Building a HeathKit was no great feat of engineering—it came with a fixed list of parts and the schematic—but it helped you understand how electronics work by letting you assemble your own electronic products. And back in the day, a well-built HeathKit radio was every bit as good as the store-bought ones.

HeathKit fell by the wayside as the complexity for products increased and the quality difference between what you could buy commercially and what you could build yourself became too large, but thanks to the popularity of publications like Make Magazine, and an increase in the availability of specialty electronic parts and open-source software, a Maker renaissance has begun.

And when the Maker mentality pairs up with recent developments in hardware—like the success of Arduino, an open-source electronics prototyping platform—I have to wonder if conditions are right for a Maker-minded, open-design hardware community to stake a claim in the consumer manufacturing landscape.

Software has laid the philosophical foundation for open-source design

The success of Linux and other open-source tools have demonstrated that certain classes of software deliver greater functionality and value through a collaborative, open development process. Not only has it been proven that these open-source software platforms can add value, but there are even examples, like Red Hat, Linux and Springsource, of profitable businesses who only publish open-source software. These companies give the product away for free, and make money by providing support, services, integration and community for that software.

The growing acceptance of open-source software products presents an interesting question for hardware manufacturers—could a growing hardware Maker community create similar value in open-design hardware? Is there a class of products for which the open-design model is better than the proprietary development model?

Open-design hardware dominates in some unusual places

At first glance, it would appear that Arduino stands alone as a model for open-source hardware design, but there are other markets where mass-produced, open-design hardware has succeeded, and even dominated. For instance, the M1911 pistol—the classic “Colt 45”—has been produced world-wide using an open design for decades. Similarly, the AK-47 submachine gun was designed in Russia, but is now produced world-wide from readily available specifications.

The success of the open-design model in the gun market is informative. For better or worse, guns are in wide demand all over the world, and if you looked at other markets where there is global demand for a high-value product—like high-tech electronics—you might expect the gun market to be dominated by a few global suppliers of proprietary products who achieve tremendous economies of scale (think of Apple, or IBM, or Cisco in electronics). Two characteristics make the gun market special: an overriding need for standardization, and support for local manufacturers who are too small to develop proprietary designs. Standardization is required because guns have to be compatible with a standardized component—ammunition—and because armies want to minimize their training costs. And nation-states have a very strong interest in supporting a “local” gun industry because they generally don’t want to rely on others for their guns.

Other than guns, there are examples of successful open designs in the form of standards-based products in some commodity functions—like plumbing—where there is relatively little opportunity for innovation, and where the market demands a standardized device that just works in existing infrastructure. When a market relies on mechanical interchangeability of simple hardware in a very large installed base, the benefits of open-design outweigh the benefits of proprietary solutions.

Will open-design supplant proprietary design in new markets?

The fact that open-design hardware has dominated specific, niche markets, is proof that it can work commercially—it’s just a question of the market fit.

For example, the open-design approach may not ever be appropriate for brand name, mass-produced, electronic consumer products. In this case, the economies of scale and required level of design integration are probably not achievable by an open-design community with limited resources.

However, if we got to a point where high-quality open designs could be easily fabricated and produced by many manufacturers, this could be a successful model in markets where product utility is more important than style, and where economies of scale are not too great. For example, there have been successful open-design products in the developing world for products such as water pumps and systems for water purification. There is an opportunity to cultivate an entrepreneurial manufacturing community in the developing world through the production of these kinds of open-design products.

Another place where this model might work is being demonstrated by sites like Kickstarter, where some companies have successfully paid for product development and manufacturing through pre-committed orders. To place a pre-committed order, a customer has to believe that the delivered product will really work. The transparency of a community-backed open design could provide the “product credibility” needed to enable manufacturers to use the pre-committed revenue model more broadly.

For example, if you had a machine shop, you could publish a catalog of community-created open designs, and allow pre-paid demand to drive your production schedule. This would be a great way to get interesting, innovative products to the customer as needed.

Because really, who wouldn’t want one of these?

To read more musings from Eric Larkin

Minimum viable product

Do QR codes belong on the shop floor?

Internet explorer, standards and customer value

What goes into creating a manufacturing change process?

Here are some things to consider as you’re developing your manufacturing change process:

• How are manufacturing change orders (MCOs) initiated?
• Who are key stakeholders?
• How are disagreements resolved?
• Who needs to sign off on each part of the process?
• What is an acceptable amount of time for deliberation?
• How is the resolution communicated to the floor?
• How are different touch points managed along the way?

These are just some of the questions that need to be answered to develop a manufacturing change process that works—and as you may have noticed, communication is at the heart of each one.

Not only is communication essential for developing a manufacturing change process that addresses problems efficiently, but it is also necessary to ensure that changes are properly shared with internal teams and external vendors. If you’re looking to develop effective and organized communication between your manufacturing and engineering teams as well as other stakeholders, here are some steps you can take.

How do you encourage communication between manufacturing and engineering?

The first step to building strong relationships between your engineering and manufacturing teams is to encourage regular interaction between these departments. There are many ways to do this. Engineers can get involved with the manufacturing process by spending time on the manufacturing line. This simple act allows engineers to get face time with line workers and leads, receive feedback and comments they can use at the design table and show their interest in the manufacturing process. In addition, by observing the day-to-day challenges of production, engineers may be able to find places to optimize their product design.

On the flip side, involving your manufacturing team in the design process early allows them to catch potential production challenges before the product reaches the assembly line. Encourage your engineers to share their prototypes with manufacturing to find out how they would build them. By soliciting the opinion of your manufacturing team before production begins, you can catch problems early—perhaps even before they impact production—and save time and money.

With solid give-and-take between manufacturing and engineering, engineering can design with manufacturing in mind, and manufacturing can be better prepared for production. This win-win situation is only possible when an open and communicative relationship is established between these teams.

Adopt formal systems that facilitate communication between teams and external vendors

Even with open lines of communication between engineering and manufacturing, it’s important to adopt a standardized system for initiating, evaluating, implementing and reviewing manufacturing changes. This provides your assembly line workers and leads with formal ways to document and share manufacturing changes—besides flagging down an engineer—and helps you optimize the process.  As you can imagine, having a clearly documented system for implementing change is even more important for teams with multi-step manufacturing processes or remote manufacturers, suppliers or distributors.

Be sure to include all key stakeholders in your manufacturing change review process and make it easy for them to participate. You can use paper change forms to capture, document and process changes, but especially for remote teams, you may be better off using tools that allow everyone to provide same-day feedback—like a change management software program. With electronic change management systems, you can bypass common holdups like geographic boundaries so information gets to the right people at the right time. (Full disclosure — this is one of the main reasons so many companies adopt Arena bill of materials (BOM) and change management software.)

Providing easy ways to communicate problems on—and off—the line makes it easy to resolve small problems quickly and educate stakeholders about bigger problems before they impact business. For more tips on managing the manufacturing change process, check out our article, “Three tips for creating a manufacturing change process that works.”

Other Resources:

Best practices on how to manage the engineering change process

Engineering change notifications (ECNs) – The start to an efficient change implementation

Share clean snapshots of your BOM with PDXViewer

We saw the bill of materials (BOM) for the iPad 2 last week and were impressed by the low costs Apple was able to achieve for its newest version of the tablet, which is considerably improved over the original. With iPad 2 sales reaching almost a million units in the product’s debut weekend, Apple has once again established its dominance as a leader in consumer electronics.

Taking manufacturing tips from Apple can seem like a futile exercise—its unique position in the market affords it privileges other companies simply don’t have. Apple’s manufacturing strategy requires volume, power, adamant control of the supply chain and attitude—for smaller manufacturing organizations with limited resources, it’s an impossible strategy to replicate. But no matter how small your organization, there are lessons to be learned from Apple’s progression as a leader in consumer electronics.

Design, execution and volume set Apple apart

When tracing Apple’s path as a manufacturer, there are clear differentiators that have led it to success, including a strong and focused design aesthetic, perfectionism in execution and unparalleled dominance over its supply chain.

Apple established its brand, style and ideals early on, and stuck to them through failure and success. The strong adherence to the brand is clear—you know an Apple product the moment you see it. Though its aesthetic and artistic sensibilities have clearly matured over the years, Apple has always driven toward simple design, minimized modes, low part count and cohesion across versions.

Additionally, Apple has extremely high standards for product development and won’t release a product until it works seamlessly with other Apple products. In many cases this means leveraging parts already in Apple’s library, or creating parts that can be integrated into new releases across other product lines. If an expensive prototype doesn’t fit the Apple mold, it is eventually scrapped. Not many companies in an industry as fast-paced as consumer electronics allow this kind of design inefficiency on the path to innovation. Even if a product flops once it hits the market—like the notorious clear cube—Apple engineers have no problem scrapping months, if not years, of design work to go back to the drawing board and make it right.

Because of Apple’s adherence to a specific design aesthetic and philosophy, the limited products that actually make it to market have a lot in common. The unique parts used across multiple product lines are purchased in extremely high volumes, so although Apple incurs a large initial expense to have these parts custom-designed, the overall cost is low. For example, the A4 processor was used in both the iPad 1 and the iPhone 4, while the new A5 processor (which is basically two A4s working together) will be used in both the iPad 2 and the iPhone 5. So as millions of products are sold, Apple buys millions of the same parts, making it a desirable customer for any supplier. As Apple’s reputation and purchasing power grow, its control over the supply chain increases as well. When a new product needs to be created Apple has the ability to design a its form factor and have its suppliers make parts that fit—unlike most companies, who need to design their products around available parts.

Apple’s ability to purchase uniquely designed, high-quality parts in bulk has created a barrier to entry for other manufacturers in the space. The barrier is not just Apple’s unique technology and design, but also the volume of products the company sells. Competitors in the space have a difficult time finding comparable parts for a similar price and are unable to replicate Apple’s unique form factors, so it’s nearly impossible to enter a market dominated by Apple and effectively compete.

So what? I’m not Apple.

Don’t worry—not everyone needs to be. For example, Google has become wildly successful creating low-cost, sharp-edged technology that can be implemented in a number of ways—a direct contrast to Apple’s strategy of using high-end, high-volume parts. The point is, it’s a big mistake to try and be Apple if you’re not Apple. To be Apple is a luxury that requires a unique attitude, focused design aesthetics and large scale purchasing, and depending on your industry that might not be a realistic strategy. But you can emulate Apple (or Googe for that matter) by using your own internal biases, culture and personality to determine what competitive differentiators will inform your strategy.

Apple has a uniquely profitable combination of traits—purposeful waste, intelligent product selection, clear vision, low part count, excellence in design—these are all things you can try to replicate, but only if it makes sense for your product, culture and industry. Perhaps your strengths are different. Maybe you have a geographic advantage or a highly efficient purchasing team or good relationships with your customers—if you can identify what your differentiators are, you can choose a manufacturing strategy that makes the most of them.

Determining your strengths and embracing a clear vision in line with them won’t necessarily make you a $200 billion company, but it will help you develop the most efficient and effective strategy for your team. And that is something even the smallest of manufacturers can drive toward.

You’ve just conceived a brilliant new invention. Now what?

A recent post in the MFG.com Mojo blog offers suggestions to help you navigate the early stages of “bringing your creation to life.” MFG.com’s “4 Rules For Inventors & Entrepreneurs Sourcing Their Products” are:

1. Enlist a designer – You’ll get better manufacturing results if you can provide complete, accurate design information. One option is to pick a manufacturing partner that offers design capabilities too.
2. Quality of information – Having good, complete information will help you find the right supplier, shorten the production process and make design changes more easily later in the game.
3. Think twice about going to a low-cost country for your first run – When you’re just getting started, cost is a concern–but the complexity that comes from variables like language, lead times and quality management shouldn’t be overlooked. Be as thorough as possible when comparing the tradeoffs.
4. Protect your invention…correctly – Require non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) before discussing your invention, and get trademark and patent applications underway right away.

Read the complete MFG.com Mojo post for more details.

The Victor Bike is his answer to his own question.

By re-conceiving the shape of the frame, reducing the amount of metal used and carefully selecting greener materials and manufacturing processes, Robillard has set a new standard for eco-friendly bicycle design. But it’s about so much more than that, according to Robillard, himself:

Reducing the material weight, optimising the manufacturing process, using recyclable and recycled materials, simplifying the disassembling and the separation of materials at the end of life are technical points which have to be respected during the development of a sustainable product. I believe in Mr. Jonathan Chapman’s philosophy — EMOTIONALLY DURABLE DESIGN — where the object presenting the best environmental qualities are the ones that we love, to whom we become attached and the ones we preserve.

Victor is not only the result of a quantifiable analysis work following a protocol of green engineering, but an object that has an irreplaceable role to our everyday life.

I tried to show the elegance and the grace which a bicycle can have through everyday use. A companion to the everyday life that joins us in what I consider to be a respectable and admirable lifestyle. I created an object which harmonizes with the townscape while respecting the charisma and the dignity of the cyclist: such values I hold dearly.

Further reading:
Christophe Robillard’s blog
Flickr images of the Victor Bike
Co.Design coverage of the Victor Bike

The proposed solutions offer a range of great ideas for how to approach the problem, from the Karma Cup’s social engineering angle to Miller Creative’s Radial Fin Cup with an integrated insulating sleeve design.

The Karma Cup uses social engineering to increase the use of reusable cups and therefore reduce waste:

Miller Creative’s entry reduces waste by integrating the protective sleeve, using biodegradable and renewable resources for the rest of the cup and employing a manufacturing process that does not require glue:

The betacup contest was sponsored by jovoto, an organization that describes itself as “a marketplace for creative concepts [that connects] those who have ideas with those who need them, providing the necessary tools to make the process fun and fair.”

The betacup entry ranked #1 by the jovoto community is a 100% biodegradable cup made from rice husks and available in a disposable or reusable version. (The reusable one even comes with an RFID sleeve that would replace the prepaid payment card.)

See all betacup entries on the jovoto website.

The company, an Arena customer, started making hands-free hydration systems for mountain bikers and motocross riders, “allowing them to drink without taking their hands off of the handlebars in technical terrain.” Since then “Camelbaks” have become popular for use while hiking, running, snowboarding and skiing in addition to cycling. They typically consist of a capped pouch of water with a long tube and bite valve, enclosed in some wearable form factor.

From this simple concept, Camelbak has built an incredible range of similar but specialized products: more than 90 hydration pack styles for recreational and military use. The company dominates the market through good use of technology (easy-to-use bite valve, rugged materials, easy opening and leakproof cap) and a willingness to customize its product for new sports or situations. Camelbak makes  a pack for refilling other packs (the Squadpak, 25L capacity) for use by a military unit, packs specifically designed for women, packs for use while skiing in sub-zero temperatures, packs for use under body armor and even a variety of “mini” packs (50 oz) for kids.

Another strategy is the purely cosmetic. Take Envirosax. These reusable shopping bags fold up into compact snap close packages. Envirosax has built its brand by offering a wide array of colors and graphics. Same bag design – different looks to appeal to different market segments.

You can also vary packaging and pricing. In addition to slight product differences, Superfeet uses color, pricing and packaging changes to sell its insoles to multiple market segments. The packaging and pricing for the product targeted at women differs from that aimed at athletes, “on their feet” professionals (doctors, nurses) or industrial workers. Inside the box you will find the same core product, with minor tweaks for the specific user segment.

These three companies have built on their primary product offering and diversified into adjacent markets without inventing a whole new product. Their strategy isn’t for everyone, but it might be worth considering whether your technology can be reused in new form factors or colors or marketed in a new way to appeal to other user groups. Who knows, variation on a theme might lead to your own empire.

This perching unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) relies on a claw design similar to a small bird, enabling it to perch on vertical surfaces.

The Stickybot mimics a gecko, enabling it to climb smooth vertical surfaces.

This robotic handling system gets a greatly expanded range of motion by mimicking an elephant’s trunk.

With fluid-based muscles, this system mimics the muscle structure of a human.

To learn more about some of these (and other) projects, visit the online home of the Stanford Biomimetics & Dexterous Manipulation Laboratory, which designed the perching UAV and the Stickybot.

In contrast, please let me introduce you to an old-fashioned umbrella mechanism with style and superior utility. The umbrella in question was produced in 1957, by a company called PJK, and the mechanism patented. The umbrella line is called “Touch and Go.”   It looks like this:

Beautiful, isn’t it? And strong. This umbrella has never turned inside out in my experience, and it has been used in blustery New England weather. The spokes are thick, with a rectangular cross-section, and oriented such that the bending moment to flip the umbrella inside out acts through the long axis of the rectangle.

The true genius of this mechanism though, is the tensioning system. Rather than employ a spring inside the umbrella shaft, this umbrella uses the spokes themselves to generate tension. Look again at the detail picture. The spokes are aligned in pairs and when force is exerted on the tip of the umbrella, the pairs are compressed, bowing the two sides out to form the lovely petal shape you see in the photo. That petal shape is a pair of loaded leaf springs. The spring tension is then captured by a trigger-style mechanism at the loaded point.

The umbrella closure is the most impressive part of the mechanism operation. Upon hitting the button, the leaf springs are released, resulting in lightning-fast contraction of the canopy. The canopy snaps back so quickly that a majority of the water is left behind. The canopy is left damp but not dripping.

I found this umbrella in a thrift store 20 years ago – the handle you see here I machined myself, when the old one finally cracked. This umbrella is a product both hardy and beautiful enough to be worthy of reworking, enabling true “green” behavior – repairing rather than throwing away for a cheaper new version.

This old-fashioned mechanism is almost certainly more difficult and more costly to manufacture than the mechanism that has become the norm. But in this case, what we have given up in our quest for a cheaper utilitarian product is both beauty and superiority of function.

The community votes on which ones they want to develop and then adds its input on things such as product aesthetics, design, logo, and even its name. The best ideas are then taken by Quirky’s team of engineers and designers and turned into 3D renderings.

The next step is the most important one: the product is then placed on pre-sale, where anyone can buy the product. However, Quirky will only sell something if it hits a minimum number of sale commitments (usually under a thousand). Once that number is reached, the product is made and person who submitted the original idea gets a piece of the revenue pie.

All it takes is $99 to submit a product idea to the Quirky community. If you have a killer product idea (and who doesn’t!)–and the “go it alone” approach isn’t for you–Quirky might be worth a look. (And if you feel like shopping for some interesting products–modular spatula system or iPod nano kickstand, anyone?–Quirky is definitely worth a look!)