 |
|
|
The product development newsletter no 10 |
| Interludes and diversions - no 2 |
| |
| Last month we saw one aspect of why projects can consume far more
man-hours than they should from a combination of human factors leading to
organised chaos. |
| But before you start spending serious money on a project, you need to be
sure that you’re going to develop a product that customers really want.
Otherwise, poor sales leads to under recovered overhead and investment, poor
profits and internal inquisition to punish (the innocent and reward the
guilty!). |
| This month, we have an interesting comment from an insider that could
explain why many products don’t meet sales targets because customer
requirements are not well enough (or at all) researched at the start of the
project. For example, was the Jaguar X-Type’s poor sales due to this? If it
was, could better sales have avoided the painful plant closures? |
| The interesting comment came from an insider; to make a point, it
revealed why your new car may contain so many new ideas that you don’t
actually want. And misses out a few that you expected. You may wonder why
these “interesting” new features appear; no doubt you thought that lots of
other people wanted them and you were the exception who didn’t. Well you may
have been wrong; no one may actually have wanted them at all. This was an
eye-opener to me on the car industry’s market research expertise. It related
to one particular manufacturer but maybe it’s widespread? Just think about
your own car’s features. Although this relates to cars, which is not what we
develop, maybe there are pointers that relate to what we do develop? |
| This is the modus operandi that our insider related: |
|
|
|
1. Design and product planning staff do not ask customers what
they’d like; instead, they look at what other makers are doing, or invent
something that they think they might like themselves, or that they think
will be trendy, then incorporate it. Product planners, aided and abetted by
the styling design staff, are apparently the experts at this. Examples:
Internet access from your car, electric handbrake, electronic gizmos you
never use (and political correctness in the owners handbook). You no doubt
have your own examples. |
| 2. If carmakers surveyed customers’ likes and dislikes when
they’ve owned the car for say 6 months, this would provide invaluable data
for their next update or model. But very few carmakers do this. Instead they
concentrate on asking about what went wrong and whether your local “sales
experience” was good. They don’t ask about the features you like because
they’re concerned with dealer performance, not design. And in any case, the
design areas would prefer to use their own judgement. |
| 3. Even if large numbers of users tell the design area about
their likes and dislikes (and it’s nigh on impossible to get communications
through to these areas), they ignore it and operate to item 1 above. One
major manufacturer sought users’ comments on a special invitation-only
website. There was good consensus on what users wanted but all were ignored.
No one could figure out why; but all was revealed later. After a time, the
car company’s design area presented their suggestions and asked for comment,
which was fairly universally negative. So the next model incorporated some
of the features that the selected users had thumbed down. They cited the
website feedback as justification. |
| 4. Using concept cars is justified financially to condition the
market and to gauge public reaction to new ideas. But again the feedback can
be ignored and the design team incorporates what they liked in the concept
cars that they had designed. Occasionally the concept is received with rave
reviews - everyone wants one. So they decide not to manufacture it (actual
experience). |
| 5. When considering exporting a model, the product planners often
don’t understand the markets they’re targeting. For example, late in 2003
one major US maker gave a sparkling internal presentation on how it was
going to export a new up-market SUV to Europe, with a V8 petrol engine, no
diesel in the range, massive weight and dimensions, and every gizmo in
sight. Some European engineers happened to be in the audience because they
were over there at the time. They explained that large thirsty behemoths
were far from saleable in the in Europe. But rather than absorb the
information, the product planner’s reaction was defensive; they didn’t hear.
Why? Self-preservation back at her corporate HQ. She had convinced the top
brass (who maybe knew even less) and couldn’t backtrack for fear of
generating interesting new job prospects for herself! So maybe we should
watch out for an interesting new V8 SUV from the US. |
|
|
|
6. Product planning and design areas often regard the views of
motoring journals as “really useful”. But the journalists’ views may be far
removed from those of the average buyer. And because they don’t have to buy
what they test (most can’t afford them) how do you recognise what represents
good value when you don’t have to pay for it yourself? Some always give a
glowing report to make sure they get another car to test. So the car
designers take note of the journalists’ views, despite their tastes not
always being representative of the buying public (or fleet managers). |
| 7. In Hall Tests, a focus group is asked to rate their
preferences, and comment on features, to compare the Next New Car with a
series of ‘disguised’ competitors’ models. But because this is held when the
Next New Car concept is already set in concrete, it’s too late to make
fundamental changes. So it’s too late to be useful. Ah, you might think, but
the comments will be useful because they will be used for the next model.
Wrong. They’re usually ignored unless they agree with what the design team
thinks. |
| I was a little surprised by all this. I find that that some of these
items can be typical of some of the companies I get involved with but I was
surprised to find it of the car industry. I had always thought the motor
industry was a shining example. |
| Although your product is not a car, maybe you have equivalent kinds of
behaviour around where you sit. A number of non-car companies are brilliant
at researching customers. They do it themselves to avoid losing valuable
data by getting an outside firm to do it for them. And they make profitable
use of the data they gain, to the point that their profits increase year on
year, some at more than 20% compound growth, even in today’s climate. They
use good methods to research how and what customers want from them, methods
easily grasped and applied. And in addition, they do 3 other vital things
that enable them to achieve this performance. If you look back to a previous
newsletter, you’ll find what they are. |
| Is there a point to all this - a moral? Well yes; it is that it’s easy
to be entertained by the misfortunes of others (like TV soaps) but 100 times
harder to fix when you recognise any of these things in your own firm. It
usually takes widespread consensus, led from the top. There’s not much point
in just reading about it, you have to do something, and that’s what we all
find so hard. But whatever it takes, in the end you have to survive. So be
encouraged - go for it! |
