51
know what can actually be done with them vis-à-vis commercially
viable products other than harboring a general belief in their
broad applicability to an industry, such as the automotive industry. Many current startup nanotechnology firms can be characterized in this way. Many successful products have been developed
via “technology-push” processes, but the dangers and pitfalls are
obvious and many. Seemingly brilliant emerging technologies
have died on the vine for lack of a clear application domain. For
the general “technology-push” process to be successful, there must
clearly be a match with identified market needs for a product
based on the technology, and then development must be carefully
done to assure that the resulting product does indeed meet a
market need at a competitive price. Positive benefits are that many
leaders of the design team needed to develop the technological
aspects of the product are typically already in place and have been
involved with the core technology before. Other members are
added as needed.
Obviously, many products are both technology- and user-driven
simultaneously or fall somewhere on the spectrum between the
two extremes. Various product lines within the same family also
can be targeted for positions along the spectrum. For example,
many camera companies known to produce the very best of cameras
with lenses designed to meet the needs of the most demanding
professional photographer also make “easy-to-use” cameras
designed for a consumer oriented and less technically demanding
market. Interestingly, many products have been historically defined
in the literature as “technology driven” on the assumption that the
driving selection factor was indeed technical performance, but as
these products matured and technical distinctions became less
compelling, “user-driven” characteristics became more and more a
determinant in users’ product selections.
Many companies find themselves with existing technologies, termed
platform products, developed for one application that they seek to
apply elsewhere. In comparison with new technologies associated
with “technology-push” products, these platform products generally have proven performance and customer acceptance records.
Here we might have a product such as a paint employing nanoparticles that was developed for the automotive industry being
advocated for use in another industry where similar functional
needs are present, even though the industry sector is different.
Many products can be described as being process intensive. In these
cases, the manufacturing and production processes involved are so
Product Design, Architecture, and Engineering
know what can actually be done with them vis-à-vis commercially
viable products other than harboring a general belief in their
broad applicability to an industry, such as the automotive industry. Many current startup nanotechnology firms can be characterized in this way. Many successful products have been developed
via “technology-push” processes, but the dangers and pitfalls are
obvious and many. Seemingly brilliant emerging technologies
have died on the vine for lack of a clear application domain. For
the general “technology-push” process to be successful, there must
clearly be a match with identified market needs for a product
based on the technology, and then development must be carefully
done to assure that the resulting product does indeed meet a
market need at a competitive price. Positive benefits are that many
leaders of the design team needed to develop the technological
aspects of the product are typically already in place and have been
involved with the core technology before. Other members are
added as needed.
Obviously, many products are both technology- and user-driven
simultaneously or fall somewhere on the spectrum between the
two extremes. Various product lines within the same family also
can be targeted for positions along the spectrum. For example,
many camera companies known to produce the very best of cameras
with lenses designed to meet the needs of the most demanding
professional photographer also make “easy-to-use” cameras
designed for a consumer oriented and less technically demanding
market. Interestingly, many products have been historically defined
in the literature as “technology driven” on the assumption that the
driving selection factor was indeed technical performance, but as
these products matured and technical distinctions became less
compelling, “user-driven” characteristics became more and more a
determinant in users’ product selections.
Many companies find themselves with existing technologies, termed
platform products, developed for one application that they seek to
apply elsewhere. In comparison with new technologies associated
with “technology-push” products, these platform products generally have proven performance and customer acceptance records.
Here we might have a product such as a paint employing nanoparticles that was developed for the automotive industry being
advocated for use in another industry where similar functional
needs are present, even though the industry sector is different.
Many products can be described as being process intensive. In these
cases, the manufacturing and production processes involved are so
Product Design, Architecture, and Engineering