Product development, perfected in the crystal ball
For many designers, engineers, innovators and developers, finding the recipe for the perfect next big thing is more or less the holy grail. I have worked with several clients having widely different approaches. Most of the more serious ones do realize that they need to cover technology, design, branding, marketing etc, but still, the majority does not end up being really great. Seemingly perfect products end up incomplete or hard to understand.
There are many ways to approach this. One can imagine the design, and find someone who can add the technology needed to create a superior product in its category. But what about the type of product? What about the timing? How can we identify these factors? We need to have a look into the crystal ball to better understand where we are heading.
Within the computer industry we have lots of interesting classic statements trying to analyze what would happen in the future. Computers and Internet was deemed useless or niche. We can laugh today, but what did they know back then, or rather what could they have known? When the first geeks connected to an Internet server, they could not explain how this would be interesting for most people. When the first phones were able to connect to Internet, it was something we thought could be great for some “on the fly business guy” using all the high tech tools in between meetings. But for the average consumer?
Products are viewed differently by markets and innovators
Today, Internet is a place where people spend lots of time and let them selves be entertained for hours. Even kids and old people, and this is very far from the predictions just 25 years ago. It is off course due to the content. After Internet was first introduced, it did not take long before lots of content was created, but people still did not throw them selves into it. Connections were slow and expensive, the content wasn’t that great, and the device were typically not very portable. But people did not run around looking for cheaper connections, better content and better devices. They simply did not care. It was a typical “faster horse”-situation of the late 20.th century. But Internet was not a product, it was a platform for services, and that is not a very sexy thing. We did not have these services yet, and we did not even have great user interfaces for services like this at the time.
So, let us keep these 3 terms to help focus on what is what. Platform, service and interface.
When the car was first introduced, the platform was poorly executed. Fuel was hard to find, a bit like purchasing an electric car in 1990. The road network, where one existed, was made for horses and feet. If you brought a 2021 Mercedes S-class back to Germany in 1880 we would not have suitable fuel, and we would not have suitable roads. So besides probably being super impressed, people would have a hard time understanding the point as the platform was simply not there yet. When this car was introduced, it was into an existing platform. The network of roads and fueling stations were already there, and we take it for given. The car then represents the interface, meaning the way the service is delivered. It is all about comfort, design, performance etc. But even today, it basically still does the same as a horse and buggy did back in the 19.th century, so the service was established before the car was introduced. In other words, this would have been a very different case than when Internet was introduced.
The world of electric cars has changed a lot during the past 20 years. Most of the popular cars today could not have made it in 2001, because of the missing charging infrastructure. That is probably still the situation in many countries today. Many of the first cars were in fact electric, and they seemed to have a stronger position in the market in 1895 than in 1995. What had happened in these 100 years was that cars had been an everyday product, the road network had been something completely different, and people had different expectations than 100 years earlier. It is very easy to see how a product can be good, but if a small piece of its platform is missing, it simply wont cut it. In 1995 the charging network was actually significantly better than in 1895, but it far from matched peoples expectations to the platform as gas infrastructure was far better at the time. If people experience insufficient access to the service, there is no way it will be a commercial success.
What would the smartphones have been without their platforms? One have to remember that there are at least 3 very important platforms making the smartphones possible. One is the Internet. Without it, the phone would be back to 1995. The second one is the cellular network. The first smartphones had both, but they were missing a wide selection of useful applications. Businesses had not put any services on apps, and there were few games available. A bit like having a powerful electric car, a perfect road, but an empty battery and nowhere to plug it in. One could probably find a few useful applications around the Internet even back then, but it was not systematically presented and in any way optimized for a phone. And who really wanted to spend their time searching the Internet to find something they did not know they wanted? The application stores changed this, and made us use phones they way we do today.
Everytime people discuss the possibility of a new product, they seem to be in love with words like “revolution” and “disruptive”. But a revolution to the user is most often a minor evolution to the product itself. In order to understand what might be viewed as revolutionary, one needs to identify the missing links. Applications for phones could be found pretty early on, but were rarely used. As applications became better and more available, it was a huge step for the consumer. Adding a slightly altered input method and a slightly faster OS was, to be fair, no big deal seen from a technology viewpoint, but from the customers view, it made all the difference in the world.
Not all categories apply to all products. For example, in order to supply electric energy, you do not need to develop a different user interface for electricity. It does not feel different depending on the suplier. To make a great shoe, you do not need a platform, as long as there are customers, they will have feet, and they will need shoes. A piece of art will typically not need a service, it just has an interface. One can off course identify platforms, services and interfaces for all products, but as they are not independent they are just part of the products other properties and can easily be designed directly into the product. This does not mean the market will stay this way. Maybe some service together with electricity becomes mandatory in a few years? Maybe running shoes should be connected to something to give us more knowledge about our exercise? We should consider these factors for all products, but not force them into the product just because we can.
One of the most successful audio equipment companies lately is Sonos. Sonos is not louder, does not sound better, and it is not cheaper or better looking than its competitors. But what they have done, and what they will be remembered for, is making a platform that connects services with their interface. Their competitors are typically not identified as Denon, Sony, Harman or B&O, but as Google and Apple. This is probably because the platform is so crucial, and when people see the products demonstrated, they get the point. When another proprietary system with numerous overlaping apps and limited functions are demonstrated, they can not sell it as being better because of higher resolution, higher quality etc. Sonos’ fully integrated system, combined with proprietary dual band radio, means they beat their competirots simply by offering something that works better for the user than the competing brands. And when the other brands ensure compatibility with Google and/or Apple streaming services, Spotify connect etc, they have still not solved multi room connectivity.
Using the crystal ball
We kan look at all of this in hindsight, but what we want to do is to look at what we can and should do next. When an idea is born, we know that our competitors are thinking some of the same thoughts as we do. This means we should strive to take 2 steps each time we review our product plan, and we need to do it slightly better than our competitors every time. To do this we need to allways fight uncertainty. Because let us face it, there is no such thing as a crystal ball that can give us answers. We need to look at what we actually know.
The first step is most of the time relatively obvious. We can watch a ski jumper 30 meters before the jump, and we can easily predict what is going to happen within the next second. But if we try to predict what is going to happen the next 10 seconds, we will have a very small chance of getting it 100% right. This makes it more difficult, but it also gives us a better chance against our competitors. If we can get it 80% right, and our competitors are stuck at 60%, we do have a huge advantage already. An expert would be able to see, from the way the athlete is sitting over his or her skis, if this is about to be a successful or a less successful jump. If we look at the wind monitor, and the speed of the athlete, we will have a better chance of making a qualified guess. If we combine this with the knowledge of the expert, we can reduce the x-factor, simply by adding intuition and knowledge.
The expert can make predictions based on what he or she observes, what is known about the athlete’s recent success rate, how the athlete has performed earlier in the same arena, what the wind conditions, starting gate etch is at the point, and several other factors. All of them are in essence statistics. Statistics is very useful, but one should be very aware if the raw data is knowledge based or estimation based. This is essentially a mix of market, technical and historical knowledge.
When the first 3 seconds has passed, one can also see if the jumper did hit or miss the edge of the jump, if he or she gets good lift, gets good stability etc. This means we can evaluate the path and see if we are on our way to a relatively certain success or not. This means, during a development process, we can gather information from the ongoing project and we can update our predictions based on this knowledge as well.
What is very hard to predict in this ski jumping example is what is going to happen in 5 minutes, or even 5 years. There are too many possibilities, and trying to predict it will require a different kind of knowledge. 5 minutes ahead, we can predict the development based on statistics, and considering the possibility of something serious happening. 5 years ahead, we do not have reliable statistics for any athelete, any nation, or any weather. This means predictions for a ski jump going to happen in 5 years time are relatively worthless. We can, however, make some predictions even in a 5 year perspective. We can say with relative certainty which contries are likely to stay in contention for the win. We can also say with relative certainty which countries are unlikely to be there. We can also predict that a young and extremely talented athelete has a likelyhood of delivering top 30 results in 5 years time. An older athelete is unlikely to still be on top after 5 years. We need to widen our scope in order to figure out what knowledge is available to us in a longer time frame.
So, to sum it all up. How do we identify the perfect new product within a defined category?
We need to identify where we are heading. Today’s trend will normally continue tomorrow. But what happens next will be affected by an increasing uncertainty factor. This is where we need to gather knowledge. We need to identify how platforms, services and interface plays parts in the user experience, not to mention how they will further develop in the next few years. You also need to consider if the company is willing to, and able to make the type of changes that are required to make the planned product a success.
The questions you need to ask yourself can be formulated like this:
PLATFORMS:
1: Which platforms does this product depend on?
2: Are these platforms existing?
3: Are they as convenient and user friendly as they should be?
4: Can we afford to fix the problems we discover?
5: What may happen to these platform for the next 5 years?
6: Are there other platforms we could and should consider?
7: Can we make the product independent of one or more platforms?
SERVICES:
1: Which services does this product depend on?
2: Are these services existing?
3: Are they as convenient and user friendly as they should be?
4: Can we afford to fix the problems we discover?
5: What may happen to these services for the next 5 years?
6: Are there other services we could and should consider?
7: Can we make the product independent of one or more services?
USER INTERFACE:
1: What user interfaces do we compete with?
2: How can we expect them to developed in the market for the next 5 years?
3: Are they as convenient and user friendly as they should be?
4: Can we afford to fix the problems we discover?
5: What may happen to these platform for the next 5 years?
6: Does our product connect as perfectly to the platforms as possible?
7: Does the product represent the best possible way to present the services to the user?
THIS IS WHEN YOUR DESIGN PROCESS CAN BEGIN!
Many products have succeeded because the company did consider how platforms, services and interface would develop a couple of steps ahead of when the products were developed. Let’s finally have a look at a few cases:
TESLA
At one point, Tesla needed to consider these things. They must have seen the huge problem of charging, and therefore decided to make the supercharger network. Norway was a pioneer market for EVs at this point. They established multiple charging stations all over Norway, and suddenly, a Tesla was a useful and convenient car to own in Norway.
SONOS
Sonos had several alternative technologies they could have tapped in on. But none of them were popular at the point where they started. None of them did offer the combinations of user friendly, stable, independent of the users own wifi network quality and the full flexible multi room functionality. They had to develop their own framework and app to handle this. Those are key to their success, and probably also their competitors lack of success.
APPLE
Apples ipod was a huge success, at least we think so. But it was just another mp3 music player. There were many others, and Jobs many times highlighted what he did think about his product compared to his competitors. But the real difference was itunes. It was how the product connected to the platform and services that made all the difference. Even today it is not perfectly clear that Jobs clearly did see this, but after living with smartphones for more than 10 years now, it is very easy to see how this made all the difference.
Google is a company that does many things we do not view as products the way we are used to. It is like a strange hybrid of enthusiastic freeware programmers, combined with advertising. I do not know what they knew when they first started developing their search engine, and I do not even know how they won the serace engine competition with such a huge margin. But today it is pretty clear how their search engine plays an important role in understanding what type of customers we are. We are exposed to ads through many different media channels, but even though Google is often viewed as a cynical player in the ad business, I have to admit that Google ads are among the least time consuming and annoying ads. They must clearly have thought about how the service is delivered to the user. This seems to be even more important for a service we do not actively seek.
Jørn Rune Kviserud, Tonalab/Midgard Audio 2021
jrkpost@gmail.com
https://www.linkedin.com/in/j%C3%B8rn-rune-kviserud-bbbba718/
