Product development / INSIGHTS
Product design mistakes startups make
The most expensive design mistakes often come from approving the next stage without enough evidence. A startup can move quickly and still define what each prototype, quote and review must establish. The goal is to expose the risky assumptions while changes remain affordable.
Starting with a form before defining the product
A strong visual direction cannot resolve an unclear use case. Define the user, task, environment, target price and reason to choose the product. Turn vague requirements such as “easy to use” into observable behaviour.
For a portable accessory, that might mean one-handed operation with a stated load and a specific storage constraint. Once the requirement is clear, concept reviews become decisions about performance and desirability rather than a vote on favourite shapes.
Treating a beautiful prototype as proof of production
A hand-finished model can conceal difficult assembly, unsupported tolerances or fragile features. Label prototypes by purpose: appearance, fit, function or production validation. Record what each one cannot prove.
A useful correction is to assign a test to every major risk. If the hinge is novel, test its function early. If surface quality drives the product’s value, commission a representative finish sample before freezing the geometry.
Finding the target cost after the design is fixed
Retail ambition should inform the manufacturing allowance before design detail accumulates. Include the channel, packaging, logistics and service assumptions in the business model. A product designed around direct sales may not support a later wholesale model.
A factory quotation is not the same as the cost of stock delivered and ready to sell. Packaging, inbound freight, duties, inspection and expected rejects may sit outside the quoted unit price. Track those items separately and update the model at each design review; a small omission per unit can become material across the first production run.
Adding variants faster than demand evidence
More colours and sizes can multiply purchase commitments while fragmenting sales. Review each extra variant as an investment with development work, inventory and reorder consequences. A shared component strategy can preserve choice without duplicating every part.
Write a first-release specification and a later-release list. Moving a feature to a later version should be a deliberate commercial decision, not an unresolved detail that unexpectedly returns during tooling.
Sending inconsistent files and informal approvals
When CAD, drawings and the latest email disagree, the supplier has to guess. Use one revision-controlled release package and a single consolidated feedback list. Record who can approve a change and whether cost or timing must be re-estimated.
Do not authorise tooling with unresolved critical interfaces because the calendar feels uncomfortable. A missed internal review is cheaper than discovering the same issue in finished stock.
Use four questions at every investment gate
A lightweight review can prevent large downstream commitments. Apply it before concept selection, major prototype spend, tooling and first production.
- What do we now know, and what evidence supports it?
- Which risks remain, and what is the cheapest useful next test?
- Do the cost, variant count and timeline still fit the business?
- Who is accountable for the decision and the released revision?
DESIGN IN PRACTICE
Explore our industrial design services, or see the eyewear, accessories and physical products in the MILOSSI portfolio.