Role: Product & Innovation Manager
Employer: Mous Products Ltd
Duration: 11/2017 - 12/2019
My role as Product & Innovation Manager was divided equally between product management and product development.
As product manager, it was my responsibility to oversee delivery of new products from early concept through to launch taking particular project responsibility for ensuring timescales and deadlines are met, budget and team resources appropriately allocated and managed. As a human-centred designer my role in product development was to research, build and test new ideas to develop our future product pipeline.
Mous operated a top-line stage-gate process, an agile approach, incorporating a succession of iterative design sprints between gates. I sought to codify design thinking and the Design Council’s ‘double diamond process’ (further info can be found here) into the development process to ensure customer needs remained central to our thinking. We worked through five stages from idea inception through to the Design for Manufacture (DFM) before the designs went to get tooled up and manufactured.
My original team consisted of seven members (12 by the time I left) working in an exciting if chaotic environment. Through trial and error, we honed our skills and processes and became specialists in new product research and new product development, decoding what was previously known as the ‘Fuzzy Front End’! I developed and utilised a succession of qualitative (workshops, focus groups, role playing, user testing and ethnographic research methods) and quantitative (surveys, data mining CX tickets and google analytics) research methods. My aim was to demystify consumer needs, translate them into viable products (with senior team support) and built the product pipeline to fit those needs.
I very much enjoyed being part of a fast-growing start-up, harnessing both opportunities and challenges, the excitement and close relationships. However, the exponential workforce growth - 15 to over 70 employees in under 2 years – also brought many unforeseen, unique problems. I would like to take this opportunity to walk you through some of my reflections of that journey!
My view of Mous was that it was an exceptionally dynamic company harnessing and growing their core capabilities in-house - everything from product design and development, to branding and marketing through to financing and strategic planning. As a consequence, Mous was pretty self-sufficient, not having to depend on creating external alliances, at least at the outset. Utilising their internal capacity enabled the company to swivel on a dime, reacting faster to problems that would normally cripple similar stage start-ups.
This internal capability was particularly in evidence within the in-house product development team – with design and engineering functions split between the UK and Guangdong, China. We fast-tracked early ideas to prototype to Design for Manufacture (DFM) working effectively across two significantly different geographical and cultural bases. Whilst working in China with our small development team (4 members), I witnessed how quickly and efficiently we could move from a sketch and low fidelity render to fully tested DFM in just two weeks! Key to our success was developing strong and trustworthy relationships with our manufacturers and a strong, supportive team working ethic that enabled us to work intensely at times to meet deadlines.
Based in the UK, I was tasked with developing a new line of phone cases (Limitless 3.0, Contour & Clarity) and accessories. Over a short period of time, we developed a stage gate process: six months development and three months manufacturing and shipping. This succession of stages kept us on track but also allowed for flexibility to undertake revisions and improvements whilst working at pace to develop new products.
As my job evolved, it became clear that we needed to put the “voice” of the consumer at the heart of our development process and I was tasked with this role. With an academic background in design thinking, this appealed to me greatly and I tackled it with enthusiasm. I was able to employ both qualitative and quantitative research methods to better understand consumer needs and to subsequently refine products in line with their feedback. The topline activities of this role involved:
To build truly great products that our consumers really want, I believe we must first identify and meet our customer’s unmet and unarticulated needs. I undertook a deep dive to find the customer’s pain points – to understand what product features and requirements would best meet their expectations. As you can be seen above, we devised complex customer journey maps in tandem with deep-dive interviews to gauge their views on our products, to clarify ‘if were on the right track’?
This type of qualitative research was exceptionally useful to conduct at the beginning of the product development cycle, meeting with key stakeholders to determine their preferences - both product features and goals. Their feedback was key, establishing a shared vision for our products, confirming that our product was fulfilling an identified need and also opening the door to new opportunities for the development of a pipeline of products. Additionally, the findings from the ‘voice of the consumer’ research significantly enhanced the quality of discussions during internal management meetings. The ‘voice’ was often lost amongst other higher priority eg finance, operational and marketing discussions. Vague, ambiguous and often time-wasting discussions became more evidence-based, articulate and focused leading to more fluid and constructive decision-making.
In developing new products, we needed to actively and regularly engage with our customer experience (CX) team to tease out any current problems with our product line. It was particularly important to do so before product launch to try and anticipate any other issues that had not been previously identified. Examples of these could range from the small and mundane eg “the consumer finds the phone case too slippery in their hands” to other more serious issues such as a product failure due to warping in the mold, and so on. Following launch, the CX team actively searches for early feedback and issues recorded as CX tickets (i.e any complaints or comments from our customers) and these are logged onto the system. We then meet to discuss and resolve each of those issues as effectively as possible.
The relationship between the development and the CX Team is summarised in the diagram below. The CX team’s predominant goal is to minimise the number of tickets and maximise the customer satisfaction. The focus is to increase the company’s Net Promoter Score which measures customer experience and can predict business growth. The CX department can be overwhelmed by the quantity of tickets, particularly at the launch of a new product. They range from shipping and delivery issues, to queries about product fit and choice, to product faults (the final one most critical to our development team!). If the CX Team is swamped with tickets, they don’t always have time to conduct a thorough investigation – they satisfy themselves with a general understanding of how the product is performing in the market (i.e number of complaints) or they might bring a CX ticket of particular interest to the product team seeking further clarity or a solution to the customer query.
I worked closely with the CX Team reviewing all the tickets, siphoning off to other departments tickets that related to other parts of the business eg logistics or online purchasing. Re-reading these tickets that would provide invaluable in-depth product feedback from customers. Having diligently read through all the tickets, I created an ‘insights folder’, collating the findings and emerging themes which I then shared with my product development team for discussion and learning. The findings also generated discussions that inspired our team to tease out new ideas – new products have emerged as a direct result of this review process sometimes leading the team to develop product categories that had never been under consideration before.
Whilst data mining enabled us to take action once in receipt of this valuable customer feedback, product surveys were the antithesis of this, enabling us to be proactive in reaching out to customers to test the waters, to discover any unmet needs. In seeking confirmation of customer needs, we used qualitative methods as discussed above. Normally these findings were both highly exciting and interesting but often based on a limited data set of between 10-40 people depending on what the brief required. Whilst these studies may have been illuminating, they were limited in scope and often needed empirical (quantitative data) evidence to back up the qualitative research findings. Quantitative data provided a more convincing base of evidence (particularly to the senior team), not relying on anecdotes or hunches, but robust, accurate research generating quicker, more constructive and dynamic discussions and decision-making.
Mous had built an extremely successful brand - customers loved the products and were extremely loyal. This translated into very high response rates to our email surveys - for instance a survey of 10,000 customers would often yield about 4000 responses. Product surveys were either retrospective - asking questions following product launch - or prospective where we were trying to gauge the customers response to a new product idea or product category. Of course, we tried not to ask questions too directly, asking open questions prompting the consumer to answer with a description of how they interact with that product. Open questions yielded a richer set of data that was more useful than the simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response. I would then analyse all the responses, noting any key emerging themes, cross-reference the findings with any related qualitative research conducted in-house to get a more rounded and informed understanding of what the consumer needs or expects from the product.
The other most common research method that I adopted was the use of role-play and product testing to determine how the consumer would use our products. This research method often happened later on in the product development process during the prototyping stages. As you can see from these pictures, I would set up small testing rigs, fake offices, bedrooms and other settings to determine how our product would perform for the user in each scenario. These tests often had to be done quickly and creatively, utilising anything we had around us for props! The premise was to get results quickly before we sent our prototypes off for DFM analysis when it would be more difficult and more costly to make design changes. It was in all our interests to save development time by working through any product weaknesses long before we actually had a sample product in our hand!
Often these test processes were fun and I would persuade a whole range of people to come in to carry out the tests whether it meant stopping people in the street to persuade them to join us or interrupting colleagues from other parts of the business to take time out with us. I needed to ensure the sample range was large enough to plot on a graph and be good enough to show a strong correlation with how the product was performing. This research provided some invaluable insights and was particularly effective in seeing where a product was not functioning as intended or why a consumer might struggle to use it. Small design adjustments such as adding a silicon insert to a product to stop it from sliding or adding a light to standby light to make something more intuitive were quickly made.
I had previously established my own start-up company – Whistle – and worked to develop our supply chain with Chinese manufacturers. We were invited to tour their factories or facilities and then sat down to very transactional meetings with our hosts. If we passed this test, we would be invited to a business dinner where the real conversation about ‘contracts’ would begin. This would include comprehensive detailed discussions on subjects such as Minimum Ordering Quantities (MOQs), price per unit, Design for Manufacture (DFM) capability, production capacity, lead times on molds and production, their estimated yield from production lines and so on. In reality these discussions were less about business and more about building relationships – could we work together, could we engender mutual trust, was this likely to be a productive relationship, could this alliance work? My view of working with Chinese manufacturers is that the personal relationships/ties that you establish with individuals carry more weight than the professional relationships - which can be tested over time. In my experience, the better the personal relationship with the Lead manufacturer, the more comfortable they are in coming to you with problems in the sure knowledge that you will work together to resolve any issue. Likewise, you are also secure in the knowledge that you can lean on their experience to help resolve issues. In a fast-growing start-up, working at pace, mistakes are inevitable and all parties need to be able to flex and adapt product designs during the manufacturing process. The better the relationship you have with that manufacturer the more accepting they will be in making the changes, even though change may cost them time and money.
I have also had the adverse experience of having not formulated strong personal ties when working with a new Chinese manufacturer. I faced some problems with one of my designs – I required a change to a part (I should have anticipated this change earlier but was relatively inexperienced at this time). I attempted to frantically try to fix it via WeChat and multiple calls from the UK….only to receive a non-committal “we’ll get back to you”. In reality, without a personal connection, the manufacturer simply walked away from the table, never to be heard of again.
This was a crucial lesson learned, one that every new entrepreneur would need to take note of if they choose to work in China and avoid these pitfalls. I went on to live in China for 7 months and during that time grew to understand the cultural differences and to take due notice of the do’s and don’ts of Chinese etiquette!
When I joined Mous out in Changping, China, they had tried different approaches to working with the Chinese and had settled on something quite radical. They had experienced working with poor performing manufacturers sourced by third-party negotiators who were based in China to conduct the negotiations. This didn’t work. Two founding members of Mous flew out to try and resolve the manufacturing issues and immediately sacked the 3rd party negotiator. They based themselves in China, learnt Mandarin, and started working directly with the manufacturers to build better working relationships.
Together they made better, more reliable products with higher yield and were able to impart their considerable knowledge of engineering to the manufacturers which in turn helped them raise their game and increase their own capabilities. Both of these entrepreneurs had never worked in China, they used their instincts, flair for business and had confidence in their vision – they were exceptionally inspiring to me. They had turned this type of negotiating, discussing and relationship building with manufacturers into an art form. They were able to simultaneously sustain high quality personal and professional relationships with all their manufacturers whilst maintaining a sustained amount of pressure on them to deliver. It is a soft skill that I believe can only be understood and mastered through experience. I had the privilege to witness the way they approached different situations, different teams and different ways of working. Thereafter, periodically, the whole development team would travel to China to work together with the manufacturers to bring their new designs to life. We learned first-hand what immediate impact one small design change could have on the manufacturing process, how other factors such as capacity, marketing and logistics could also cause havoc within the supply chain. My learning curve was steep but I feel confident in my abilities to source and establish a complete supply chain in China.
As previously mentioned, the product development team at Mous was based in both the UK and China. This dynamic split proved effective particularly in relation to making changes to designs or resolving problems that arose with manufacturing that were being flagged by the CX team. Investigations and negotiations could be undertaken immediately and decisions made quickly. I’ve known other companies who have used third-party communicators to reach manufacturers, they can experience delays of 2-3 weeks or more for small design changes to be agreed. Meanwhile, the time delays carries with them both commercial and financial penalties. With Mous however, when both teams in the UK and China were working at maximum efficiency we had an almost perfect 24 hour design team. As the UK product development team was waking up, the China based product development team were getting ready to complete their day and hand-off the work they’ve done to back to the UK team. A hand over meeting would usually take place in the mornings with sign off from the China team and handover to the UK team – it was a near perfect system.
Working across two continents had its own challenges however; the main one was communication. Nearly all the business operational departments were held in the UK (ie brand, creative, sales, marketing, logistics, HR and finance) so the UK team had to contend with a lot more distractions from other departments. Whilst interaction with other departments was essential to the product development team – they play a pivotal role in taking the business forward – because of their daily interaction with the China team, other departments would take advantage of them and use them as a short cut to gain information they might otherwise have had to ask the China team. These interruptions did dramatically slow down the development process and of course the key criteria here was communication. Systems and processes had to improved. Mous set up independent systems to ensure that Heads of Departments had regular communication with the China team leads. Likewise, the product development team agreed and set up a formalised arrangement for the teams in China and UK to meet regularly during the week either individually but also as a project group. This enabled a much improved and consistent level of communication between both teams.
There were times that were difficult and challenging in deploying split teams, not least in keeping both teams aligned to the same vision and on the same trajectory, however the benefits massively out-weighed the negatives. I would strongly recommend any FMCG company that needs to be fast and reactive to set up a similar structure within their company.
When I left the company someone asked me what I actually did at Mous as a Product & Innovation Manager on email and in my reply I wrote over 3000 words. My original goal was then to post it up on this website but I came to the conclusion that it would make more sense as a medium post otherwise this case study would go on forever. So for an overview of my role, some lessons I learnt and an insight of what it was like in the early days of Mous, I would ask that you please check out the post below that I wrote.