24 Jul Differentiating in an Already Crowded Market
At Key Tech, we are used to working on novel, cutting-edge technologies, and devices that are the first of their kind. However, sometimes our clients need help creating a product in an already busy market. This was the case on a recent project that I worked on. Freedom to operate analyses limited our available design space, and we focused on differentiating from competition. Tackling user research, architecture development, and technical de-risking in parallel allowed us to propose two unique architecture options for our client to consider bringing forward in formal development.
User Research
User research was critical. No matter how well-engineered a device is, it will not be widely adopted unless it meets user needs. One of our first activities on the project involved visiting a lab where these types of devices are in use. We spoke informally with lab directors, asking them probing questions to gauge how they felt about on market devices and opportunities for improvement. We conducted several rounds of interviews with key opinion leaders, gathering a deeper understanding of what factors and features were most critical to potential users.
In parallel, we brainstormed a list of all the potential features that could differentiate our client’s new device from those on the market. Could we make an instrument that had a smaller footprint but maintained a high throughput? Could the instrument we design be less expensive? What other unique features could we add to the new device that were not offered by others already? Once we had a list of potential differentiators, we prioritized ranking of and decision making on differentiators that would have the most significant impact on device architecture. User research helped guide the selection of key differentiators that both us and our clients agreed would be the most beneficial to implement.
Architecture Development
Architecture development progressed naturally with the selection of key differentiators. We generated a high number of potential architectures, and filtered down based on which were most compatible with our key differentiators. A Pugh matrix was used to quantitatively compare the architectures.
Down selection led to refinement and continued development of the remaining architectures. At this point, we made rough space claim models of each architecture in Solidworks. We identified the key features and layouts of each, formalized footprint estimates, and ensured that each would be technically feasible to create. We also identified different variants that could be pursued within each architecture. For example, having a large display mounted to the device vs. having a tablet that could connect to an entire set of devices.
Foam core mockups were created for the top two architectures and their variants, and additional user studies were conducted. One of our architecture options had a creative layout that allowed for a very small footprint and high throughput, both specifications that users highly prioritized. However, it had a visual appearance and form that was dramatically different from on market devices. With foam core models, we were able to see how users felt about this deviation from what they knew.
Technical De-risking
Technical de-risking was conducted alongside user research and architecture development. We were focused on minimizing COGS of final device to ensure it would be adopted by users, and to do that we had to investigate and evaluate performance a variety options for internal subsystems. After all, just because there were existing on market devices did not mean that there was no new technology to de-risk in our client’s yet to be released device.
For this project, we created a custom de-risking test fixture, composed largely of off the shelf components. We were able to design and build this test fixture quickly, using it to test a key subsystem.
Outcome
By the conclusion of this project phase, we successfully demonstrated functionality of a key subsystem using our de-risking test fixture. We presented two main architecture options, their potential sub-variants, and the preliminary user feedback on each. We were also able to estimate the COGS and overall dimensions of each potential device, both necessary for our client to understand the viability of creating a successful product. Despite an already crowded market, each of the final architecture options we presented offered unique ways to differentiate from the competition.
Overall, this was an exciting project to work on and I’m looking forward to my next opportunity to develop a differentiated product.
- Root Cause Analysis for Medical Devices - March 10, 2025
- Differentiating in an Already Crowded Market - July 24, 2024
- Rapid Prototyping for Speed to Data - January 10, 2024