. They had clear stages and gates, the tasks men-

tioned in a similar order. Nevertheless, their processes were all highly customized to their own

structures and methods of working.

64


Success factors

Through the research and investigation, some patterns in all the processes have risen which

lead to following observations.

Structured projects

A combination of rigidity and flexibility was seen as a strength in creating a powerful product

development process. The process should have sufficient amount of documentation in the

forms of briefs, reports and legal documents to secure a safe product development. It was fur-

ther discussed that a complete, consistent process with an excellent quality of execution (Coo-

per / 2001/ p.103) was of high importance in ensuring good results. The process should be

multi-staged and disciplined (Cooper / 2001/ p.111) ensuring competitive advantage through

speed (Cooper / 2001/ p.108) in the short and long-term product development. The documen-

tation would enable continuous development of the right practices for the future development

activities.

In the project in Japan, the structure was essential for the project to be able to succeed in

such a short time-frame. Without the kind of meticulously detailed schedules, briefs and pre-

established contracts an overseas project of this kind could have not been performed. Martela

and Fritz Hansen had created many different kinds of organizational structures and standard

formats documents of gathering information in order to make sure that the investment on new

project would be on safe base. These two organizations had developed a clear decision mak-

ing process, knowing who would be making decisions and when, and always basing those

decisions on a clear and structured set of information.

In Avarte, the documentation was in a smaller scale, due to the small size of the organization.

This allowed for decisions to be made in an informal manner with greater flexibility. All the per-

sonnel could be easily reached when consulting new ideas or opinions. However, the visual

and technical data was still carefully recorded and stored.

It seems that new product development in complex organizations and under strict time con-

straints demands a thorough project planning and time management. In these organizations,

the importance of communication and recording of the decisions making process also be-

comes crucial. The company specific practices support an efficient process when members

65


from various functions from the organization are involved, preventing inefficiency by not having

parallel teams struggle with the same problems but instead joining their knowledge and getting

the project to go forward in a more straightforward manner.

Up-front Homework to Establish Direction.

The importance of up-front homework (Cooper/2001/ p.90) could be evidenced in all of the

cases presented in this thesis. The companies involved have to do a great deal of sharp and

early product definition work to establish scope for the projects. By identifying needs and ben-

efits, they are able decide their positioning strategy (2001/ p.92) and target market specifica-

tion, allowing for a clear starting point for the projects.

To get the information, the interviewed companies used many different kinds of marketing

research tools such as focus group interviews, key customer preproduction launches, market

analysis, competitor benchmarking and in general just closely looking at what is going around

them, within the industry and in the wider world.

In the case of the Invited Overseas Designers program, the preparatory work was made in

organizing the existing structure with the collaborating universities, recruiting for the students,

scheduling the whole of the project and building together with the client company a project that

would answer their needs.

Agreed criteria of selection

Honest and pure assessments were something important that was seen in all the examples,

from the words of the authors to those that worked on the field. The product development pro-

cess requires clear and agreed gates, situations in which the ideas are judged on, and tough

go/kill points that get rid of any bad or unfeasible ideas (Cooper / 2001/ p.101). It could also

be seen that clear project goals and regular project reviews (Jones / 1997 / p.87) were of high

importance, establishing a pace to the process making it work consistently and enabling more

efficient furniture development. Reinertsen (1997/ p.246) argues the importance of using deci-

sion rules, establishing opinions on facts, and not forgetting the power of intuition as a powerful

tool of guidance.

Martela used a selection criteria tool at product board, to evaluate the different product con-

66


cepts before they were allowed to go into development. At Fritz Hansen, the product would be

evaluated against their collection mix and corporate philosophy. In both of these organizations,

the project would be further evaluated against what was said in the brief or in the Data Sheet,

and if it was seen by the Steering Group that the project did not comply, the project would have

been put on hold until approved by the product board.

In smaller organizations such as Avarte, the evaluation would be made in an open format allow-

ing all the staff to contribute to the evaluation of the new concept, establishing their decisions

on their vision and experience. In Japan, decisions were based on a very similar structure,

public reviews with the client and the design centre staff, but with the last say from those at the

top of the hierarchical organization.

Right Resources at Right Place

During the course of looking at the product development, it became apparent that full time

dedicated resources (Cooper / 2001/ p.106) had a crucial role in making the projects succeed.

Even in the furniture industry, where the products are not technically complicated, the develop-

ment needs its funds in order to produce results. The companies are required to take the risk

of going into development, production and launch of a new concept which is very expensive.

In order for the companies to be able to invest in the project, they required a closely studied

business plan explaining the opportunity and how the company would potentially profit from

the new idea. Once the idea had been approved, the companies would have to provide the

financial resources and direction for the project to succeed.

In the case companies, once projects were accepted, it would lead to project teams constitut-

ing of personnel from the various departments being created, building of prototypes and to car-

rying out all kinds of tests and assessments - all work that carry a high price tag with them. In

the same way, the Invited Overseas Designers Program had a strong backing from the design

organization and the company, enabling the foreign designers attendance, the design centre

staff employment and covering the various expenses created.

Experienced Team and Management

Most of the authors claimed that the role of the top management in organizing the right resourc-

es and in pushing the right buttons to get the job done (Cooper / 2001/ p. 97) was of signifi-

67


cance. The management’s role in making sure to leverage on the existing resources and skills

(Cooper / 2001/ p. 98) making good use of capacity at hand (Reinertsen /1997 / p.246) and in

ensuring that the team functions effectively with minimum interference, but sufficient support.

(Jones / 1997 / p. 87) were issues that could be seen as key factors in enabling success.

The examples of the processes used in the furniture companies portrayed a strong emphasis

on the management side. In the Invited Overseas Designers program, the project team was

made out of the designer, staff of the Oribe Design Centre, and representatives of the client

company. The latter two had long and established careers in their fields, creating a pool of

technical, economic and management competence supporting the much more inexperienced

designer in his work.

This was seen also in the case companies where different levels of management would be

involved in managing the projects and supporting the development through to a successful

conclusion. In the three case companies, all the layers of the organization were involved, from

the Director to the operative project members. Each was making decisions about the project

according to their specific areas of responsibilities.

Cross Functional Teams to Create Speed.

The authors agreed that multi-disciplinary and cross-functional project team (Cooper / 2001/ p.

95) with shared and divided responsibilities would create efficiency within the process through

eliminating iterations (Jones / 1997 / p.74). The project teams should be made out of the differ-

ent departments and work together in a project since the beginning, allowing the project take

into account multiple points of view.

In the case examples, it was seen that the early preparatory work would be already carried

out with managers from different departments, and further that the actual project team itself

would be made out of personnel with specific functions. In Martela the project team was built

of manufacturing, design and marketing functions. In Fritz Hansen brand management was

also involved, making sure that new products where in line with the design and brand identity

of the company. The team built for the Invited Overseas Designers program in the same way

represented the different facets of product development, from design manufacturing, marketing

and management.

68


Global Market to Successful Products

A thorough understanding of the customer was seen as a key factor for the companies to be

able to produce concepts that, through clear and established product superiority, would be

able to deliver unique benefits and product value to the customer (Cooper / 2001/ p.83) The

products in development should always be targeted at the world market (Cooper / 2001/ p.88)

ensuring market attractiveness (Cooper / 2001/ p.101) for the neighboring and world markets

and consumers. At launch, clearly and aggressively communicated product benefits would

bring (Cooper / 2001/ p. 94) an opportunity to differentiate themselves in the highly competitive

markets.

All of the companies’ case companies had closely knit links to the market around them. Martela

and Avarte, for example, fostered the regular contact with professionals from the design indus-

try, receiving valuable information about the needs and desires from various points of view. In

the case of the program that I was involved, the international outlook to the project was brought

by getting a foreign designer to contribute to the project.

69


Further Recommendations

This thesis investigated through different contextual and literary examples the best practices in

the product development processes. The cases showed differences and similarities in their ap-

proach to the process, but shed little light on the reasons that might lie behind these qualities.

In the future, it would be interesting to investigate a larger sample of furniture companies in

order to see the extents of patterns in them, and create a more thorough understanding of the

subtleties in their approaches. Throughout this thesis only qualitative interviewing techniques

were used, allowing the companies to answer the questions in an open manner. The examples

described in a general level the product development process of few different companies. In

my opinion it would take a much more in depth research project with companies committed in

terms of resources to get to the root of issues behind their processes.

It would also be interesting to look at the cultural issues behind product development. One area

would be the corporate culture of the company and another national culture in the wider con-

text. It would be interesting to see how these aspects contribute to the type and formation of a

process within a company. This thesis did not take this into account, although the project was

carried out in two continents and involved people from various cultural backgrounds.

Another area untouched by this thesis was the historical development of product development

process. The authors discussed in detail the development of the process over time from the

historical Roman times to future models in a general context. In the future, furniture companies

must take into account the future needs of their customers and how they are able to answer

these issues already at early stages of the development. Looking at the past of the process

could give light to where the future will lie in and to see where possible areas of development

might be in.

70


Bibliography8.

Ulrich, Karl T. and Eppinger, Steven D. (2003) / Product Design and Development / Third Edi-

tion / Tata McGraw-Hill Edition.

Cooper, Robert G. (2001) / Winning at New Products: Accelerating the process from Idea to

Launch / Third Edition / Basic Books.

Cooper, Robert G., Edgett, Scott J. Kleinschmidt, Elko J. (2001) / Portfolio Management for

New products / Basic Books.

Holt, Knult (2002) / Market Oriented Product Innovation – A Key to Survival in the third millen-

nium / Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Jones, Tim (1997) / New Product Development: an introduction to a multifunctional process. /

Butterworth-Heinemann.

Pisano, Gary P. (1997) / The Development Factory: Unlocking the potential of process innova-

tion / Harvard Business School Press.

Reinertsen, Donald G. (1997) / Managing the Design Factory: A Product Developer’s Toolkit /

The Free Press, (1997)

Cagan, Jonathan & Vogel, Craig M. (2001) / Creating Breakthrough Products: Innovation from

Product Planning to Program Approval. / Financial Times Prentice Hall.

71


Keinonen, Turkka. & Jääskö, Vesa (2003) / Tuotekonseptointi / Teknologiateollisuus ry.

Phillips, Peter L. (2004) / Creating a Perfect Brief: How to manage design for strategic advan-

tage / Allworth Press.

The chair and the written thesis presented

here were the outcome of a project carried

out under the Invited Overseas Designers

program organized between Oribe Design

Centre and University of Art and Design

Helsinki. The client was a Japanese furni-

ture manufacturer called Toyoisu Co, Ltd.

The project started in September 2006

and carried on until the final result; a chair

called Neo was launched commercially in

March 2008 in Japan.

The chair made out three-dimensionally

curved steel pipe was designed to support

user in comfort and to change the atmo-

sphere in offices and shops. The seat and

the pipe frame gives elasticity to the back-

rest, making it comfortable even when sit-

ting for a long time.

The thesis draws together the experience

of the designer in the program, the best

practices of established companies, to-

gether with main thoughts in the product

development literature, describing the criti-

cal practices in determining the success of

a furniture development project.