James L Adams—People and Products

Quality and Multi Purpose Products

Alligators are pretty good on land and in the water, but they can’t compete with monkeys on land, or sharks in water.  “Amphibious vehicles” have historically had a similar problem.  They are neither as good as trucks and automobiles on land, or as boats or ships in the water.

 This seems to be the case with most multi-purpose products.  The photo shows a combination toaster oven and toaster.  It has resided in my kitchen for a while, but tomorrow it will change its residence to a “free” pile in front of one of my kid’s houses.  It has been in my kitchen because it theoretically takes up less room than a separate toaster and toaster oven, was the same color as my wife’s favorite and classic Kitchen Aid mixer , and sported the name of a long established maker of appliances. 

 But it has a number of problems.  The least important one is that the heat generated within has faded the color so that it no longer matches my wife’s mixer.  Most of the important ones are in the electro-mechanical details – I’ll say the design.  Ideally, one could choose between using it as a toaster oven or as a conventional, drop-the-bread-in toaster.  It works okay as a toaster oven, but it is taller than the usual toaster oven, in order to make room for lowering the bread slices to the heating elements, and the usable space is smaller.  The especially wide slots seem attractive, but it only holds two slices of bread, and when the handle is pushed down to toast them, a wire frame closes in to hold the bread, thus making the wide slots no longer wide.

 Worse yet, the wire frame work does not go all the way to the bottom of the bread slices, because if it did, it would take up necessary  room in the toaster oven volume.  The result is that when the holder at the bottom of the bread slices is lowered, there is room at the bottom of the wire frame-work, which does not hold the bread or other material to be toasted tightly, to allow it to slide out of holder down into the toaster oven, which, if the removable pan is not installed (usually), causes it to snuggle up to the heating elements, thus turning a very dark brown and producing smoke.

 Should this happen (often) it becomes very challenging to remove the remains, because they become caught between the wire frame and the rising holder, and eventually become a pile of charred fragments stuck various places within the device, which usually burns one when trying to remove the fragments, because by then one has become a bit impatient with the whole mess.

 At one time, it was possible to remove the bread in early smoking condition by moving the control from “toaster” to oven, but that option failed early in the life of the device, leaving no option but to watch the process in action.  Happily, there is a sign on the front of the device that helpfully proclaims “If Contents Ignite, Keep Door Closed and Unplug Oven”.

 As to the maker of the appliance, I am not worried because I have lots of options.  Hopefully they do too.

Soon we will have a separate toaster oven and toaster.  I can hardly wait.

 

Product Quality - Bicycles

My wife and I recently had dinner with a couple of friends who are in their late 80’s, and move slowly in their walkers, but still ride their bicycles.  In fact one of them still has an office at Stanford and and regularly commutes there to work on his bicycle.  I was talking with him about good products and bad products, and he stoutly maintained that the common bicycle is one of the all-time great products – that people had gotten it right many years ago, and give or take new versions, new materials, new approaches to such things as brakes, gears, saddles, and pedals, and challenges from such things as recumbents, the bicycle has not changed significantly in his memory.

 This made me think, and I realized that I have ridden bicycles ever since I can remember, and probably now take them for granted.   I Started with a balloon tired, single speed, typically heavy version, which took me to school and back, and let me ride with my friends until it was eclipsed by a car (although the bike still hangs in my basement).  I then left bicycles until after college and the Air Force, but rediscovered them when a friend and I spent a few months  touring Europe on duplicates of a bicycle that had done well in the Tour de France the year before.  After I became use to riding a bicycle again, to say nothing of ten speeds, very light weight, an initially  painful seat, dropped handlebars, and an entirely new bodily position, I fell madly in love it (it hangs in my older son’s garage).  I have ridden bicycles consistently ever since, and am now dependent on them for getting around the local area, riding in the hills for exercise, and especially getting around the Stanford campus.  And I must admit I find it satisfying to ride past automobiles that are fighting their way through local traffic.

 Without bicycles, Stanford would not work nearly as well.  The campus is large and continues to expand, administrative offices are far apart, dormitories are far from classrooms, and although classrooms are far apart, the University still clings to ten minute class breaks.  Although retired, I maintain an office on campus and still attend various meetings and functions.  Walking everywhere might be good for me, but life is short.  Bicycle traffic on campus is heavy and seems disorganized and perhaps hazardous to those not riding, but actually is surprisingly free of accidents and fun to be part of.  The bicycles cover the spectrum from high performance to low and expensive to junk, and from single speed to many.

This photo is me on my present bicycle returning home from my office (a short trip).  I realize I am not wearing a helmet, which is stupid and dangerous, but unfortunately I take many short trips while on campus, am not used to wearing a hat, and therefore tend to lose helmets and generally spend too much time putting them on and taking them off. I wear them when riding longer distances fast on roads full of cars, and endure the censure (especially from grand children and my wife) of not wearing one all of the time.  The only person I have ever known who wore  his helmet all of the time (including while lecturing and in meetings) is a Nobel Laureate.

 The ideal campus bicycle is rugged, performs well, and shows enough wear not to be considered worth stealing.  Mine qualifies.  It needs to be a bit more beat up, but will get there.  It is a mountain bike, even though I do not ride it in mountains, but it has the advantages of outstanding brakes (very important), does not mind jumping curbs (convenient), and is highly maneuverable.   It has more gears than I need, but that was part of the package.  I bought it new for a very reasonable price because it was painted green, and apparently the dealer had difficulty selling it, because green was not cool that  year.

 And I agree with my friend.  Granted that they vary over many parameters, bicycles in general are an outstanding product.  Traffic and air pollution were much more reasonable in Beijing before cars began replacing bicycles.  And people probably got more exercise and reached their destinations more quickly.

Electrical Storage Batteries —An Improving Product

Electrical batteries, attributed to Alessandro Volta, have been around since 1800  (although Benjamin Franklin apparently applied the term to a pile of charged glass plates before then). When I first became aware of them as a kid, it was mostly in the form of flashlight batteries (then carbon-zinc), and automobile batteries (lead –acid).  It is a testimony to their advantages that they are still being used in pretty much the same  form, although we are becoming a bit more careful about throwing them away.  There was a shelf in my grandfather’s shop, which contained a few automobile batteries in various stages of health, some distilled water, a battery hydrometer, some baking soda for cleaning, and a charger.  There is a very similar shelf in the modern farm to which I escape, except the hydrometer has been replaced by electronic testing equipment and the charger has become “smart”.   But being in California, the dead batteries no longer not end up in land fills (although one still sees occasional piles of them, hopefully waiting to be re-cycled).

 It was not until my Jet Propulsion Days in the late 1950’s and 1960’s that I was first exposed to other types of batteries.  The Ranger and Mariner spacecraft were powered by solar panels and rechargeable sealed silver-zinc batteries (spacecraft definitely like sealed batteries).  But I remember one time when my group was developing a Mars hard lander capable of handling a 10,000 g impact from a speed of 500 miles per hour (the payload was shrouded in crushable material – the program was later cancelled).  I tried to find a battery capable of handling that level of shock, and failed.  But even more interesting, I found that only a few battery companies existed, and there were few, if any, university programs or research efforts in advanced battery technology. 

 But now we seem to have gotten the message, not only because of the demand for small rechargeable batteries for our electronic devices, but also because we are finally  understanding the advantages of electric cars and alternate forms of energy which require the storage of electricity.  JPL, like Tesla, is using lithium ion batteries, and there is a large amount of work going on in both universities and industry in new approaches to batteries, both primary (single use), and secondary (re-chargeable.).  An interesting comparison of energy storage is here, and more details on an early Tesla battery here.

 It is about time that we get more serious about electrical storage.  Assuming that electrical generation continues to become cleaner, we will continue to change from petroleum-powered devices to electrical and we will need improved ability to store electricity not only in these devices, but also for “alternate” energy generation approaches.  Although new technologies are sometimes more challenging (note Boeing 787 and Sony past lithium ion battery problems), times are changing. I certainly am now hooked on battery-powered tools, which would be much less fun if powered by lead-acid or primary batteries. I am looking forward to breakthroughs that are bound to come from present research.  Biological batteries?

Product Quality and Service

Are you ever impressed at how few people seem to work in “big box” stores?  I was at one time entertained by Home Depot ads that featured mellow older clerks who were expert in some field of building (plumbing, wiring, framing, etc) and who would be pictured patiently explaining the process to less expert customers.  I would like to find a big box store like that.  In many, one is lucky to run down any employee in the store, and if one succeeds, there are usually several people trying to get their attention, and one is lucky if they even know where things are, much less how to use them.

 I often meet people, who having heard about the service sector domination of the economy (it is estimated that 70% of all wage earners work in the service sector, as opposed to manufacturing or such things as agriculture, fishing, and mining) wonder why “service” is so lousy in the U.S.  My wife happily quotes a comment she read at some time, that in England service is a tradition, in Japan it is an honor, and in the U.S. it is an insult. But such comments and reactions are based on the belief that service is about helping ordinary people through the day, not running a derivatives firm on Wall Street.

 I have an unabridged Webster dictionary, which I love.  It has two thousand and some pages of very fine print (three columns per page, ten words per line in each column), and I love it partly because of the amazing amount of effort that had to go into compiling it.  But also, because it contains the common meanings of words, and these days we seem to be happily trying to re-define words to fit our contemporary needs. This dictionary contains almost two columns under service, and almost 50 definitions.  The definitions in the first half column do in fact refer to people helping people.  Only in the middle does one come across such things as “useful labor that does not produce a tangible commodity”.  Here we move into the economic realm.  But I think most people consider service to be help from other people, whether it be in person, in manuals, on the internet, or whatever.  And I agree we could do much better.

 Without help, we tend to buy the cheapest product, which may be of the lowest quality.  I notice when I shop for tools with a friend who has spent his life as a mechanic, I spend more money and get better stuff. I no longer buy the cheapest house paint, because I don’t like to paint the house that often.  The internet is becoming less trustworthy as it becomes more commercial, so I have switched to asking house-painters about paint quality.  It would be better if I could trust sales people in paint stores to give me the straight poop.  Somehow they are all convinced that their paint is the best.  I bought a combination (always risky) toaster oven-toaster a while ago and it is a disaster, even though the sales person raved about it.  In retrospect, he probably wanted me to buy it and knew nothing about it.

 Higher quality requires more informed and honest information about products.  It doesn’t have to come from personal contact, but personal contact is nice, and would make a lot of jobs.

Quiet (by Susan Cain), Problem Solving, and Product Quality

  Everyone should read this book, but especially those working in companies developing products. Click on recommended books to the right for more information on the book.  It goes into Introversion and Extroversion in fascinating detail. And it is a terrific read (it has been on best seller lists for a while).

 I was using the Myers-Briggs type indicator (MBTI) in the 1970’s in classes on problem-solving and design and in my consulting for a number of reasons, and I sure could have used this book.  If you are not familiar with the MBTI, it is based on the theories of Carl Jung, and separates those who take it along four axes, one of these Introversion/Extraversion (an alternate spelling) .  More details  on the MBTI here if you want them.

 I quit using the MBTI because it was becoming so popular that people were using it for purposes for which it was never intended, but I have been interested in cognitive styles ever since, and Quiet is a fascinating summary of what introversion and extroversion are, and of the strengths of those solidly in each camp (introverts in thinking and sensitivity, and extroverts in getting things to happen.) The author of Quiet feels that if we do not value both of them, we all lose but especially if we undervalue the quiet introvert. 

 Cain begins the book by discussing the high value that is placed on extroversion in the U.S., particularly in business and education, and why.  She then discusses the nature and role of introversion and extroversion and the benefits of each.  When I was using the MBTI, psychological theory believed heavily in nurture, rather than nature—we were born blank and programmed through our experience.  Due to much research and focus on DNA, the theory has swung to believing that both are important, and in fact you often hear people talk of half-and-half. Cain is up on her theory and hypothesizes that as far as introversion and extroversion are concerned, most of us are naturally dominant in one, but able to do the other.

 One viewpoint I found particularly interesting is based on experiments she describes showing that the dominance is probably built into our limbic system (the portion of the brain particularly responsible for emotions), but offset by the cerebrum (the “thinking part”).  For instance, She feels that people who are naturally introverted learn to offset this because of educational, public, and professional values and pressure to the point that we may lose some of their valuable ability to think and to interact with other people—or at times lead extroverts when problems are particularly complicated and issues are subtle.

 Part three of her book has to do with introversion and extroversion in different cultures, and the final part focuses on how one should balance introversion and extroversion, how members of the opposite type should communicate, and the raising of “Quiet” kids.

 All and all a wonderful and timely book. 

 

 

 

 

Product Quality, Technical Progress, Obsolescence, and Digital Devices

A few weeks ago, the DVD player on our “home entertainment” center failed.  Looking up the symptoms of that particular device on the internet, I found the recommendation that I take the cover off and start the disc spinning with my finger.  It worked. Problem solved, perhaps, except more recently my wife realized that her friends did not have to start their DVD’s with their finger, so I set forth to replace the unit, shown above (note amazing waste space)

 DVD players cost very little these days, thanks to the intrusion of Blu-Ray players, and even the price of Blu-Rray players is dropping rapidly, and to boot they routinely offer compatibility with Wi-FI and such streaming sites as NetFlix, so I bought a relatively low priced one.  But I neglected to examine the display sample in the store – A MISTAKE.  The back of it was naked except for sockets for an HDMI and a USB cable.  Nothing for digital audio.

 Like many (most of my friends) I run the audio from various devices into a mature receiver and thence to a number of speakers that my kids have cast off, thereby creating some sort of surround sound.  The receiver I have is pre-HDMI and I love it (once again like most of my friends).  Being ignorant of HDMI cables, but being an engineer, I figured it would be simple to run the HDMI cable to my newer television, and strip off the audio to my receiver.  In fact, that is exactly what I had done with my old system, by running component cables to the TV and audio cables to the receiver.  But then I went back to the internet to figure out how to do this, and found two things:  HDMI cables have 19 wires in them (not five) and they are not made to be separated, and the internet is full of angry people facing the same problem I had—integrating new and slightly old equipment.

 I took the blu-ray back to Fry’s, a large electronic store in our area, and asked the person I had dealt with what to do.  Obvious, said he, buy a new receiver and a new set of components all wired for HDMI.  Wrong, said I, and bought a low-cost blu-ray player that took not only an HDMI cable, and a bunch of others I did not want, but also a coaxial audio output, fortunately matching a similar input on my receiver—so a temporary victory.

 But while in the store I looked at the backs of all the blu-ray players they had, and found absolutely no standardization at all.  They all had HDMI sockets, but seemed to have random numbers of RCA sockets, optical sound ports, ether net ports, USB ports, and even an S-video socket or two.  Is this perhaps an unconscious (or conscious) attempt to confuse the consumer so that he/she will buy new equipment, most of which is wired for HDMI?  An attempt to apply a subtle form of voluntary obsolescence?  Or are all the venders thinking that their layout is superior?

 Can’t there be standardization in such things as blu-ray players, or is that too much of an impediment to innovation? In fact, this very lack of standardization is a very successful strategy to make people like me increasingly angry at the manufacturers of these no-longer-magic devices. In the future I may buy old equipment from Goodwill.  Like many people I carry grudges like inconvenient cable changes a long time, such as the one I have against Apple for changing projector plugs. 

 But I am temporarily happy with my new blu-ray player plugged into my old sound system, except or course for the fact that the manual control buttons are invisible and barely findable with the fingers (remotes always get sat upon or lost between couch pillows), and my attempts to enter my new player into my “universal” remote have so-far come to naught. I will keep  trying, but if I cannot solve that problem, I will go back to playing the piano.

 

 

Product Quality and the Internet

The Internet is miraculous in the information it contains and makes available, and is growing at an exponential rate.  But in my opinion, it is also decreasing in quality, and I am not sure we are smart enough to know what to do about it. It suffers from some of the very characteristics that make it attractive—in particular that there are very low costs to entering material on it, and very few, if any, punishments for entering misleading, potentially harmful, and junk material.

 Much material on the internet is of very high quality.  As an example, Wikipedia is extremely impressive, and in fact seems to have eclipsed print encyclopedias not only in amount of content, but in accessibility.  And it is generally trustworthy.  But it is picking up an alarming amount of biographical information on individuals that are primarily important in their own minds.  Obviously there is a tremendous amount of quality control involved with running businesses such as Amazon, or any other commercial enterprise that must deliver products on time in good shape for money.  But even here, such things as supportive comments from users are questionable.  As an example, new authors are smart enough to have their friends send five star raves to Amazon.

 But problems abound due to such things as processing the sheer amount of material on the internet,  intrusive and annoying ads that lie, and people who delight in hacking the system.  I just received an excellent example of the latter yesterday, in the form of an e-mail seemingly from a good friend entitled “salutations”.  Maybe you had the honor of receiving the same one.  The message consisted of a link, and my friends often send me amusing links, so I opened it and it presented me with an extraordinarily repulsive and very long promotion for a new miracle diet. It was brilliantly designed to be almost impossible to get off of my computer.  I finally was driven to restart the computer, only to be told the Firefox would not allow me to.  Pulling the plug worked.

 But I did not endure the entire message. It was babbling on as I pulled the plug. If it was a prank from my friend it was a very good one, in that I fell for it, but it was flawed because it lasted too long for me to realize it was a prank. I fear that it was actually an attempt to sell something, and unfortunately for the creator, I hated it so much I do not even remember the details of it. If the message was designed simply to annoy people, it was successful.  It was not only an intrusive ad that lied, but clearly involved a hack that came up with my friend’s name and e-mail address, probably from a social network.

 The major problem with internet quality in the long run is due to the interface between the amount of information on it and our limited brains.  Many people seem to believe that their brain has been amazingly improved by having the material on the internet connected to it.  But they do not allow for the amount of processing their brain must do to sort through the internet.   The situation is way beyond drinking from a fire hose.  Browsers and search engines are amazing, in that they instantly bring sites of interest to ones one’s attention, but they tend to drown one in them, and do not offer much help in evaluating the content in the sites. 

 As an example of a fire hose, no longer are book proposals necessarily sorted by people that we accept as experts before the decision is made to publish the book.  The old system could be criticized because it was heavily influenced by profitability and the biases of those reviewing the proposals. But what are we to do with the hundreds of thousands (and increasing) self-published books each year, most with accompanying web sites and lists of raves? We are told of the astoundingly successful books that emerge from the pile.  But whose comments do we believe?  And since bookstores that made choices on which to stock and enabled browsing are rapidly becoming a thing of the past, do we try to browse hundreds of thousands of books on the internet?  Give me a break!  As Richard Saul Wurman pointed out in his Information Anxiety book years ago, information is data that can be used to accomplish something.  Too much information on the internet is data that accomplishes nothing.  And worrisomely enough, there is no motivation for anyone to delete it.

 

Product Quality, Innovation,and Tradition

Yesterday I went with four friends to the annual antique farm equipment show in Tulare California— an important cultural event.  I drove.  We are all hobbyists at restoring old machinery, particularly vehicles. Two of us are a professor emeritus in the Anesthesiology Department and his grandson, who is about to enter medical school. Two of us are on the faculty of the Design Group of the Mechanical Engineering Department at Stanford. I am a professor emeritus from the Engineering  School with a large amount of experience in design and consulting in industry, including a bit of time in automotive design.  Why do I mention this?  Because I am going to say something about cars, other products of industry, innovation, and standardization in this post and the next, and I want to establish some credibility.

 Since there are five of us, since we were going to drive a bit over 500 miles in a day,  and since we are reasonably large people that did not seem to all fit in any of our family cars, we rented a  2013 SUV with only 1700 miles on it made by a well known and loved U.S. company. The good news was that it was a relative joy to drive, compared with other “big” cars, and quite comfortable with only a few annoyances, such as the requirement of a strange move to kill the turn signals after passing another car, and the need to sacrifice the center of the back seat if coffee cup holders were wanted. But there was some less good news.

 Fortunately I asked the person in the group who has the most experience with cars made by this company, and is very knowledgeable about things technical, to sit in the front seat and be responsible for what is often now called   “the information system”.  Otherwise, I might have killed all of us.

 Happily for we humans, the layout of automotive controls has been quite standardized for some time, due to the mechanical nature of the links between the controls and the device being controlled.  There is less of that as time goes by, because digital electronics have made it possible and in many ways convenient to control various functions electrically.  Steering is still somewhat traditional, although augmented and input by various electrical inputs.  Soon, if not now, it may be possible to steer your car with your nose, movements of your eyes, or your voice.

 I do hope we don’t.  The investment in , for instance, steering a car with a traditional steering wheel is huge, represents billions of years of acquiring automatic responses among members of the human race, and whether the “best way” or not, is somewhat like the QUERTY keyboard system, in that a change would result in a great loss of learned skill.  And if you make a mistake with a keyboard, it is easily repairable.  If you make a mistake steering a car while learning a radical new approach to control, you may not only die, but take a number of innocent people with you.

 Admittedly, my problems with this car were somewhat due to the fact that it was a rental.  If  I owned it, I would have had the time to learn to communicate with it. But I often rent cars and more and more people are sharing cars.  And I spent a day and 500 miles with it. My problems began when I brought it home one evening in the dark in order to be able to leave on our trip very early in the morning.  Starting it at the rental agency was straight forward, but of course I couldn’t just turn the lights off when I arrived home.  Failing to turn them off made me begin to worry about the state of the battery in the morning, but I wisely decided that the car would turn them off when it was good and ready, went upstairs and watched it, and sure enough after a while (the programmed delay), it did so.  I figured I should learn a bit more about the car, and of course there was no owner’s manual in the car (usually the case with rental cars), so I went on the internet and after passing up several opportunities to buy a manual for $30 I finally found an online copy I could read for free.  It had some 450 pages, of which many had to do with the “information system”, including how to program the delay in the lights (not straight forward) and such things.

 Now realizing that the car was going to obey basic inputs from me, and I had no hope of learning to control the bells and whistles on the car before we left, I accepted the fact that it would insist on making many decisions itself, so slightly before dawn we left for our trip, and I happily watched my information officer buried in the information system— this being the case even though the rental car had minimal features.  I kept imagining him not only having to do with things such as trip meters, mileage estimates, the interior “climate”  and telling me where the hell the odometer was, but the nature of his job if we had faced a complicated route and had a navigation system he had never seen, and all our cell phones were hooked to the car.    And then of course, I entertained myself thinking about the fantasy of doing what he was doing and also trying to drive.

 Car manufacturers are well aware of the “diversion” problem.  Cars are supposed to keep people safe, but the very same people are demanding things ranging from on-board cell phone service to information on the state of the vehicle, to music and TV, as well as the time-honored right to interact with each other and offer leaking sandwiches to the driver.  But vehicles are not the only products under attack.  Standardization and control/display simplification, time honored ways of improving the ability to perform tasks, especially in the case where multiple operators of the same equipment are involved, are being destroyed by the present wave of worship for creativity and innovation.  There used to be a very active field called human engineering that dealt with such things.  The publications still exist, and subsets of technical societies still exist, but human engineering matured as a field, and although it left very reasonable and one-time agreed upon rules about the interaction between controls, displays, and human operators, many designers seem to have no knowledge of this.   It was once agreed upon that once a reasonably optimal solution was reached, standardization was extremely valuable (older radios and automobile controls and displays). Ålthough is to some extent still the case in such products as airplanes and military vehicles, the wide application of this philosophy to a wide range of products was before the days of apps, gigabytes, and electronic chips that offered almost free electronic components.

 The argument goes that standardization stands in the way of creativity, innovation, and change.  Nuts!  Industrial products are supposed to improve the quality of our life, not confuse us as we try to use radios in strange cars and set the wake-up alarm in strange hotels. We are too good to have to figure out such things.  I don’t want to have to figure out whether the red line  under the seat symbol means I am controlling the seat warmer or telling me how warm it is.  I have a knob on the  dashboard of my 2011 Toyota (not that old) that has a  diagram of a fan on it.  Happily if I turn it to the right, the fan blows harder. I am beginning to love that knob.  In our rental car, after one found the “climate” screen, there was indeed a tiny diagram of a fan (among a very large number of tiny diagrams), but it was not clear how one varied the strange bar chart next to it, or if in fact that bar chart had anything at all to do with the fan.

 As you can guess I view this apparent forgetfulness of what we once believed as a cause for a decrease in the human fit in technical products, ranging from computers to dish washers to hand guns to fork lifts to bottle caps.  Maybe you are a product designer that has an unusually brilliant and creative idea for how to control a product, but are you sure that the brilliance is universally obvious?  And do we all have to learn it if we have reduced the present idea to adequately rapid unconscious response?

 On my trip yesterday, since it would begin and end in the dark, I took along a flashlight, as I have learned one is useful in trying to find and read “creatively” designed controls in a rental car at night. The flashlight was not one I usually use in the house. I am not even sure where it came from. It was a nice looking flashlight— bright, LED’s, rugged, impact-resistant case with particularly resilient material on the bottom end.  By groping around in the dark, I finally discovered that to turn it on you pushed on the resilient bottom end.  On looking at it later in the light, I realized the switch symbol for “on” was worked nicely into the resilient material — black on black. 

 Maybe an obvious place for a switch.  But I have spent my whole life finding flashlight switches (slider, button, etc) on the side where my thumb is.  And the bottom position is not reachable by the hand holding the flashlight in the normal way  —a bit annoying if one is carrying something in the other hand.  Creativity?  I’ve got enough to worry about in life without trying to find a switch in the dark that is subtly integrated into the case of a flashlight in a position the hand holding the flashlight cannot easily reach. I’ll sure never buy one like it.  

 I’ll call my next post Quality and the Internet.  We have to start thinking harder about our expectations of our brains, since they are not doubling their neurons at the same rate as digital hardware and software are doubling their capability.

 

 

MANIAC and the History of Computers

I just finished reading Turing’s Cathedral, by George Dyson (Random House, 2012, New York, N.Y.) and found it fascinating.  The history of the digital computer as a practical machine is both recent and explosive, and this extremely well written and researched book, although it traces the early general history of computers, focuses on a machine developed at the Institute of Advanced studies (the MANIAC)—an early stored program and powerful computer used at Los Alamos to do the massive calculations involved in the development of the hydrogen bomb.  The project began in 1945 and the lead players were John Von Neumann and Julian Bigelow, a lesser-known person who was the engineer that in many people’s mind “made it happen”.

 One of the reasons I liked the book is that for many years I used a book entitled The Starship and the Canoe, written by Kenneth Brower, in classes I taught.  The book is a double biography of George Dyson and his father Freeman Dyson, a famous physicist, and is a short and entertaining read.  At the time the book was written (1983), Freeman was involved with Project Orion, a proposed giant spacecraft to be propelled by the explosions of atomic bombs, and George was living in a tree in Canada studying and building Umiaks (native canoes) from modern materials.  The two were a fascinating study, because there were similarities in their thinking and passion, but George was clearly on a much different path socially.  This book by George shows amazing convergence.  George grew up on the grounds of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton, where his father was a faculty member, and is now an historian of technology, and is at home with advanced scientific and technological material.  Since his sister, Esther, is famous as first a pundit and now an investor in the computer world, the Dysons are clearly an outstanding family.

 This background gave George Dyson great insight into the Institute for Advanced Study, and an unusual opportunity to access people and archives.  The book contains a large cast of fascinating characters and portrays them much more intimately than is usually the case when scientists, mathematicians, and engineers are tossed into a book about a major breakthrough.  The result is an enjoyable read.  It is also a terrific insight into the interaction between mathematicians, scientists, and engineers, the nature of ambitious technical projects, and the role that government, and in particular the military, plays in technical developments that later play a major role in civilian life.  The implication in the book is that the development of the hydrogen bomb, and the related need for massive calculations, played a major role in the influence that computers now have in our lives, for better or worse.

 And in fact, he ends with some worries – one being whether we will continually assign thinking to computers until we reach the point where machines think, but humans no longer do.  More details on the book can be found by clicking on the Amazon icon to the right.

Product Quality and Nostalgia.

Looking at the automobile page in the Sunday April 7^th New York times, I read an article by Jim Koscs about how a 1966 Cadillac was left to a 17 year old boy named Ray Knox in 1976 by an elderly lady who he helped in life and who in return treated him like an adopted grandson. He still has it, it is in great shape, and he obviously loves it deeply.  I am sure it reminds him of wonderful times and a wonderful woman. 

 My wife and I are reminded of past pleasures by objects, and seem to have surrounded ourselves with them.  My shop is full of old hand tools I don’t use, my office with things I have collected in various travels, and my basement with products that I no longer use, but that have served me well, or that I am fond of for other reasons. 

  This photograph is of a couple of Apple computers I used to use, that I keep because they are visually interesting.  I don’t have any fond memories of using them.  But today’s computers although elegant in appearance, are not very interesting in appearance.  These two were, and are, fun to look at, although I will never use them again.

 Some of these pleasures are vicarious. The photo below is os a 1975 Alfa Romeo that was my oldest son’s first major purchase upon graduating from college, and then became the entree to my wife's sport car period.  I have never driven it much because I don't really fit into it but it is fun, and  I keep it because  it reminds me of my son’s happiness to be on his own in Colorado with a new job and of my wife’s pleasure at zipping around in something Italian with the top down.  Beside, it will make a great car for a grandkid some day—maybe for the daughter of the very same son.

 Nostalgia for products can definitely cause one to fill up a lot of space.  But there are advantages to doing so.  Old products definitely remind one of past good times and experiences, which are usually even better in memory than they were when experienced.  My yard full of tractors is an example (one to the left).  It reminds me of the pleasure of growing up on a farm, even though I obviously didn’t want to be a farmer. To stay with vehicles as an example, older products also can furnish old-time luxury (the 1966 Cadillac), thrills (my 1970’s motorcycles), novelty (there is a similarity among modern automobiles), a culture (collectors of antique cars), and even be good investments (my XKE Jaguar if I restored it).

 But in order for products to produce nostalgia, they must be of noteworthy quality.  One tends to bond with such products over long periods of time, during which they serve one and one serves them.  Many products I am nostalgic about both required maintenance, and were straightforward to maintain.  My first car was a 1941 Chevrolet, and I drove it for many years, during which I repaired it many times. We became one, I loved it, and I should have kept it. 

 I do not feel strongly about throw-away products.  I am not nostalgic about computers for instance.  I don’t keep them long enough to become attached to them, and hate them when they cease working and I can’t fix them or they are no longer competitive and become e-trash (except for the two above).  But I still use the hammer I used to put an addition on my parent’s house while in high school, and have lovingly replaced the handle and de-rusted it several times.

 

 

 

Product Quality, Driving and Distractions

I mentioned in a previous post having heard a talk by Nancy Gioia, one of our alumni who is a senior manager at Ford, concerning the difficulty of balancing automobile safety with the many digital entertainment and communication devices being demanded by drivers.  In the Sunday edition of the New York Times, there was an article entitled “When Drivers are Overwhelmed, Their Cars May Intervene”.  It is here.  Incidentally, it was directly below an article on VW’s new hybrid and planned electric cars, which contained the amazing and I hope erroneous news that their new eGolf will contain a speaker in the dash that emits an artificial engine sound that gets louder as the car accelerates at low speed, cutting off at 20 mph when the road noise takes over.  Are we that set in our ways?

 The article in the above link predicts that as more driver distractions are added to cars, more features will necessarily be added to the cars to help the driver.  This sounds like a bonanza for the economy, mechanics, manufacturers, and other people who feed on increasing the complexity of cars.  But unfortunately, complexity begets failures, and if one is dependent on features that are essential to avoid accidents, we should worry.

 Driver distractions do cause accidents, which result in deaths, but do we really trust technology to protect us against them?  Traffic accidents in the U.S. cause about 30,000 deaths per year.  In the last ten years there have been only 150 fatalities resulting from commercial airplane accidents.  Interesting that some of us worry more about flying than driving.

 In commercial airlines, the pilot and other crew members are isolated from the passengers and other distractions.  There is more complexity to flying an airplane than driving a car, but the pilots are highly trained and have a great deal of experience, and great care is taken in designing airplane cockpits to simplify the task of the pilot, neither especially true of automobiles and their cars.

 It seems that if we are truly seeking safety, we should train drivers better, and isolate them from distractions, such as passengers in the car, cell phone conversations, TV screens, computer games, and other such fun activities.  Physically easy to do.  But of course doing so is not consistent with being re-elected to political office, nor with traditional automotive travel habits.  We feel so secure driving a car that we seem to not be overly concerned with this death toll, unless it happens to us or someone we are close to.  But what if distractions continue to increase?

 Will such things as biometrics (measuring the state of the driver, warning them if they are overloaded, and intercepting incoming distractions if they are) help?  Or will people invent ways to circumvent the system, as people now do with cell phones and various noxious warning sounds and subtle symbols on the dash board, or ignore the law, such as they do with cell phones and texting.  And how about reliability of these systems?  My computers often need re-booting, and occasionally fail without warning.  Can electronic systems be made fail-safe in an automobile?  I must admit I am impressed that accidental inflation of air bags is so rare, but relatively simple and well-known devices such as solenoids and ignition coils do fail, and rodents do seem to like dining on cable harnesses.  At present, the result of such things is automatic doors that won’t open, and engines that won’t run well, not death.

Baby Products and Product Quality

The first photo is of two of my grand daughters being pushed around by their very pleased grandmother.  The vehicle in which they are riding is called a jogger, specifically designed for parents who run, and is a wonder of technology.  The second photo shows its Indianapolis 500 personality,  The kids will clearly become race drivers, and I have already requested the vehicle when they are done with it so I can install the proper engine. It is a large device, but can be collapsed onto its frame (providing one knows the proper controls to do so –it helps to be an engineer) to fit into a car (the larger the better). All in all it is an impressive device. It is comfortable, smoothly running, complete with convertible top, seat belts, water bottle and miscellaneous equipment holders, rugged, and light weight for its size. The photo on the left below shows one of its brakes (?) and its general high quality of craftsmanship. The frame is almost bicycle like in appearance.

  I am almost ashamed to include the photo on the right, which shows me at the age of 5 months in my stroller.  No spoke wheels, no bright colors, no comfortable seat, no roof, no brakes, no seat belts—it wasn’t even very big.  I didn’t understand what a deprived childhood I had.  Mothers and fathers could not jog very rapidly with this machine.   Fortunately that was not a problem, because when I was a baby, any adult seen running for exercise would have been suspected  of fleeing the scene of a crime they had committed. 

 But wait!  My stroller had a tray that would hold small toys and beads to push around, and a handle I could pretend I was steering with.  I could either sit or stand in it, and the foot plate could be removed when I became larger so that it became a “walker”.  In fact, eventually the front wheels could be replaced with a steerable single wheel, the enclosure could be removed, and I had a tricycle I could kick around with my feet.  It had rubber-coated bumpers and was a combination stroller and play pen.  It was light in weight, low in cost, sturdy, and with a single obvious fold of the handle, extremely portable.  And since I was unable to get into trouble inside it at an early age, I required less monitoring.  Maybe some things have been lost over time.

 In a post some time ago, I complained about the inexorable growth of pick-up trucks.  Baby equipment shows the same tendency.  Strollers are approaching golf carts in size and car seats approaching the size of the seats already in the automobile.  Meanwhile in the recent past automobiles have approached vans in size and vans have approached busses, perhaps partly to haul this equipment around.  There are some signs of reversal in this, as smaller efficient cars are now in vogue, and perhaps baby equipment will follow the trend, But over long periods of time we seem to think that generally bigger is always better, except for digital devices.  I am not convinced. Bigger seems to be often accompanied by higher cost, more unnecessary features, more difficulty in operation, and the need for more space and materials. 

 But perhaps if baby equipment continues to grow, there will be a backlash because parents will have increasing difficulty finding their babies in the midst of their equipment, and require trailers to haul it around with their smaller more efficient automobiles.

 

 

 

 

 

The Oxy-Acetylene Tank Set—A Good Product

The  photo shows my now classic middle-sized gas welding equipment.  Big enough to cover my needs, but also small enough to lift into the back of my pick-up.  It consists of the usual — Victor torch with cutting head and heating and welding tips, hose, tanks of oxygen and of acetylene, pressure regulators, and assorted related stuff (goggles, torch cleaning tips, spark igniter, cart, etc.) The equipment is sometimes loosely called a tank set.  I recommend that all households have one.

I use it not only for welding, brazing, and soldering, but also for a broad range of usages requiring controlled heat.  I have even occasionally used it to reheat my coffee on cold days when I am working out of doors.

The rusty mechanism on the table next to it on the old wagon is part of a very vintage McCormick Reaper (the one in the  history books) that I am restoring.  It is a crucial part, since it contains the shaft that rotates the arms that sweep the grain into the cutter and then onto the ground, and all sorts of pivoting parts that allow the arms to move up and down as they swing. The reaper is probably 130 years old, and has spent a good bit of that time outside, so when I acquired it the shaft had rusted quite firmly to the castings in which they turn.  I soaked the whole mess first in penetrating oil, then in old diesel oil, and even in used brake fluid, but the parts remained rusted together.  So I used the ultimate answer in such cases, which is to heat the castings red hot with my torch.  Since heat weakens rust and expands holes, the rust gave up with the result that the shaft now rotates happily and the arms go through their motion.  One of many uses for my tank set .

 The tank set qualifies as a very good product according to the criteria in my Good Products Bad Products book.  Costs are low for the capability it gives me, and it has never failed to do what I want it to do.  It is easy to use and fits me well, is nicely made, and fills me with positive emotions, ranging from nostalgia to an instant sense of accomplishment whenever I use it.  It is elegant in its simplicity, and lets me mingle with the welding culture. Environment?  One generally uses a so-called neutral flame (no particulates) with this device, I am stingy in my  use of acetylene, and I don’t use it that often.  It certainly is not in the league of my furnace, water heater, or gas stove.

 Also it is fun to weld.  It never ceases to amaze me how easy to turn two pieces of metal into one with a simple flame. I must admit I generally use electrical equipment to weld these days, since it is fast, more easily controlled, and allows one to avoid oxidation by using an inert gas.  But welding with a gas flame strikes me as a somehow purer experience. It's just me and the fire!

 

 

 

 

Contagious: Why Things Catch On, by Jonah Berger

I have just finished an very enjoyable and useful book entitled Contagious: “Why Things Catch On”, by Jonah Berger, an assistant professor of marketing at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania.  Further details on the book are at the right of the page under recommended reading.  I don’t usually write about marketing, partly because there are so many good books and papers on marketing, and I am not a marketing expert, although there was a time I talked about creativity in marketing executive programs and am constantly running up against marketing in my low-pressure crusade for improved product quality.  Design, manufacturing, and marketing are hopefully tightly integrated when products are involved, so I follow what is going on.

 Marketing in business schools has changed greatly since I joined the Stanford Engineering school faculty, and in universities continues to differentiate itself from sales.  This is less true outside of schools, and in fact looking at the dictionary  in the Dashboard on my Apple (clearly a business) computer I see that it is defined as “the action or business of promoting and selling products and services, including market research and advertising”.  Not much differentiation there.  The marketing professors I know and have worked with have been wonderful people, but the continuum above continues to contain people who still use classic tricks to sell people low quality products they don’t need.

 Certainly marketing continues to become more sophisticated and now embraces quantitative methods as well as the best that psychology has to offer.  I am all for it when it matches people with products that fill their needs and help their growth.  I am less for it when it causes stores I enter to push opportunities to join their club so I can acquire points toward certificates that qualify me for discounts on things I don’t want, when people place ads on my computer screen that become increasingly difficult to make go away, or when they place large signs beside the road in beautiful scenery.

 But this book is about spreading the word on almost anything—a vital and increasingly difficult task, as more information seems to clog up communication channels.  The author feels that the most efficient way to get people’s attention about a product or service (and I think almost anything else) is through word of mouth, since a certainly credibility is attached, as opposed to communication from the producer, who obviously is going to say the product is wonderful.  In addition he quotes impressive numbers to show that we rely heavily on word of mouth in our decisions.  I must admit I also like the book because he points out that studies have shown that only 7% of communications on such things as products and services come from the internet—no born- again internet hawk here. Word of mouth is clearly a powerful marketing force, as it comes from people one has some reason to trust who are simply commenting on their own experience.  But how to get this powerful word of mouth to happen?

 The book discusses six factors which Berger claims causes it to spread rapidly and consistently over time.  These are social currency (is it “in?), triggers (are you reminded of it over time?) emotion (does it arouse you?), public (are you aware of it?) practicality (is it useful?) and finally stories (can it be put in various contexts that are memorable?}  He has great arguments and stories about each.  And they are in general consistent with product quality, although in keeping with the present interest in illogical actions, he also treats common trickery that works, like special offers with time limits, and meaningless “normal” prices. 

 One of my all-time favorite books is “influence”, by Robert Cialdini (Harper Business, 2008), which discusses a number of common methods of influencing people, even so far as getting them to do things they might not think they want to.  It is fun to read, because one realizes that one is often a victim of such methods.  Berger’s book is similar, but in a very positive way, in that it lists effective and believable approaches that obviously work to spread the word on good things. 

 

 

The Internet and Quality

In my last post I talked a bit about Evgeny Morozov’s book To Save Everything Click Here: The Folly of Technological Solutionism.  His concern is with the interaction of what he calls solutionism and what he calls internet-centrism.  He is worried that our present love affair with the internet will cause our solutionist tendencies (solve all problems) to decrease the quality of our life through our attempts to  increase efficiency through the use of the internet .  The last sentence of the postscript of his book finishes with “it would be deeply ironic if humanity were to die in the crossfire as its problem solvers attempted to transport that very humanity to a trouble-free world”.  His book is a macro-look at the internet

 One can also take more of a micro-look, and question whether the internet is a high quality product or not.  It is, of course, a work in progress, but in my opinion it faces a number of problems.  There is little if any quality control of much of the material being placed on the internet, and no apparent mechanism to exert any (internet freedom?).  Nor is there any mechanism to delete material over time.  The result is an ever-expanding quantity of material that is outrunning the ability of browsers, and perhaps the human mind.  Some locations (Wikipedia) depend on high information quality, although as time passes, one questions the value of some of the information included.  And how about the increasing number of blogs, web pages, and other material on the internet that are the property of people not keeping the material up to date, or even perhaps dead, to say nothing of poorly done videos that will never go away.

Of course businesses operating over the internet must be careful with the usual financial, ethical, and regulatory constraints that limit them.  But how about promotion?  The book business is a good example.  It is now estimated that there are over one half million self published books appearing in the U.S. each year.  Many (most?) of these are promoted by the author, and sold over the internet.  Most sell very few copies (see article). The amount and quality of the promotion is a function of the author, and not especially the book’s contents. I am not about to sort through this amount of material without guidance from established publishers and critics.  I believe in expertise. And I know enough about books not to epecially trust the comments on Amazon's pages, especially if they are concerned with self-published books.

 And my experience with social networking shows me more quantity than quality.  Maybe if I were truly dedicated I would somehow figure out how to communicate in more depth with more people I would really like to, but I just do not want to spend the time combing through huge numbers of tweets and posts to figure out who they are and how to do so.  I am also not supremely motivated, because many people I like to communicate with either no longer or never have played the game.

Finally there is the apparent attempt to support this ever-growing internet activity through advertising and selling “big-data”.  Looking at past experience with everything from road signs through college sports to present advertising on the internet, I conclude that advertising must make money, but taken to extremes, decreases the aesthetic quality of life. I reached the point many years ago of going out of my way not to buy products whose advertisements pollute the visual or aural environment or annoy me in other ways.  Certainly some ads on the internet have already reached that point and are becoming increasingly sophisticated in resisting removal so that one can see the desired page. Anybody worrying about that? 

 And as we know, there is increasing questioning of “big data”.

Evgeny Morozov "To Save Everything Click Here" book

I mentioned this book in a post a bit ago, and announced that I had ordered it and would report on it.  The book was  deeper and more thought provoking than I expected, so I have just finished it.  I thoroughly agree with the first comment on the back, by Bruce Sterling, which reads “For the brilliant dissident Evgeny Morozov, computers are like broken beach-toys on the dark, historic tides of power  politics.  His new book should be bound in sandpaper and used to abrade the works of other Internet pundits”. Clicking on the appropriate image in the recommended readings to the right will give more information on the book.

 But the book is far from a rant.  Morozov has an interesting viewpoint, since he grew up in Belarus as the Soviet Union was unraveling, and has gone from a born-again believer in the power of the Internet to being a critic.  His understanding of the internet is obvious, as are his hopes that it will better aid the cause of liberal democracy.

 The book is beautifully written and argued, and in my mind overdue. His last book, entitled “The Net Delusion”, concerned the use of the Internet initially as a tool to overthrow dictators and support democracy, but later as a tool by these various dictators to strengthen their grip by such things as enhancing their propaganda ability and identifying and destroying opposition.  This, of course, was an unwelcome message to those who believe that the internet will cause all seven billion of us to understand each other, agree on important issues, and, to borrow a word that is losing its very meaning because of the Internet, be friends.

 In this new book, he first of all takes a swing at what he calls Solutionism — the belief that everything can (and should) be made “better” (often defined by the solutionist).  He singles out engineers as being staunch believers in this, and being one, I think we are guilty.  He does an excellent job of demonstrating that some things. such as politics, have been criticized for as long as recorded history, but they don’t seem to have been replaced by any of the  communication “miracles” or other technological “breakthroughs” of the past.  In fact, he argues in favor of the very human and messy character of much large-scale human interaction, and although he believes that the Internet is an important tool in aiding these interactions, he obviously does not believe in its ability to replace such things.   

 His next argument is against changing our societies to match the present structure and goals of the Internet .  It is, after all, a work in progress, and our activities should not be structured and simplified to fit its present abilities. I very much resonate to his argument.  At one point in my Stanford career I became chair of the then struggling program in Science, Technology, and Society.  I learned, to my surprise and pleasure, that even though I had practiced and taught engineering for 30 years, I knew very little about the history and character of technology, or about the unsuccessful history of movements often described as technocracy.

 One rule of thumb often used by historians of technology is that it takes at least 50 years for a new technology to mature.  I am a believer.  My first brush with computers was about 50 years ago, and it consisted of giving structures problems to a programmer who in turn would feed my problems to a large mainframe, which resulted in an answer after several days.  Look at where we are now.  But yet we are just scratching the surface of how to use them in a way that is more consistent with society. The internet has been under construction for over 50 years, but the World Wide Web, which made the Internet accessible to most of us, dates from 1989. That was only 25 years ago.  Such things as social networking and attempting to combine unbiased information with marketing are in their infancy.  The internet will continue to develop, and must do so in a direction that better serves humans, or it will become a more complex version of network TV. 

 The majority of the book is full of cases, stories, and predictions of problems that have and will result from too much belief in what Morozov calls cyber-utopianism.  I am going to talk more about this book and the internet in my next post, but anyone making use of the Internet, and especially people designing and manufacturing the software and hardware involved in it, should read the book, not rely on me to interpret it.  I found it a very impressive work, whether one agrees with the author or not (many in Silicon Valley will not), and am jealous that I cannot write books like it. 

 

 

 

 

Stanford Good Products Bad Products course final presentations

During the final class meeting, there were four presentations on companies that made products that the students found noteworthy in the context of my book.  One of these was on cultural fit, one on aesthetics, and two on the topic of global fit.

 The product having to do with cultural fit was Pabst Blue Ribbon beer. It was once a very popular U.S. beer, went into decline, and has come back as a counter-cultural beer, being “discovered” by urban hipsters.  It does not do conventional beer promotion, rather having become visible in its counter-culture role through alternate and sometimes outrageous means (such as being included in "South Park").  A good blurb on it is on Wikipedia here.

 The aesthetic topic was Coolbeams spectracles glasses (here), yet another Kickstarter start-up.  I have to give Kickstarter (here) credit for having a major influence on at-least Stanford students. It does seem to fill the gap for many people between reasonably thought-out ideas and market feasibility test.

 One of the the global fit products was Blue Bottle Coffee, a high-end coffee company that stresses dealing directly with the producers and stressing sustainable and organic farming and paying reasonable wages. Again we learned to taste in a different way.  We prepared the coffee provided by the group in the proper way, and tasted it by slurping it from a spoon, apparently a process making one more sensitive to the odor.  Newly sophisticated, I drank my morning coffee at home by slurping it from the cup, acquiring worried looks from my wife—perhaps there is a social factor involved.

 The other had to do with the tremendous (and unsustainable?) use of resources by agriculture, and featured a substitute egg powder for cooking use named Beyond Eggs,  made entirely from chemicals (no chickens).  Apparently 30% of all eggs go into cooking, and as you are undoubtedly aware, there is some controversy about commercial chicken farming. We were given chocolate chip cookies to compare baked by the group with regulare eggs and Beyond Eggs, and the class generally could not tell the difference. Beyond Eggs is due to hit the market about now.

The course ended with an open ended discussion between the instructors and the students.  The instructors were highly pleased with the course, as was I, since my Good Products Bad Products book does its intended job very well.  For the final time, I encourage you, if you have not done so, to check out the individual student "good products bad products" choices here (click on the title to get the complete essay on any one). 

And if you have any questions about this  splendid course contact Professor Dave Beach, (dbeach@stanford.edu).  

More Stanford Good Products Bad Products course presentations

This post covers four more presentations in the course on companies/products that students consider to produce good products, or at least provocative ones.  They were on the Symbolism and Cultural fit, Aesthetics, Elegance, and Sophistication, and Global Fit chapters of my book.  Once again the presentations were excellent.  I never cease to be impressed by Stanford students.

 The first presentation was on the cultural significance of the “fixie”, or fixed gear bike – light weight, one speed, no free wheel (pedals cannot be stopped while bike is moving), often only one or no brakes. (see the Wikipedia page here).  The pure form is used in track racing, less exotic ones (originally hand assembled from available parts) became symbolic of New York messengers, then hipsters, and now of a more widely spread culture, including quite a few Stanford students. “Fixies”can now be purchased in all formats from “pure” to including brakes, and even gears concealed in the rear hub (if you are in the culture, you may hiss).

 The second was on a startup named Radian (description here), which produces a nifty camera addition that allows time-lapse and scanned photography.  The culture is of course people who like photography. Each year this course costs me money since I discover a product I need, and this is my 2013 investment.

 The third was Cloud Nine olive oil (Elegance and Sophistication).  This is a small family owned and run business in Monterey county California, that produces very high grade olive oil. The presentation included not only samples to taste, but detailed instructions on how to properly taste olive oil. Website here.

 The fourth was on the Brompton folding bicycle (here) and concerned with the environmental advantages of such transportation.  This is an expensive, but extremely high grade machine that easily folds and unfolds to an amazingly small and easily carried package.  It was demonstrated by a person from a bicycle store, who claims that at one time he felt a bit uncomfortable riding it in public (small wheels and frame, etc), but now loves it so much he doesn’t care what other bikers think about him—he feels sorry for them because they don’t have one.

 

Another good day!

 

Needs, Emotions, Aesthetics, and Electricity

  I’m a bit late on this post because of a power outage during  the late afternoon and evening, which caught me with an uncharged portable and a dead desktop.  But it gave me a chance to think about our increasing dependency upon electricity, and the aging state of much U.S. infrastructure.  As to dependency, I can remember  power outages when I was a kid, and we would ignore them during the daytime, and light a few candles if at night.  But my normally fast moving wife is slowed down due to some recent surgery, and has been entertaining herself watching movies on the TV and working on her computer.  And I, of course, have become computer dependent.  Throw in our major dependency on such things as the microwave, the coffee maker, and other such modern marvels, and without electricity, we are much less impressive animals, and perhaps are less amused sitting around in the dark talking to each other.

 As to infrastructure, our power outages probably have something to do with a large construction project going on close to our house. A couple of years ago there was a gas main explosion in San Bruno, a town fairly close to where we live.  Eight people were killed and a number of homes burned.  As a result Pacific Gas and Electric (our supplier) has been doing a survey of gas pipelines, and guess what, a fairly main street close to our house has been ripped up for several months to replace  a large gas pipeline (looks like 18 inches in diameter or so), which of course is buried close to other utilities. the job is requiring massive amounts of huge equipment and numbers of people.  As I wait to be waved through the often one-way traffic, I cannot help but think about the many other elements of U.S. infrastructure that need upgrading, and the cost of doing so.

 Back to the Stanford Good Products Bad Products course.  The quarter is coming to an end and the student groups continue to report on businesses that produce products that they feel demonstrate the elements of quality in my book.  On March 7, reports were delivered on three products that have high emotional impact and fulfill various needs.  The first was Gatorade (website here), which has evolved over time from being seen as a functional replacement of electrolytes, to being a symbol of heroic accomplishment (often consumed in victorious glee and sometimes thrown on coaches).   The second was Klutz (here), a company that produces products that are both educational and fun and show a profitable use of humor.  The third was perfume, the presentation focusing on the making of perfume, but mentioning several companies that have become famous for a particular scent (Chanel #5?)

 The fourth presentation focused on aesthetics and on a Kickstart funded startup that makes a pillow entitled the Ostrich Pillow, which is intended for better nap-taking during normally awake times.  This resulted in some excellent class discussion ranging from the advantages of better support and comfort to take such naps (in class?) to the rather strange appearance of the pillow.  You can see the reasons by looking at the website here.  I guarantee you will have a reaction!. All in all another excellent day of presentations – lots of products to pass around, good use of media, etc. 

  I will write a couple more posts on presentations and then a final wrap up of the class, and then go on to other product quality comments.  I once again recommend the blog site here containing a large number of individual student nominations of good and bad products for an insight to present university student values,  some interesting and provocative products, and the range of quality in our industrial output. 

Go Ford!

There is an Interesting article in the March 10 Automobiles section of the Sunday New York Times describing the one liter three cylinder engine that will power the Fiesta and be available for the Mondeo. It is here.   The engine is capable of producing 123 horsepower and 148 foot pounds of torque, with 90% of the maximum torque available at only 1500 rpm.  I realize this is far from the most powerful engine in town, but my 1956 Austin Healey engine produced only 90 horsepower, and the car was a delight to drive, could break 100 mph, and garnered me a number of speeding tickets and the right to compete in amateur road races. Think of 132 horses pulling on your car.  It should move just fine. And think of the weight saved in the car. The article mentions that the weight of the cast-iron block is only 52 pounds, and that one was taken to a show as regular luggage in a suitcase (see photo in article.}

 It is wonderful to see U.S. auto companies expanding  the envelope of their products.  When motorcycles began to radically improve their engine performance a number of years ago (many are now in the 200 hp range) I wondered why so  little was going on with U.S.automobiles.  We seemed happy to be driving around with moderately modified  V-8’s and straight sixes for many years. 

 Whether you like small cars or not, (there is an article on coming Toyota Yari in the same issue which claims the new model is great fun to drive, calling it a “grippy little monster on curving roads”) it is exciting to be able to choose from a greater selection, and find that 40 mpg is obtainable from gasoline power after all. 

 What is driving this increased diversity?  Certainly competition. Probably boredom with SUV’s and cumbersome sedans.  Also re-discovery of the fun of driving and ease of parking small, responsive cars.  A Ford person I know told me that the gasoline engine people are feeling neglected in light of all the attention being  paid to electrified automobiles and showing off their capabilities.   But finally, increased federal mileage requirements play a role, as they have before.

 It is interesting that industry seems almost automatically to fight government regulations, and then often makes money complying with them.  The automobile mileage regulations are typical.  After resisting them strongly, U.S. automohile companies seem to rapidly comply with them, with improved results for all.  It does not seem to be technical ability that stands in the way, but rather inertia and complacency—and the desire to put money into profit, rather than investing on the development of new and improved products.

Stanford Good Product Bad Products course final presentations

The last few sessions of the Course ME 314 are dedicated to the final presentations by student groups on the topics in Chapters 4 through 9 of my Good Products Bad Products book.  The class is divided into groups of four, and each group is given ten minutes for their presentation followed by ten minutes of question and comments from the other students and faculty.  Professor Dave Beach, the teacher of the class, is a hawk on memorable, media intensive, and entertaining talks.  He also encourages the teams to bring examples to class to be passed around, and so far the teams have been on target on all of these.  I have listened to innumerable presentations in schools, businesses, professional groups, and many other environments, and would that they all had been as memorable, media intensive, and entertaining as these.

 The students are asked to find a company that delivers a product in their area of very high quality, and report on the company and product.  So far eight groups have given presentations.  I obviously cannot go into detail on each presentation in a post to a blog, but I will list the topics and give you a link to a web page if one exists.

Four of the first eight presentations were on the topic of human fit – physical, sensory, and cognitive compatibility between the product and the humans using it.  The products were the Boosted Board electrically powered skateboard  with a range of 6 miles on a charge and a top speed of 20 mph, the off-road version of  the Segway vehicle, the Boobypack, a bra somewhat between a sports bar and a bikini top with two pockets to carry such things as a cell phone and credit cards, and a toy under development that allows the user to construct three dimensional structures using various plastic pieces and rubber bands.  The latter is not far enough along to be a company with a web site, but although meant for a younger age group (3 to 7), the students in the class seemed quite fascinated with sample structures they were given to play with. The first three products are well documented in the linked websites.  As a sign of the present age, one of the products (the skateboard) has been developed by Stanford alumni, another (the toy) is being developed by a Stanford graduate student.

 The next three presentations were on the topic of craftsmanship, and focused on Tcho chocolate, Yogitoes yoga towel , and Riddell football helmets.  Chocolate was furnished to everyone for the first, and yoga and helmet demonstrations accompanied the next two.  I gained personally from the chocolate presentation.  I like chocolate so much that I chew it up rapidly and swallowed it.  I learned that if you just leave it in your mouth on your tongue, you can taste it for a very long time before it all melts.  I am trying to learn to do this, in spite of the fact that it is so satisfying to just gulp it down. The demonstrations were very noteworthy  because they involved large and rapid movements in a very small space.

 The eighth presentation was on the topic of emotion and products, and focused on the Kaeng Raeng detox drink.  This is a drink that comes as  a box of powder containing vitamins, proteins, and other “natural” products, and is mixed with water and drunk in lieu of food for a period (3 days? 6 days?).  It is alleged to make you feel better, lose weight, and be healthier.  Upon tasting it, the students in the class were somewhat unconvinced, but the group giving the presentation were quite positive about the product, and the product is obviously loved (emotion) by many people, Products such as this often have a positive emotional affect on people above and beyond nutritional effects – think of spas and meditation.  And positive emotions do seem to correspond to health.

 But I have noticed one bad product in all of this — the adapters needed to connect portable computers to the projection system in the room. The projection system is equipped with a VGA plug —somewhat standard.  It would be nice if no adapters were needed.  But computers (especially Apple’s portables) have smaller plugs, and they seem to become smaller with each version.  If there is one  thing I learned in my aerospace days, it is that larger connectors are more reliable over time.  The adapters to the smaller plugs seem to become intermittent over time, and of course get lost, confused (which one is mine?), and sometimes simply don’t work. 

I used to think Kodak Carousel projects tripped up presentations.  But my experience at giving talks and lectures via digital equipment is that we are gaining in being able to make, organize, and store slides , but losing in system simplicity, especially in places we have not used before—I  have mentioned the "smart" panels in some of the new  buildings at Stanford before. Woe be unto the person unaquainted with these  panels who walks for the first time into a room containing one of them naively expecting to figure out how to show slides without help from a native.  

Problem solving, the internet, and Evgeny Morozov

This post is a bit late because I lost my wallet for the first time in my life this weekend, and have been spending my time ever since communicating with banks, AAA, the Department of Motor Vehicles, and various other agencies which I need to cancel things and send me new ones.  DO NOT EVER LOSE  YOUR WALLET.  In fact, take it out now and remove everything that you don’t regularly use and that you would have to replace if you lost the damn thing—especially if you would have to deal with the DMV.   It turns out that lots of people have lost theirs or had it stolen at some time or another—they just don’t admit it until you let them know you are a member of the club.

 In my next post I will bring you up on the final student presentations in the Stanford Good Products Bad Products course.  The first four were very good indeed.  But in this post I would like to say a few words about an article in the March 3 New York Times that I found both provocative, and enjoyable.  The title of the article was “The Perils of Perfection”, by Evgeny Morozov, and it is here.

 I enjoyed it because living in the midst of the Stanford /Silicon Valley success story, I am surrounded by people and companies extremely enthusiastic and optimistic about the long-term wonderful effects upon humankind of computers and internet and their ability to handle important and difficult social problems. This article is drawn on a book entitled “To Save Everything, Click Here:  The Folly of Technological Solutionism”. (Morozov also wrote “The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of the Internet”.)  I find his critical attitude toward the wonders of the internet to be a wonderful counterpoint to the general values of my environment.

 I like the description of engineers as “solutionists”.   It is to some extent true.  I have a good  friend who is an eminent historian (Pulitzer Prize, etc.).  He refers to engineers as “meddlers” rather than “solutionists”.  He and his fellow historians feel that they are trying to understand societies, and engineers are knowingly or unknowingly trying to change them. I am an engineer and have worked all of my professional life finding solutions to problems. To  the extent that I have succeeded I have been a meddler.  But these problems have been relatively straight-forward, and solutions could be found that pleased most people involved.  I do not believe that all problems have solutions of this sort, and certainly not solutions that please everyone {the "perfect" solution}.  Congress is finding that out with regard to problems having to do with medical care, employment, balancing the budget, etc.etc.etc.  What improves the situation for some, makes it worse for others.  Complicated situations involving manyp eople can be improved, but perfect “right” answers are unlikely.

 There is much hope among some of the digerati that ever increasing communication (social networking) and new software allowing the formation of independent political groups and poll-taking (Morozov mentions a software program named Seesaw) will allow answers to be found that will result in solutions to such complicated and critical problems that will please all. I don’t, because different human values and interests are involved and if some people are pleased, others won’t be. Taxes are a good example.

 Morozov goes further and quotes from an essay named “In Praise of Inconsistency” written by the philosopher Leszek Kolakowski,  The  author of this feels that disagreement among  people as to the proper course to take is “the only hope for the human race”.  I won’t go further.  Read and think about Morizov’s essay in the  link above.  I have ordered the book.  I will use it to pick on students and my friends who have been born again by the internet.

A Product I Hate

One of the reasons I hate to shop for groceries, aside from the ever-increasing size of grocery stores which makes it increasingly difficult to find what I want, and the profusion of marketing, “deals”, and other would-be enticements to buy things I don’t want, are the toilet paper style produce bags, available in either  low mount or high mount as seen in the photographs.  They are shown in their at-rest position, just waiting to anger the innocent.

  Like old toilet paper rollers, these devices are capable, (especially if low on bags), of not only unrolling more bags than desired, but of actually leaving their housing to festoon the bags across the floor.  The bags themselves are difficult to properly tear off the roll, confusing as to which way is “up”, and challenging indeed to open so that the payload can be inserted.

The photographs below give a hint of this, but you have probably experienced the frustration of trying to use them many times yourself.  If not, I would appreciate knowing where you shop. 

The first photo shows the bags lying flat (notice lack of marking where you tear them apart).The bags are folded in a strange  manner, and the next photo shows what you see as you try to figure out how to open one.  The photo after that is an indication of the opening when/if you succeed.  How about trying to put a head of lettuce into that confusion of thinner than tissue plastic.  And even if you do succeed in opening it, the next photo of the bottom of the fully open bag shows that they are diabolically designed so that the bottom is not obvious.

They are not only functionally a nightmare, they have a sleazy feel, an ugly look, and despite the optimistic note encouraging returning them to the store, probably are not very favorable to the ecology.  Also they are so thin that I have a few times succeeded in dropping a purchase through the bottom, which is non-relaxing to other shoppers.

 As a positive, they result in the opportunity to meet nice people.  I usually shop during the day, when many of the other shoppers seem to be mothers with children who would rather be somewhere else.  Today, I got to know a nice lady who had an unhappy child in a stroller and was carrying a baby who was having a temporary meltdown.  How about trying to open one of these bags and put produce in it with one hand while trying to calm down a couple of unhappy kids?  I  helped her with the bags (not the kids) and she was so obviously grateful that it alleviated the anger I had accrued from my own previous bag experience.

Another good piece of news is shown in the last photograph (apple by mirror).  Upon reaching home and emptying one of said bags I found that I had won an apple with three of the pesky little labels that you have to either swallow, spit out,  or peel off.  Wow!  Must have been because I am a member of the Safeway club.

 

Tegu, Honduras, and a quality product

Chris Haughey, the founder and head of Tegu Toys was the speaker in the course last Thursday, and did a remarkable job of not only telling a compelling story, but discussing the interaction of product quality and economics.  Tegu toys is located in Honduras, but sells its products mostly in the U.S. and other developed countries.  The website for Tegu Toys is here, and it not only describes their products, but also gives information on the story and goals of the company.  There are other websites about Tegu, because it has caught the attention of many people because of its idealistic goals and determination to produce high quality products. An article about Chris is here.

 In brief, Chris graduated with an engineering degree from Stanford and went to work for the Boston Consulting Group.  A business trip to Hondurus along with a deep interest in helping the economy of a poor country made him decide to quit his job, move to Honduras, and attempt to do something about their extremely high unemployment rate by starting a company to make jobs. After some thinking he decided that since excellent hardwood was available, and since there seemed to be a demand for high quality wooden toys in places such as the U.S., high quality wooden toys would be an excellent product, so with some help from his friends and his brother, he started Tegu.Their products are kits of beautifully finished wooden building blocks that contain internal magnets, allowing  them to be combined as desired.

 Chris did an excellent job of telling the story of not only starting a toy company, but doing so by employing people who had little education and few skills, and trying to keep the product both extremely high in quality and also affordable.  Like many company founders, he consistently discovered expenses and  problems he had underestimated, and had to cut costs over time,  but as of now, the company is in good shape and gaining visibility.  And the product, although expensive by many standards, is very effective.  Chris passed out a number of samples to the students, which resulted in an appreciable noise level of clicks and clacks as they happily played with them, even though they were intended for people fifteen years younger.

Tegu is a fascinating combination of idealism and economics, and experiences both the benefits and advantages of operating a factory in a poor country.  It is taking advantage of low labor costs, but bearing the weight of slow government responses and the complexity of international business.  The class was very positive about his presentation, but afterwards, I overheard several of them discussing the differences and similarities between operating a factory in Hondurus for products to be sold in countries such as the U.S., and outsourcing products to China.  Neither helps unemployment in the U.S.  but they tended to think that building products in Hondurus is better than building products in China — complicated, these international issues.  My reaction was one of being impressed.  I think I need to go visit them.

Stanford Good Products Bad Products Course Update Again

Since my post of  February 11, the students in Professor Beach’s ME 314 course have done many things.  They have read and discussed Chapters 8 and 9 of my book.  The title of chapter 8 is "Symbolism and cultural Values: Who Are We?"  The subtitles are Products, Symbolism, and Cultures, Products and National cultures, Products and subcultures, and Globalism and cultures.  Chapter 9 is "Global Contraints: Does the Product Fit a Finite Earth and Its Inhabitants?"   Subtitles are Big Problems, The Role of Industrially Produced Products, Why These Problems, Response to change, Revolutionary Approaches, The Iceberg, Regulation and Laws, and Now what?

The students have continued to put examples of good and bad products on the class blog (see Feb. 11 post), and student groups have continued to review them, report on their favorites, and bring up further questions for class discussion.  Dave Beach has also begun showing some examples of the student’s story videos, which are extensions of the discovery videos  made early in the quarter..

 The class has also interacted with two more guest speakers, Peter Mondavi, the co-Proprietor of Charles Krug Winery, and Nancy Gioia, Director of Ford Motor Company’s Electrification Program, and also presently of the integration of information hardware and software into its vehicles. An article on Mondavi is here, and information on Gioia is here.  Both of them have positions where product quality, both real and perceived, is of great importance.  They have spent their careers worrying about issues of product quality in two areas where it has received a great deal of attention (wine and motor vehicles).

 Gioia’s problem with integrating information equipment into vehicles is particularly difficult.  The number one goal of vehicles has to remain safety.  But the builders of automobiles are under tremendous pressure to include digital devices ranging from smart phones to increasingly complex navigation and television systems to internet access, and vehicle features ranging from increasing reporting on vehicle components to driving aids.  The problem is that of both including these kind of features and not distracting the driver to the point where driving becomes more dangerous—a  case where a perceived increase in the quality of vehicles could result in a dramatic increase in  automotive accidents. Autonomous vehicles? Gioia guessed maybe iin 40 years.

There will be  two more speakers from outside of Stanford, I will give a talk on achieving higher quality, and the last two and a half sessions will be devoted to student presentations on companies they have researched who do a particularly good job in producing high quality products.  I will be writing two or three more posts recapping the remainder of the course.  It is going very well.  Should you want more details on the course than I have been able to  put in these posts, you should contact Professor Dave Beach in the Stanford Engineering School.  His e-mail address is dbeach@stanford.edu.

The Use of Capital - Accumulate It, or Spend It?

These days the media is paying a lot of attention to large amounts of capital that are in a sense dormant, in that they are not being used in ways that will produce jobs and income through revolutionary products that will improve the quality of our lives as well as the economy.  I recently read an interview  in Wired magazine by Jeff Howe of Clayton Christensen, a professor in the Harvard Business School, and a column in the February 17 New York times by Thomas Friedman, both on this topic.  They are both outstanding thinkers and writers.

 I first became aware of Clayton Christensen in 1997  when he wrote a book that I loved entitled The Innovator’s Dilemma. At the time I was up to my ears teaching at Stanford and consulting in Silicon Valley, and the prevailing feeling was that innovation was bound to win.  This feeling still exists.  Chistensen’s book, wonderfully enough, was a well-backed argument that you could build a company on innovation, do everything right, and still lose.  His thesis was that as businesses prosper, they focus on innovations at the high value-added end of the market to maximize growth and profit, and overlook newer firms at the low-margin end that will come up with revolutionary products that may obsolete the products of the older company . The March 2013 issue of Wired magazine contains the interview with him, which is here.

In his interview (entitled "the Disruptor") he speaks of potentially more socially useful ways to utilize capital than merely aquiring it, and goes so far as to blame business  professors like himself for the phenomenon, since they have traditionally been teaching students and managers to measure profitability based on return on invested capital.  This causes the familiar tendency of businesses to try to make more money with fewer resources, and use the resulting gain in capital to make more capital.  The result is an unwillingness to invest in long-term innovative projects which although they might tie up capital for a longer time, would not only produce growth and profit, but more jobs and income for the average person.  He speaks of migratory capital (it goes to investments that produce a quick return) as opposed to productive capital (it results in major new directions) and clearly believes we need more of the latter. Christensen will have a new book out next year entitled The Capitalists’ Dilemma, and I am eager to read it. I believe in Capitalism, but it doesn’t solve all problems.

 The very next day I read Thomas Friedman’s column in the New York Times, entitled "How to  Unparalyze Us" which focused upon  the present tendency of  individuals and companies to store money. It is here.  He began his editorial by pointing out that in his state of the union speech, President Obama had proposed investing one billion dollars in a National Network for Manufacturing Innovation. He then mentioned the difficulty Obama will face getting the money out of Congress.  He then pointed out that Apple is currently sitting on $137 billion cash in the bank, which if spent would undoubtedly result in more good and remunerative jobs.  Apple is not alone, and Friedman feels that the uncertainty in the nation’s economy, partly due to inability of Congress to act, is responsible for this hoarding mentality, and if people and companies sitting on large piles of money would begin to spend it, more and better jobs would appear, and the recovery would benefit greatly.

 I thought that reading a near simultaneous column by Friedman and an interview with Christensen talking about the same thing made this a good topic to talk about.  I have long believed that since productivity is an efficiency number made from dividing output (products) by input (traditionally labor), one should be careful of increasing it too much by decreasing the denominator, since historically, when labor has gotten  mad enough, bad things have  happened.  And when labor is lowered enough (huge stores with no one to help the customer and ridiculously long checkout lines) everyone gets mad.

 Although certainly capital is needed for rainy days, the health of an economy seems to have to do with money being in motion.  Although I am not an economist, and this is counter to the depression ethic taught to me by my parents, I am a believer. Hopefully business schools are thinking deeply about the issue. Having become annoyed with wealthy individuals using their money to make more money through investments with no “trickle down”, it would not add to our gross national happiness to become annoyed with businesses doing the same thing rather than producing more revolutionary (and of course high quality) products. 

 

 

The State of the Union (and manufacturing)

I liked the President’s state of the union message for its specific listing of “things to do”.  Certainly the things he mentioned could use a bit of fixing.  I realize that many people in the country are against anything Obama is for, and that we don’t have the money to accomplish all of these things and reduce the national debt.  And it remains to be seen whether Congress is one national group or two party groups—in other words, can they accomplish anything other than posturing on behalf of their particular constituents. But the speech was definitely an upper.

 I of course also liked the attention he paid to manufacturing.  But as politicians tend to do, he spoke in grand figures — new jobs, growing economy, insourcing, bolstering of the middle class, more funding for research and development, and encouraging schools to focus on useable skills and knowledge.  These are all good, but I wish he would  have said something about product quality — like U.S. products are going to become the best in the world.

I was pleased that Obama spoke of joint university-industry manufacturing efforts, and I hope that the government and industry will support more of them.  Such efforts can produce much needed insights in design and manufacturing as well as better training for people who will do the work.  But in order for them to succeed, universities must accept more applied work as academically respectable. The name of the game in highly ranked universities is research, and at present research, and even interdisciplinary research, is performed by experts in an established discipline.  Disciplines in engineering and business are extremely fond of mathematics and science (both natural and social)  because such intellectual activities lead to academic visibility among scholars as well as producing important additions to knowledge and funding to pay for laboratories and graduate students. Faculty members are generally hired not only because of their teaching ability, but also, and perhaps primarily, because of their likelihood of becoming a leader in their academic field.

 It is certainly possible to do research on manufacturing in situations in which mathematics and science (both natural and social) can be applied.  Stanford’s Graduate Business School  and the Department of  Management Systems and Engineering in the School of Engineering  do such things.  And in fact both of these Schools pay attention to design, but more at the feasibility and prototype level, than on final design and production..  In fact I wrote the Good Products Bad Products book partly because of frustration with the little attention in engineering and business schools to aspects of product quality that are difficult to approach quantitatively and logically.

 Our engineering faculty members bring in large amounts of research money to support their laboratories and their students, and like those in other top engineering schools tend toward science and quantitative problem solving.  And that is what causes institutions to be highly ranked, because the ranking is often done by faculty members in other schools.  The Stanford engineering school, partly because of a history of success, focuses on potential breakthrough areas—nano technology, energy production, digital hardware and software, robotics, biotechnology, and so on. Such fields have huge potential payoffs and provide major intellectual challenges.  But manufacturing requires familiarity with more traditional industry and has a bit of a  “nuts and bolts” nature.

 Manufacturing is now getting an increasing amount of attention, but it still seems to be difficult to convert into institutional academic success. I once chaired a rather traditional Industrial Engineering department, which was oriented toward manufacturing.  But it has now been combined with two other academically more glamorous departments, one previously named Operations Research and the other Engineering Economic Systems.  The result (Management Science and Engineering) is a larger, and academically perhaps more successful department, but contains few faculty members who could design a factory or program a robot.  I once chaired a School of Engineering study by a committee including professors from many parts of the  University who were interested in manufacturing, which I thought detailed an excellent university-wide program in manufacturing.  It was not accepted, partly because it included a co-op program involving industry—clearly below the lofty nature of the university.

 The Engineering School presently contains a strong design group in the Mechanical Engineering Department, and the very popular Hasso Plattner Institute of Design, both of which stress creative design, But the Product Realization Laboratory of the design group (mentioned in previous posts), chaired by Professor David Beach, which focuses on integrated design and manufacturing, is the only formal group in the school that is dedicated to the manufacture of hardware.  And traditionally, although extremely successful at its work, it has had problems defining and securing funding for research and hiring tenure-line faculty. I will suggest that it invite Obama to join its advisory board.

 

The Stanford Good Products Bad Products course again

Since my last post on the course (Feb 3). the students have read Chapter 7 of my book, entitled  “Aesthetics, Elegance, and Sophistication: Wisdom Through Experience.”.  The subsections are Aesthetics and Industrial Products, A Bit of Background on Industrial Design, Elegance and Sophistication, Product Form and Function”, and Some Concerns on Today’s Aesthetics”.   Once again I would like to refer you to the blog containing students assignments and comments that is here.  It will let you know what these words mean to the students.  This blog is being maintained by Ashish Goel, one of the two Teaching Assistants in the course, and who from my viewpoint is adding greatly  not only to the student exercises, but to the content of the course through the blog. It is stimulating discussion and the students are definitely understanding the messages of each chapter of the book,  Also the student groups that are summarizing the individual choices are doing an exceptional job not only of emphasizing the message, but coming up with additional questions for the class to discuss.

           As is often the case when seeking examples of beauty, elegance, and sophistication, the students are lured toward high cost products.  Certainly such qualities are to be found in many (not all) luxury items.  But I am always pleased when they find examples of  utilitarian articles that display such characteristics. The photos show three that I happen to think qualify —an airplane propeller, a small incredibly low-priced Japanese garden tool, and a human femur.

 

The femur is not manufactured in a factory, and therefore does not directly qualify for the course (although were I a student I might submit it just to "enrich" the discussion), but it is certainly elegant and sophisticated and you can be  proud of owning one in your very own leg.

The class also continued to review the student discovery videos and talk about product quality in general.  But the speaker of the week unknowingly did an excellent job of bringing up the topic of chapter 8 In my book— Symbolism and Cultural Values— which I will say a few words about in my next post.  His name is Michael Topolovac,  a Stanford graduate who has spoken to the class several times and become a good friend of Dave Beach.  He calls himself a serial entrepreneur, and certainly deserves the title. He first founded and served as CEO of Light and Motion, a company that  produced underwater photo equipment. It was motivated by his interest in diving and in photography.  But having developed software for handling the materials and scheduling of this company, he became co-founder and CEO of Arena Solutions,  a company developing product lifecycle management( PLM)  solutions for manufacturers and their global supply  chains.  He told the story of both of these companies, including not only what he did right, but also in hindsight what he did wrong—a rare and valuable input from people who speak to classes about their accomplishments. 

     But as to  culture, he is now co-founder of Crave (his co-founder being Ti Chang, an industrial designer with a history of designing products for women). The Crave websight is here.  It will tell you something of the company and something of Michael.  Its first products are vibrators for women, sex toys if you would, but what sex toys.  They are based on serious market research, a great deal of prototyping and testing, and are designed and manufactured with an eye toward elegance and beauty.  The goal of the company is to facilitate women’s pleasure in a way that is 180 degrees removed from present day vibrators, the seamy image they portray, and the tacky environment in which they are sold.  The company is, if you would, going for extreme quality.

 I truly enjoyed watching the class response to Michael, because he was talking of a topic that was awkward in the typical Stanford classroom culture.  They students were interested, but not totally involved in his discussion of the first two companies.  But they definitely woke up when he turned to Crave.  One of the women in the class described the phenomenon well.  She claimed than when he began his discussion of Crave, every woman in the class blushed and looked away from him.  But by the middle of the class, all of the students, women and men, were highly interested, because Michael is an extraordinarily bright person, and with his co-founder, is serious about his mission.  The Duet, the initial product of the company, might also be considered a luxury item, but I would bet that even though it was not his reason for talking to the class, he might have sold a few of them.  And he definitely gets my award for guest lecture bravery above and beyond the call of duty.

 

 

Product Quality and Population

Some day there will be a gravestone some place that will read  “here lies James L. Adams, a kind and caring man, who died from a heart attack in stalled traffic”.  I hate being trapped in such things, aware of my life ticking away and helpless to do anything about it. One of the blessings of being retired, is the ability to choose driving times when crowds are at a minimum.  But this takes some thinking, because where I live the commuting periods are long (flex time and lots of people commuting to work in Silicon Valley ), and many people are on the road shopping and going to restaurants around lunch time.  At times like these, the traffic is terrible.

 But the other day I needed to be in the Sacramento Valley in the morning and back at Stanford by 5:00 p.m., with a few interim stops thrown in.  The trip was only possible by car.  I left at 5:30 a.m., which let me beat the commuting traffic pretty well, although the incoming traffic was already bumper to bumper and moving slowly because of people living far away in more affordable housing but working in the valley.  But coming back I could not beat the traffic, ran out of back roads, and got caught.

I escaped my heart attack by musing about once good products that were no longer compatible with increased population density.  The automobile is a truly sophisticated product in many ways —capable of carrying one long distances at high speeds in comfort. Still great if one drives around Eastern Oregon or West Texas—less great shopping in New York City or commuting in Los Angeles (photo by Monica Almeida/The New York Times). If too many of them are put together it becomes a terrible product – a small cell enclosing one and barely moving, if at all, while it pollutes the ecosphere, devours petroleum, and causes one to endure unhealthy changes in one’s vital signs and exhibit sometimes violently anti-social behavior.  The present move toward “autonomous” vehicles is probably partly motivated by the fantasy that traffic will move more rapidly and one can entertain oneself by drinking, texting, watching TV, and sleeping as one is transported to work and back.  But it may also have the effect of depriving the traveler of diversion and allow him/her more free time to curse and extend one’s middle finger toward others.

 There are many products that work well in less populated areas (firearms, un-muffled engines, weed burners,) but not well in cities.  Can you think of a few? This probably explains some of the differences in attitudes of people (and our good congressional representatives) toward such issues as high speed railroads and the environment. I would guess that people drilling for oil and gas in North Dakota experience less criticism than those who built platforms off of the shore of Santa Barbara California. And shooting game birds in Wyoming farmland is more acceptable than shooting pigeons in San Francisco’s  Union Square.

 I would also guess that some of the resistance people have to ever tightening regulations might result from having grown up in more sparsely populated areas and who remember freedoms that are no longer acceptable in densely populated ones.   Even I am sometimes guilty of such behavior.  I could better get away with throwing the garbage out of the back door in my youth (when there were chickens and orange trees there rather than neighbors) than in my present yard in an upscale community, even though garbage is good compost. And how can people have the nerve to prevent me from using my fireplace?  Fireplaces were wonderful products when I grew up in an agricultural area – family and social centers and cheery winter heating.  Apparently not so good in suburban Santa Clara Valley, California these days.

 

 

 

 

Back to the Stanford Good Products Bad Products course (ME 314)

Since I have written a post about it, the course has had two more guest speakers, Kirk Hawkins, the co-founder of ICON Aircraft, and David Franchino, the head of Design Concepts. The web-site for ICON is here, and that for Design Concepts is here.  You can also find information on Hawkins and Franchino on the web. The students have also been viewing the discovery videos made by various student teams, which are oriented toward gaining new and hopefully surprising insights into product quality.  The assignment for these videos is here.

 Readings have included one from Diane Ackerman’s book Natural History of the Senses, and Chapter 6 from my Good Products, Bad Products book.  If you are not taking the course and have not read the book, the Chapter title is Products, Emotions, and Needs — Love, Hate, or Blah.  The sub sections are How Emotions Play a Role, the Complexity of Human Enotions, Diversity in Emotional Responses, The Mechanisms of Emotion, Human Needs, Needs and Emotions, and Need Finding,

 Emotion is obviously key to the subject matter of the course, although as I explain in the book, it is difficult to discuss in words and rigorously analyze. It is, after all, about feelings, and how do you describe or measure what it feels like to be disgusted, anxious, or joyous?  I at one time considered beginning the book with the topic of emotion, but decided that I would expend too much energy explaining why I had written a book on emotion to some of my colleagues in the Engineering School. But believe it, the emotional response to a product is a major component of quality.

 Diane Ackerman’s book uses written descriptions of experiences to explain the senses, as do many good writers explain emotions.  One of my favorite books, which indirectly treats emotion, is Making Comics, by Scott McCloud (Harper Collins, 2006, New York, NY).  The author draws and writes comics and books, and is an expert on comics,  According to the back cover, Sin City creator Frank Miller called him "just about the smartest guy in comics". The book utilizes a comic-book  approach to explaining them.  In the process, the reader necessarily receives an insight to how emotions are dealt with in comics.  The book will also make you better understand graphic novels and wonder why you never followed your early instinct to draw and write comics. More details can be seen by clicking on the cover icon on the right.

Product Quality and High Heeled Shoes

  For those of you following the class discussion blog , which contains the student choices for good products and bad products in the various categories covered in the course—if you double click on the titles, you will get the complete write-ups including the “comment” space, should you care to enter the discussion. Over the quarter, the discussions wll follow the flow of my Good Products Bad Products book.

  The last class consisted of small groups of students commenting on the assignments to date followed by general discussion, and brought up a number of interesting points.  Several comments were made that in many cases human fit and craftsmanship are often neglected because other elements of quality are seen as more important by marketing.  But it is often, if not usually the case that they can and should be improved.  Several examples were in the area of fashion products and cheap knock-offs of same.  The emotional and cultural aspects of such products were seen to often swamp the functional,  and such things as comfort, durability, maintainability, and craftsmanship often suffer. 

  The case of high-heeled shoes came up, as it usually does in this course.  I know women who have spent many years in jobs in which high heeled shoes were standard wear, and, like many people, gained pleasure in following the path of fashion.  But they are now paying the cost of having spent so much time having their toes stuffed into an inadequate and artificially shaped container, and walking with their ankles bent at an unnatural angle.  The cost includes such things as hammer toes, bunions, sore ankles and other miscellaneous foot problems.

 Being a man who has never been accused of being a fashion plate, and one who would probably wobble in high heels, I don’t quite understand the love women have for Jimmy Choo and his colleagues, but I accept that many would, if properly funded, challenge the shoe collection that made Imelda Marcos famous (or infamous).  In fact, I would go further and suggest that looking at history from the binding of feet through the success of en pointe in classical ballet, to the size of Barbie doll feet and the staying power of spike heels high enough to leave the foot almost vertical, some women might be happier with no feet at all, or at least smaller versions relative to the leg, such as those possessed by horses.

 But I won’t go into this obviously unsophisticated male viewpoint, because I have learned that I always lose in the following discussion.  To me, it seems that it should be possible to produce woman’s shoes that not only fit and otherwise do their job well (athletic shoes, boots), but that are extraordinarily beautiful, lead in fashion, and are consistent with the plumage involved in “dressing up”.

 At the end of my Good Products Bad Products book is a simple matrix suggesting that products can be scored according to their success in all of the quality elements in the book.  My sentiments are clear.

 

Outsourcing/Offshoring to Mexico

The New York Times issue of Jan 27, 2912, contained an enthusiastic opinion piece entitled Mexico:  The New China, by Chris Anderson, the former editor of Wired Magazine, and founder of 3d Robotics, extolling the virtues of manufacturing in Mexico.  It is here. Mexico is indeed a fine place to do business, but that has been known for as long as I remember. When I first came to Stanford as a student in the late 1950’s, there was a formal cooperative arrangement between the Engineering School and the Monterrey Technical Institute in Mexico, and although biased toward agriculture and materials, there was a good bit of trade going on. And of course, as is still the case, immigrants from Mexico were doing much of the work in many fields in the U.S., in particular agriculture.  But China officially became communist in 1949, was closed to visitors for thirty years, and still has slightly awkward relations with the U.S.

Mexico is potentially better for us than a new China.  It is much closer linguistically, culturally and physically, and it has been a strong trading partner of the U.S. for many years. In 2012, U.S. exports to Mexico totaled approximately 200 billion dollars, and imports approximately 257 billion dollars, for a trade deficit of 57 billion.  To put that in perspective with our China situation, our exports to China totaled about 100 billion, and our imports, 390 billion, for a negative trade balance of 290 billion.  Our exports to Canada, incidentally, totaled 270 billion, and our imports 298 billion, for a trade deficit of 28 billion.

If we add our trade to Mexico and Canada, we find that our exports are approximately 470 billion dollars, and imports approximately 555 billion, for a trade deficit of 85 billion dollars.  So our trade with Mexico and Canada far exceeds our trade with China.  Our trade with China annoys us more, because we seem to buy a lot more from them than they from us.  And perhaps China bothers us more than Mexico because we fear that China is threatening our status as the world’s leading power, is culturally and governmentally different, and we remember that they chased us out of the Chosin Reservoir in North Korea in 1950, 

 I must admit I am a life-long fan of Mexico. In fact, I once thought I wanted to be reincarnated as a guitarron player in a Mariachi band. Also, I feel that we forced them out of land that was rightfully theirs. Those of us those of us who live in California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Utah, Nevada, and parts of Wyoming, Colorado, Oklahoma, and Kansas, live in land that was initially claimed by Spain, but then became part of Mexico when it became independent. This land was later taken by the expanding U.S. through military force and a 15 million dollar decrease in the debt owed the U .S. by Mexico — Manifest Destiny.  More details of all that are here. I certainly don’t begrudge people from Mexico attempting to emigrate to land that we took away from Mexico by force and a few bucks.  And I like doing business with them.

 I grew up in Southern California when the main business was citrus, and our favorite relatives farmed in Somerton, Arizona, which was a stone’s throw from San Luis, Mexico.  I grew up with people from Mexico. The Mexican population was particularly large in the agricultural Southwest, Spanish was a common language, and we were very aware that the nearest big city was El Pueblo de Nuestra Señora la Reina de los Ángeles del Río de Porciúncula .  Now I live on the Stanford Campus, which is on one side by a street called El Camino Real, and on the other by Junipero Serra — Mexican influence?  I am married to a woman whose mother left the U.S. for Mexico when her husband died, re-married to a U.S. citizen living there, and spent most of the rest of her life  there.  I have spent a relatively large time working and playing in Mexico, and in my opinion, most U.S. people know it mostly because of its resorts, food, border towns, and of course, tequila.  But a bit of time in Mexico City changes that impression. 

 Incidentally, Mexican towns on the U.S. border used to be lots more fun before our present concerns with immigration and their invasion by the drug business (supported, after all, by the high prices generated by our “war on drugs”.)  But these formerly small and marginally paved cities are no longer small and unpaved.  As an example, Tiajuana now has a population approaching 2 million. Mexico is a large and growing country, and in many ways a successful one.

 As an end note, the richest person in the world ($75 billion, even more than the $64.4. billion of Bill Gates or the $48.5 billion of Warren Buffet), is a Mexican telecom tycoon with the wonderful name of Carlos Slim, who lives there along with a very large number of successful manufacturing companies, including 16 automobile assembly plants, and Cemex, the world’s largest supplier of construction materials and 3^rd large producer of cement. Viva Mexico!

Human Fit, Craftsmanship, and Good Products Bad Products

At this time, the students in the Stanford Good Products Course have read the first five chapters of my book of the same name, are working on a field research paper, and have turned in their first assignment from the book, which asked them to select a product that they consider to be of high quality and one of low quality as far as both human fit and craftsmanship are concerned, and to write a short essay justifying their choices and perhaps suggesting how to improve the products of low quality.

If you would like an insight into their thinking, there is a blog here which will give you that. You should find it both thought provoking and entertaining. I cannot include all of their essays, because of space limitations, but you will get the idea.  The topics of the first product assignment are human fit and craftsmanship, the content of Chapters 4 and 5 of my book. 

 The first two chapters in the book have to do with the nature of quality and reasons why product quality could and should be improved.  The third chapter is an argument for thinking more deeply about cost, price, and performance, a relationship that is often overly simplified by both producers and consumers.  The problems in the book for the first three chapters are not assigned to the class this year, because of time constraints. 

 Human fit, the topic of Chapter 4, is one of the more obvious and important aspects of product quality, and one that is often overlooked, partly because of the perceived higher priority of short term factors such as cost and schedule in the development of products, and partly because of the tendency of designers to design for people like themselves with respect to such things as age, size, sensory and physical ability, and the tendency of consumers not to give adequate attention to the fit between product and user at purchase. This latter phenomenon can be seen from customers briefly (with embarrassment) lying on a mattress in a store, when at least a full night’s sleep is probably necessary to determine whether their back will be angry with them in the morning.

 Since one goal of my book is to break the non-quantitative aspects of quality into more  approachable topics, I subdivided human fit into physical fit, sensory fit, cognitive fit, complexity, and safety and health.  Much is known about the first three, but often not applied.  Cognitive misfit is especially noticeable in the internet.  Digital electronics and increasingly sophisticated software are resulting in rapidly increasing access to information and communication modes, but Moore’s law does not apply to the brain.  We need a better match, and it is not going to come from  doubling the number of neurons in our brain every two years.  Finally, both the complexity of modern life and health are becoming increasingly important problems.

 Craftsmanship is also critical.  But unfortunately we tend to use  the term more on products involving a large amount of hand labor (the “crafts”).  For a number of reasons, craftsmanship in industrial products, which over time require less and less hand labor, is increasingly important.  Not only does improved craftsmanship often result in improvements in performance, reliability, and durability, but it is aesthetically pleasing and we closely associate it with quality (well-made objects).  Chapter 5 goes into the topic in detail.  The subdivisions of the chapter are (1) Why Do We Care About craftsmanship,(2) The Pleasure and Pride of Craft, (3) The Industry and Culture Problem, (4) The Nature of Craftsmanship, and (5), Some Suggestions of How to Improve Craftsmanship in Industry.

 

 

Outsourcing, Offshoring, and the Stanford Good Products Bad Products class

The Jan 19^th-25^th edition of The Economist focuses on outsourcing and offshoring in its special report, as well as in a short article here.  I will talk more about this in a future post, but as wages in countries such as China and India rise, the advantages of operating overseas become more due to operating in countries that provide customers and that have good supply chains and sources of labor, than to low labor costs.  U.S. companies will therefore not leave such countries as India and China, and they in turn will  operate more in the U.S.  Foxconn is on the way and Cemex has been here for quite a while. 

 The ME 314 course at Stanford has now settled down.  Students at Stanford are allowed to “shop” for courses at the first of every quarter, which means that they can sit in on several for a few meetings before committing to their choices.  This makes for more satisfied and motivated students as well as a bit of extra learning.  The downside is to the professors, who are not quite sure who is in the class for a week or two.

 The class has met three times since the introductory session, with four guest speakers, assigned readings, and assignments for the future.  The first speaker was Stephanie Phillips, who I mentioned in my post of January 15th.  Dave Beach is a believer in the use of video not only for communication, but also for analyzing products, and one of the assignments the students have is to do a bit of field research using video.  The speakers following Stephanie were Scott Doorley and Jonathan Edelman, both with experience in doing such things.

 The fourth speaker was Peter Dreissigacker, who founded a company called Concept 2 with his brother Richard.  Peter was a student of mine in my early teaching days, and remains one of my favorite people.  They both received M.S. degrees in engineering at Stanford in the 1970’s, Peter in Product Design, and Dick in Industrial Engineering.  They were/are both outstanding rowers. Dick rowed in the Olympics, and Peter in the try-outs.  In 1976 they founded Concept 2  in Maine to make competition oars out of composite materials.  They later added a rowing ergometer, and still later a skiing ergometer.

Concept 2 is dedicated to having its products be the best in their class, and have generally succeeded.  Their oars are widely used in top competitions, and their ergometers are top of the line.  A look at the Concept 2 company website gives an indication of some of the things in which they are involved in their quest to not only make extremely high products, but spread  rowing more widely as not only an exciting sport, but also as wonderful exercise. As an example, the photo shows one of the indoor rowing competitions using their ergometers that the company has been sponsoring for 30 years.

Concept 2 is a relatively small company/family with long-term employees.  It is a happy place that is proud of its work.  Needless to say, the employees are unusually healthy, since Dick and Peter set the tone by remaining highly ranked in their age group in the international internet competitions based on concept 2 ergometers.

 This is a  company whose income depends on product quality.  And through their activities, such as the indoor competitions,they have gone far beyond their primary customers (high-level rowers) to expand their community of users.  Even I had one of their  ergometers in my house for many years, and it still is doing yeoman service with my kids and grandchildren.  And I daresay, none of us are being sought after by competition crews.  In fact, i have proven conclusively that I cannot even balance a single scull. 

Product Quality, Invention, Innovation, Economics, and Outsourcing.

  There were a couple of provocative articles in the last issue of The Economist.  The first and lead article is here.  It has to do with the present swell of interest in ideas, creativity, innovation, and such things.  I had  two reactions to it.  First, I certainly agree that such things are essential to us.  But there seems to be a feeling nowadays that lots of ideas are magic that can result in gloriously successful startups that then result in our fantasy of full employment, rapidly growing GDP, etc. etc. etc.  As mathematicians might say, ideas are necessary but not sufficient.  Linus Pauling, my beloved freshman chemistry teacher, used to say that the key to creativity is to have lots of ideas and throw away the bad ones.  When this appears as a quote, somehow the last part of the sentence is often omitted.

 The second gives a bit of insight into our national policy vagueness on manufacturing.   It is here.  It discusses the field of economics, the extent at which economists agree with each other, and the extent that the public agrees with the economists.  It includes the figure shown below.

 Each week since Sept 1911, the University of Chicago has asked a group  of economists associated with leading schools whether they agree or disagree on certain statements.  The figure, taken from an article entitled “Economic Experts vs. Average Americans”, written by Paula Sapienz and Luigi Zingales, also of the University of Chicago, compares these responses with  those of a group of non-economists, who seem to be "comparable" to the economists in most respects.  One might expect the non-economists to have  somewhat similar responses to those of the economists, since we are, after all, intelligent and well informed and the economists are highly trained  professionals in topics having to do with money. The economists generally agree with each other reasonably well, despite their tendency to attack each other in the media.  But the non-economists do not seem to agree with them.

With regard to manufacturing, look at the difference in response to the bottom statement —The “Buy American” policy is good for manufacturing employment”.  A mere ten percent of the economists agree with that.  A resounding 75 percent  of the non-economists do.  The public in a democracy such as ours is assumed to be reasonably intelligent.  So are specialists such as economists.  Does this explain Washington to some extent?  And us?  All of the economists seem to agree that “It is hard to predict stock prices”.  Only half of the non-economists seem to agree. And how about the one on the cost of methods to cut emissions?

 

 

Marketing, Advertising, and Product Quality

The first guest speaker in the Stanford Good Products, Bad Products course was Stephanie Phillips, educated in biology and anthropology, who does qualitative behavioral market research for various agencies.  It was a very good talk, in which she did an outstanding job of detailing what is required to gain insights into people’s desires and needs.  Afterward, Dave Beach and I had a discussion about the power of the methods she uses and the ultimate use of conclusions reached from work like hers.

 In business schools, there is great care to separate marketing (study of people to more clearly define what they want and need - what Stephanie does) from sales (selling the product). This is not universally true.  If I look at the definition for sales in my Apple dashboard, it tells me that sales is “the exchange of commodities for money”. Clear enough. But marketing is defined as  “the action or business of providing and selling products or services, including market research and advertising”.  Many (most) people not professionally involved in marketing blur marketing and sales.

 The type of knowledge that such people as Stephanie Phillips unearth can be used in many ways.  As far as developing good new products and improving the quality of existing products, it is invaluable. In promotion and advertising it can result in powerful insights useful in increasing the sale of products. This is good if the product is presented honestly— less so if is not. This was the topic of my discussion with Professor Beach

 If you follow this blog, you may detect that I am fairly cynical about advertising.   There was a very popular song in the 1940’s in which the words encouraged the listener to “accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative”­—possibly resulting from the war that was underway, and certainly applicable to the media and entertainment of the time. It definitely applies to advertising.  In fact in much advertising, the positive is emphasized to the point where we have “truth in advertising” laws.  In general, large companies abide by such things, but how about situations in which individuals and less established commercial ventures are advertising their wares over the internet, and the advertising of insurance, investments and lottery tickets?

 Stephanie was impressive in her talk and very likeable, and I couldn’t help but wondering what might be the result if use car dealers and sellers of cubic zirconium jewelry could hire people like her.  Or even worse, someone with her skills and shady ethics.

 My personal resentments of advertising are such trivial items as its besmirching of the landscape, fouling of the internet, causing most of our mail to hit the recycle box without being opened and ringing our phone during meals, destruction of the flow of such things as magazines, sports and movies on TV, and often , if not usually, exaggeration of the nature and capabilities of the products it represents. Advertising is necessary, if for no other reason to make products and services visible.  Without advertising we would have to pay more for many things, such as internet services, TV and other entertainment, and periodicals, and we would lose a lot of jobs.  And some advertisements are actually entertaining and educational.  But I think that advertising in the U.S. is becoming obnoxious, and perhaps less effective for that reason. How many people are like me in that they increasingly forgo even considering products that interrupt their football game with repeated stupid ads or announce themselves by jumping up and down on the side of the weather report?

 

 

 

Stanford course ME 214-314 schedule and introduction

As I promised, the rough schedule that shows what will occur in each meeting of the Good Products Bad Products course is shown here.

At the first meeting of the class, Dave Beach, Adam Grosser, and I first said a few words about ourselves and our interests in quality.  Dave is responsible  for the course and Adam is helping him teach it, and the course uses my Good Products, Bad Products book.  A short resume for Dave is here, and one for Adam is here.  They are old friends and both interested in product quality, but have had very different careers, so they should be a dream team.

After we talked, Dave spent an hour running the students through an exercise meant to show the difference in sensitivity to quality between merely talking and reading about products and using them.   He used two citrus juicers, one a traditional electrically powered one, and one the rather unconventional one designed by Philippe Starck, a very well known designer, shown in the  photo

The students discussed the two of them at great length, easily bringing  up good and bad  points about them.  But then he had had volunteers from the class actually squeeze  juice with them and comment about their reactions to the process as they did it.  As usual, an entirely different and perhaps more insightful set of issues appeared.  And the class heavily turned against the Starck model, even though it is unique, an eye catching design, has no breakable moving parts, requires no electricity, and is perhaps the highest selling product in Alessi stores—Beach and I of course love it.

 In my brief talk, I offered the following reasons why product quality might not be as high as possible; complacency, short-term profit motivation, tradition, lack of priority in education and in industry, and lazy customers.  My book goes into more detail on them, but the last is one of my favorites.  Why do we settle for less quality than we should?

 We consumers tend to be swayed by increasingly sophisticated advertising and “deals” and do not pay enough attention to the long-term usage of products.  Even though I am deeply involved in the issue of product quality, I find myself making decisions with little if any experience in using the product I am thinking of buying.  I too make decisions on the comfort of chairs or beds after sitting or lying on them for a minute or two, and seldom spend a reasonable amount time trying out a product I am considering purchasing —especially because it is often difficult to find the opportunity.

 When I decided my pickup had run its course a couple of years ago, I considered restoring and upgrading  a 1960’s pickup I own that had belonged to my father.  But I did not think I had the time to spend at that point, so I bought a new one.  I took a longer than usual demonstration drive in the city, on some dirt roads, and on the freeway, and of course found it much more impressive than my old one (not surprising since it was brand new, and my old one had definitely run the course). As I said in my post of Jan 16, 2012, which you can see below, my main complaint was that it was too large. But I liked the truck and figured that I could find parking spots that allowed the doors to swing enough to let me enter and exit, that I could put running boards on it to make it easier for my wife to enter and exit, and that I could keep the stuff that ended up behind the seat organized.  And I figured that I could open the tail gate and get in and out of the bed from the back to reach objects.  But I did not test all of these assumptions before I bought it.

 Had I tried to park it in a tight lot, get stuff out from behind the seat, help older people get in and out of it, and gotten in and out of the bed a couple dozen times myself —in other words, better squeezed the oranges— my decision would probably have been to re-work the 60’s truck, since for my use all modern 8 foot bed (full-sized) pickups are difficult to use because they are much larger than they need to be.  This summer I will attack my 60’s truck. 

The Stanford University 2013 Good Products Bad Products Course

January 8^th, 2013, is the first day of the winter quarter Good Products, Bad Products course (ME 214, 314) at Stanford University.  I began this course in the 1980’s, and it has gone through several changes in name, course number, and department base since then.   David Beach has been teaching it since I retired in 1999, and has changed it in many ways, although he has kept the intent of the course the same.  He has continued to use my notes, and now that they have been published as a book, he is using it as a text in the course.  Although it is listed as a graduate course in the school of engineering, it will include students from other parts of the campus as well.  The majority of the class will consist of regular Stanford students, although there will be some part-time students who will be taking it remotely over the internet. 

 Classes will include a number of guest speakers representing companies and individuals concerned with and producing high quality products, lectures from David Beach, and discussions of the reading material, the speakers, and whatever other product-quality related concerns arise during the quarter. They will not only be reading and discussing my book, but will be  doing exercises similar to the ones listed at the end of the chapters.  They will write short papers on each, and I will talk about them and include some of the more interesting ones on this blog. I will attach a rough schedule to my next post to give  you an idea of what occurs in each class meeting.

The course concludes with a series of consistently impressive presentations on the material in my book.  Groups of students select the topic areas, do appropriate research, and being a bright and talented bunch with a love of media, come up with presentations that are entertaining as well as educational.  I obviously cannot deliver the entire course in a  blog to those of you reading my posts, but not taking the course.  But I will keep you in touch with the course, forward student work when appropriate and interesting to you, and in doing so hopefully expose you a bit to the thinking of present day Stanford students.  I will also continue to write posts on aspects of product quality design and manufacturing, and other topics not covered in the course.  Please comment  on my course-related posts, and I will forward the comments to the class, should they fit the activities that are under way.  The more diversity in input to the students, the better, and any comments you make should result in lively discussions.

Although I have been retired from active teaching for many years, I continue to occupy an office on campus, drink the coffee,  and heckle the people who continue to do the work.  I still find the opening of winter quarter to be exciting.  Although California weather is hard to complain about, it becomes a bit wetter in the San Francisco area, and the general energy level of the academic enterprise picks up a bit because it is not as much fun to go out and play. Hopefully I can convey a bit of this to you.

Welcome aboard!

New Year's Resolution for People Making Industrial Products

I resolve to do what I can to improve the product I am working on —in fact to strive to help it become the best of its kind in the world—or if I think it is already is the best of its kind in the world, to work on improving it anyway, because someone is close behind.

 In doing so, I resolve to consider not only the more easily measurable aspects of quality discussed by David Garvin in his now classic November 1987 HBR article (performance, features, reliability, conformance, durability, serviceability) but also the more qualitative aspects covered in the Adams Good Products Bad Products book (perceived performance, performance/cost ratio, craftsmanship, consistency with human users and cultural values, aesthetic issues,  sensitivity to finite resources and the environment, and finally emotional appeal. (Garvin did mention aesthetics and perceived quality in his article, which was entitled Competing on the Eight Dimensions of Quality, but brushed over them as being functions of individual judgment—Adams says hooray for individual judgment).

 Finally I resolve to remain aware of the two cultures (the scientific and humanistic) mentioned in the Adams People and Products post of  Nov 1, 2012, and to the extent that I have a bias, for instance, toward quantitative reasoning and logic (which are good)  and away from aesthetics and feelings (which are not only good but powerfully affect people’s judgment of quality), or vice versa,  I will do my best to get over it.

Baling (farm/soft/hay/tie/re-bar) Wire — A Wonderful Product

I have some large equipment on a friend’s farm that I cover with plastic tarpaulins, usually held down with sisal cord.  But this year a heavy windstorm broke many of the cords, so I spent yesterday replacing them with baling wire, and in the process, realized I have spent most of my life working with baling wire.  In fact, one of the first jobs I can remember in my life was straightening baling wire for my grandfather, who had talked the local dairy into saving it for him, and used it for every purpose from fastening broken objects together and holding up mufflers and exhaust pipes to tearing down spider webs and making bizarre constructions to unclog drains.  I studied  under him!

 Baling wire is made of steel that is high enough in carbon to be strong, but has been annealed so that it is easy to bend.  It comes in many sizes, and many lengths, and although sometimes plated, it is usually black in color and lightly oiled. In an urban area it is best known as re-bar or tie wire, and a major use is to tie together reinforcing bars while concrete is poured over them. This photo shows a small quantity purchased from Home Depot.  It is still used to hold bales together in agricultural areas, although it has generally been replaced with plastic cord.  I don’t bale hay, and don’t pour concrete that often, but I can’t imagine living without it.  I have a lot of sophisticated tools and adhesives, but bailing wire is the most flexible of them all.  And even though it is possible to purchase fancy devices to twist it together and otherwise form it, all you need to use it is a pair of pliers (lineman pliers are a luxury), or if such a thing is not available, you can often get by with your bare hands.

 It has been around in for a couple of hundred years, although it first became plentiful in the late 19^th century with the invention of the hay-baler.  The photograph  below shows part of the clutch lever on a large 100 year old track-laying tractor that I have owned for 40 years.  It was clearly starting to crack at the point where the pivot hole for the rod leading to the clutch was drilled, and the natural solution by the original owner was to fasten a large nail to the lever with, of course, baling wire.  The tractor was a basket case when I acquired it, and I dutifully restored it, but no-way was I about to weld the crack on the lever and remove this typical farm- type repair.

  In fact, baling wire was so prevalent on farms that produced or used large amounts of hay, that in many cases it became somewhat of a hazard because of its ability to poke holes in things (including human flesh), and if wadded up and discarded in quantity, to form indestructible tangles (you’ve heard the term haywired?).  But the good news, was (and is) its easy availability to solve endless problems.  In fact, I remember encountering a saying when a kid, that it was possible to repair anything with baling wire and spit. 

 In my book, anything that performs as many functions in an unchanged form for 200 years and is cheap and easily available is a wonderful product.

 Finally, the right team won the Rose Bowl.  Happy New Year.

Holidays, Ants, and a Computer Break

Having told you of the pleasures of welding in my post of  November 19th  , I am proud to say that the ant I was working on is now one of my wife’s favorite yard animals (of which she has many).  In fact it is featured in our Christmas card, which is shown below and which I am sending you with hopes that you are enjoying an outstanding holiday season.

I am giving my hard-working computer a break through the end of the year.  So I will not be posting again until New Years day, at which point I will be back on my Monday, Thursday schedule with lots to say about the winter quarter Stanford Good Products Bad Products course, and of course the products we make for ourselves.

 

 

Reijo Leppanen and collecting bad products

I recently received a nice message from Reijo Leppanen, a Finish Engineer.  It began “I have just recently read the Good Products, Bad Products book.  I enjoyed it indeed”.  But even better than telling me he enjoyed my book, he went on to say “I’m myself a hobbyist in bad products, especially since an individual cannot avoid them nowadays.  See here:” and then he gave me a link to his website, which is here.  He has apparently been pursing this hobby since 1998. I found his website wonderful and hope you do also.

 The site contains photographs of over 250 products, along with the price, the names of the seller and the manufacturer, and a brief note of what is wrong with them and sometimes what should be done to improve them. He describes this hobby as collecting products that are “miserably designed, miserably manufactured, miserably documented, or otherwise miserable”.

 Having oriented the Good Products Bad Products book somewhat toward people involved in producing products, I occasionally wish I had written one for the general public to encourage consumers to think more critically about the quality of the products they buy.  But I never thought about encouraging people to adopt criticizing products as a hobby.  Great idea, Reijo Leppanen.  I will definitely bring his website to the attention of the 150 or so students that will be taking the course this year, and spread word of it by other means.

 As part of the course, students read and discuss my book, and submit examples of good and bad products consistent with the elements of product quality being discussed at the time, along with photographs and short paragraphs describing why they consider the products to be good or bad.  The course uses software called Coursework, which allows the students to see and discuss each other’s work, and a Wiki which allows them to build an ongoing list of the products.  I will be discussing these in my blog posts during the Stanford Winter Quarter, which runs from early January through late March.

 I give them these exercises to encourage them to be more critical of product quality, and in fact wrote the book to give them particular elements of product quality to focus upon.  Hopefully they too will become hobbyists and follow the lead of Mr. Leppanen. 

 

Product Quality and Balance

Oliver Wendell Holmes once wrote a poem entitled “The One Hoss Shay”, that still is referenced by people associated with product design and development.  It is about a mythical vehicle that is so well designed and crafted that it lasts 100 years without failing in any way, and then completely collapses as all of the parts simultaneously reach the end of their life span.  If you want to read it, look here.

 More of such balance in reliability and durability would be nice in modern products.  Many products are annoying because some parts fail much earlier and more often than others, until finally these parts are no longer available and the whole product is junked.

  But there is another type of balance, having more to do with quality.  The photo is of my wife Marian in her 2004 Acura TSX, leaving early in the morning to control the world.  We bought the car new to make up for a beloved Honda CRX that she drove for 18 years, until an evil person roared out of a driveway and destroyed it. She didn’t want a big car, needed to drive grand-kids and friends around, likes nimble and responsive cars, and at times can be a mild hot-rodder.  The TSX is neither the fastest, the most beautiful, the most luxurious, the roomiest, or the best handling automobile available, but it is pretty good on all fronts. She has loved it absolutely for eight years. For her (and actually for me) it is an extraordinary blend. It is based on the so-called European Accord body (a bit smaller than the Accord sold in the U.S.)  It has front wheel drive and the engine produces about 200 horsepower and is easy on fuel.  It goes faster than either of us needs it to and is fitted with plenty of digital gadgets—Navigation system, climate control, sound system— but not so many that we will die messing with them while driving (a friend of mine has ceded the driving to his wife while he attends to the much more elaborate navigation system, the cell phones, the doors and windows, the TV, the climate control and sound system, and so on.) The TSX is also clearly a product of Honda, and we have always liked such things.

 I spoke of David Garvin’s now classic article in the Nov 1, 1987 Harvard Business Review, entitled “Competing on the Eight Dimensions of Quality” in my post of  Nov. 1, 2012. The dimensions he discusses are performance, features, reliability, conformance, durability, serviceability, aesthetics, and perceived quality. The TSX gets high grades on all of them.  In my book Good Products, Bad Products, I discuss performance and cost, human fit, craftsmanship, emotional response, aesthetics, cultural fit, and global fit.  The TSX also gets high grades on all of them.

 In the design, development, and marketing of many products, we often tend to emphasize only a few components of quality.  These days we are excited about digital control.  I just bought a new dishwasher.  Since the old one failed in its rather complicated control circuitry, and since I couldn’t find replacement parts that I considered reasonably priced, I bought a new one with the fewest cycles and options I could find.  I finally found one with only(?) five possible cycles, three options, a delay, and a large row of warning lights.  Of course, we only use the “normal” button.  The dishwasher will probably fail because of the circuitry necessary to allow it to do something we don’t ever use.  As people used to say when I worked at the Jet Propulstion Lab, “Reliability is fewer parts”—that's electrical as well as mechanical.

 Good Products should rate high in all components of quality—just like the One Hoss Shay did in reliability and durability.

 

 

Sucking, Blowing, and Cursing – A Shop Vacuum That Should Have Been Better

I have often bought Craftsman tools, and they in general have served me well.  I have had the shop vacuum in the photo for several years, and I did buy it for a very reasonable cost, and it does indeed suck and blow well and handle most jobs I assign it, but it occasionally requires me to kick it and speak to it in obscene terms in order to avoid becoming overly angry with it. The photo shows it waiting to make my shop immaculate.

 It is a 9 gallon wet or dry vacuum that proudly proclaims to be powered by four horsepower and blow at 140 miles per hour.  That seems to be quite a bit of horsepower for what it does, and I am not sure what blowing 140 miles per hour refers to or means in terms of moving dirt, but electrically it has so far been completely dependable.  I use it for cleaning everything from my shop to machinery and vehicles, to sucking occasional errant rainwater out of my basement and blowing dirt, dust, and remnants of rat nests out of corners. And unlike some other shop vacuums I have encountered, it does have a plug at the bottom to drain out the water it collects if used “wet”.

 My annoyances with this vacuum  could have been solved by a few simple changes in the design, and the fact that they weren’t made before production leads me to believe that maybe the designers didn’t prototype and test enough, or maybe didn’t live with shop vacuums.  I have not bought and tested a brand new one, so for all I know, these changes have been made.  But I like to comment on products that have had some usage, since many problems only become apparent after the thrill of the new wears off.

 To mention a few, the wheels are not large enough to roll over the cord.  Since it is very difficult to use a device such as this without running over the cord, this results in the need to either pick it up or pull on the hose hard enough to either tip the machine over or if the tiny hose clip is not fastened, pull the hose out of the tank. My former Craftsman shop vacuum had no clip at all, depending on the tight fit between the hose and the tank.  But if the hose was pushed into the tank sufficiently hard to remain, especially when blowing with a reducing tip, it was a pain to pull apart.  The clip is an improvement, but it is only on one end of the hose, with the result that the hose must be wrestled around until the clamp end goes into the tank, and then the nozzle tends to blow off. The hose should have been equipped with larger and stronger clips on each end and rims on the appliances as well.

 The handles on the blower portion serve to lift either the top or the whole unit.  But the catch to separate the top and the tank are integrated, so that often when picking up the unit, one accidently separates the two parts, with the result that the tank falls either part way or completely off, with the potential of either tripping  the user, spilling obnoxious substances on them, or allowing them to start all over again.  The latches could have been physically separated from the handles and made more positive.

  And  there should be a better way of coiling up the hose and the electrical cord.  Typically the plastic unit that is supposed to fasten the hose when coiled gets lost early in the game, and the hose ends up taking up large amounts of space and getting stepped on.  The electrical wire is not happy if wound around the top of the  vacuum and therefore falls onto the floor to assist the hose in trying to trip  the user.  The vacuum came with a horde of accessories, most of which I never use and which tend to fall out of their holders.  Seems like there might be more thought on securing the cord and hose, even if a couple of accessories were not included (they could be bought separately, thus bringing more shoppers into Sears.)  The photo shows some of the attachments from previous vacuums I have never used and a couple left over clipless hoses.  I am keeping them because perhaps some day I will make a marvelous musical instrument from them — or maybe a construction toy for kids.

 Also, the ports for sucking and blowing should be clearly marked.  When the vacuum is used by people who do not use it much and who do not stop to figure out the principle of the thing (like my wife) the hose often gets put on the wrong port and the user is amazed when they turn the machine on, only to see the pile of filth they thought was going to disappear into the machine be blown all over the room.

 And as a minor point, there is a label on the vacuum that reads “Is your filter dirty?  Visit Your Local Sears Store for a Replacement.”  Shades of so-called  quick oil change places.  Filters are supposed to have dirt on them.  That’s what they are for.  The filters in my vacuum can be easily removed, beaten on the inside of a garbage can or hit with a stick, brushed, and even blown off with the vacuum itself.  It would be nice for Sears if everyone who found dirt on their filter came running in to buy a new one, but Jeez—one shouldn’t prey on innocents.

 

Good Products—A Beauty and a Beast

The product on the left of the photo makes a miraculous froth of milk. In discrete letters, it states Bonjour, Primo Latte on the side, so we can assume that it is French.  It requires two AA batteries and does its job beautifully on fat free milk, low fat milk, and other healthy versions that my wife prefers on top of her coffee.  I am fascinated by it because it doesn’t require cream,  does its job so fast, and is so easy to clean.  It is also extremely attractive.  Its only downside seems to be that one must be very careful, or the plastic case breaks when changing batteries. 

 The product on the right creates whipped cream rapidly in large quantities.  No batteries, not breakable, and far from beautiful, but surprisingly enough, containing few worrisome chemicals.  The propellant is nitrous oxide  which is often called laughing gas, and can react with oxygen and form nitric oxide, which is a pollutant (both a green house gas and  a reactant with ozone). But pressure cans are a tiny source of this compared with industrial and agricultural processes, to say nothing of automobile emissions.

 The pressurized whipped cream (or topping, as it says on the can), is particularly miraculous if you happen to like whipped cream (which most people do) and have experienced making it from fresh cream, an activity which occupies quite a bit of time, and requires cleaning a bowl and the complex device used to whip it and figuring out how to store that which is left over.  Perhaps the pressure can variety it is not quite as good as “real” whipped cream. And I suppose its health benefits can be questioned from the standpoint of consumption. But it is certainly convenient.

 My rather large family was over for Thanksgiving dinner, and several of the members are justly proud of their pie-making abilities.  The adults in the family are usually careful to restrict themselves to healthy foods and caloric intake.  I equipped the table with a couple of pressure cans of whipped cream, and like everyone else, happily partook of the pleasure of dolloping huge quantities of it on the many pieces of pie needing sampling.  Several of the younger guests could be seen surreptitiously squirting it on their hands and licking it off.  As a result of these pressure cans, I have developed a need for whipped cream on an amazing number of foods that I did not used to know required it.

 Perhaps a sin, but a mild one—not even a jailable offence.

Outsourcing, Insourcing, and Product Quality.

The days a lot of media attention is being given to the U.S manufacturing industry. Outsourcing in particular is a topic of interest. A few articles defend outsourcing  on the basis of maximizing company profits. An example is this one, written by Dan Ikensen and appearing in Forbes. Many take the position of improveing the health of manufacturing in the U.S.through small, fast, start-ups. An example is this article by James Fallows from the December 2012 issue of the Atlantic. But I was particularly taken by the article by Charles Fishman in the same issue, entitled "The Insourcing Boom", which I mentioned in my last post, because it occurred in a large established company in the U.S.

The media is so dazzled by high technology, rapid growth, and quick money, that it is somewhat overlooking more traditional manufacturing and larger, established companies. Granted such things are exciting, but many of the things we depend upon are both important and major factors in our economy and come from more traditional sources.  We have gotten used to expecting radical changes in our digital devices and associated software (the internet, apps) and are accepting the cost of upgrades to hastily produced products and the associated time expenditure in learning new moves and tricks to operate them. Would you like to see similar change in automobiles, refrigerators, and home furnaces? At first glance, change is associated with better performance, and is good. But people need control as well as creativity, and tradition as well as innovation. So for many of our products, including many of the important ones, we would like long-term reliable service without needing constantly to learn new tricks to use them.

That is why I was happy to read Fishman's article about bringing manufacturing back to the U.S., which featured General Electric’s decision to essentially re-open their large Appliance Park complex and the gains that they found from doing so. I did not find the gains that surprising. In the making of complex products, requiring large numbers of specialists working together, these is a tendency to find tribes forming around functions and disciplines, who do not understand the complexity of each other’s work, and tend to blame other tribes for shortcoming. During the days of obsession with manufacturing quality in the U.S., this was found to be particularly true  between design,  manufacturing , and business. This tribalization has a large negative impact on product quality. It can  be reduced by such things as cross functional/disciplinary teams and flatter organizations.  Quality is always improved by integrating people from design, manufacturing, and various business functions. In a small company working in a single location, this tends to happen automatically. In a larger company, especially one working across national boundaries, it does not.

I particularly liked the example of the moving of the manufacture of a particular water heater from China back to Appliance Park. The water heater was a sophisticated and complicated one, cutting energy cost by utilizing a heat pump to use the surrounding air to help heat the water. It was originally designed by G.E. in Louisville. and then the design was sent to China for manufacturing.   When brought back to Appliance Park for manufacturing after several years in China, the manufacturing engineers re-designed it, because it seemed to them too difficult to make. The quoted reaction in the article from the manufacturing engineers was “This is just a mess. In terms of manufacturability, the design is terrible”—a typical reaction of manufacturing people who have not been actively involved in a design, and usually a valid one.  The problem was probably perceived as even more serious than it was, because during the time the water heater was being manufactured in China, G.E. had ceased making water heaters in the U.S., and in the words of the author, "had forgotten how to make them"

In the re-design, the team managed to make the water heater much easier to manufacture, and in the process eliminated 20% of the parts, cut the cost of materials by 25 percent, and cut the hours necessary to assemble the heater from 10 hours in China to 2 hours in Louisville. The result was that the retail sticker price of the heater made In China was $1,599, and that of the heater made in Louisville was $1,299. A demonstration of improved quality through involving manufacturing people in design and vice versa. Despite the miracles of modern communication, this is more difficult to do across an ocean than across a desk or over a coffee cup.

Go Appliance Park.

Stanford Product Realization Lab #2

In my last post I talked about the history of the student shops at Stanford.  What has happened since Dave Beach took over?  The shops have morphed into the Product Realization Laboratory, which sees its mission as giving students insight into and practice at integrated design and manufacture, and has progressed far beyond its original goals.  As an example, it now offers an M.S. degree specialization in the Mechanical Engineering Department.  The growth of the activity has been steady and increasing, as can be seen from the figure below. 

At present the supervising committee of the lab consists of Dave, Craig Milroy , Marlo Dreissigacker,  Jonathan Edelman, Matt Ohline, Nora Sweeny, and Frances Yang.  The shops now contain not only modern equipment for machining, casting, joining, and wood and plastic working, but also for the manufacturing of mechatronic devices and experimenting with emerging processes such as additive manufacturing. 

Not all courses taught under the banner of the Product Realization Lab take advantage of the shops. An example of one that does not is the Good Products, Bad Products course. And the program stresses design as well as manufacturing, and emphasizes the fact that they are two sides of the same coin. But some 12 courses draw directly upon the shops, and some 20 teaching assistants are involved in teaching, coaching, and supervising not only the students in the Product Realization Lab courses, but also individual students using the shops for other purposes. In my mind, these teaching assistants, graduating with advanced degrees in engineering, highly developed shop skills, and teaching experience, are among the most impressive graduates at Stanford, and demonstrate that by the positions they occupy after graduation.

 What does this program bring to Stanford students and the world?  The cover topic of the December 2012 issue of the Atlantic is “Comeback – Why the Future of Industry is in America.  The magazine contains an excellent article by Charles Fishman, entitled “The Insourcing Boom”, that among other items, discusses the General Electric decision to bring appliance manufacturing back to its neglected Appliance Park location in the U.S..  I will talk about it in my next blog, but if you want an advanced peek at it, it is here.

 At one point, the article states that the  practice of creating a good design and then outsourcing the manufacturing is akin to writing a cookbook without ever cooking. Twenty  years ago I thought that U.S. industry had finally learned the necessity of constant close cooperation and communication between manufacturing and design people throughout the development of products.  But we seem to have somewhat forgotten that in the glory of perceived high profit. The article maintains that we were perhaps short sighted.  The students taking advantage of the Product Realization Lab at Stanford are the type of people needed for the U.S. move back into manufacturing at home.

 The program gives students a chance to view the whole process of making products, from initial problem through finished hardware/software, and to me even more importantly, gives the students insight into the joy of making things, and teaches the intrinsic knowledge needed in producing outstanding products.  Cooking does enable the writing of better cookbooks.  Universities such as Stanford, in pursuit of new insights and knowledge, often allow their classes to become tedious and less than exciting in the process of attempting to squeeze more and more into a finite time.  As the photos below show, such is not the case in the Product Realization Laboratory.

Stanford Product Realization Laboratory 1 - The Birth

When Stanford University opened in 1981, Mechanical Engineering had the second largest enrollment of any department on campus (36 students out of 376 total).  One third of the course offerings in Mechanical Engineering were shop courses, one third were machine design courses, and the remainder were spread between drawing, materials, steam engineering, and pumping engineering. Of course, in those days, mechanical engineering was heavily about machines, and industries were focussed on cutting, joining, and casting—no making of silicon chips or use of 3d printers.

 By 1904, Stanford had outstanding shops for students, occupying three entire buildings— the present Building 530 being the machine shop, 540 the wood shop, and 570 the foundry and forge.  During the period from then to 1930 there were four shop instructors teaching these subjects, As time passed, the total time required in shop courses was reduced by the addition of general study requirements, but in 1930, the shop offered ten shop courses and the equipment was the envy of competing schools.

 But a slow decline began in 1930 for a number of reasons.  Engineering was becoming much more complicated, requiring courses in other topics and leaving less time for shop practice.  And then during World War II the engineering profession realized the importance of “high” technology (radar, communication systems, nuclear weapons) and a much greater emphasis was put on science and mathematical analysis, with a corresponding reduction in design and shop courses.  By the time I reached the campus as a graduate studentin 1958, the shop was staffed by only one and a half people and only used directly by one course and by individuals making projects for other courses.  I was one, since I made the apparatus for my Ph.D. research there (a remote vehicle with a variable time lag in the control system – think of a  human on earth driving a vehicle on the moon). 

 But a remarkable man named John Arnold had been brought to Stanford from MIT in 1957 to strengthen and update design, and he and two graduate students he brought with him, Peter Bulkeley and Bob Keller, were committed to retaining and upgrading the shops.  By the time I joined the faculty in 1966, the shops had benefitted from some new machinery and more student participation, but were under attack because of the need for space for new experimental programs.  A compromise was reached on this point, but the shops were still in a stressed state because of budget restraints, and the difficulty the shop supervisor had in dealing with not only the students, but also the political climate on campus during the late 1960’s and his failing health.  John Arnold had died, Bob Keller had gone, and Peter Bulkeley was the director of the then named Design Division.  Since I was a shop person and had managed a small model shop at JPL, and since I took over the manufacturing course and was teaching in the Product Design Program (both of which depended upon the shop), I became involved.  Peter left Stanford in 1969, and I became Director of the Division, and even more involved. 

 The nature of the work being done in the shop had changed greatly over time, because rather than asking many of the to make the same parts from drawings, students were asked to design parts and then make them – in fact often to make entire products they had designed.  The operation was becoming more complicated and I was all of a sudden up to my ears.  I was simultaneously fighting the people trying to steal space from the shop, trying to get the shop budget increased, and argue the importance of shop work not only for allowing students to pick up some tacit knowledge about manufacturing, but to bring a bit of balance to a curriculum that seemed to me to have moved too far toward science and theory. I was also  teaching my courses, advising lots of students, consulting, running a NASA summer program in system engineering, and doing administrative work, when a miracle happened.

  A present photo of the miracle is to the left, and his name is Professor David Beach (he had more and darker hair in 1972).  He was a student in the graduate product design program (a cooperative program between mechanical engineering and art), who loved the shop and was trying to figure out where to go after his graduation.  He had been a teaching assistant in the manufacturing course, which I was then teaching, and was a superb teacher and a wonderful person.  Our shop supervisor was about to to retire, so one day I asked Dave if he would like a full time job running the shop and to my great joy, after thinking it over a bit, he said yes.

The rest, as they say, is history, which I will relate in my next blog.  I consider Dave an unsung educational hero, and I will sing of him and his program, the Product Realization Lab.

In the winter quarter, beginning after Christmas, Dave will be teaching the Stanford Course ME 314, Good Products Bad Products, and you will be hearing much about the course, which uses my book of the same name as text.

Manufacturing, Skills, and Education

The media seems to have gotten the message that there are many jobs available in manufacturing for “adequately skilled” people.  The Nov 24-Nov 30 issue of The Economist has an article entitled “The New Maker Rules” that discusses this. 

 When I first began work as an engineer, “skills” referred to things having to do with hands and eyes, learned through practice.  Now “skills” seem to also imply competence with mathematics, science, and such things as computer programming, typically learned through formal schooling.  So maybe we are finally realizing the advantages of bringing theory and practice back together a bit.  It’s about time.

 In my next blog, I am going to talk a bit about a group of people at Stanford that call themselves the Product Realization Laboratory, and are led by Professor David Beach, that have been emphasizing this for years.  They are part of the Design Group in the Department of Mechanical Engineering, and if you like a quick glimpse at what they do, look at their web site here.  But to my mind, they are undervalued in the academy, even though the students who go through their program are just what the U.S. manufacturing industry needs.

 We are not going to get these “adequately skilled” people unless we make some major changes in our industries and educational institutions, and embarrassingly enough, some of them seem to require turning the clock back a bit. 

 I have these “adequate” skills, but I was fortunate enough to have several resources at my disposal, all now rare.  First of all I grew up on a farm which included a machinist uncle (four year apprenticeship in those days) and a blacksmith grandfather.  Much of the equipment and many of the tools on the farm were to some extent made, and all were maintained, by my uncle and grandfather, with me being allowed (required) to help.  I did not go to a school system oriented toward preparing people for college, but I not only took a fair amount of math and science (because I liked it) and took courses in wood shop and metal shop (including what was then called mechanical drawing) through high school.  My high school, incidentally, included a very broad array of vocational programs ranging from such things as auto shop and machine shop through printing shop, painting shop,  and plaster shop to boys foods and boys tailoring. Thinking I wanted to be a machinist, I worked my final summer in a large machine shop as a flunky, despite a bit of pressure to work on the farm

 My counselor sent me off to Caltech, which at that time was quite active in building large instruments and included the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (still the case).  Summers I worked in the same large shop, but gradually was moved into their small engineering section (which was made up of people who had “come up through the ranks” as machinists (no graduates of four year engineering programs— these were perhaps the “adequately skilled” people in demand right now).

 When I graduated from Caltech, companies were typically offering two year training programs for their new engineers, in which they would be moved around through several activities and would learn company-related skills.  I almost went to work for a machine tool company named Warner Swasey, in which I would have been hired as an engineer at the appropriate salary, but would have spent my first two years working in their very impressive shops.  Instead I went to Shell Oil Company as a production engineer, but even though I graduated first in engineering in my class, and was being paid a satisfying salary as an engineer, I began working in the field as a roustabout (pick and shovel), then was part of a well work-over crew, and then a member of a drilling crew. I left after a few months for active duty in the Air Force, but intended to return and finish my two years at a series of other training activities designed to help me apply what I had learned at Caltech to the company— in other words to learn the oil game.  I never did return to Shell, but this was not uncommon, and companies seemed to be willing to conduct training programs whether people left or not, on the grounds that industry in general would benefit.

 It takes  a lot of work and time to acquire the range of knowledge and experience desired in future manufacturing workers.  Schools are being expected to produce students that do better on math and science tests, but these tests do not measure ability to apply the knowledge.  Industries expect schools to deliver graduates who already have a good sense of  what they like to call “the real world” without much training.  Both have to do better.  And working in manufacturing must be made a more appealing career in the U.S.  Would you rather have your kid work in a factory, or in financial services?

 

HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO YOU.

IT IS A BEAUTIFUL DAY HERE AT STANFORD, AND MARIAN AND I ARE EXTREMELY THANKFUL FOR EVERYTHING IN OUR LIVES...........EXCEPT MAYBE SOFTWARE UPDATES.