|
Design Maturity
The concepts of process maturity and capability maturity are increasingly being applied to various
aspects of product development, both as a means of assessment and
as part of a framework for improvement. Although 'maturity' can
be defined in a number of ways, it usually implies the adoption
of 'good practice' within a framework which encourages repeatable
outcomes. Here, we define it as follows:
| "The degree to which processes and
activities are executed following 'good practice'
principles and are defined, managed and repeatable." |
Key Design
Activities may be
performed at a number of levels of maturity, and these have been
organised in the form of a Design Maturity Model (DMM). The
Design Maturity Model (DMM) defines four levels of maturity for
each key design activity. Common issues for each activity
include:
- What benefits are gained from
the activity?
- Who is involved?
- When is the activity
performed and when are different staff involved?
- What processes are followed
and are they effective?
- What tools and methods are
used?
- How is the activity performed
- what level of expertise?
Figure 1:
Design Maturity Model: 4 levels of maturity
The characteristics
of each key design activity are described for each of the four
maturity levels, using a short caption phrase plus a few bullet
point descriptors. A summary of the captions for some of the key
design activities is given in the tables below, followed by an
example of a detailed grid for one of the design activities.:
| |
Level
1 |
Level
2 |
Level
3 |
Level
4 |
| Market research
& analysis |
Prejudice or 'gut-feel' |
'Gut-feel' calibrated by experience |
Marketing-led research |
Full team involvement |
| Investigating
user needs |
Rely on anecdote and opinion |
User opinions sometimes sought |
'Voice of customer' a standard process |
Different methods used as appropriate |
| Product
specification |
A poorly defined wish list |
Incompatible market and technical
specs |
A single testable specification |
Unambiguous USPs |
| Concept
generation |
Go with the first idea |
Engineering led |
Cross-functional involvement |
Radical ideas encouraged |
| Concept selection |
There is only one concept |
Chosen by the chairman's wife |
Use a standard checklist |
All stakeholders involved |
| Ergonomic design |
Little consideration of usability |
Engineers design the user interface |
Early specialist involvement |
Total 'user experience' design |
| Product platform
planning |
Most of our products are totally
different |
Some modularity - but not 'by design' |
Planned reuse of technology |
Platform-based strategy |
| Prototyping to
reduce market risks |
'Trust me - it'll sell' |
Occasional user testing |
Always test with users |
Modelling is 'a way of life' |
| Prototyping to
reduce technical risks |
'Trust me - it'll work' |
Pre-production prototypes |
All risky elements prototyped |
Modelling is 'a way of life' |
| Design for
manufacturing |
Over the wall |
Ad-hoc manufacturing involvement |
Regular design reviews |
Formal DFA / DFM techniques |
Table 1:
Design Maturity Model: Design execution summary
| |
Level
1 |
Level
2 |
Level
3 |
Level
4 |
| Culture &
environment |
No 'playing' at all |
Creativity kept 'under the desk' |
Some managed 'soft time' |
Creativity expected and rewarded |
| Product
development process |
No process |
A process exists, but ... |
Process used and understood |
Continuous improvement |
| Teamwork |
Functional rivalry |
Lightweight project management |
Heavyweight project management |
Autonomous project teams |
| Specialist design
involvement |
'Silent design' |
Brought in late to 'tart up' the
product |
Early specialist input |
Strategic input |
Table 2:
Design Maturity Model: Design management summary
| Investigating user needs "Use of a range of methods to assess
and disseminate the requirements and motivations of users
/ customers" |
Level 1
Rely on anecdote and opinion |
Level 2
User opinions sometimes sought |
Level 3
'Voice of customer' is standard process |
Level 4
Different methods used as appropriate |
| Rely on anecdote from
user contacts Not enough data to
interpret or disseminate
Not required by the NPD process, so it
typically isn’t done
Engineer or marketer is the
‘expert’
|
A few users may be asked Unstructured data collection
No formal interpretation of data -
occasional ‘market reports’
Ad-hoc process - no standard methods
|
A representative cross
section of users asked Typically
questionnaire/ interview based ‘voice of customer
exercise’
Outputs formally reported
Standard approach mandated in the NPD
process
|
All internal and external
stake-holders involved A range of
qualitative and quantitative methods used
A single report synthesising all inputs
into a coherent set of customer requirements
|
Table 3:
Detailed grid for design activity "Investigating user
needs"
The set of maturity
grids from part of a Design maturity audit which can be used to assess current design
performance and identify opportunities for improvement.
Back to Better Product Design Home
Home | GDP Program |
Design
maturity | Effective
product design | Tools and
techniques | Contact | Links
| 