THE WIDGET: A STORY ABOUT TIME

Let us consider a typical product development cycle for a Widget. One Friday afternoon in April, a senior engineer named John suddenly gets an idea for a

new type of device that he believes people really need, want and will buy. He then spends a few hours sketching the fundamental characteristics of the idea while jotting down some notes about potential features and benefits. Just after John thinks ‘‘this is a great idea,’’ he also wants to get a co-worker’s opinion.

However, he does not want to look silly. Realizing that there is not enough detail at this point, John decides to take the idea home and ‘‘sleep on it.’’ If it is really such a great idea, it will still be a great idea the next morning!

However, the next morning dawns cold and gray. While showering, John thinks: ‘‘How many people will actually buy a Widget? At what price? How much should a Widget cost to make? How would one make a Widget? What materials should one use? What process?’’

When John arrives at work the following Monday, he is both elated and frustrated; elated that he has the kernel of an idea that could be really signifi-cant, and frustrated that there are so many unanswered questions. He needs some feedback. So, John talks to Harry. Harry is absolutely convinced that nobody needs a Widget. Every time John tries to explain how terrific a Widget would be, Harry presents three reasons why it will never work, why it will cost too much to make, and besides, he heard that some company was already working on something like that.

Deflated, but not totally crushed, John develops the idea for another 2 weeks. He prepares more detailed sketches, thinks about key functions, forms

‘‘ballpark estimates’’ of what it might cost to make a Widget, comes up with an improved version of the idea, and sharpens his arguments in preparation for further discussions. This time John talks with Nancy. Nancy thinks that the general idea of a Widget is great, but she has no idea how large the market might be. She does believe that whatever the market is, it is likely to be price sensitive. Nancy feels that ‘‘since people have never had Widgets before, they clearly are not necessities; rather they fall into the ‘nice-to-have-but-not-essen-tial’ category.’’

Furthermore, Nancy thinks that the Widget should be mostly made out of plastic to keep the price down. Because the intended use is very demanding, it must also be tough, so something like glass-filled polycarbonate is probably appropriate. Nancy’s final recommendation is that the idea is sufficiently inter-esting that it would be worth having a meeting with key people from Market-ing, Product Design, EngineerMarket-ing, Production, and Sales.

George, who is the VP of Marketing, happens to be on vacation. Edward, the VP of Sales, is at a convention in Boston. The earliest possible time for the initial meeting is the following Monday. Note that over 3 weeks have elapsed ‘‘After Concept Germination’’ or ACG until the first meeting is held to even discuss the topic.

The meeting, scheduled to start at 9:00 am, actually starts at 9:14 be-cause Bill, from Product Design, was working on a change to another product that is now behind schedule. Laura and Andrew, from Engineering, need to leave at 9:55 because they must attend a critical quarterly review at 10:00 sharp. With allowance for coffee and a statement of why everyone is here, John has only 37 min to describe what a Widget is, how it would basically work, what are its benefits, why people would buy one, and roughly what one would look like.

George and Ed do not understand the concept drawings, whereas Bill immediately recognizes that, as designed, the Widget would be nearly impos-sible to build at a reasonable cost. Richard, from Production, agrees that some design changes will be needed to simplify the manufacturing process. Laura thinks the basic idea is good but is concerned about potential thermal prob-lems, and Andrew is already developing variations in his mind. There is not enough time to establish a consensus, but George agrees that Jennifer from Marketing would be a good person to look into the potential Widget market.

Bill will develop an initial CAD model from John’s sketches and run them past Richard. Laura says that she can look into the thermal issues. They all agree to a second meeting next Monday.

At the second meeting, George explains that Jennifer was working on a critical project for Division B and, unfortunately, could only assemble very fragmentary information regarding the potential Widget market. Ed was unex-pectedly called to a sales meeting in Denver to establish booking targets for QIII and could not attend. Laura started a thermal finite-element analysis (T-FEA) but realized that she did not have critical dimensions or material property data and could not proceed without further information. Andrew presented some concerns regarding excessive deflections due to large bending moments.

Bill’s CAD design had been started but got bogged down when he could not interpret one aspect of the drawing and three phone calls to John only resulted in playing telephone tag. Note that 1 month has passed and we now have a quasi-CAD design, a fragmentary market analysis, and some vague technical concerns.

During the week Bill meets with John, clarifies the confusing aspect of the sketches, and completes a first-level CAD design, which he forwards to Richard in time for the third meeting. Because George and Ed may have diffi-culty interpreting the CAD representation, John and Bill decide to send the CAD file to a local service bureau, ProtoMetrics, to have a full-size model built by a rapid prototyping and manufacturing (RP&M) system. They are not sure about cost and also realize that there is no charge number for this task, as the work on Project Widget has not been approved by Finance and

Account-ing. John thinks he can pay for the RP&M model from discretionary funds but realizes that he better meet with Eric, the VP of Finance and Accounting, to establish a budget, organize the project team, and assign charge numbers.

John contacts ProtoMetrics and discovers they are currently swamped with work. The earliest they will be able to deliver the part is 9 days. Conse-quently, the next meeting is moved to the following Thursday. George, Ed, Jennifer, John, Bill, Richard, and Andrew can make the new meeting date.

However, Laura is presenting a paper entitled ‘‘A Finite Element Analysis of Conformally Cooled Tooling’’ at a conference in Dearborn and cannot attend.

At the fourth meeting, 6 weeks ACG, Jennifer presents data implying that there could be a significant market for Widgets. Also, Nancy’s instinct that this market is likely to be price sensitive was correct. After speaking with Richard, Bill realizes that the design will need changes to reduce manufactur-ing costs. Ed mentions that he spoke with some of his sales team at the Denver meeting and they seemed excited about the Widget idea. Andrew points out that Laura had some concerns regarding thermal issues, but she is not here to present them and he does not feel confident that he can properly represent her ideas. He also believes that excessive bending moments may lead to distortion problems, so material properties and section thickness values may be critical.

Everyone passes the RP&M model around the conference table, asks ques-tions, and begins to get a sense of what a Widget looks like, feels like, and roughly how it would work.

The group agrees they are spending a lot of time on these tasks and that Project Widget should be formally launched. A need-to-know list is generated by John. George assigns Jennifer market assessment responsibility. Bill is completely overloaded on his current task, so he recommends that Donna, from Product Design, be assigned to the team. She is excellent and has just successfully completed work on a major project. Laura will work on the ther-mal analysis when she returns, and Andrew will continue to evaluate critical deflection issues.

John proposes that a regular Project Widget meeting be held each Mon-day at 9:00 am. Eric assigns Susan, from Accounting, to assist John with developing a budget. They will also establish a schedule and work breakdown structure to assure that all key tasks are identified.

The following Monday, the fifth meeting takes place (now 7 weeks ACG). Susan points put that because no approved budget exists for Project Widget, it will take some time to complete a schedule, personnel loading, work breakdown structure, and program costing. In the meantime, people should minimize their involvement on the Widget effort and charge whatever time they do spend to special account number 99–007. After Susan’s comments,

the team decides to pause until Project Widget is formally approved by Con-rad, the Division Executive VP, as well as Eric. Concerned that vital momen-tum is being lost, John sends a memo to management summarizing the work to date, the initial market estimates, and includes a photograph of the RP&M model. He forwards copies of the memo to all personnel on the need-to-know list.

After two additional meetings involving Conrad, Eric, Susan, and John, Project Widget is finally approved, but with a budget 20% lower than John’s initial estimate. Eric’s final comment, made in the hallway after the second meeting had concluded, was that John should feel particularly fortunate, as no other ‘‘special projects’’ had been approved by Conrad this year.

However, John does not feel particularly fortunate. It is now 9 weeks ACG and he has this disturbing feeling in the pit of his stomach that ‘‘some-where out there, someone else may also be working on their own version of a Widget.’’ Furthermore, momentum, enthusiasm, and esprit de corps have all suffered during the 2-week wait for an approved budget. Also, he just learned that Bill has been reassigned to his former project. Although Donna may be terrific, she is utterly unfamiliar with the current design.

Ten weeks ACG, the sixth Project Widget meeting is held. Susan ex-plains the new budget, schedule, and work breakdown structure. Donna is introduced to the group and notes that Bill gave her a copy of the current Widget CAD file as well as the RP&M model. She asks a few questions related to some of the geometric characteristics, and Andrew explains that they were required to increase stiffness and reduce deflection.

Laura hands out copies of her initial thermal analysis and notes that excessive heating may indeed occur in two locations. However, until more detailed T-FEA results are available, based on actual thermal property data for the proposed material, she cannot be certain about the accuracy of the predictions. Ultimately, the only way to be confident of the thermal design is to test a true prototype, injection molded in the intended 30% glass-filled polycarbonate. Unfortunately, this will require prototype tooling.

Jennifer presents an updated marketing analysis. Her preliminary esti-mate suggests that the Widget market could reach $80 million this year, $120 million next year, and $180 million in year 3. Into year 4, things become fuzzy due to potential obsolescence issues and uncertain levels of enhanced performance in the future. Nonetheless, conservative estimates indicate that the total market over a 5-year product life cycle could exceed half a billion dollars.

At this point, everyone in the room is excited. Donna agrees to meet with John and some local toolmakers to establish estimates of the cost and

schedule for prototype tooling. George and Jennifer state that they would love to have about 200 marketing test samples to generate response from buyers at major retail outlets. Ed would also like to have about 150–200 prototypes to get some feedback from his salesmen.

During the week, Donna and John meet with three tool and die shops.

They are told that ‘‘400 prototypes is a really nasty quantity.’’ If they needed only a dozen, then soft tooling using an RP&M master, silicone RTV, and two-part polyurethanes might suffice. Although the mechanical and thermal properties of various polyurethanes would not be identical to 30% glass-filled polycarbonate, at least the cost would be low and they could have their parts within a few weeks.

However, if it is critical that they have true prototypes, injection molded in glass-filled polycarbonate, then all three toolmakers suggest aluminum pro-totype tooling. It will cost less than steel tooling and could be ready in 12 weeks. Still, CNC-machined aluminum tooling will be difficult to amortize over only 400 prototypes. Also, if there are any additional product design changes, tooling rework can be expensive and will push the delivery date out even further!

Carefully inspecting the RP&M model, one of the toolmakers notices a small undercut which would require a slide action. This will further increase the cost of the prototype tooling and extend its delivery. He inquires if the design could be changed to eliminate the undercut? Donna says that she will look into a design modification, will develop a new CAD file, and also have a second RP&M model made. Donna and John leave the toolmaker realizing how important it was that this problem was detected now and that an iteration of the design should not be too difficult because RP&M models can be built relatively quickly and inexpensively.

By the seventh meeting, Donna has made subtle changes to the CAD design. However, George, Jennifer, and Ed are not sure what effect these alter-ations may have on aesthetics. The group decides to purchase four RP&M models of the new design, one for each toolmaker to improve communication and reduce bidding uncertainty, and one for the Widget team.

Donna develops a .STL file from her new CAD design, having discov-ered that this is easier for ProtoMetrics to work with and will reduce their price as well. She then forwards the .STL file to the service bureau. Unfortu-nately, they are still swamped with work and can only promise delivery in 7 days. John approves the purchase order, but he must now reschedule the proj-ect meeting for Wednesday. The new meeting date is exactly 3 months ACG.

At the eighth Project Widget meeting, Donna passes the new RP&M models around the room. The undercut has now been eliminated and the

aes-thetics look great. Furthermore, the prototype tooling will be simpler, less expensive, and will be able to be delivered more rapidly. After the meeting, Donna and John take one new RP&M model to each of the three tool and die shops, requesting formal quotations on the machined aluminum prototype tooling.

The following Friday, they have received all three bids. Two of the shops are quoting 12 weeks and about $50,000. The third shop is quoting 10 weeks and roughly $62,000. Although time is certainly important, it is ex-tremely difficult to convince Susan that 2 weeks is worth $12,000 just for prototype tooling, so the team decides to go with Central Tool & Die’s 12-week bid for exactly $50,176.

During the 12 weeks that the prototype tooling is being fabricated, Jenni-fer starts the layout of the various marketing collateral materials, including packaging design, photographs, sales brochures, detailed product specifica-tions, health and safety compliance information, Underwriters Laboratory (UL) certification forms, advertising storyboards, and so forth.

Meanwhile, Laura completes a more detailed T-FEA and concludes that the Widget will probably be operating in a safe regime. However, the tempera-tures in the two anticipated ‘‘hot spots’’ remain a concern. Consequently, Laura strongly recommends that detailed thermal testing of true functional prototypes, injection molded from the final intended material, will be required to establish the actual safety margin, if, indeed, there is a safety margin.

Andrew has also completed a mechanical finite-element analysis (M-FEA) and concludes that his original concerns about the part’s stiffness were indeed appropriate. There is an issue with excessive deflection causing poten-tial interference during operation. Unfortunately, the margins are sufficiently close that only careful deflection measurements on a functional prototype will truly establish design verification. Also, the potential hot spots identified by Laura will tend to reduce the modulus of elasticity of the material, which could further increase the deflection, making the problem even worse.

Andrew notes that this is a classic example of an ‘‘interactive effect’’, where normal operation results in mutually dependent thermal and mechanical loads. Specifically, the increased temperatures in the two hot spots locally weakens the material, leading to increased deflection. Simultaneously, the in-creased deflection slightly alters the thermal boundary conditions, which will change the temperature distribution. The interactive effects may be quite small or they may prove to be significant, especially if the design is ‘‘right on the edge’’ of passing or failing to meet product specifications. It is precisely this sort of thing that is difficult to predict analytically and is yet another reason

why the team will never have ‘‘warm fuzzy feelings’’ about the design until reliable test data have been gathered from a true prototype.

Finally, after numerous calls to Central Tool & Die, John is informed that the tool will ‘‘only be 3 days late.’’ Apparently, he should be happy about this. Because Central has some small injection-molding proof presses, they could run the first 20 parts on Friday afternoon. John could then pick them up in time for the regular Project Widget meeting on Monday. The remaining 380 parts could be run the following week, or the tool could be forwarded to a local injection-molding shop to run the rest of the parts within a day or two.

John agrees to pick up the first 20 parts on Friday but decides to wait until after the Monday meeting to select the injection-molding vendor for the remaining Widget prototypes. While jotting a reminder in his calendar to visit Central Tool & Die on Friday afternoon, John happens to notice that this will occur almost exactly 6 months ACG.

At the next meeting, John distributes the injection-molded prototypes.

Everyone is impressed with their overall look and feel, but final assembly and functional testing still remain to be accomplished. Laura and Andrew agree to start testing as soon as possible. Laura’s technician, Joan, is out sick with the flu, but John agrees to help Laura assemble and calibrate the required thermocouples. Andrew has already carefully calibrated six strain gauges in

Everyone is impressed with their overall look and feel, but final assembly and functional testing still remain to be accomplished. Laura and Andrew agree to start testing as soon as possible. Laura’s technician, Joan, is out sick with the flu, but John agrees to help Laura assemble and calibrate the required thermocouples. Andrew has already carefully calibrated six strain gauges in