AUTHOR Rob Fell

There are several recognised interpretations of the term “constructive dissatisfaction” (CD) ranging from existential and philosophical to the more practical and often esoteric applications. In this article we will explore the definition as it applies to industrial and commercial product design, and process engineering.

The bachelor degree syllabus in industrial design deals with the subject of constructive dissatisfaction as a pillar of engineering design philosophy. Although the practice more generally aligns with the development of white goods, motor vehicles, and assorted other consumer durables, its principles may be judiciously applied to just about any mechanism, assembly, or process.

The manifestation of the dissatisfaction element stems from limited development over time in the design or specification of a product. It is generally arrived at via a lack of continual iterative reviews or improvements to a legacy product where one would typically consider how new technologies, materials, practices, and/or well–established methodologies may be applied to the original or existing requirement in order to make improvements.

That’s a long-winded way of saying that a part or product was designed a certain way some time ago and the design or manufacturing technique has never been updated. The familiar claim of “we’ve always done it this way” will be known to some and may even be a source of frustration because there is often a sense that there must now be a better way, even for those products whose design or performance specification has been agreed and contractually locked with the end-customer.

Using the tenets of constructive dissatisfaction, Pacellico routinely apply a degree of scrutiny over our client’s products and manufacturing processes, and this forms a part of the added value that the team provides. This initiative often extends to a deeper level than our agreed Statement of Work and helps to ensure that our clients have the ability to extract the maximum benefit from the working relationship.

In any investigation, valid reasons may be discovered why a product has been frozen in a stable state or manufacturing methodology; in practice, we have found that this is seldom immutable when customers are presented with a compelling reason for change (more of this last point later on).

First Principles Thinking and Fresh Eyes.

In the CD process, first principles thinking strives to deliver three primary objectives:

  • To review the original design parameters or specifications and discover whether they still meet the performance criteria and commercial requirements;
  • To break down existing designs and any production problems into component parts, re-visiting the original design intent and discovering whether these still align with the stated purpose;
  • To ascertain if a proposed alternative design or process yields a sufficiently positive benefit to justify making any changes.

Typically during high-impact project initiatives, in addition to workstreams that seek to optimise existing processes and supply chains we may present manufacturing alternatives targeting methods, processes, and materials that we believe will generate significant cost reduction opportunities. Dependant on their complexity, these may range from ideas and recommendations based on current Best Practice to more detailed research reports. These reports are foundational in content to support the initial assessment and provide the client’s cross-functional teams with sufficient detail to launch a due diligence process.

The CD activity, though generally well received, can occasionally become a source of contention.  One positive aspect of being an independent voice is the metaphorical warm blanket that objectivity provides, however it is prudent to be prepared for any robust conversations that may be needed.

 

Beware the Old Technology Trap.

“ People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it”.

To apply this (in)famous George Bernard-Shaw quotation (what did he know about manufacturing anyway?) to this document seems the height of arrogance considering the company that we generally all keep within our daily professional interactions, however this addresses an aspect that shows its face with some regularity;  ‘X” is impossible because of “Y”. Well yes, it was impossible until it wasn’t. In many cases the “Y” was because the proposal was cost prohibitive or presented some inherent process quality concerns, and in some notable cases the technology wasn’t sufficiently developed or tested. This presents a simplistic viewpoint, but manufacturing technology is moving at an incredible pace and a high-technology solution does not always equate to a high capital outlay with an extended ROI. It often goes the other way too, where simplifying, balancing, or streamlining a process or workflow based on Best Practice can yield extremely positive benefits.

  • “I’ll take 12 flagons of 100 octane petroleum distillate and please re-vulcanise my tyres”
  • “Very good Sir, and I’ve taken the liberty of replacing the wicks in your carriage lamps”

An interesting example of technology shift: way back in the swirling mists of time (year 2009), two US automotive giants who are otherwise fierce competitors collaborated on a technology project sponsored by the US-DOE. This detailed investigation, involving comprehensive tooling, sampling, and crash-testing of parts arrived at the conclusion that high-pressure die casting of vehicle critical structural components was not possible; in year 2023 a famous EV automaker is high-pressure casting complete vehicle body-sides and sub-frames.

ln a similar method utilised when asking the “5-Whys” during design or production failure mode analyses, we may apply the same methodology to our design solution proposals. The message here is for us to be really sure that we are fully informed of all available options across multiple industries before we say or agree that something can’t be done, and critical business decisions or capital investments are made.

For our purposes, we can consider that a known technology is one that has been used consistently and with a known and accepted degree of performance and reliability over a reasonable timeframe. Many organisations may already be biased toward a known technology because there is long-standing in-house experience with it and the results are known, even if they are less than optimal (what is the true cost of quality?). This aspect alone may represent one of the greatest barriers to the introduction of new or alternative technologies.

Finally, in some cases there may be a clear reason why a proposal won’t work, and that’s fine.

 

Consulting Your Operators.

Line Operators often represent the first line of defence, and in most cases will be the most knowledgeable in terms of process flaws from an ergonomic perspective, so their voice should be equally heard in any assessment environment.

Some will be aware of the following paraphrased anecdote:

A drink canning company were having an issue with a high number of unfilled cans reaching the final packing area. A team of consultant engineers were brought in to address the problem and the solution was found in an in-conveyor weighing scale station, blower, visual recognition system and gating assembly that diverted the empty cans into a separate tote bin. This solution worked reasonably well, catching 95%+ of unfilled cans with only a two-second time penalty, and amidst much back-slapping the hefty invoice was settled. Problem solved.

When the engineers re-visited the filling line some weeks later, they were dismayed to find that their carefully engineered solution had been switched off by the operator and replaced by a £20 floor fan with its airflow directed via a cone to the moving cans on the conveyor. When asked why, the operator stated that the engineered visual system needed daily calibration to operate, however the directed airflow from the floor fan did a grand job of blowing any empty cans off the conveyor with 100% success rate.

Enough said.

 

The Art of Dissatisfaction.

We can say that the dissatisfaction element arises where objectives are no longer met in terms of:

  • High component costs, high added value costs or Total Cost of Ownership (TCO);
  • Limited or obsoleted supply options;
  • Unsatisfactory performance with delivering the stated purpose;
  • Low performance compared to competitors;
  • Low perceived quality;
  • Poor customer satisfaction leading to low sales revenue / impacting future sales opportunities.

The constructive element requires us to go back to first principles with a clean sheet and an open mind to satisfy the following:

  • Understanding and agreeing what are we trying to do in terms of performance specification;
  • Applying suitable tools such as VAVE and lean manufacturing;
  • Addressing any constraints – budget, time, geo-political, ROI, internal resource;
  • Analysing the existing bottlenecks – process, quality checks, manufacturing equipment capital investment;
  • Setting end-goals -customer satisfaction, on-time delivery, performance improvement, quality improvement, cost reduction;
  • Recognising what issues, problems, or threats are being addressed – quality issues, development lead-time, parts obsolescence, threats to business continuity, geo-political, customer mandates, re-validation costs or time, competitor products & market opportunity/share.

 

The Design-Locked End-Customer.

In most cases, end customers will have processes in place to approve engineering changes and control implementation.

Although designs, specifications and sometimes supply chains are contractually locked, it is unusual for an end-customer to reject a design iteration that results in a cost and/or quality improvement (these terms are often synonymous) leaving us to offset the cost of re-validation against ROI. Offering the customer a share of the benefit in terms of purchase price reduction, improved quality, and lead-time has the potential to take us to a level above our competitors.

 

Critical Resource Management.

In many cases, engineering and quality teams are operating with little or no spare capacity to support major product or process re-designs and qualification activities. Any significant change may require weeks or months of additional effort, often over and above what they are already doing as part of their essential everyday duties.

For any plan to work, early stage engagement and a clear outline of the additional resources that will be required in terms of the person-hours and capital investment needed are critical variables in the CD equation.


Final Thoughts.

In our experience,  there are few products, operations, or processes that wouldn’t benefit from an independent and objective review.

Regular visitors to Pacellico will notice that Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) is a repeating mantra for good reason: the cost of a landed part and hence a fully assembled product can only be understood if the end to end supply chain including freight costs, lead-times, and inventory burden has been analysed, extending to raw material level if needed. This philosophy is at the heart of manufacturing cost modelling and one of the critical elements in Pacellico’s supply chain analysis toolkit.