The importance of designSir William Barlow, B.Sc.(Tech.), Hon.D.Sc, F.Eng., F.I.Mech.E., F.I.E.E.

Indexing terms: Engineering administration and management, Project and production engineering, Design

Abstract: Based on a lecture delivered to the IEE, the paper considers the broad nature of product design, itsrelationship with associated disciplines, the profiles of competence required by present-day designers and thedesign brief. Some examples of successful product design are given.

In this paper I aim to do three things as follows:(i) I make a few general observations on the broad nature

of product design, its relationship with associated disciplinesand the profiles of competence that are required by designerstoday.

(ii) Interwoven with this I give a few thoughts on thatcornerstone of successful products, the design brief.

(iii) Thirdly, I give a few 'good news' stories (or to putit more accurately, stories that ultimately turned out to begood news) and draw certain conclusions from them.

The first of my general observations concerns the relationshipbetween research and design. I feel it is necessary to draw adistinction between these two quite different activities as it isstill common practice to refer loosely to 'R & D'. The funda-mental point about research is that its object is to createknowledge. This knowledge may be important for the creationof new products and may involve creating research hardware.For example, the Flying Bedstead was produced almost30 years ago to study the problems associated with verticaltake-off and hovering flight. This device was never intendedto be a marketable product but yielded much informationthat was well used subsequently. Creating the highly successfulHarrier aircraft (see Fig. 1) was an exercise in design and was agood exploitation of the research data gained previously.And this makes the point; the function of design is to createnew products, not just new knowledge.

Fig. 1 View of Harrier taking off

A new design may have to undergo a lengthy period oftesting, evaluation and improvement before it has fullymatured into a dependable and (with any luck) profitableproduct. Such a process was certainly required for the Harrierand is often referred to as 'development'.

Paper 2S96A, received 4th May 1983. The paper is based on a speechdelivered to the IEE at Savoy Place, London, on 17th May 1983The author is with THORN EMI, THORN EMI House, Upper SaintMartin's Lane, London WC2H 9ED, England

But the term 'design' requires further explanation. In somecircles 'design' is regarded (quite properly) as an art-basedactivity with an emphasis upon the visual aspects of productdesign. Elsewhere, design is regarded an an engineering-basedactivity concerned perhaps with the correct application ofsophisticated components to complex systems, for exampleincorporating a microprocessor into an electronic controlsystem. It is, therefore, reasonable to ask whether there isany common ground between these different areas of expertiseand to consider to what extent a practitioner in one fieldshould appreciate the skills that obtain in the other.

Take, for example, the range of very beautiful wall tilesproduced by Sally Anderson (see Fig. 2). Sally Anderson isprimarily an artist, and the most striking feature of herproduct is its aesthetic quality, but to assume that SallyAnderson requires no technological expertise would be amistake. The selection of the pigments and the glazes can be atricky business, and the subsequent firing of the tiles requiresprecise control of temperature and time. Packaging the tilesto reduce breakage in transit is a further headache.

Fig. 2 Wall tiles

The Pegasus vectored thrust turbo fan that powers theHarrier aircraft is a very different type of product. Unques-tionably the work of engineering designers, it involves someof the best application of technology to be found anywhere,for example in the design of the air-cooled turbine bladesand the optimising of the fan for maximum mass flow (seeFig. 3). This Figure gives an excellent illustration of develop-ment, and we can see that the thrust development of thisengine has more than doubled during two decades of con-tinued improvement. It seems that the Rolls-Royce designersare still far from finished and the introduction of plenumchamber burning and other factors will improve the thruststill further. One fascinating point is that the Rolls-Roycedesigners have not spurned simple solutions when they seemto be appropriate. For example, the rotating thrust nozzlesare driven by a simple sprocket and chain, just like a bicycle.

224 IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 130, Pt. A, No. 4, JUNE 1983

Visually, the Pegasus is an impressive artefact, but it was notdesigned for its visual qualities, and in fact it is intendedto be buried inside the aircraft structure, hidden from view.Does this mean that the art-trained designer had no role toplay in creating this product? Of course not! In additionto the various items of graphics that have to be included onthe engine itself, the engine as a product must be accompaniedby a considerable amount of literature, some technical (forexample, maintenance manuals) and some promotional (salesleaflets and advertising), but all requiring layout and illus-tration. And, of course, there is the famous Rolls-Roycelogo itself!

Pegasus thrust growth

50 000

40 000n

I 30 000 •

- 20 0005r^

Pegasus 1

engines with

/1-

11 11.21E

new engine

_ y / neWengine

'dry' engines

10000

Pegasus 1

1960 1970 1980

F ig. 3 Increase of thrust against time

1990 2000

For historical reasons the art-based designer is knownas 'an industrial designer'. Fig. 4 illustrates in a simple wayhow products can require a varying mix of design skills. Atone extreme a textile is (let us suppose) 100% within thedomain of industrial design. This may be something of anoversimplification due to the technological aspects of thetextile (for example, fire retardancy or wear resistance),and the available production facilities may well set someconstraints upon the details of the visual design. But theindustrial designer (or textile designer) is unlikely to requiresignificant help from a technologist and would certainlyconsider the design of the textile in question to be uniquelyhis (or her) responsibility.

At the other end of the spectrum an electromagneticsolenoid would in all probability be the work of an engin-eering designer specialising in the field of electromechanicaldevices. Some small degree of assistance might be required

industrial designtextile

telephone

solenoidengineering design

Fig. 4 How products require a mix of design skills

IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 130, Pt. A, No. 4, JUNE 1983

from other experts, but again the engineering designer wouldcertainly consider that the design of this product was withinhis own prerogative. At the 50—50 point I have chosen atelephone as an example because this seems to me to be aproduct that requires roughly equal inputs from the industrialdesigner and the engineering designer; one to ensure that theinternal electronics and other components function properly,and the other to ensure that the visual and ergonomic aspectsof the product are satisfactory.

10°

105

* 1 0 *

§>1O3

' 1 0 2

5 10

Concorde,

motorcar •computer

telephone \M^m machine toolgarden shears*

o io io2 103 io4 iq5 io6 io7 io8 io9

engineering design , £

Fig. 5 Spectrum of costs etc.

Fig. 5 goes one stage further and shows the approximateindustrial design and engineering design costs associated witha wide range of products. At one extreme a simple textileor wallpaper design can be purchased for quite a small sum,while at the other extreme the total cost of the Concorderesearch design and development programme was of theorder of £1 billion. Intermediate products include a computer,motor vehicle and a warship. There is a rough relationshipbetween the two cost elements, and I would not suggest thata straight line should be drawn between this plum puddingof points nor that any one should attempt to define theparameters of such a line. But I do think that the existenceof a rough relationship between these two cost factors shouldbe noted and, for example, if anyone is involved in an engin-eering design project costing, say, l\ million, then it islikely that a significant sum should be allocated for theassociated industrial design work, say perhaps £10—20thousand.

So far I have discussed only engineering design and indus-trial design, but of course this is an oversimplification, andthe spectrum of design disciplines has to be explored inrather more detail (see Fig. 6). It is sometimes helpful tothink of the range of design disciplines as a spectrum ranging

industrialdesigner

mechanicaldesigner

electricaldesigner

aesthetics mechanics

Fig. 6 The design spectrum

electrics andelectronics

225

from purely aesthetic work on the left through ergonomicand human factors to forms, structures and then the elementsof mechanical engineering, including drive systems, mechan-isms and machines, this merging into the field of electro-mechanics with motors and relays and thence into the fieldof electronics and advanced systems on the extreme right.In Fig. 6 rough ability profiles are shown in relation to thisspectrum for the industrial designer, the mechanical designerand the electrical designer. These profiles have not beendrawn casually and note, for example, the sharp cut-offof the electrical designer as soon as the spectrum changesfrom electrical engineering into the field of mechanicalengineering. It is a fact that most electrical engineers believethat mechanical engineering is usually obvious and as suchis beneath their interest. After all, electrical engineering isdifficult because one can only infer what is happening byusing instruments of various kinds, some of them verysophisticated. But in mechanical engineering the situationis quite different, as anyone with a pair of eyes can see whatis happening in an instant, or so the electrical engineersupposes. Conversely, the mechanical engineering designerhas in general a deep mistrust of anything electrical and willoften go to considerable lengths to avoid including in hisproduct any of that unfamiliar, frail and even somewhatsinister electronic logic. Much better to have somethingreally dependable (for example a pair of cams or a gearbox),and if things become difficult there is always pneumatic logicto fall back on. The nef result of this is that electrical engin-eering designers and mechanical engineering designers areusually friendly enough with each other but show a disincli-nation to operate beyond the bounds of their own specialisms.The resulting design sins are usually sins of omission causedby lack of communication or willingness to select the bestdesign solution on its merits.

Consider the four locomotives shown in Figs. 7A—D.An interesting example was when large diesel locomotiveswere being conceived. Mechanical designers hankered aftera mechanical solution, and one was the Fell locomotive(Fig. 7A), which drove the wheels through gearboxes. It wasmechanically very complicated and expensive to maintainand proved to be unreliable. Another solution was the dieselhydraulic locomotive (Fig. 7B). Quite a number of thesewere built by British Railways and served on the GreatWestern section for many years. They proved very expensiveto maintain, although they gave an excellent performance.It was said they had more electrical control and protectivedevices than had diesel electric locomotives. The best solutionwas diesel electric such as the English Electric type 4 (Fig. 7C)or top class 56 locomotive. On these a conventional dieselengine drives a diesel generator which transmits power toDC series motors. The Deltic locomotive (Fig. 7D) is alsodiesel. When they were put in service at 3000 horse power,they were the most powerful diesel locomotives in the world.The engine design had three crankshafts linked by a complexgear train, but, despite this complexity, they gave manyyears of good service and have only recently been withdrawn.

Moving to the left along the design spectrum shown inFig. 6 we encounter a different situation. The industrialdesigner is typically reluctant to regard himself as a merestylist or aesthetician and often claims expertise in the fieldof forms and structures, sometimes with good reason. Butthis is the legitimate terrain of the mechanical designer,who incidentally often feels that he too has an eye for theappearance of a product and certainly can speak with auth-ority on matters relating to the product-human interface.The tails of the two profiles cross over and overlap, and thisis a source of continuing conflict, each practitioner believingthat his authority is being usurped by the other.

Fig. 7A Fell locomotive

Fig. 7B Diesel hydraulic locomotive

Fig. 7C Diesel electric locomotive

Fig. 7D Deltic 9009 locomotive

226 IEEPROCEEDINGS, Vol. 130, Pt. A, No. 4, JUNE 1983

But how does the electrical engineering designer get alongwith the industrial designer? For, after all, if they are to sellwell, electrical products must also look good and be fit fortheir purpose. Things are usually a little easier in this contextowing largely to the fact that neither in general has a clearunderstanding of what the other is talking about. To theindustrial designer a half adder or shift register might aswell be classical Greek and communication becomes evenworse when the electronics expert expresses himself almostentirely in acronyms, which is usually the case. But whatis the electronics expert to make of terms like 'colophon','sans serif or 'fenestration'? Practically nothing! It is likeimagining a conversation between Old Mother Riley andthe men from Mars.

But there is one more point about this design spectrum,and note it is so far only a spectrum of design technologies,making no reference to the other skills and attributes requiredby the designer. The point is that the design spectrum is sobroad and so complex that it is beyond the grasp of any oneperson to possess a professional competence throughout itsentire extent. How about Brunei, or Stephenson or any of thegreat universal designers of the past? Yes, but these wereexceptional men, and in any case the breadth and complexityof the design spectrum has expanded very considerably sincetheir day. Is it likely that Brunei could have mastered thewhole of electrical and systems engineering as well as the moremodern aspects of his own field? The hard fact is that designis a profession for specialists, each of whom must be pro-fessionally competent in a particular increment of thespectrum. Another equally hard fact is that most productsrequire inputs from many, if not all, parts of the designspectrum. The number of products that can now be designedwholly by one individual is comparatively small, the corollaryof this being that most products must now be designed by ateam.

The required ability profile of a typical designer withrespect to the spectrum of design technologies containstwo essential elements: one specialist and the other generalist.If these two factors are not present, any hope of setting upa well co-ordinated and successful design team must be indoubt.

In my experience designers, particularly young designers,are seldom grossly deficient in the area of specialism, butmany are grossly deficient in the area of generalism; a criticismthat might be noted by those who are considering theeducation and formation of our future engineers and designers.

It is often assumed that knowledge of the appropriatetechnology is all that the designer requires, but this is emphati-cally not so. Of course it is very important that the productbeing created should function properly, but, although thisis necessary, it is far from sufficient if the product is to be asuccess. There is, for example, the critical question of costs,and this means that the designer must have some appreciationof production processes and what costs what. The crucialfactor of quantity must be taken into account by the designer(although it is all too often ignored) and the designer mustbe aware of the various design restraints that will be imposedby the production methods demanded by various quantityrequirements. For example, in small quantities a simplecomponent might be a sandcasting, but larger quantitiesmight indicate that an extrusion would be cheaper, providedof course that the cost of a suitable die can be amortisedover the quantity in question. But does everyone realisethat an extrusion must have a constant cross-section andthat a component designed as a casting may be quiteimpossible to manufacture as an extrusion?

Similar observations can be made about quality assurance(how is the product to be tested?), reliability (does the

designer know about the penalty clause in the contract onreliability?), maintainability (does the word appear in thedesign brief at all?) and safety (did anyone think of con-ducting a standards search before it was too late?).

These are all areas of necessary design competence, each Isuspect with a separate, perhaps small, identifiable body ofknowledge leading to an associated set of core material thatshould be obligatory for all designers in every field.

I now turn to the original specification (as it is commonlyreferred to by engineering designers) or design brief (a termused widely elsewhere).

This subject was addressed by Sir Kenneth Corfield in hisReport 'Product design'. He took the view of top managementand compiled a list of questions which have to be answeredsatisfactorily before design and development proceeds. Thesequestions were:

(a) For what market is the product intended?(b) Has the relationship between eventual price and

revenue been properly assessed given the total costs of designand production?

(c) Can the design be manufactured economically?(d) Does the design incorporate up-to-date technology?(e) Are the materials and components available?( / ) Has the relationship between reliability and maintain-

ability been fully investigated?(g) Have the critical phases of development been ident-

ified?(h) Are the planned delivery dates achievable?

These questions are all of the utmost importance and arerelevant to the content of the design brief, but I shall extendthe argument and examine the content and structure of thedesign brief in some detail.

The requirements upon the designer can be consideredunder three main headings: time, performance and cost.It is obvious that each of these is of fundamental importanceand inadequate achievement under any one heading maycause the product to fail. Yet it is surprising how often thedesign brief omits any mention of either time scale or costs(and sometimes both), concentrating solely upon the perform-ance requirements.

Let us look at some things that may be specified to thedesigner under these three headings.

Time

(a) Project completion on date and intermediate mile-stones (To give examples: completion of concept, drawings,prototypes or evaluation).

(b) Proposed date for launch or commissioning: Failureto do this may mean that penalty clauses are invoked ormarket opportunities lost.

(c) Sales span and overall life: The designer should begiven some idea of how long it is intended that the productshould be available for sale and for how long it is intendedthat the product should last, given appropriate productsupport.

There is nothing mysterious about this information, and allthe data will be known to various members of companystaff. Is there any sound reason why the designer shouldnot be put in the picture?

Fig. 8 illustrates the relevance of time scale by showingthe cash flow relationship with time for a typical new productventure. Investment in the new product commences withresearch, design and development phases and the cash flowgoes negative. It sinks still further as investment in tooling,piece parts and production is included. With early and

IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 130, Pt. A, No. 4, JUNE 1983 227

profitable sales the gradient of the cash flow graph turnspositive and after considerable sales the investment isrecovered. Further sales yield a net profit, and finally inthis example the cash flow gradient again turns negativeas the final sales turn out to be unprofitable, perhaps dueto increased market competition and the product is discon-tinued.

research

tooling andproductlaunch

profitablesales

netcontributionto profits

design anddevelopmentincludingprototypes

production unprofitablesales

Fig. 8 Product cash flow graph

Performance

(a) Static requirements: These include weight, size etc.and seldom present undue difficulty.

(b) Dynamic requirements: All products must 'work'in one way or another. A rising chair is a good example of aproduct that has to function satisfactorily throughout arange of varying requirements. The cushion is hinged to thechair at its leading edge and a large spring causes the cushionto move sharply upwards and forwards about this hinge whenthe knobbed lever at the side of the chair is released. Oldpeople sometimes have difficulty in standing up from aneasy chair and the spring assistance provided in this productis designed to overcome this problem. But the spring mustbe matched to the user! With a soft spring and a heavy grannythe product is not worth much, but with a good strong springand a flyweight granny the results could be quite exciting.

(c) Safety: It is essential that all the standards and regu-lations with which the product should comply are listed.Specifying the standards and regulations may seem to be atrivial job but often it is not. Figs. 9A—C show three simpleproducts, and can one guess which safety standards mightapply to them? The plate (Fig. 9A) is affected by a safetystandard concerning the release of lead ions from the glaze.The pipecleaner doll (Fig. 9B) is affected by a standarddefining the number of bends to which the pipecleaner canbe subjected before it snaps. The Mercury Maze (Fig. 9C),which one might suppose is the most hazardous productof the three, is not affected by any safety standard, and thismakes the point that not all hazards are covered by safetystandards. So it is important that the design brief shouldspecify all hazards which the designer is expected to copewith, not just controlled by standards.

(d) Special marketing factors: The design brief should be aresponse to a perceived market need, and there may be special

Fig.9A Plate

Fig. 9B Pipecleaner dolls

Fig. 9C The Mercury Maze

factors associated with 'market appeal' that should be speci-fied to the designer, for example particular aesthetic orergonomic considerations. In some contexts these factorsmay be very important indeed and, in many cases, the buyingdecision may be determined by the visual quality of theproduct to a far greater degree than the purchaser wouldever admit; for example, the Range Rover is sold on adurability ticket and is designed to appear tough, ruggedand reliable. But this sort of thing is best left to the expertand if overdone can lead to results that are ridiculous. Aroad roller (Fig. 10A) with a top speed of, say, 5 miles/hmight well have careful attention paid to its visual andergonomic qualities. But it is surely absurd for such a productto be designed to reduce its drag coefficient to the lowestpossible figure with streamlined and raked windscreen andcab (see Fig. 10B). A further point in this section is that thecountries and types of purchaser for which the product is

228 IEEPROCEEDINGS, Vol. 130, Pt. A, No. 4, JUNE 1983

F ig. 10 A Traditional road roller

Fig. 10B Aerodynamic road roller

intended should also be listed as 'special marketing factors'.Particular markets have particular requirements, some ofthem mandatory, and it is helpful to the designer to know ofthese requirements at an early stage. Successive modificationsat a late stage (when no doubt the product has been fullynoted) to meet different marketing requirements can be anexpensive and frustrating business.

Costs

{a) Project costs: Design itself costs money and the designershould know how much the design project is expected to cost,not least so that he can monitor his own expenditure againstachievement.

(b) Manufacturing costs: It is essential that a targetmanufacturing/selling cost for the product should be specifiedand that this should be related to the predicted rate ofproduction or overall quantity. For example, the originalMcArthur Microscope (Fig. 11 A), which was a novel andoriginal design, was intended for small-quantity production.Many of the components had to be machined from solidand the product was expensive. At a later stage the OpenUniversity announced a requirement of some 10000 perannum, and this made the whole project look quite different.Substantial investment in tooling enabled most of thecomponents to be moulded from plastics and the ultimatecost of the microscope came down to the order of £10 (seeFig. 1 IB).

The designer must know whether there are any limitationsin the available manufacturing facilities and he must be awareof any company policies on subcontracting. For example, thehighly successful Sinclair ZX81 is designed to be manufacturedentirely by subcontract, with components being purchased

Fig. 11A McArthur Microscope

Fig. 11B Open University version of the McArthur Microscope

from those who are best able to supply them. In this casethe product designers had few constraints and were able toshop quite literally around the world.

The designer may have to work to a tooling budget andobserve requirements for rationalising components. Thepoint about rationalising components is important. Substantialfunds may be tied up in stocks and work in progress and, ifthe variety of components can be reduced, substantial savingscan result. Fig. 12 shows the large variety of instrumentdisplays that can be installed in a Ford motor vehicle usingjust one instrument surround. Just think of the variety ofcomponents that do not have to be purchased and stockedresulting from this design!

(c) Cost of ownership: Reliability requirements, main-tenance requirements and the requirements of overall lifeshould be made clear to the designer and should be specified

Fig. 12 Ford module R instrument cluster

IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 130, Pt. A, No. 4, JUNE 1983 229

precisely and numerately. For example, inserting a vaguephrase into the design brief 'product must be easy to main-tain' is almost useless. How easy to maintain? And, if itexists, what are the terms of the maintenance contract?

I conclude with some 'good news' stories, some takenfrom THORN EMI and others taken from widely differentfields. In the early 1970s it became clear that there wereexcellent market prospects for a sophisticated, versatileand efficient louvre system, particularly if the price werecompetitive. Fig. 13 shows a universal louvre system that wasdeveloped, the most interesting feature being the efficiencyof the louvre in permitting ventilation while excluding rain,but note also the beautiful straight edge that has been achievedwhich is indicative of the precision and quality controlexercised by the manufacturer. There is a surprisingly widedemand for such a louvre. The louvre won design awardsin 1975, 1979 and 1981 in the UK, Australia and W. Germany,respectively, and a very substantial increase in turnover hasbeen gained over the period. The manufacturers say that theycorrelate their success directly to these awards.

Fig. 14A Cosmopolitan range of teeth

Fig. 13 Louvre

My next example comes from a quite different area, namelythe manufacture of false teeth (Fig. 14A). Consider theproblem of designing and manufacturing such a product.It is not easy and there are several factors to be taken intoaccount. The load that can be supported by such a prosthesisis only some 20% of the force that can be born by a genuinetooth, and this can have serious consequences upon themasticating ability of the false teeth unless the cusps aredesigned very carefully for optimum food grinding perform-ance. Computer aided design techniques (see Fig. 14B) wereused to optimise tooth profile from this point of view, andwith considerable success.

The cost of these teeth is amazingly low, a little morethan £5 per hundred or 5p each. It is, perhaps, not surprisingthat the company that made the development is now thelargest manufacturer of false teeth within the EEC and exports70% of its output.

My next good news comes from THORN EMI, although ithad a somewhat uncertain beginning. There has been substan-tial interest in automatic fare collection systems for at leasta decade. As well as saving labour costs, a device that reads

Fig. 14B Computer graphic of false teeth

magnetically encoded railway tickets automatically to permitentry or exit from the platform is an effective deterrentagainst fraud.

Comprehensive systems have been installed already by boththe French and the Americans and serve as convincing demon-strations to potential customers. Where have we got to inBritain? A design brief was produced by British Rail for sucha system ten years ago. I cannot accuse this design brief ofbeing inadequate: It ran to four volumes, each of more than20 000 words. But there was a snag. London Transport wasalso investigating automatic fare collection systems and hadits own ideas which were not identical with those of BritishRail. As many commuters take the interchangeability oftickets on British Rail and London Transport for granted,having two completely independent systems was a worry,and still is. There the matter rests and a substantial investmentlies unused while export opportunities slip by. The prototypeshave functioned satisfactorily in the laboratory for five yearsbut have never been used for real passengers.

So where is the 'good news'? I am glad to report that theexpertise and experience gained are now being put to gooduse. British Rail are in considerable need of a machine thatcan be used by the booking clerk to issue tickets to alldestinations accurately and efficiently. Fig. 15A shows ageneral-purpose ticket issuing system. This is a very compactand versatile product that provides a solution to this longfelt want. It incorporates three microprocessors and a matrixdot printer. The keyboard is operated by the booking clerkand in most instances only three buttons need be pressed toproduce the required ticket, the two banks of buttons onthe extreme left being allocated individually for the ticketsthat are most frequently requested. More unusual requestsrequire the clerk to type in the first three letters of the name

230 IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 130, Pt. A, No. 4, JUNE 1983

Fig. 15A General-purpose ticket issuing system

Fig. 15B Industrial design model

of the destination, whence the machine grasps preciselywhat is wanted and displays the destination in full to theclerk for confirmation.

It is still early days for this product but THORN EMI areconfident that sales will be excellent, particularly in viewof a very attractive price. Fig. 15B shows the industrialdesigner's original concept of this machine, which differssomewhat from the final version. The changes, which mayor may not be felt to add to the aesthetic quality of thedesign, were introduced all at the specific request of thecustomer. Is the customer always right? There must beoccasions, particularly when the customer is in such apowerful position, when the truth of this old adage is opento some doubt.

My final 'good news' story concerns a product knownas a streamer which is used by the data processing industry.A modern computer has the capacity to store and manipulatevast quantities of data, and, although modern machines arevery reliable, it is prudent, at intervals, for users to make arecord of all the data retained in the computer so that, if theworst were to happen, all the information would not be lost.The use of noninterchangeable Winchester disc drives requiresperiodic 'back-up'. Equally, for example, the consequencesof a fire in the data processing facility of a major clearingbank or insurance company could be absolutely disastrousto the business concerned unless a comparatively recentrecord of the data had been taken, which would, of course,permit the situation to be recovered.

It is obvious that with current technology magnetic tapeis one of the best means for creating regular data archivesof this type.; the information is permanent (not destroyedby mains failure), and tape is cheap, and also reasonablycompact for storage purposes. The tape drive that is neededfor this application is known as a 'streamer' and has certain

IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 130, Pt. A, No. 4, JUNE 1983

similarities to the tape drives used with previous generationsof mainframe and minicomputers. For example, the streameruses \ in track magnetic tape and records the data in oneof the standard IBM formats, typically 1600 bits/in. But thereis an important difference, which is that the streamer canrecord and replay data in 'streaming mode', without startingand stopping between consecutive data records. By com-parison, a conventional tape drive must be able to stop veryprecisely within the customary \ in or so gap between blocksof data, and this requirement imposes severe demands uponthe design of the drive itself. The streamer has no such require-ment and can therefore be considerably simpler, cheaper andsmaller.

The streamer (Fig. 16) is now a recognised item of OEMequipment in the data processing market, and this particularslice of the market is contested keenly by some five inter-national manufacturers, THORN EMI being the only Europeancontestant.

A very enthusiastic UK team has produced what promisesto be a world beater in this highly specialised and rapidlymoving field. They have produced the world's smallest \ in(noncartridge) tape drive (occupying a volume equivalent totwo standard 8 in floppy disc drives) at a cost that undercutsthe rest of the market by a considerable margin. Much ofthis is due to the fact that the machine is microprocessorcontrolled to provide the sophisticated speed control requiredfor this application and to provide the most comprehensiveset of self-diagnostics for failure analysis possessed by anymachine in this field. The machine is autoloading, ingeniouslyusing air from the cooling fan to blow the \ in tape from theinserted spool to the take-up spool, the complex procedurefor driving the spools during this process of course beingcontrolled by the microprocessor. Any machine malfunctionis 'fed-back' to the operator via the alpha-numerical displayon the front panel, giving a ready diagnosis of the failuremode. Fig. 166 shows the lay-out of the front panel, which

Fig. 16 Streamers

231

this time has survived intact from the original concept of theindustrial designer.

Determination and meticulous attention to cost and detailhave ensured that advanced design of data processing equip-ment is not restricted to the west coast of the USA: in thisparticular area the running is being made at Wookey Holein Somerset and the course looks good.

Are there any lessons to be learned from the four 'goodnews' stories? There are three common factors to which Ishould like to draw your attention:

(a) In each case there has been a clear market need tobe met. Streamers are an absolute necessity, as are ventilationand false teeth. In every case there was a clear demand forthe product and none was an example of a solution lookingfor a problem.

(b) A second common factor is that all the products have

Sir Wflliam Barlow, born in June 1924,was educated at Manchester GrammarSchool and Manchester University, wherehe obtained a first class honours degreein electrical engineering. After graduatingfrom university, Sir William spent threeyears in the Royal Navy. Sir Williambegan his industrial career in 1947 as agraduate apprentice with the EnglishElectric Company Ltd., where he spent21 years serving in management positions

in Spain, Canada and England. His last appointment with thatcompany was Managing Director, English Electric Computers,where he organised its merger with ICT to form ICL. In 1970he organised the merger of Britain's three major ball bearingcompanies and was Chairman and Chief Executive of theresulting company, RHP, until 1977. In 1977 he wasappointed Chairman of the Post Office, which then includedthe postal and telecommunications services and the NationalGirobank, with 420 000 employees. In 1980 he organised thedivision into two separate corporations: British Telecom andThe Post Office, following which he returned to the privatesector. He is a Director of THORN EMI as Chairman of theEngineering Group, which includes 60 subsidiary companiesin the UK and overseas, engaged in electronics, electricaland mechanical engineering and information technology. Heis Chairman of the Design Council. He is a non-executivedirector of BICC, Royal Worcester and Inmos, and is aGovernor of the London Business School. He is a Fellowof the Fellowship of Engineering, a Fellow of the IEE and aFellow of the I Mech E. Sir William, who is married and has ason and daughter, received his Knighthood in June 1977 forhis services to the engineering industry.

been well conceived with considerable attention to detail. Amarket need will not go begging for long and there is alwayscompetition. Almost always it is the best product that willget the most sales, and this is usually a question of ensuringthat your product is a little bit better than the competitionin many different ways.

Lastly, each of these products had to be created by a designteam. Although each team may have had a leader, in nocase could any one person claim entire responsibility for theproduct. The industrial designer had to co-operate with theteam of electronic engineers in producing the streamer, andthe ergonomist had to co-operate with the mechanical eng-ineers in producing the pathfinder, and, most extreme of all,dental experts had to collaborate with experts in computer-aided design in producing the new range of false teeth.

232 IEE PROCEEDINGS, Vol. 130, Pt. A, No. 4, JUNE 1983