We all tend to think “excellent design”
when we talk about apple, but it is not always the case. Apple had designed some
failure products as well. For example, the Apple Puck Mouse in 1998 and the Newton
in 1993. Picture 1 illustrated the revolution of Apple’s mouse, and among them,
the fourth one is Apple Puck Mouse. Compare with the previous Apple Mouses, the
Puck Mouse has a unique round shape which results in the main failure of this
product. It is uncomfortable for holding it in hand, and customers also found
difficulties in finding the single mouse button. Although the simplicity of
this product may have decreased logistic costs, the complete product is a failure
and had been killed in January 2000.
Another example is the Newton
which was meant to be an intelligent "personal digital assistant"
which would decipher handwriting and carry contact details and in essence be
the first Apple iPhone – but years before the iPhone. [3] However because of
the high cost of the product and the handwriting recognition problem, the
Newton was killed soon. From the
picture, we can see how clumsy the Newton looks like compare with the iPhone. The
design of Newton was not logistic friendly enough too. It is not as streamline as
iPhone, and the projecting part on the top of it will contain extra space
during delivery which induces extra costs.
Nowadays, more and more companies have
realized the importance of product design based on the objective of logistics
efficiency. An effective product design can enable logistical efficiency, an
inefficient design can cripple it. [[1]And the relationship is particularly crucial in
a global logistics environment where all inefficiencies are magnified in
importance. [1] And here are some good suggestions for improving the performance of product design:
1. be aware of the linage between product design and global logistics efficiency
2. Give logistics a "seat at the table" during the design process
3. not only focus on squeezing cost of supply chain, but also aware the truth that design is also a main cost driver. [4]
Then what's the tipping point of choosing a more logistic friendly design instead of a more attractive product?
References：
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.