Accendo Reliability

Your Reliability Engineering Professional Development Site

  • Home
  • About
    • Contributors
  • Reliability.fm
    • Speaking Of Reliability
    • Rooted in Reliability: The Plant Performance Podcast
    • Quality during Design
    • Way of the Quality Warrior
    • Critical Talks
    • Dare to Know
    • Maintenance Disrupted
    • Metal Conversations
    • The Leadership Connection
    • Practical Reliability Podcast
    • Reliability Matters
    • Reliability it Matters
    • Maintenance Mavericks Podcast
    • Women in Maintenance
    • Accendo Reliability Webinar Series
  • Articles
    • CRE Preparation Notes
    • on Leadership & Career
      • Advanced Engineering Culture
      • Engineering Leadership
      • Managing in the 2000s
      • Product Development and Process Improvement
    • on Maintenance Reliability
      • Aasan Asset Management
      • AI & Predictive Maintenance
      • Asset Management in the Mining Industry
      • CMMS and Reliability
      • Conscious Asset
      • EAM & CMMS
      • Everyday RCM
      • History of Maintenance Management
      • Life Cycle Asset Management
      • Maintenance and Reliability
      • Maintenance Management
      • Plant Maintenance
      • Process Plant Reliability Engineering
      • ReliabilityXperience
      • RCM Blitz®
      • Rob’s Reliability Project
      • The Intelligent Transformer Blog
      • The People Side of Maintenance
      • The Reliability Mindset
    • on Product Reliability
      • Accelerated Reliability
      • Achieving the Benefits of Reliability
      • Apex Ridge
      • Metals Engineering and Product Reliability
      • Musings on Reliability and Maintenance Topics
      • Product Validation
      • Reliability Engineering Insights
      • Reliability in Emerging Technology
    • on Risk & Safety
      • CERM® Risk Insights
      • Equipment Risk and Reliability in Downhole Applications
      • Operational Risk Process Safety
    • on Systems Thinking
      • Communicating with FINESSE
      • The RCA
    • on Tools & Techniques
      • Big Data & Analytics
      • Experimental Design for NPD
      • Innovative Thinking in Reliability and Durability
      • Inside and Beyond HALT
      • Inside FMEA
      • Integral Concepts
      • Learning from Failures
      • Progress in Field Reliability?
      • R for Engineering
      • Reliability Engineering Using Python
      • Reliability Reflections
      • Testing 1 2 3
      • The Manufacturing Academy
  • eBooks
  • Resources
    • Accendo Authors
    • FMEA Resources
    • Feed Forward Publications
    • Openings
    • Books
    • Webinars
    • Journals
    • Higher Education
    • Podcasts
  • Courses
    • 14 Ways to Acquire Reliability Engineering Knowledge
    • Reliability Analysis Methods online course
    • Measurement System Assessment
    • SPC-Process Capability Course
    • Design of Experiments
    • Foundations of RCM online course
    • Quality during Design Journey
    • Reliability Engineering Statistics
    • Quality Engineering Statistics
    • An Introduction to Reliability Engineering
    • Reliability Engineering for Heavy Industry
    • An Introduction to Quality Engineering
    • Process Capability Analysis course
    • Root Cause Analysis and the 8D Corrective Action Process course
    • Return on Investment online course
    • CRE Preparation Online Course
    • Quondam Courses
  • Webinars
    • Upcoming Live Events
  • Calendar
    • Call for Papers Listing
    • Upcoming Webinars
    • Webinar Calendar
  • Login
    • Member Home

by Dianna Deeney Leave a Comment

QDD 002 My product works. Why don’t they want it?

My product works. Why don’t they want it?

Have you ever designed a product that works but that customers just don’t want to use?

We’ve put a product to market only to find that the users just don’t want to use it. They’re buying it, so there’s perceived value in it. It’s functional, it does what we say it will do, it really works! But they’re not repeat buyers and not making good recommendations to others (it’s sort of making the company look bad).

What went wrong? In some cases, there’s warning signs to watch for during your design development. And, if looking to the design process for an answer, there’s some tools and strategies to help prevent that from happening before product launch, or to help as a starting point when you plan for your version 2.0.

This podcast will review the strategies and pitfalls and how to avoid them.

  • Get the right level of detail in your user process flow (or user task analysis).
  • Follow-through on early warning signs that you might not have the right level of detail.

I’ll also share a memorable phrase that will help you remember to apply what you’ve learned.

View the Episode Transcript

There are some actions you can take today. If you’re in the development phase of something now, reacquaint yourself with your user profile, process and use scenarios. Make sure you and your team agree that they’re at the right level of detail. And, whenever you get feedback from a customer, take another, discerning look at those user files to make sure they’re enough (all of them, not just the part related to the feedback).

Once you’ve had a chance to listen, I want to hear from you. Share your answers to one of these questions in the comments section.

What are your stories of designs that customers just didn’t like or want to use? Can you tell us about a specific detail and some of the history of what you did to resolve it, or what you would do differently next time?

If you are new to process flowcharting, get in touch with your local Quality Professional, or see this resource from ASQ: What is a Flowchart? Process Flow Diagrams & Maps | ASQ

Citations

 

Episode Transcript

 

Note: This transcript is not word-for-word true transcript of the podcast episode. I wrote it before I recorded it, that’s all!

Have you ever designed a product that works but that customers just don’t want to use? This episode will review some tools and strategies to help prevent that from happening before product launch, or to help as a starting point when you plan for your version 2.0.

Our problem is that we put a product to market only to find that the users just don’t want to use it. They’re buying it, so there’s perceived value in it! It’s functional, it does what we say it will do, it really works! But they’re not repeat buyers and not making good recommendations to others. It’s sort of making the company look bad. What went wrong? We put it through a design development or design control process. We had user needs and requirements that were validated and verified, successfully.  When looking to the design process, ONE of the first places I would look is to how the user procedure was documented and acted on. At what level of detail is the user’s process flow? It may not have been detailed enough. If lacking enough detail, then some important user needs and requirements may have been missed.  There’s a balance of detail that needs to be considered: 1) we need to keep it simple enough to execute or act against (if it’s so detailed it’s big and cumbersome and overwhelming…well, we don’t want to hinder ourselves from releasing a great, helpful product) and 2) we can’t make it so simple that we miss important information. If it’s too high-level, we won’t know how to design for exceptional user experiences. In order to design for that, we need to understand and represent our users and their use scenario and process as best as possible. Even if that makes it more complicated for us.

So, how and at what point could you tell that your user process flow was not detailed enough? In some cases, there’s warning signs to watch for during your design development, especially during the prototype evaluation phases. Any time a user provides feedback that a design is inadequate, we should not just zero-in on that one feature of complaint, but take another, discerning look at user profile, process and use scenarios for our project. It doesn’t always have to end as a released product that people buy but never use, again.

Let’s talk through a simple example that we can visualize, and maybe one that you can easily peg in your memory. We’re designing a winter night shirt for a child.  Within our design development process, we have some user needs: a shirt with long sleeves made of cozy material. It’s a simple product: the kid needs to wear it to bed. So, that’s how’ll we’ll define our use information: a child wears the shirt to bed. We follow the design process from identifying the idea; defining the needs and requirements; plan; and then design. We even consult with our user group along the way. We’re ready for the prototype phase.

We have some representative users try on our prototype shirt. Their head wouldn’t fit. We decide to just fix the one problem that our users identified: we modified the shirt by cutting a little slit in the neck hole then continued with production.

But, wait a minute. We failed the prototype evaluation. This should have been a first indication that something bigger may be wrong with the design. When we’re performing validations or getting customers’ feedback on our prototypes and we have something that goes wrong (like their head not fitting through the head hole), there’s options for how we react to this information. One option is we can go ahead and fix that one problem and keep moving ahead. Or we recognize this may be a symptom of potentially larger problems with our design: maybe we don’t really understand our users and their use scenario and process as best as possible. Maybe we don’t have enough detail in our user process, and we’ve missed some important requirements. What was our user information for this nightshirt project, again? Ah, yes, the kid had to wear it to bed…period.

Let’s say we fix the head hole and continue forward through our design development. Our users could now get the shirt over their head, but to get their arms into the sleeves was a nightmare! They tried it ‘this way’ and then ‘that way’…the kid nearly needed to be contortionist just to be able to get into it. The user was able to wear it after some help from an adult. They don’t like it. We know it’s not right, and they know it’s not right. But, we had spent so much time and money on it that we didn’t want to give up on it. So, we started to sell it. “Well, that’s OK, we did get it on! And, look, see how it fits nicely? And isn’t it nice and cozy?”

Our shirt design was a failure. The user doesn’t want to use our product. It’s too hard to use. It did meet what we captured as user needs and requirements: it was cozy, it did fit, and our user could put it on and wear it. And it performed its function (it could be worn to bed). But, the customer is not happy.

Our user process was not detailed enough. And, because of that, we missed important needs and requirements.  Remember, our user information was “a child wears the shirt to bed”. A more appropriately detailed user process could have been 1. Put the shirt on 2. Walk and move in it 3. Wear it to bed 4. Take it off 5. Launder it. We could break it down even further with a few more steps and details. For example, our step number 1. Put the shirt on could be broken down into: 1a. pull the shirt down over the head, 1b. push arms through the sleeves, one at a time, and then finally 1c. grab and pull the bottom hem of the shirt down toward the floor. If we had more detail in our user process from the start, it could have forced us to stop and think through more of the use scenarios and design. Even if a user process seems intuitive and simple (sometimes especially so), we benefit from documenting it so we can more clearly see it, communicate it with the rest of the team, and understand it.

If at any point a user evaluates our prototype product and has feedback, we won’t just address that feedback. We’ll take a another, discerning look at our user profile, process, and use scenarios and ensure that we’ve absolutely captured it at the right level of detail. If we find ourselves justifying a design because the user isn’t doing it right, well, we need to be prepared to conclude that maybe we didn’t design it for the user. We designed it to function, but we didn’t design it for exceptional user experiences because we didn’t plan appropriately and understand enough about our user process and scenario. Maybe we’ll be given an opportunity to fix it, and we’ll go back to our user information and adjust our needs and requirements. Maybe we can’t do anything about it, but it’s never too late to communicate our lessons learned for the next time.

What actions can you take today? If you’re in the development phase of something now, reacquaint yourself with your user profile, process and use scenarios. Make sure you and your team agree that they’re at the right level of detail. And, whenever you get feedback from a customer, take another, discerning look at those user files to make sure they’re enough. And maybe peg in your memory the “can’t fit the head through the head hole” story to remind you to watch out for those types of things during your user evaluations of your designs.

Filed Under: Quality during Design, The Reliability FM network

About Dianna Deeney

Dianna is a senior-level Quality Professional and an experienced engineer. She has worked over 20 years in product manufacturing and design and is active in learning about the latest techniques in business.

Dianna promotes strategic use of quality tools and techniques throughout the design process.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Quality during Design podcast logo

Tips for using quality tools and methods to help you design products others love, for less.


by Dianna Deeney
Quality during Design,
Hosted on Buzzsprout.com
Subscribe and enjoy every episode
Google
Apple
Spotify

Recent Episodes

QDD 128 Leveraging Proven Frameworks or Concept Development

QDD 127 Understanding Cross-Functional Collaboration

QDD 126 Exploring the Problem Space: A Key Principle for Robust Product Design and Project Success

QDD 125 Exploring Product Development and AI Through Literature

QDD 124 Design for User Tasks using an Urgent/Important Matrix

QDD 123 Information Development in Design, with Scott Abel – Part 2 (A Chat with Cross-Functional Experts)

QDD 122 Information Development in Design, with Scott Abel – Part 1 (A Chat with Cross-Functional Experts)

QDD 121 Crafting Effective Technical Documents for the Engineering Field

QDD 120 How to use FMEA for Complaint Investigation

QDD 119 Results-Driven Decisions, Faster: Accelerated Stress Testing as a Reliability Life Test

QDD 118 Journey from Production to Consumption: Enhancing Product Reliability

QDD 117 QDD Redux: Choose Reliability Goals for Modules

QDD 116 Reliability Engineering during Design, with Adam Bahret (A Chat with Cross-Functional Experts)

QDD 115 QDD Redux: 5 Options to Manage Risks during Product Engineering

QDD 114 The Instant Glory of Projects

QDD 113 What to do about Virtual Meetings

QDD 112 QDD Redux: How to self-advocate for more customer face time (and why it’s important)

QDD 111 Engineering with Receptivity, with Sol Rosenbaum (A Chat with Cross-Functional Experts)

QDD 110 Don’t Wish for Cross-Functional Buy-in on Product Designs – Plan to Get It!

QDD 109 Before You Start Engineering Solutions, Do This

QDD 108 QDD Redux Ep. 4: Statistical vs. Practical Significance

QDD 107 QDD Redux Ep. 3: When it’s Not Normal: How to Choose from a Library of Distributions

QDD 106 QDD Redux Ep. 2: How to Handle Competing Failure Modes

QDD 105 QDD Redux Ep. 1: How Many Do We Need to Test?

QDD 104 The Fundamental Thing to Know from Statistics for Design Engineering

QDD 103 What to do for Effective and Efficient Working Meetings

QDD 102 Get Design Inputs with Flowcharts

QDD 101 Quality Tools are Legos of Development (and Their 7 Uses)

QDD 100 Lessons Learned from Coffee Pod Stories

QDD 099 Crucial Conversations in Engineering, with Shere Tuckey (A Chat with Cross-Functional Experts)

QDD 098 Challenges Getting Team Input in Concept Development

QDD 097 Brainstorming within Design Sprints

QDD 096 After the ‘Storm: Compare and Prioritize Ideas

QDD 095 After the ‘Storm: Pareto Voting and Screening Methods

QDD 094 After the ‘Storm: Group and Explore Ideas

QDD 093 Product Design with Brainstorming, with Emily Haidemenos (A Chat with Cross Functional Experts)

QDD 092 Ways to Gather Ideas with a Team

QDD 091 The Spirits of Technical Writing Past, Present, and Future

QDD 090 The Gifts Others Bring

QDD 089 Next Steps after Surprising Test Results

QDD 088 Choose Reliability Goals for Modules

QDD 087 Start a System Architecture Diagram Early

QDD 086 Why Yield Quality in the Front-End of Product Development

QDD 085 Book Cast

QDD 084 Engineering in the Color Economy

QDD 083 Getting to Great Designs

QDD 082 Get Clarity on Goals with a Continuum

QDD 081 Variable Relationships: Correlation and Causation

QDD 080 Use Meetings to Add Productivity

QDD 079 Ways to Partner with Test Engineers

QDD 078 What do We do with FMEA Early in Design Concept?

QDD 077 A Severity Scale based on Quality Dimensions

QDD 076 Use Force Field Analysis to Understand Nuances

QDD 075 Getting Use Information without a Prototype

QDD 074 Finite Element Analysis (FEA) Supplements Test

QDD 073 2 Lessons about Remote Work for Design Engineers

QDD 072 Always Plot the Data

QDD 071 Supplier Control Plans and Design Specs

QDD 070 Use FMEA to Design for In-Process Testing

QDD 069 Use FMEA to Choose Critical Design Features

QDD 068 Get Unstuck: Expand and Contract Our Problem

QDD 067 Get Unstuck: Reframe our Problem

QDD 066 5 Options to Manage Risks during Product Engineering

QDD 065 Prioritizing Technical Requirements with a House of Quality

QDD 064 Gemba for Product Design Engineering

QDD 063 Product Design from a Data Professional Viewpoint, with Gabor Szabo (A Chat with Cross Functional Experts)

QDD 062 How Does Reliability Engineering Affect (Not Just Assess) Design?

QDD 061 How to use FMEA for Complaint Investigation

QDD 060 3 Tips for Planning Design Reviews

QDD 059 Product Design from a Marketing Viewpoint, with Laura Krick (A Chat with Cross Functional Experts)

QDD 058 UFMEA vs. DFMEA

QDD 057 Design Input & Specs vs. Test & Measure Capability

QDD 056 ALT vs. HALT

QDD 055 Quality as a Strategic Asset vs. Quality as a Control

QDD 054 Design Specs vs. Process Control, Capability, and SPC

QDD 053 Internal Customers vs. External Customers

QDD 052 Discrete Data vs. Continuous Data

QDD 051 Prevention Controls vs. Detection Controls

QDD 050 Try this Method to Help with Complex Decisions (DMRCS)

QDD 049 Overlapping Ideas: Quality, Reliability, and Safety

QDD 048 Using SIPOC to Get Started

QDD 047 Risk Barriers as Swiss Cheese?

QDD 046 Environmental Stress Testing for Robust Designs

QDD 045 Choosing a Confidence Level for Test using FMEA

QDD 044 Getting Started with FMEA – It All Begins with a Plan

QDD 043 How can 8D help Solve my Recurring Problem?

QDD 042 Mistake-Proofing – The Poka-Yoke of Usability

QDD 041 Getting Comfortable with using Reliability Results

QDD 040 How to Self-Advocate for More Customer Face Time (and why it’s important)

QDD 039 Choosing Quality Tools (Mind Map vs. Flowchart vs. Spaghetti Diagram)

QDD 038 The DFE Part of DFX (Design For Environment and eXcellence)

QDD 037 Results-Driven Decisions, Faster: Accelerated Stress Testing as a Reliability Life Test

QDD 036 When to use DOE (Design of Experiments)?

QDD 035 Design for User Tasks using an Urgent/Important Matrix

QDD 034 Statistical vs. Practical Significance

QDD 033 How Many Do We Need To Test?

QDD 032 Life Cycle Costing for Product Design Choices

QDD 031 5 Aspects of Good Reliability Goals and Requirements

QDD 030 Using Failure Rate Functions to Drive Early Design Decisions

QDD 029 Types of Design Analyses possible with User Process Flowcharts

QDD 028 Design Tolerances Based on Economics (Using the Taguchi Loss Function)

QDD 027 How Many Controls do we Need to Reduce Risk?

QDD 026 Solving Symptoms Instead of Causes?

QDD 025 Do you have SMART ACORN objectives?

QDD 024 Why Look to Standards

QDD 023 Getting the Voice of the Customer

QDD 022 The Way We Test Matters

QDD 021 Designing Specs for QA

QDD 020 Every Failure is a Gift

QDD 019 Understanding the Purposes behind Kaizen

QDD 018 Fishbone Diagram: A Supertool to Understand Problems, Potential Solutions, and Goals

QDD 017 What is ‘Production Equivalent’ and Why Does it Matter?

QDD 016 About Visual Quality Standards

QDD 015 Using the Pareto Principle and Avoiding Common Pitfalls

QDD 014 The Who’s Who of your Quality Team

QDD 013 When it’s Not Normal: How to Choose from a Library of Distributions

QDD 012 What are TQM, QFD, Six Sigma, and Lean?

QDD 011 The Designer’s Important Influence on Monitoring After Launch

QDD 010 How to Handle Competing Failure Modes

QDD 009 About Using Slide Decks for Technical Design Reviews

QDD 008 Remaking Risk-Based Decisions: Allowing Ourselves to Change our Minds.

QDD 007 Need to innovate? Stop brainstorming and try a systematic approach.

QDD 006 HALT! Watch out for that weakest link

QDD 005 The Designer’s Risk Analysis affects Business, Projects, and Suppliers

QDD 004 A big failure and too many causes? Try this analysis.

QDD 003 Why Your Design Inputs Need to Include Quality & Reliability

QDD 002 My product works. Why don’t they want it?

QDD 001 How to Choose the Right Improvement Model

Join Accendo

Receive information and updates about articles and many other resources offered by Accendo Reliability by becoming a member.

It’s free and only takes a minute.

Join Today

© 2025 FMS Reliability · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service · Cookies Policy