Which brings us to “price point”. The price point concept is one too closely tied to a consumer marketing mentality. Price point is a poor and unidimensional criterion, albeit a necessary consideration at one stage of the process. I prefer to think in terms of “cost” which is multifaceted and addresses more than just the commercial dimension. It takes into consideration the entire lifecycle of a device and promotes a holistic, systems approach to device design.

A cost approach also helps avoid rampant consumerism devoid of consequence. If we know that the manufacturing process is foreseeably damaging or end-of-lifecycle disposal is toxic, would designers continue to pursue design and creation of a device? Perhaps the ethical question, “Should I be designing this?” is one that needs to enter the concept phase, too.

Automotive manufacturers have infamously launched products containing devices or components that compromised the safety of their customers. An actuarial analysis told them that fixing the problems would raise the “price point” to unacceptable levels. Had the true costs – not just the price – been known to customers, I think they would have gladly paid more for those flaws to be corrected before personal loss, lawsuits and recalls.

So, in my view, the fourth point on the list of warning signs should read: “if the concept’s value cannot be delivered at a cost that users will tolerate.”

Congratulations on the launch of Designing Devices and thanks for providing a place to share and discuss our views. I’m looking forward to more.

-K