Blog

Ann Zimmerman of The Wall Street Journal wrote a fascinating article earlier this week on Target’s efforts to help thwart “Showrooming” when shoppers come into the store to see a product in person only to buy it from a rival later on-line, frequently at a lower price. 

According to the article “Last week, in an urgent letter to vendors, the Minneapolis-based chain suggested that suppliers create special products that would set it apart from competitors and shield it from the price comparisons that have become so easy for shoppers to perform on their computers and smartphones”.  

Hmmm.. As a product developer, I find some special significance and perhaps just a twinge of schadenfreude here – not specifically at Target but over my perception that the big-box retailers were a key enabler and driver of the rush to undifferentiated, unimaginative products in the retail segment.  We consumers were certainly to blame but the increased clout of big-box retailers and their relentless squeeze on margins and unwillingness to take risk or allocate space for niche products contributed to this reality. 

Manufacturers often responded by slashing internal innovation and turning into glorified branding/sourcing firms where generic, undifferentiated products from offshore manufacturers were rebadged, reskinned, repackaged and cost reduced to the point of total homogeneity and mediocrity.  When “true innovation” is defined as having 32 speeds on my blender instead of 24 I think I can predict where this is headed.  Ironically, of all the big-box retailers, it is Target that arguably puts the biggest premium on innovation and design.  Never the less, the squeeze is evident, widespread and apparently painful. 

Of course nothing illegal, immoral or even deplorable here – just the natural churn of a business cycle.  The big-box retailers did a great job of steering us to what we want in a way that left them uniquely positioned to provide it.   And now technology has turned that cycle again but this time the big-box retailer are the ones being left in the lurch. 

 I don’t know for sure but I’m guessing the future doesn’t bode well for Target’s strategy here. Smart phones and tablets are the latest extension to the limitless pool of internet knowledge and frictionless commerce, giving us unprecedented and seamless access to both information and channels of distribution.  That particular genie is out of that particular bottle.  Asking suppliers to gen up “special products” to help Target differentiate themselves from Amazon might have them wondering “what have you done for me lately?.”  Or at least “why”? 

As a further irony, I might envision a future where brick-and-mortar retailers survive and indeed thrive by refocusing on a boutique approach to niche products and elevating the shopping “experience” – ironic because these were exactly the retail traits crushed by the big box revolution.  If there’s any doubt how we think things are headed, a quick comparison of the stock prices of Amazon and Target is pretty telling.  Might be time for a little innovation around the business model. 

Dave Franchino, president and principal of Design Concepts, will be headed back to the classroom February 1-3 to speak with Stanford University students about product design and management. Dave will share his experiences, as both a product developer and leader of an innovation firm, with students enrolled in two engineering courses. An alum of Stanford, Dave was also invited to join the conversation at the University’s design forum and a manufacturing roundtable where he’ll meet with area manufacturing leaders as well as design students.

Looking forward to great conversations with old friends and new, not to mention warmer weather.

Over the years, working styles have changed and so has the working office. From the trends of secluded private offices to vast cube farms, businesses have continually sought to create more productive work environments. Our own workspace is a testament to changing office designs.

We moved into our 22,000-square-foot facility almost 12 years ago. In 2000, the cube farm reigned supreme. Very large individual spaces with six-foot partitions and an intricate maze of cubes filled with deep table-top desks formed the backbone of our office. At the time, our cube farm was the latest-and-greatest – both attractive and functional.

Twelve years later, our needs have definitely changed. For starters, we’ve grown from 20 to 57 employees. With this wide breadth of in-house talent, our solutions are now created by multi-disciplinary teams more than a single individual – teams that need space to collaborate. And, just as importantly, our brand has evolved and heightened our need for a clean office aesthetic that matches our visual brand identity.

Early in 2011, we made the decision to tackle an office redesign. We ran the project just as we do our client projects. We identified goals and continually aligned expectations. We researched user needs and established opportunity areas. We completed contextual research and surveyed the competitive landscape. We collaborated with designers (interior, this time) to find creative solutions. This iterative process fine tuned our concepts and identified the good, the bad, and the beautiful.

On December 30, 2011, we finished updating our space to give our staff an opportunity to better meet our clients’ needs. Our new space allows for a variety of working styles, makes room for new staff members as we continue to grow, and gives a dramatic update to our aesthetic. It also adds light, increases mobility, reduces noise, improves collaboration, demonstrates respect for privacy and a little bit more.

We feel as it we’ve moved from black-and-white to technicolor. We hope to have a chance to take you on a tour of the new space and show you what we mean. But until then, a picture will have to speak a thousand words.

I was drawn recently to a story on Walter Reed Military Hospital describing the engineers and doctors working on prosthetics for returning amputees from Afghanistan. The story focused on the advances in field medicine leading to greater survival rates. One uncomfortable but common question the article addressed was, “How do you decide if an injury is too horrible to keep a victim alive?” The response was, “It’s not my place to judge quality of life. We save everyone.” The result is a population of amputees many of whom have a continued zest for life and a push for engineers to make them specialized tools to perform the activities they love (tennis, cooking, etc.).

There is something powerful in designing for an individual. First, the needs aren’t generalized and the features aren’t optimized (read: averaged) for a population of users. Second, cost and manufacturing constraints don’t exist – if multiple iterations are needed, all are “prototypes” never to be mass produced. Third, judgment is quick and clear – you can see the emotional response and you can see the results in use. All of these elements create in a satisfying process of meeting a need and measuring the success in a person’s gratitude or enjoyment.

Some of our most successful projects are inspired by the “design for one” (or a few). I am reminded of Project Runway’s Tim Gunn asking contestants, “who is your customer?” The answer is often, “a busy executive who moves from work to an art opening.” Way too vague, right? “Francine is my customer” is a much better answer. Sadra Medical has designed a revolutionary catheter based heart valve replacement device. Their first patient was identified and used as a beacon during the clinical trial development push and continues to be a representation of the “people they hope to help” after a successful trial. Designers and engineers can picture what she needs. She needs a quick recovery to avoid hospital induced sickness. She needs a flexible, small catheter to traverse her vasculature. She needs to survive – she has a very clear success rate: it’s either 100% or 0%.

On the other hand, projects have suffered for lack of the “one.” Often ideas looking for users wander aimlessly based on where competition or opinion leads.

Can we risk letting one person stand in for a population when designing a product used by many? Probably not. Most products are intended to be used in varied environments by users separated in age, gender, education, size, dexterity, etc. What “design for one” provides, though, is a North Star, a tough critic, a Francine that we can’t disappoint. If we satisfy Francine, we’ve done our job well.

Has your employer ever sent you to a conference and you were:

1. Not really sure what you were there to learn or do.
2. Sick at the thought of awkwardly talking to strangers during “networking time.”
3. Guilt-ridden about the recap you were supposed to write of the event—but didn’t.
4. All of the above, and more.

 Yes, we’ve all been there. Conferences can be incredibly stimulating, but they can also be tough on the brain, the ego and, if the chairs are hard, the backside.

 I had an experience last week that will revolutionize the way I participate in conferences.

It seems counter-intuitive that a tool for connecting virtually can exponentially enhance the experience of connecting in person, but social media can. And it did.

At the Fast Company Innovation Uncensored Conference in San Francisco, I experienced the power of social media firsthand. Let me tell you what I saw. 

By my estimation, over half of the audience was using Twitter during the conference to comment on the speaker’s presentation in real time.  The conference organizers (who set up the hashtag #UI11) and the speakers and moderators waiting in the wings were Tweeting too.  This did two big things for those of us in attendance.

One, it allowed all of us to participate in a singular, robust “side conversation” if we so chose. The sessions became interactive and we all benefitted from the insights and opinions of the thought-leaders in the audience as well as those on stage.   Those who weren’t participating in social media were simply on the receiving end of what was presented.

Was it distracting? Not for me. In fact, I’d say it made me pay better attention as I was seeking out key insights to Tweet.

 Two, social media actually facilitated face-to-face networking. After following the conversation all day, it was much easier to approach people during the networking time and pick up where the conversation left off, so to speak. Also, because most everyone has a headshot associated with his or her twitter handle, I could recognize by sight, and comfortably approach, people I’d never actually met.  Social awkwardness practically eliminated.

Of secondary importance, social media allowed attendees to give feedback to the conference organizers in real time. “Can you move the podium? Those of us on the right can’t see” was the most productive tweet. “My ass is mad”—about the hard wooden chairs—gets the humor award.

Lastly, post-conference, a review of the Twitter stream provides a great crowd-sourced recap of the event.  All the key takeaways are right there!

If you think Twitter is about broadcasting to the world what kind of sandwich you made for lunch, let me share with you a few actual tweets from the event.  You’ll see they are thoughtful and each is crafted as a conversation starter, which is what social media is all about.

•  “Big ideas stem from small ideas. You must have the courage to swim against the current” – Padmasree Warrior, CTO of Cisco #iu11
• 20th Century was about hyper consumption; 21st Century about collaborative consumption (via @socialadvoc8) #IU11
• RT @VegasGalB: If you have a smartphone, you have every tool needed to create a revolution #iu11
• Livestrong was founded by VCs so they are not interested in incremental improvements. – Doug Ulman, CEO, Livestrong #IU11

There were three hundred attendees at this conference. If each of us Tweeting has, say, 125 followers, that means that content from this conference reached 18,750 people who weren’t physically there. Not only were the ideas for the event disseminated, Tweets invite engagement, which means the conversation became even that much longer and richer.

This is significant. And I bet not a one of those 18,750 people got the sore bum I did.