James L Adams—People and Products

Product Quality and Longevity

One thing I noticed in the ME314 class I have been reporting on, was a focus on new products.  This is in fact typical of our society.  This completely overlooks the value of products that have served the owner well for a long time.  Sometimes, they almost become a part of the owner.  This is a photo of me in my Carhartt jacket, which I bought some time ago—at least ten years.  My son the farmer discovered Carhartt work clothes and suggested that I buy one.  It was quite expensive for work clothes at the time, but I bought it, and plan perhaps to be buried in it.  As you can see, it has seen some hard service, and it is stained and faded.  But never has the zipper failed, it has withstand many brutal slashes and snags, it doesn’t mind water, oil, mud, or most other materials, and it keeps me properly warm and snuggy when the California climate turns treacherously cold. It is part of me, and I don’t want a new one, a cleaner one, or one with  more bells and whistles. To me it is priceless.  And oddly enough, Goodwill Industries would probably  not accept it.

I told this to Marian,my wife, and she countered with a younger, but similarly important garment that has become part of her in only a year or two.  Happily, I noticed it in a student submission on good products and told her about it.  It is a woman’s vest made by Scottevest. Like my Carhartt coat, it was fairly expensive for a vest, but she looks swell in it, and can you believe, it has 24 pockets inside.  Here she is looking for something in it.  She originally bought it to travel, which it was originally designed for, and it is exceptional.  It doesn’t totally replace a suitcase, but all the gadgets, potions, and entertainments she takes with her on trips fit in the pockets, and from the outside, she looks slick as a snake. 

Of course, she now wears it almost constantly no matter what she is doing, and probably has forgotten where such things as purses and fannypacks are.  She loves it far above its original price, and although she says it is beginning to look a bit threadbare, I’ll bet she wears it for many years rather than buy a new one.

Behavioral economists refer to rigorous experiments that show the additional value we place on products that we have owned for long periods of time and have come to love.  You have probably experienced this, if you have ever tried to sell something of this sort and been astonished at how little people will pay for it.  I now keep everything I love that I can.  A storage problem, but would you throw away one of your old pets?

Of course, this isn’t the optimal economic response for  Carhartt and Scottevest.  They now have a broad line of products (men and women) and are constantly coming out with “improved” models, which they might like Marian and me to buy.  But they keep their prices high and their profits reasonable. and as long as they keep their quality  high, everyone should be happy.  

Final post on Stanford ME314 Good Products, Bad Products course

Since my last post, the final two sets of  “good product, bad product” examples were submitted and student groups wrote summaries and gave presentations on them. The first of these was aesthetics, elegance and sophistication, and the second had to do with products that were consistent with a finite earth.  For the first, students were asked to choose a product that they thought was simply beautiful and one that they thought was unbelievably repulsive.  Also to choose a third product that they believed to be extremely elegant and sophisticated.  They were  then asked to justify their choices, and conjecture upon how they could be improved, and what the improvement might do to the cost of the product.  A student paper summarizing the products is here.  Examples of beautiful products from the 2011 course, are shown here;.  Repulsive ones are here.  Ones showing elegance and sophistication are here.

The student groups chose Cartagas (two companies of this name produce “Cuban” cigars, but only one of them is in Cuba), Tesla Motors, Ziiro watches, and Victoria’s Secret.

For the second, the students were asked to think of products that that harmed the earth's environment, and changes could lessen their negative impact .  A student summary of the responses is shown here.  And examples from the 2011 course are shown here. I missed the final student presentations, as I was out of town.  However, Professor Beach and Julie Shryne, the teaching assistant in the course, had many positive things to say about them.  And judging from the quality of the students and the preceeding presentations, I am sorry I missed them.

Speaking of Professor Beach, those of you not having taken the course might be interested in knowing a bit about him, since is not only a superlative teacher, but has been responsible for turning what were the traditional student shops into not only vastly improved facilities, but an extremely exciting and innovative center at Stanford (the Produce Realization Laboratory).  He has an interesting back ground which includes study in the liberal arts, manufacturing experience, engineering degrees, and a strong dedication to video production. He best of all, a wonderful person, filled with good spirits, high motivation, and a dedicated and hard worker.  I am proud to count him among my friends.   A good overview of David Beach and his interests can be seen here.

Update #5 Stanford University course ME 314

Two more Good Products, Bad Products topics have been covered by student presentations since the last post.  Four of them focused on Craftsmanship.  The companies chosen were Heath Ceramics, Ferrari, West Coast Classic and Customs, and Casa Na Avore.  Edith Heath founded Heath Ceramics in the 1940’s, and the company, has clung to her standards, and several of her designs, as it has slowly grown.  Ferrari is wedded to high craftsmanship for both performance and traditional reasons.  West Coast Classic and Customs is a local company that specializes in both restoration to original (or better) condition, or resto-rods.  Casa Na Avore is a Brazilian architecture form that specializes in tree houses.  

The next four groups gave presentation on companies/products that dealt with emotion and human needs.  The first two were Tone Fitness (dumbbells), Disney (Disneyland), Diageo (Captain Morgan Spiced Rum), and Phillip Morris (Marlboro cigarettes).  The group presenting Tone Fitness stressed the user support and motivational information, and did an interesting informal survey that correlated love of the product with the frequency of its use.  Apparently people who buy exercise equipment and do not use it grow to  hate it, whereas those who use it regularly become quite fond of it.  Disneyland needs no explanation.  I have had many opportunities to visit it, since when my kids were growing up I lived in Southern California.  I clearly remember how much I hated to take them to it, and strangely enough, what a good time I had when there.  People like to criticize it, its prices, its long lines, etc., but it truly is a marvel.  Even the French now like it. 

It was interesting that both liquor and cigarettes were chosen this year as examples of products that were associated with strong emotions and, for better or worse, strong needs.  I was embarrassed to realize I had devoted little attention to drugs such as nicotine and alcohol in my book.  They are both endemic to our species, and highly controversial. An interesting point brought up in conjunction with Marlboro cigarettes, is that their advertising budget continues to climb even though it is now restricted in format.  They are putting more of it into sponsoring athletic events, point of  purchase, and, of course, in countries other than the U.S.  An interesting statistic about alcohol, is that is apparently involved in one out of every 25 deaths (75,000 total, 16,000 in automobiles), 40% of suicides, and 60% of murders.  And yes, I drink it.

The presentations, as is usual for the course, were top notch and highly entertaining, complete with volunteers from the audience and costumes.  I think it fair to say that Dave Beach (and I) were quite satisfied.

I am not including URL’s for these companies and products, because your browser will have no problem in finding them, should you want to find out more. The submissions by last year's students for products showing good craftsmanship are shown here, and for products showing poor craftsmanship here.  Similarly those paying strong attention to good fit with emotions and needs are shown here.  Those doing less well at considering emotions and needs are here.

Stanford ME 314 Good Products Bad Products update #4

Since the last update, the class has continued to read my book, done the “good-bad” exercises, listened to some excellent visiting lecturers, and begun to work on their final presentations.  The first four groups, who focused on human fit, delivered their presentations a couple of days ago, and did outstanding jobs.  The first group talked about a company that produces products for people suffering from arthritis (osteo, not rheumatoid).   Arthritis is inevitable if one lives long enough, since it is simply due to the wearing out of cartilage.  I am presently two inches shorter than I once was.  When this was brought to my attention, I complained to my physical therapist daughter in law.  She happily told me that if I lived a really, really long time, I could be six inches shorter than I once was, since six inches of me were cartilage, and it would all wear out.  Nice kid!  Of course, the products of this company (who advertises ther comfort of their products for everybody, not just their target customer group), are easier to use for everyone, and therefore the company is doing well.

The second  company to be studied was a very successful maker of slot machines, and this group came up with the to me interesting conclusion that the human fit of this product was too good, since people became addicted to losing time and money to it.  They illustrated this with a chilling video of a woman who was a slot-machine addict.  The third group studied Wii, as a breakthrough in play stations, and in fact in its effect on computer game designs.  Like the first two groups, they involved student volunteers in their presentations, and I was impressed at the Wii skills of the students who demonstrated.  The fourth group talked about the makers of the Pill, a miniature speaker for digital devices that is enjoying great success, not only because of its small size and therefore compatibility with people seeking a portable speaker, but also because it was “cool”, which resulted in a fine discussion about the overlap between physical fit and emotional response.

The guest speakers provided an interesting contrast.  The first was Nancy Gioia, who is the director of electrification for Ford Motor Company.  She gave a superb summary of Ford’s plans for incorporating hybrid power, plug in hybrid power, and full battery power into their fleet.  It was impressive not only for its completeness, but for the extent to which Ford has incorporated electrification into their product plans.  She stressed not only the benefits of this, but also the necessity that it be compatible with the desired growth and profitability of the country.  A bit of information on her is here.  The next, Adam Grosser, who has had an extremely successful career beginning with Apple and now with a venture capital firm specializing in improving electricity distribution, began by pointing out that true innovation requires time and involves experimentation and failure, and may not be achieved if the sole intention of a company is to maximize income in the short term.  However, after pointing out the many areas of potential improvement in the electrical power business, he ended up captivating the class with venture capital stories.  But he emphasized at the end, that venture capital is a business seeking high returns as fast as possible.   A bit of information on Adam is here and a longer U-Tube lecture at U.C. Berkeley is here.  The final speaker of the period was David Klaus, the Director of Engineering at Proximity, a company in Myanmar producing irrigating equipment at very low costs ($15 U.S. for a foot powered pump).  Proximity’s goal is to bring affordable life-changing products to people with very low income ($1 to $2 a day).  They obviously seek enough income to not only stay in business but grow so that they can reach more people.  An interesting short video on Proximity featuring David is here. 

All three speakers were outstanding, and all in a sense promoting products that will improve the environment, but one as an executive in an established and very large U.S. automobile company, one as a venture capitalist backing entrepreneurs focusing on electrical power distribution, and one as the engineering director of an extremely idealistic company serving extremely low-income people.

The class is a bit behind on submitting its final good product bad product summaries, so I will include them in the next and final update.