|
|||||||||||||
(0:10) In this class we talked about incremental method and radical method for generating incremental and radical innovations. Now, toolkit is a relatively novel way for people to generate, customize innovations for themselves. So, it’s sort of radical mode allow you to do, to get much more custom product out here for people who want them at low cost. But it really is relatively restricted to incremental. Now I will go through this and tell you, as we go, how they work. But an example to keep in mind is perhaps you are all familiar with- how many of you use Excel? And how many of you use macros on excel if you make yourself, any of you? one or two? You are only confessing slightly? OK. When you make up a macro for yourself, that’s an example of customizing a product, in a way as manufacture would not find economical to do, but which is willing to support. So in fact what it does, the supplier itself- what the supplier does is make it possible for you to make a macro, to customize it easy, but doesn’t do it for you. OK?
(1:50) So now, let’s talk about the basics of this. As the basics start with something called sticky information. To develop a product or a service, the information about need and about solutions must be brought together at a single site. Need information is usually found at user sites, solution information is usually found in the manufacturer site. So for example, if I am a venture capitalist and I know a lot of venture capital industry, but I am not a software person, I know what I need in a way of a system to present information that I need to do my business. But I have no clue about seeing C++ and the languages that can get me there. So the solution information over here is the vender, and the need information is over here at the user. Somehow, rather these two things must be brought together. And what marketing search assumes is it’s easy to bring it the need information to the supplier find the need and sell it. But in fact, it’s often not easy because information is sticky. The information is actually very difficult to transfer.
(3:18) So what we mean by sticky, we mean costly to transfer, in fact sometimes infinitely costly. Now here’s couple of examples. I usually categorize for sticky information, or kind of sticky information to tacit information. And can you tell your child how to ride a bike? This is a good example of this now. You may not potential in that, if you do, they probably not in biking age. But if you did, or when you do, what you’ll find is what I found for my eight year old nowadays. Which is I know how to ride a bike, so I am sure all you do, but I can’t teach him. I can’t say to that child: OK. What you do is you steer against where you are falling, in sort of a balancing process like this. Basically my child was balancing like this, move under the center of gravity, no, don’t do that. What do I do? What I do is I put the kid on the bike, and I run along side only use advice, ”Pedal, pedal, pedal!” “Don’t fall!”, right? And eventually, the kid runs the information for himself. But I haven’t been able to tell him why or how. And the reason is the information that I have of how to really do it is in my muscles, is not really encoded in the way I can express. This is true of great deal of information.
(5:07) I will give you another example: how many of you know how to recognize others? Recognize the face, right? How do you do it? Can you tell me? I am a marketing researcher and I’m requiring it. How do you do it? If you are perfectly good at it, Elli, how do you do it? (Student answered). You’re sort of guessing, right? And yet you do it perfectly well. It’s really interesting, isn’t it? How inaccessible the information you use everyday is. That’s an example of tacit information. But sticky information is a broader term. It simply concentrates on the consequence independent of cause. So, it also could be true that, for instance, I know perfectly well what you need to know, but I won’t tell you unless you pay me. Whether or not you have to spend $50,000 learning somehow to transfer this tacit information. Or you have to spend $50,000 to giving a license to me, the consequence is the same, namely, you have $50,000 of cost for transferring that bit of information. That cost is information stickiness. Now, other reasons, a lot of information often need by the developers, even tell me how you are going to use product that way. You all know that when a new software product gets introduced, they were like a hack of software, inside the company very often to test, to make it better and better, and so on and so forth, and it still fail all over the place of the field. The reason is there’s huge variability out there, in terms of what you are doing with this; I didn’t know you do it that way, usual a pain to acquire for developer, right? So sticky information, so what is the consequence of this. The consequence is the product or the service design should move to the side of sticky information “other things being equal”. Perfectly logical, need information is very sticky and solution information is not product design should to be done in the user site, and vice versa.
(7:39) Now is data on this, this one is by Ogawa, here conceptually is the idea, and this is the usual way people think about innovating. How the tacit partition, how they do it? User has a need as mentioned earlier, and manufacturer has solution information then acquired the need information for the end product. But logically speaking, either goes other way around, just easily namely, the solution information over there, why couldn’t I, as the owner of the need information acquire the solution information and design the product myself. Now, as I said, the standard find a need of set of logic, speak with this, and the resolve is you often see kind of innovation activity acquiring out for a solution along user the designer isn’t done that way. So you might, for instance, see a surgeon trying to get plaque out of artery or something, and the tool they use is often a version of handle like this, it got a wire sticking out of the end, and it got a loop of wire, and that loop is either maybe in profile sharpened like that. And what they do is they go into the artery and they feel how to sort of tug that plaque without causing damage. Now can you imaging if that were the manufacturer center of design mode, the engineers would sort of hang over the surgeon saying, “Well, what are you feeling now?” “Uh, well, you know it’s difficult to express.” It’s in his hands. On the other hand of the solution technology here, typically it simply appear acquires, whether you want to bend or shape this thing so it can conforms to what seems to work best. So what’s better in that case, is to transfer the pair of pliers, to a simple example, to the surgeon, rather than struggling like crazy and understand what that surgeon is doing and bring it to yourself.
(10:11) There are the two different kinds of patterns. Now if you think about the example that I told you with the Microsoft is very analogous. Basically, there are general need we have to have the Excel and let Excel do what it supposed to do. Everybody use those standard. On the other hand, there are all these tweaks that you’d like to do because of your unique need. Although Microsoft can’t understand without great cost, for the information is sticky, there is a doing your course of activity. Anyway, finding the things you want to do, so it comes the way give you difficult the way express what you want. So why not then transfer a capability to you to design that sort of the process, and a macro for those who do not use them, it’s sort of like a user generated program to do what you want to do within a confines of a general capability of program like Excel.
(11:22) Now using example of impact of sticky information and the low cost innovation. 50% or over of all prescription in the U.S. are written off-label for users of the prescription drugs. Off -label means the drugs weren’t designed or proved be used in that way. Great examples are Rogaine. You know they discover to create heart drug or they discover to grow hair, like here, it’s a hair drug here. Well, basically the drug itself can often be designed by the pharmaceutical firms when you understand the need information, that was receptor information for the nature of the disease, but the body is the very complicated thing, all sorts of thing happen out there that you don’t expect all such interactions effect are interacting. These are observed in larger sample it generally found by the patient and doctors. It will be very hard for this kind of activity to be drawn in to the manufacturing firm, and vice versa.
(12:37) So now, here is the second impact of the sticky information; you perhaps of all have the experience. And this now leads us or begins to lead us to the idea of toolkit. If both need solution information and stick information, and the often are problem solving activity would tend to iterate between user and manufacturer site. So you probably are all familiar with this. The user provides the initial specification for product. Now the user is not trying to fool you. The user gives you the best information they can express. All they want it what they make and what you need, right? Then, what happens is, because that information is incomplete and somewhat inaccurate, the manufacturer develops something and it doesn’t meet for me. It’s sent back to the user, it’s not what I meant or now I have seen it in use is not what I thought I want, or what now I think what I want. So you get this back and forth, back and forth, until everybody is satisfied, and this can be exceedingly expensive, and exceedingly frustrating all around. How many of you are familiar with that? That thing goes back and forth. You get the experience? OK. And you get the repeat of the side shift thing? Now, here we get to the toolkit.
(14:16) How can you reduce iteration- the back and forth? Repeated shifts can be very costly, as we just said, what can you do to reduce the need for it. What you do is you reframe the initial product or the services design problem which draws on two sticky information sites, one with the manufacturer one with the user, into sub-problems, each of which draw on sticky information located at only one site. How would you do that? Give couple of examples, if I can have a little bit, I’ll ask you to think of one, so you’re going to have a usual entertaining exposed here. Now let me tell you about the integrated circuit chip. Because, as we saw the user story, usually if people get into a jam or innovate and these integrated circuit chip for very much ahead of getting into a jam on iteration that plays to solve. The reason it in a jam was because the standard thing was happening as I showed you the last slide, namely user express their need and manufacturer develops the chip and come back, it’s no good, and back and forth, back and forth. The problem was, as the chip got more complicated, the cost of each cycle, and time of each cycle went to the roof. So it got from yes I will treat for you, to, oh, so you forgot the on-off-switch you use, fine, $300,000 and change of the maps, and 3 months later, be right back with you. It just got be to be exceedingly expensive. So they did something it’s extraordinary clever. They develop something call an ASIC design procedure. So they basically segregate it out the manufacture sticky information from the user sticky information, and the sign, the task that will need intensive to the user. How does this work? Basically the manufacturer design the basic chip, they figured out that they did not have to design a chip that’s fully custom. But the custom information that the manufacturer wanted, the user wanted on each of the menu level of the chip, instead, they would do is use their skill in designing semiconductors to create what called gate array that looks like this. (17:04) All the dots in blue here is the gate array, basically this is the wafer you know million of these thing on an actual one, and these are the logic gate, in the N gate O gate, just the way you draw them. And all the technology and none of the users need is involved for making these gates. You can construct most anything into anything digit of logic gate, depending on the way how you connect them. So what they observe, is we are going to take all our sticky information into how to create a chip. And we are going to build the chip, and when we are done, it won’t have the red, it’ll all the blue stuff. Another words, the field gates are not connected. Then what we will do is to assign it to the user of sub-task, formally integrate into a whole mass, formally embedded in a project. We are going to separate it out and that is going to be how to connect these things. All information as whether these seal gate become as microprocessor, or voice box for a robotic dog is based on how you inter connected it. So often need information given how you connect those thing. Now once you created the connection, you say I am done with the chip, the top layer of the chip and you are done. So, but what can you do to the user to help them connect these things? What you have to do is give the user a toolkit, is to allow the user to try out the circuit design to make connections like this and to see what happens. So suppose you are trying to make a voice box for robotic dog, so you connect up like this way, and you end up running the chip which goes “yep, yep, yep!” that is not a good rich tone I wanted the robotic dog voice. So you reconnect things now gets around you get “Yup, yup, yup!” you haven’t even built the chip, it’s just a simulation. But the rule in a toolkit that was given to you allows you to do these experimentations. When you are done, you send the complete design to the manufacturer who manufactures it for you. That’s an example of separation.
(19:42) Now, I am going to give you a simple version of this in case you are not amazed with all these things. A pizza. Think of this as a pizza. What’s a pizza? A pizza is a customized product, but it separated just like this into two layers, the underlayer here is the gate array, like this is a sauce and the crust-the bread, standard; and in the connections are everything you put on top. You can put eye or noodle on top, or a bulk of poultry, anything you want, but all the customization is in the top layer. That’s another example of creating a customize product by separating the tasks between what worth of integrating and customization into the whole thing to something separable. Now let me just explain the purpose of this example of why this toolkit, the separate thing is important. If you are going to give users tools to do what they need to do; what you really want to do is simplify as much as possible, concentrate the task that you give to user, that as you want to concentrate all the need related tasks into a sub-step. Now, when I make a cake for my son cause I don’t make a birthday cake. It’s a very strange cake, so what he likes is cranberry and nuts. Now if I go to the bakery, is what I tend to do is like this, the baker says I need to control the whole process to make this cake so I can put the nuts into the body of the cake and I can if I choose the cranberry flavor in the frosting. In another word, he put a customization throughout the whole cake. If I were to imitate that or give you the tool or he will give me the tools to make my son a cake like that, I have to learn how to make the body of the cake and the icing. It’s much simpler as in the case of the pizza to make one or one of the other of the pizza standard then I can concentrate all my skill and all my customization on the other. So that’s really why you try to break a pizza into that way.
(22:28) Yes. (A student asked a question.) It’s a very good question. Basically as I show you when we go into what toolkit is and how it works, the difference is between the mask customization is like selection among existing options, so if you are familiar, for example, with dell website for computers. It says select from these motherboards, select from these rams, select from this, and buy it. But you don’t have the opportunity to actually design or innovate it yourself. The only time you can find out how it works is when you get it home and you boulder, and you have happiness or you regret. So you look at that thing, you don’t have any data to understand what you want, you look at that thing and you said, “Well, how much ram do you want.” You said, “Gees, I don’t know, uh, how about a lot?” Now, if it were a toolkit, and this is really a basic idea, if it were a toolkit, it would say, choose some figurations like that for your computer. Now what we will do is we will convert our computer on the other end to run like that. Now download the programs you want to run, let’s see what it makes the difference for you. Now let’s add some more ram to see if it save sometime or it worth you extra worth of cost. So basically, mask customization usually gives you choices that you usually could not experiment with. And addition if you see here, this idea here, users aren’t really just selecting among even types of voice boxes, they are actually innovating, they are creating anything you want to create in this phase. So the general idea is mask customization is very restricted to no try-and-error.
(24:50) Now, why all this leads to toolkit, basically the economic of sticky information tend to shift the local problem on the users for custom design. The reason is here we have now users need customer chips verse the manufacturer. Basically the users all want the same standard information from manufacturer. They want to know the language that they can do, just like excel that certain standard things that you want. And the novel information that differs each time is user information what I am trying to make a voice box for robotic dog or I am trying to make an operation amplifier or whatever you were trying to do. So if you went and set there’s a certain cost of transfer sticky information, either it’s manufacture transfer it or to the manufacturer, the cost on sticking would occur again and again for each of these separate unique users. On the other hand, if the manufacturer gives you a toolkit, it goes this way, and they do it once, and the cost of incremental transfer is very low. So that’s what we are saying, it leads to the very interesting kind of things which is instead of the mantra nowadays of understand your customer needs, you are saying forget understand what customer need, give the customers a tool, so this is a traditional find and feed, need and fit model. These are the need information and the need of users, there is a solution information what is possible, you transfer in, to find the need, understand it and fill it. And contrast over here, with this toolkit, you sub the solution what is possible and you transfer it out to the customer, so the customer can say to what customer want, and implement it, and manufacturers have never has to know. So very, very different.
(27:18) Now what is the logic, the business logic behind it? The business logic is the company cannot afford to design custom solution for all the customers under conventional technology. And so what you have is you have smaller customer and all the hedge information, they all want for different things, all the fix information is ignored, if you are a big customer, they will hold your hand and say, ok, we will build it for you. But all of these people, what will happen, they have to satisfy with what’s there? Or they form basically a wonderful new customer base for any other company that manage to say well we can do it for you. And that’s all how the small company coming up, to serve for particular market need and so on.
(28:10) Here is the solution, this is LSI’s gate array workstation, what is basically saying is it designs our gate arrays on workstation of your computer. Now what they do, the customer designs the chip that it’s produced in LSI, in its site company. So in other words, they are outsourcing the design to customer they still have the control to build the chip, but many more of the users can in fact to get the customership at a reasonable price. Now the interesting thing about this is it’s so against the conventional wisdom of how you should do it. The company it’s so clean to, nope, we are not going to give our tool to customer because those are the crown tools. So what happen in this case is very interesting, this LSI was a start-up, and what LSI did was they recognize that there are so many customers out there that would not being served by the major players like TI and so on and make customer chips. So they say we want to put out a toolkit, let’s do that, we just a start up, then we will call the guy who did this and talk to the major company, say why don’t you do this, you got the idea, and you said we will never do this because we are afraid to lose our technology. But whoever does it is going to win. We don’t dare, but whoever does it is going to win. And what happened was LSI put out a toolkit, the customers flock to it because there’s a huge benefit. You can see the benefit for yourself if you just imagine that you need a macro to use with your spreadsheet software, and you try to get it out of Microsoft to Lotus, right, “Dear Lotus, here’s what I need.” Your grandchildren will get the solution maybe. You know, certainly you and I get it by the time of the next class. So the energy with which customers grab, the ability to do this stuff themselves, and get exactly what they wanted is huge. And basically it drove all the tradition suppliers to have to do it, too. So, the more or less the story is, that in market with the head information it needs, the need is different person from person, company to company, we all, sort of we all have had the energy you need, it just over the years, mass production logic has forced us sort of to adapt the standard stuff. I am sure if you all think about a car or something major purchase you’ve seen, you all know, gee, I really like this feature from that car, and there I like other feature, you know, can be done? So you’re stocked, you always sacrificing, and this is the way you get around that. Now that then open up a market place of not being served, and interestingly enough, there are all customers you could serve, and there’s a brand new area the customer can now serve with the custom solution. And they thought, well, these guys are going to be really happy with the traditional if we hold your hand to have solution, not a chance, these are so tired of a hand-held, the sales guy does not understand what they need and then going on with the designer does not understand what the salesman said. But the hand held exam and I rather do it myself, so even the top customers migrate into this mode. Then we sort of have smaller custom at the bottom which couldn’t be served by that model and so now what you have is a chip call field programmable chips you can actually design on your own desk-top by yourself. They send you the chip, and basically complete but not interconnected and but basically by compulsive circuit, and end up doing is you make the chip just the way you want on your desktop that you are running. So it’s incredible how it’s shifting to the users and users are demanding now. The close rate is higher for that.
(32:53) Now, two major tasks for toolkit development. One, separate as development task, or as custom need information tends to assign those to the final users. You know what we talked about right, we divide it up, before with the custom cake with the task mixed in, separate it out to the pizza kind of mode. The impact of the product architecture could be major. Then develop a tool that user need to carry out the need intensive task and assign to them. What I am going to do is go through a little bit of that and I will ask you to think about the examples of the toolkit.
(33:36) This is the answer to your question, R.E. You need tools to carry out try-and-error design. That is user-friendly offer the right “solution space” and so on. We only talked about some of the stuff here. You can read in the papers. That should help user do try and error work and problem design. You have to see what you want first, you are probably wrong, then what you do is you build prototype, and in case of ASIC or in the case of macro, you simulate and you see what happen, you run it you analyze what went wrong, and you go around again and again until you are satisfied. So you have to get the tool to do that. It’s not just a mass approximation site. There is an ASIC example, they design the circuit you create the prototype, you do the simulation, you take it for a test drive, you run.
(34:32) User-friendly. These are fascinating. Usually what happens is as people think, well, the user can’t design, and I think user doesn’t know our field, how could they? How could we possibly get them to be a sophisticated user for the toolkit? The fascinating thing is that anybody, that many of us has a language of his or her own in the particular area. This is something that my daughter printed out for me. Her name is not Jess, but anyway, it’s the hairstyling kit for kids, and also a hairstyling kit, in this case, a hairstyling kit for doll. And what you do is you just sort of you have over here, a virtue comb, or a virtue brush, and colors and the rest, in other words, tools as you as a consumer are familiar with, so you can use the scissors, the virtue scissors to change the length, you can also get off the length again, and comb does the something magic with the length in the hair or something like that which is not standard. And you can change the color or the rest. Now in a professional version, you can put your image in there, your own image. And why does this make sense? Let’s think about the hairstyle experience, in terms of sticky information, (student laughing). Here is my version of that, and then you fix it. You know what you want in some sense, in fact you want to create, and you go to the hair stylist, and you say something really totally detail like, “I want something business like yet casual”, right? And the hairstylist said, “I know exactly what you mean.” That’s essential of my skill. He goes snip, snip, snip, cut, cut, cut, and you can’t see in the middle cause it goes color, it got wet and in the end. Whoa la, and you look at that and you say, you ruin my life. You realize that. Now the problem is that you, information is sticky, you were not able convey to the user or to the manufacturer, in this case the hair stylist exactly what you wanted. And it’s true that you don’t know the stylist language. So you couldn’t say to the stylist what I want is layer cutting like this such and such, you can’t tell the stylist technical language. But you can talk in your own language of looking into the mirror and in fact that is the language, which you have to use. You look into the mirror you do styling and you say, “What do I think about this?” Right? And when you are satisfied, if you’re doing this on a toolkit, when you’re satisfied, what the toolkit would do is to give the stylist the cutting instructions. You don’t have to know how to convert the instructions from this shape that I chose to cutting instruction, that’s built in the technology. So separate itself, just like the innovated circuit, separate it out, now you see here is the language which is very intuit one, and it’s available to everybody, and interesting enough, it’s not the language the stylist would think about getting to use, because it’s not the language they use. Any body else has a great hair stylist experience to explain to us, that they ruining the world for us? Some people with longer hair or shorter hair, yes? (Student shares experience.) So the novel information here is, you actually have the language and the toolkit you can use to style into a mirror. And if a toolkit were given to you, so what you do in an ordinary way could be translated into something a stylist could use. You solve the problem, and they don’t have to teach you a whole new set of tools of the styling kit, do they? They just say for themselves.
(39:18) Now much alike is like that, it’s sort of fascinating because the teaching room is sort of getting close relative to the one upstairs but also they would like to do with it. But I am not an architect, but I know what I do, and what I do is I push that wall that way a little bit to the end. And so on so forth, so if I have an image on the screen of this room, and just get to push over here, push over there, there’s no reason why a toolkit couldn’t do the calculation I need. Basically structure engineering in this kind of building is cut and drive, so if I would design this building, it would just do the calculation in the background and say, ok you went up 3 feet that will end up cost an extra of $50,000.00 bucks, or just like that. Or all of the sudden something else will happen like a giant beam would come down to here because it can no longer support the weight itself the way it was. Now look at that I must say, oh well, maybe I can hang our art collections on it, it’s a plus, or I guess I can’t do that. You go round and round and you really get what you want using your language, and I don’t have to learn the darn thing about structure engineering. So the trick would be to each field where you actually create product is you try to look at this thing from user point of view and see what their language might be. So first you want partition this thing, and you want to think about what their language might be. So what you are doing then is you identify in depending the design invention important to user to get each design invention from the familiar functional name, like thickener in cooking now, so it’s like thickener a xanthum gum and you create a translator, give end user the translate each move, from user designer user phase that could move in to the manufacturing phase.
(42:35) What’s going on here is like, I am going to give you another example. It supposed to be two knots, which is not so cool, but here is one knot, user space, you are making moves, like you shortening or lengthening your hair, something like that, and over here, the machine is following you and translating it as you go into supplier space, and to layer cutting. And what it says to you is when you hit an error, like for instance, listen, your hair isn’t that long, it doesn’t belong the length of the hair you have, it tells you. But it doesn’t give you a whole book of instruction up front, now remember this, remember that, the same thing is in designing the integrated circuit. You design them and when you bump up an edge, see what the machine can do for you, say something like you can’t go that fast, it’s too crowded, you know, do something about it, but it gives the information as you needed.
(42:29) Here is a real life example, basically what you are going to hear in term of toolkit from international radio of frequencies is to design a flavors by users, because the kits of design flavors by users is a terrible sticking information. I know user’s always saying the same thing like, uh, I want the flavor that remind me the peach and I fell exult in 1904, and designer say, “Ya, and what it’s taste like? And what do I do now?” (Student question: how much you can charge customer the ability of customer design compare to generate the product or how do they worth? How does it wroth?) Well, quite a lot. What has not in this case, for instance, a person called Nick Frankie who did on watch design where you could design your own watch and they will make it for you. He found people are willing to pay as twice as much. Now what he has not separated out yet is whether they like the design twice as much, or they like the fact they did the design. So collectively the experience is worth twice as much, we know the pay is worth, but it’s not clear how much is due to the fact that you do it for your own freedom and how much you did for your product. But it’s very cool, it’s very exciting, and the cost of the toolkit is dropping.
(44:08) So here is an example; this is something called Jammy flavor nose. When you make things, they call it Jammy, probably they like Jamminess or something, but anyway, it’s Jammy fragrant. So a user can move a lever to move to increase or reduce the level of Jammy. What’s going on in the supplier, is the supplier knows that they use chemical System A down here this level, because if you cranking up this Jammy any further, what happen is it starts to taste both. So what they do when they design the system for you, you say I like such and such, they say A-ha, and you want some Jammy. What happens is they take care of this, they switch from system to system. But in fact what you can do, is you can build into the software, and user never knows, users just crank this thing up, and the switch may automatically switching between the systems underneath, and all the change over here is the price tag. Let me show you that, here you’re going to see the example from IFF and John Reit who will be talking here on Wednesday, what you see is people adjusting different aspect of flavor, and over here is what the cost is. So you adjusting what you know about, and all the other stuff is going on underneath, adjusting the information you need for what it’s going to cost you or not comes up.
(45:53) I want you do a project here for me. I want you to take something you know about, some area that you know it’s frustrating perhaps because of the iteration problem, that you can never get precisely what you want. And I want you to think about what is a user-friendly tool might look like. How would you partition a problem, let’s go back to the easiest one which is the hairstyling one, try to think of some other problem, and try to apply to it with two major tasks, one is how would I partition design tasks into need intensive and into solution intensive; and two, what would toolkit look like. Well, you can think of thing like language. So, say hello to your neighbor to one way or the other, and let’s do this for 10 minutes or so.
(47:40) (Student: I want to mention about that I, a designer, I am from design school, and I was talking about similar thing, like fancier, and from my point of view if there is a toolkit to communicate with the client through or in a box, you sent the toolkit and they sent you back, kind of this is what I like, so I make the template of what I like, and they are going to do it based on their point of view, so I think we got toolkit, we can communicate together.) It’s a great idea, and there are huge business issues involved. You know it’s calling who’s suggesting because in a sense architect them fears they will out of business. Because if you can truly do that, you know the bodyguard would take the information. But it turns out not really the case that in fact building toolkit is with lot of meaning for a skilled or such a person. But ya that would be hugely better.
(48:58) Also, if you have read the article yet, I don’t know who of you guys already had, because I switch the sequence slightly. In the article of this sheet, for instance, the story that I told you behind the integrated circuit one was in the beginning it’s so wonderful because what happened was LSI managed the off road of the design task, but they still have to come back to LSI to produce it. But then clever people got in the middle and start building toolkits they were not unique to LSI’s foundry to use its manufacturing capability. And then what happened was all of a sudden LSI and the others have all lost the design side of this thing and now are competing just to make a good foundry. So they lost a good chunk of what they used to value at it. So they say to themselves on one hand it’s a good idea, I don’t know, on the other hand, just as Colin says even if they have tried not to do it, as soon as somebody comes with a toolkit can fit to customer’s economic so much better, it has to go that way anyway. So your really only choice is you lead they follow, not you really prevent this from happening.
(50:18) (Student question) Yes, that way is a very good point about toolkit because when you are designing something you usually don’t want to start from the scratch, right, you want to take from their bed room or somewhat bigger for their kitchen, so basically in another word, what you want toolkit to do is have a library of components with the standard piece of where you are happy with the average, then what you do is you bring those in, building blocks and you design the pieces you can concentrate on you design effort on those piece that unique to your problem. So what you find in all of these toolkit is a library, so the hair toolkit you have a library of hairstyles so you don’t have to start from zero and you can modify from there, if you have a house wine, you have a library style, you can design from there, it’s same to you. That’s exactly right. Who else has a good example of toolkit that in your personal life or house. (51:39) Yes, please Rachel. (Student: I was thinking show business, like a lot of artist in recording, they make perfect recording, but not the thing called splicing, they are very unique, you collect all the data after they do the musical, they are all digital, but there is problem that later the artist don’t know how engineer them, so are thinking about a toolkit could be something iterated, so that he can pick or choose the song he wants, make the template and bring it to engineer, or somehow he can re-recorded from the library, and so on and so forth.) (Student: Something eventually like a library could have, like the way musician like, or I like this song and like other song, or something like that, and go to library, and would just pull out.) Yap, that’s excellent, now you are, you have a personal frustration and you think about the concept of a toolkit, and you say, you know what, it doesn’t have to be this way, there is something I can do about it, and then you immediately start to think about the ways to do it. That’s excellent, good for you. And I hope you do. Anybody else?
(53:14) Yes please. (Student: One of my friends is Korean, one used to say that miniUSA.com, if I decided, you can choose from many different types of wheels, side mirrors, karaoke or roof for your mini car.) Oh you mean there is a real mini car, or the mini Cooper car? (I think it’s quite stickiness information if go to shop, they would’ve drove over to you, and you have to work along with the side mirror or the color. So like that the toolkit is very helpful, at the end if you care for the car that you have to pay addition to the basic for the style. So if you feel or decide, and sent the patterns to the manufacturing, so to get what you really want.) Great, you mean you would actually instead of selecting from their standard list of options you would design the new skin look, or something like that? (No, I mean they have, for example, 5 styles that you can choose.) So, it’s sort of selection process, but now, how would you do the try and error? How do you know what you wanted that? (It’s like you click when finish, and ok, in the whole list and you get one page to show you the picture of your ideal car, as you click the wheel and it change the rear wheel to what you want.) Ok, so that would work when, basically the dealership information is all what you need, right, not the performance of the car and so on, right. So basically what you can see here is there is a continuing that leads to one side to the mass customization side, and then you increase and give the freedom to design and change, so what you really like on a car side, for example, if you really like the other extreme, you got something quite close to customization side, but if you want to go to the other way, image for instance, like the ice fishing, you know that alike? (55:35) OK, you drive all the cabins onto the ice, in Minnesota. Wouldn’t it be great if you drive your min-van onto the ice, and just open the pole hole on the bottom, right? Everything all set, everything is there. That’s not an option that manufacturer offered, right? So they say you can’t do that. So you can see what would have to happen to make something that somewhat increase the freedom, a possibility. You know it’s not cost-free in many design to go from sort of selection among options to real customization, to real innovation. Easier when what you are doing is to move the bikes around, the harder one when you move around like steer the style or something like that. So all of these have to do whether it makes sense to you that with toolkit in the industry. When you think about it, it should be something like if there had a generic demand in my field. Do people really want different stuff, and they are going away and happy I will serve them? Are they frustrated in this case with the hairstyle, they are quite obvious, you have too much try and error going on here. Then you said to yourself, ok, there is a demand for it. Now you turn around and you say, “Well, can I supply it?” And then what you often do is you turn around and you look inside your own factory, and you see tools there that you know your designers are already using; you said how could I convert those design tools that we now use into a user-friendly form. And their machine might correspond, and customize to low unit production way. And that’s the how you could think about it. OK. Well, thanks.
Last Modified 6/16/05 2:13 PM |
