Learning Launch- Just the Facts

Challenge:

My interest in this course was to get a more business centric perspective of “new product”  development.  Creating something a customer will buy because it is what they need yet not available.   As an engineer and continuous improvement professional, more of my focus has been on improvement  of internal performance and capability to enable meeting the need that the business team has already  sold.  Making our products within cost, quality and schedule.  We are a world leader in the design and  manufacturer of sensors for all applications (speed, temperature, vibration, sound, position, etc.) but  our specific division usually designs to requests and technical specifications from customers and does  not work speculatively or in anticipation of creating a market.  We were approached by a bus  manufacturer with the desire to develop a fluid level sensor that would be cheaper, more reliable,  require less maintenance and yet fit the current tank configuration of their current sensor.  We have  other technology that would meet this, but the size restrictions was a major hurdle.  Though they were  willing to pay some NRE (nonrecurring engineering) costs, the margin for their future production  demand was insufficient.  We would need to make this our product and determine if there was a larger  market out there to support the design efforts.

Selection:

Having a vast amount of experience in different sensor technology, our engineers were confidently  saying, “sure, no problem”, “we can do that”.  As the project manager, however, I needed to know the  anticipated investment cost and the probability of success compared to the potential sales.  A learning  launch to validate this was planned.  Data was collected to support our assumptions on paper.  Being  that the engine and cooling system that the original bus manufacturer uses was a very widely used  platform from the leading OEM, we knew there was a potentially significant market for both new  production and repair. To preclude any confirmation bias, we wanted to get the opinion and  requirements through the voice of the customer.  There are several potential variations in the connector  and output requirements that needed to be validated.

Application:

Because of the sensor port size constraints, a conductive sensor is historically used for this application.   Generally speaking, there are two metal prongs that when covered with liquid, the connection is made  that completes the circuit and current is detectable.  Cost, corrosion, maintenance, and false positives  are some of the key issues with these sensors.  Our design would address these issues in a positive way.   Utilizing a less expensive “reed switch” that is encased in non-corrosive material and designed to work  for 10+ million activations, the switch is activated by a magnet, in a float, that moves out of range of the  switch when fluid levels are below or above a certain level.  We needed to present this capability and  identify specific requirements that may prohibit adaptation by different manufacturers or needing to be  incorporated into the design.

A technical specification was developed that identified what we knew to be requirements of some  customers and what options we determined were easily met and would be included in our design.  This  included items such as working environment, heat, cold, corrosive fluid and vibration.  Connector  configuration and output value (voltage, current, resistance).  With adequate planning, we could  address multiple requirement variables through design.  We needed to provide a limited, open ended  design capability to get the feedback and requirements from the customers.

Insight:

Through our sales engineers, we were able to confirm and rule out any perceived customer  requirements.  Providing the sales engineers with 3D printed samples established great interest in the  concept and was able to provide limited proof of concept.  Populated with working breadboard circuitry  and geometrically correct threading, customers were able to actually install the prototypes into their  tanks and with proposed connector interface options, our designs were able to be optimized for  reduced tooling and assembly costs while still maintaining flexibility of choice.  Summarizing the data  and potential production volumes, we were able to better identify the core design models and costing  models for prudent decision making.

Approach:

Given the situation of this initiative, I really don’t believe there was a better way to approach this  challenge.  Providing near-real parts for inspection and testing with minimal investment and providing  strong visual comparison to the heritage technology provided solid information for customers to have  confidence in providing their additional desires and letters of intent to support our investment.

