eDrawings App for iPad Review with Patrick Murphy

Patrick Murphy is the lead industrial designer at Trig Innovation, shaping products in multiple market sectors, including hardware, tools, medical devices, furniture, and products for the home.

In his work at Trig, Patrick utilizes a variety of software platforms to bring new products to life in sketches, renderings, 3D CAD models, and animations.  SolidWorks has long been Trig’s preferred software suite for renderings that move into 3D CAD models, since SolidWorks is predominant in usage among the global engineering community. 

Executing industrial design projects through SolidWorks has multiple benefits for Trig Innovation clients, leading to a more seamless transition from design to engineering upon delivering executable files to engineers in a format they can not only understand, but also work with routinely themselves to take the product to pre-market functionality.

Last summer, Solidworks released one of Patrick’s favorite software modules, eDrawings, as a mobile app for iPad, iPhone, and iPod Touch.  In the video above, Patrick showcases the new eDrawings app on his Ipad, showing the software’s considerable capabilities and how those capabilities fit into his work as an industrial designer at Trig.   

Murphy’s Hypotenuse: Evolution in Design at Sling, Part One

By Patrick Murphy

During the 2002 Major League Baseball season, brothers and die-hard San Francisco Giants fans Blake and Jason Krikorian missed seeing some of the best games of the year due to their travels across the country. Finding this an unacceptable way to live, they devised a solution. Two years later, the Krikorian brothers founded SlingMedia.

The startup banked its future on a technology that would allow a device to transmit or “sling” video from a static source to a mobile device – a concept called placeshifting.  With placeshifting, users could watch their home TV programs on any mobile device connected to the web. Such a game-changing technology required an equally-appealing device to implement it.

To go from their refrigerator-sized prototype to a sleek production device, the company hired the talents of wunderkind design visionary Yves Behar and his Bay Area design firm, Fuseproject.  Behar's Midas-like touch in the world of product design has yielded more revolutionizing and award-winning items than any other modern industrial designer (aside from Apple's Jonathan Ive). For those unfamiliar with Behar and his work,, here's but a short list of his palmarès: the SodaStream, One Laptop per Child, practically every Jawbone product, Puma's CleverLittleBag, numerous Herman Miller products, and PayPal's "Here" mobile device.

Behar answered Sling's call with his design for their initial placeshifting device: the Slingbox. Behar’s Slingbox featured a matte silver, three-section, trapezoidal box with a bright red connections panel and a perforated-font "mission statement" of sorts punched into the top.

Surprisingly, the physical first-gen Slingbox somehow wasn't as much the hit as the tech it incased. It differentiated itself enough to reflect the company's newcomer positioning, but it was a bridge too far in its cleverness, as critics described it as a "foil-wrapped chocolate bar."

The product wasn't ill-adopted by any stretch—Sling’s initial foray into the marketplace was met with great enthusiasm and the sales to match—but the imperfect execution of the initial box resulted in Sling jumping ship from Fuseproject to another Bay-Area firm,  NewDealDesign.  This move launched one of the wildest runs a product family has ever enjoyed, fusing a client relationship worthy of every designer's envy, and resulting in some of the coolest-looking objects you've ever seen.

Before delving into the design history of the Slingbox, it's important to note that an archetypal progression of a product line happens something like this: a company designs and launches a product. The marketplace demands an update or sibling product, so the company reacts with a design that matches, resembles, or otherwise compliments the original—staying true to the original design’s Visual Brand Language (VBL). The company then repeats this process, over and over again. For 5 years, NewDeal more or less employed this formula, but after that they began, well, slinging some pretty wild Slingboxes at the consumer marketplace.

Scarcely a year after the launch of the “chocolate bar,” and with NewDeal now at the helm, Sling unveiled a trio of Slingboxes: The Slingbox Tuner, for analog cable sources, the Slingbox AV, aimed at users with a digital cable box, and the Slingbox PRO, which could do all of this and control multiple audio and video sources. The family carries the trapezoidal theme over from the original, but that's about it: gone are the playful details, replaced with a unique linear pattern across the box’s top surfaces. The AV and Tuner get planar faces and sharp edges, a powerful stance, and bright pops of color revealed on the sides.

The flagship Pro is a near-complete departure, yet an absolute gem of an object on its own. NewDeal suspended its central enclosure in a textured translucent trapezoid; its bright red hue shows through at varying levels of transmittance, growing fuzzier as the two forms further separate. It's a wonderful example of the breathtaking harmony of form, light, and color that’s often seen in designer renderings, yet rarely makes it to the retailer shelf.

The uniqueness of the Pro is an early sign of the developing trust forming between client and designer. Clients with too much emotional investment in their own design instincts are the bane of many a firm, and can lead to deep compromises in design between the drawing board and production. No one but Sling and NewDeal know how the boardroom discussions (or battles) went during development, but it’s clear that Sling wound up quite comfortable with New Deal pushing the design envelope.

In September 2007 Sling released the replacement unit for the AV and Tuner with the Slingbox SOLO, also the company’s first international model. The update brings about further refinement to the design language of the Slingbox brand. Its signature trapezoidal shape is formed this time by two interlocking wrapped surfaces that terminate at their meeting edges, forming an object that is both elegantly smooth and bitingly sharp. Eschewing the pattern found on the three previous models, the upper surface is a finely perforated piece of brushed anodized aluminum, lending an air of luxury to the box’s otherwise techy look. The ends of this piece terminate short of meeting the feet of the unit, leaving a sunken gap revealing another feature carried over from the AV – a flash of brilliant wet red.

In September 2008, Sling released the SOLO’s big sibling, the Slingbox PRO-HD, the company’s first device for slinging high-definition content. The then top-tier model in the Sling family had a monolithic solidness to it, a very refined piece of equipment that could be implemented in any AV setup without sticking out too much. The only flashy detail is the perforated metal grill borrowed from the SOLO. The pattern integrates seamlessly with the light-up Sling logo, the only source of the signature red color to be found on the device. The grill motif carries over to the back in a think bezel shrouding the connector panel.

Up to this point, the design variations of the Slingbox had been masterfully executed, but fairly normal – NewDeal had fielded a handsome lineup of products, subtly unique as individuals, but as a whole reflective of the established brand aesthetic. Each had the core elements of the trapezoid, the color-pop, and a bi-material composition. The Sling collection was a composed family...but not for long.

Tune in next time for the latest chapters in the Sling design evolution.

Defining Innovation

By Ty Hagler

What is innovation? Perhaps just as importantly, what isn’t innovation?  As an innovation consultant, I’ve heard several limiting definitions, particularly in the product development space.  But for me, it’s a pretty expansive term.

First, we need to understand that innovation isn’t merely some starting point or some particular new thing—be it a product, service, or business model. I like to think that, since the innovation space is an ecosystem that involves lots of people and companies with diverse backgrounds and perspectives, the concept takes in all three of these areas—products, services, and business models—in its expression within the commercial universe.

Since none of us pursues innovation for its own sake, we must contextualize discussion of this concept within the confines of the marketplace. That’s a long way of saying that the ultimate benchmark of innovation is commercial success.  This criterion is what separates invention from innovation.  Yes, innovation has to be new, whether it’s something completely new or a revision of a former product, service, or business model.  But nobody cares about the “failed new,” rather, we celebrate those new things that bring success.

Some like to think of innovation as a specific event that occurs at the stage of identifying opportunities through talking with customers.  Within this narrow definition (and narrow is often good), the thinking is that innovation can only occur when a product or service concept emerges in response to the identification of problems faced by the end-user.  While this is certainly a valuable activity that enhances the process of innovation, it leaves me unsatisfied with what I see downstream from this stage of development.

In a previous Tangents post, we cited an academic research study, “Does Customer Interaction Enhance New Product Success,” that provides a statistical correlation between robust customer research and the market success of an innovation effort.  Customer research is important at multiple stages of developing a product, in addition to the opportunity identification stage.  While highly important to the innovation team’s success, it would be a mistake to think that customer research is the total scope of innovation.

Many people must perform great work to achieve commercial success for new products and services. These people include sales, marketing, engineering, design, executive leadership, manufacturing, and external vendors and partnerships.  When these teams convene for ideation sessions focused around discovery, refinement, and implementation stages, they accelerate the  process of innovation. Each team member brings his or her respective expertise to bear on the problems being faced and effective solutions can be proposed.  If innovation were easy, everyone would do it . . . effectively.    

You can see this in how companies need to restructure their sales and customer service teams to meet demands created by new products and services.  And you can also see that when companies get a taste for innovation that’s successful, it changes the entire culture of the organization.  While many organizations have only change as a constant, companies that embrace innovation and see success from it will see positive change as a constant, as opposed to change for reactionary reasons. There’s a big difference between defining the market and being behind the curve.

Innovation Success and Failure—Meeting Stakeholder Needs

By Ty Hagler

As I navigate different industries while wearing a few different hats—innovation management consultant, industrial designer, and product developer—I try to absorb as much knowledge as I can from the successes and failures I see in the marketplace.  And if there’s one thing that both successes and failures remind me of, it’s the fact that there are no shortcuts in product development.

Any new product development professional worth his salt understands the importance of building a deep understanding of customers and stakeholders prior to design, development, and launch of a new product, through customer-focused ideation and research. But do companies always know how to meet the needs of their customers and other stakeholders from the very beginning, at concept stage? Well, that’s another story.

The Intricacies of the Healthcare Markets

One of our core markets is in the development of medical devices.  Working in healthcare, whether it’s in pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, diagnostics, or medical devices, can be very rewarding. But what these areas all have in common is a huge level of risk, since these markets not only play to customer needs but have to meet the stringent demands of other stakeholders during the development process.

Each of the healthcare markets have a number of gatekeeper stakeholders, including the Food and Drug Administration, various health plans, hospital formularies, and other government agencies that administer healthcare to millions of people, such as the Veterans Administration, Medicaid, and Medicare.  When a company is designing and developing a product for healthcare purposes, teams must know the end-users—patients and/or providers, but they must pay painstaking attention to the other stakeholders that control market access, pricing, and insurance reimbursement for the product.

Exhibit A: Brilliant Execution in the Medical Device Market

I recently observed an instructive example of success and failure in the area of medical devices. The first company is one that I admire and respect.  Everything about this product is stunning—the design and development process has yielded a versatile, elegant product that’s first-in-class. But the best part is that bedrock knowledge the company obviously obtained up front in the process, since they have achieved multiple indications (read:  approvals) in over a dozen areas. Indications for the first company’s product line range from classic rehabilitation cases like knee surgery, but also run the gamut from recovering stroke victims to non-ambulatory physical therapy.

To achieve this many indications takes time and effort, but most of all, it takes knowing your stakeholders. This company obviously invested a great deal of upfront resources in knowing what the rehab market needed from a new device and gave third-party stakeholders reason to believe in a product designed to meet previously unmet medical needs. They then went about designing insanely great products that would achieve international approval and adoption at third-party level, so that more patients would benefit from use.

Exhibit B:  Fitness Center Exile

On the failure side, I ran across a second company that obviously didn’t do their homework.  Their platform of rehabilitation products is simply repurposed technology that looks pretty commonplace in any fitness center from the 1980’s.  Compared to the elegance and quality of the first company, the lack of investment in understanding the customer and quality products indicates that the company leadership is exploiting an old platform with few options for growth.   At this point in their history, the team that’s developed the product has failed in terms of market access. They have no approved indications, and they are left to marketing their product at trade shows and through their website.

By failing to know their third-party stakeholders in both public and private healthcare payer organizations, the second company has achieved zero indications to help treat the myriad of conditions that require physical therapy. Instead of getting in there and competing with the first company, this product is now basically an over-hyped elliptical machine. 

One more thing—it’s one thing to take shortcuts, but another entirely to ignore the advice of your stakeholders. In our research, we found evidence that this second company ignored third-party payers’ advice for changes in the product design and instead opted on a second shortcut, simply attempting a label change.  Now, instead of having a market challenger on their hands, the company has a white elephant, hoping that they can sell a few fitness centers on the trade show circuit.

I’d personally rather have one of the devices we’re working on land in every major medical center in the country, and I’m not willing to advise shortcuts along the way.

SolidWorks Poses Competitive Advantage for Industrial Design

By Ty Hagler and Patrick Murphy

Many industrial design firms working in product development rely on surface modeling to express their creative vision for a product in development. Surface modelers such as Rhino, 3D Studio Max, and Alias StudioTools all have a high degree of usefulness in building complex surfaces.

Designers are attracted to these packages because they have an expressive workflow that enables creative output that is free of constraints. A great example of this type of application is in the auto industry, where particular attention to complex, multi-dimensional surfaces is essential to a successfully designed product. While these 3D CAD modeling packages optimize surface quality, they tend to lack the dimensional stability needed to design engineered parts to be used at the manufacturing stage. Surface models have their own limitations—they basically represent sheets of paper, constructing origami-esque geometry to define shapes.

Manufacturers and engineers around the world, however, rely on parametric modeling to build their design solutions. Unlike Surface modeling, which is relatively free of geometrical and physical parameters, parametric modeling allows designers to create objects and assemblies whose digital properties mimic physical ones. Where surfaces are like sheets of paper, solids are more like blocks of material. These blocks behave like the material the designer selects for the product. Solids thus take on the shape and form of materials like stainless steel, aluminum, or injection-molded plastic.

Since these digital objects have real-world properties, they can also simulate real-world applications of physics, such as force, liquid flow, heat, and many others to determine if parts or systems will break, melt, or explode all before an actual prototype is ever produced. Because of this, parametric modelers bridge the gap between development and manufacture - they allow designers to model solution with a viable end product in mind.

There are many parametric modeling platforms in the marketplace, such as CATIA, Autodesk Inventor, and ProEngineer, but by far the most widely used and accepted in the world of product development is French firm Dassault Systemes' SolidWorks. Used by more than 1.3 million engineers in more than 130,000 firms worldwide, SolidWorks is the Rosetta Stone of product development, allowing developers and manufacturers from all over the world to communicate effectively through the process of bringing a solution to fruition.

The Trig crew continues to choose SolidWorks as our primary modeling software platform. So, why do we choose SolidWorks over other parametric modeling tools? We have a few reasons, actually. First, SolidWorks is used by more product developers, engineers, and manufacturers than any other parametric modeling platform in the world. If the object here is for us to be meeting our partners in the engineering community in a workable dynamic, why not choose the framework within which most of them work?

Second, SolidWorks powerful parametric modeling engine makes it possible to create physically accurate components and functional working assemblies. It has a unique timeline-based interface that allows dimensions and configurations to be altered at any point in the modeling process. Hole too large? Gap too narrow? These changes can be altered quickly without affecting other attributes of the model.

Perhaps most critically, SolidWorks simulates real-world materials, mechanical movement, and physics-based applications like force, heat, and liquid flow, among many others. The software creates ready-for-manufacture data output, removing complex and costly development phases between design and manufacturing. Obviously, when a firm like Trig is trying to pack as much value as possible into each design project, this is a huge win for our clients.

The Trig crew views our core competency in SolidWorks as one of our strategic competitive advantages during the product development process. By having our team of designers build products within an engineering tool, this allows us to have more control over the design intent behind a concept, instead of relying upon engineers to interpret an aesthetic from a surface modeling solution. When we’re speaking the engineers’ language from the outset, nothing is lost in translation! Thus, there’s no loss in design intent from designer to manufacturer to engineer.

And from a results standpoint, SolidWorks’ output retains the highest level of dimensional stability, and can be converted to vast number of different CAD data file types. Results are ultimately what business is all about, and SolidWorks helps Trig to achieve results that take as many engineering and manufacturing factors into account for a product’s design, ensuring that our products meet the many user demands for functionality, performance, and endurance in our core markets of hardware and tools, home improvement and furniture, and medical devices.

Trig designers take a pragmatic, collaborative approach to their work. To meet this aim, we stay on top of the tools that give us high compatibility with our partners who take the project to its ultimate solution, a finished, ready-for-market products. SolidWorks is therefore the best fit for our culture.