17
AMP-EMBODY ERASMUS Intensive Programme Delft 8-24 July 2013, Netherlands Case studies ...in failed embodiment design Prof. Dr. Christos Spitas
AMP-EMBODYERASMUS Intensive ProgrammeDelft 8-24 July 2013, Netherlands
Case studies
...in failed embodiment designProf. Dr. Christos Spitas
AMP-EMBODYERASMUS Intensive ProgrammeDelft 8-24 July 2013, Netherlands
Q: What is the rate that new products fail?
For every seven new product ideas, about four enter development, 1.5 are launched, and only one succeeds (Cooper, 2011).
AMP-EMBODYERASMUS Intensive ProgrammeDelft 8-24 July 2013, Netherlands
AMP-EMBODYERASMUS Intensive ProgrammeDelft 8-24 July 2013, Netherlands
Challenges in Product Development• 1/9: Burger King
Pokemon container• Massive original success• Turned out that
hemispherical halves posed suffocation risk
• Product recall
• Challenge: Safety!
AMP-EMBODYERASMUS Intensive ProgrammeDelft 8-24 July 2013, Netherlands
Challenges in Product Development• 2/9: Breakfast mates • Did not deliver ‘on-the-
go’ promise (cold milk?)• Poor packaging
ergonomics
• Challenge: Usability!• Challenge: Ergonomy!
AMP-EMBODYERASMUS Intensive ProgrammeDelft 8-24 July 2013, Netherlands
Challenges in Product Development• 3/9: Cosmopolitan
yoghurt• Poor customer
acceptance• Off the shelves in 18
months
• Challenge: Brand identity consistency!
AMP-EMBODYERASMUS Intensive ProgrammeDelft 8-24 July 2013, Netherlands
Challenges in Product Development• 4/9: DeLorean car • Unusual & pioneering
design• Company failed after
two years and horrific sales, less than 9000 units produced
• Back to the future cult item
• Challenge: Market relevance!
AMP-EMBODYERASMUS Intensive ProgrammeDelft 8-24 July 2013, Netherlands
Challenges in Product Development• 5/9: Space shuttle • Risks addressed through
inspections & rules• Gasket failure at low
temperature during lift-off
• Catastrophic failure• 32-month stop
• Challenge: Robustness!
AMP-EMBODYERASMUS Intensive ProgrammeDelft 8-24 July 2013, Netherlands
Challenges in Product Development• 6/9: Apple Lisa • Pioneering GUI
• High-quality• Cost 50M$ in hardware
and 100M$ in development
• Sold only 10,000 items, brought 100M$
• Challenge: Cost-price!
AMP-EMBODYERASMUS Intensive ProgrammeDelft 8-24 July 2013, Netherlands
Challenges in Product Development• 7/9: Apple III • Misplaced involvement
by marketing department in product engineering
• Unusable upon release• Pulled and rereleased 1
year later
• Challenge: Qualified process ownership!
AMP-EMBODYERASMUS Intensive ProgrammeDelft 8-24 July 2013, Netherlands
Challenges in Product Development• 8/9: BiC safety lighter • Forcing functions impair
usability• Child safety bypass gets
the most Google hits!
• Challenge: Quality of ideas!
• Moderation in the use of design means!
AMP-EMBODYERASMUS Intensive ProgrammeDelft 8-24 July 2013, Netherlands
Challenges in Product Development• 9/9: Itera all-composite
bicycle• Volvo, tech-push• Failures non-serviceable• Incompatible to other
bicycles• Production ended after
30,000 items, stock sold to Caribbean
• Challenge: Context-relevance!
AMP-EMBODYERASMUS Intensive ProgrammeDelft 8-24 July 2013, Netherlands
The human
The business
The product
The rest of the context/ world
Product Engineering
robustness
context relevance
quality of ideas
usability, ergonomy
Safety market relevance
qualified process ownership
cost-price
brand identity consistency
AMP-EMBODYERASMUS Intensive ProgrammeDelft 8-24 July 2013, Netherlands
Challenges• Product Engineering is a subset of product
development.• Challenges, as explored previously, give rise to
the need for systematic product engineering• Advanced Embodiment Design systematises
product engineering, aiming to increase its success rate by maximising impact of prior knowledge, time, human and other resources (i.e. computing/ product validation possibilities)
AMP-EMBODYERASMUS Intensive ProgrammeDelft 8-24 July 2013, Netherlands
AMP-EMBODYERASMUS Intensive ProgrammeDelft 8-24 July 2013, Netherlands
Quiz: Who was paying attention?
Q: What challenges exist
in product development?
Safety
B
context relevance
C
usability, ergonomy
D
market relevance
E cost-priceF
computational speed G
robustnessH
qualified process ownership
J
quality of ideas
A
brand identity consistency
I
AMP-EMBODYERASMUS Intensive ProgrammeDelft 8-24 July 2013, Netherlands
Quiz: Who was paying attention?
Q: Which challenges
pertain to embodiment
design?Safety
B
context relevance
C
usability, ergonomy
D
market relevance
E cost-priceF
computational speed G
robustnessH
qualified process ownership
J
quality of ideas
A
brand identity consistency
I
