beyond the prototype

Company: Microsoft Research
Role: UX Research PhD Intern (Project Lead)

PROBLEM:

The hardware research and development communities have invested heavily in tools and materials that facilitate the design and prototyping of electronic devices. Numerous easy-to-access and easy-to-use tools have streamlined the prototyping of interactive and embedded devices for experts and led to a remarkable growth in non-expert builders. However, there has been little exploration of challenges associated with moving beyond a prototype and creating hundreds or thousands of exact replicas – a process that is still challenging for many. Despite advancements in prototyping tools, many hardware creators face significant challenges when transitioning from prototype to scalable production. Technical knowledge gaps, underestimations of regulatory requirements, and inadequate manufacturing support often result in costly delays and compromised product quality.

This project leverages UX research to deeply explore these pain points, providing actionable insights to bridge the gaps in knowledge and resources. By addressing these barriers, it empowers creators to scale their products effectively, bringing innovative hardware solutions to market and enhancing their success in a competitive industry.

OUTPUT: 

1. Published article at ACM CHI (won best paper award, top 1%)

2. White paper for internal use to obtain funding for larger initiative within the company, currently with 10+ team members.
   
   

BACKGROUND:

The following figure illustrates the process of manufacturing a product from conception. This high-level summary is all you would need to understand the impact and value of this particular work.

Figure 1: The two main phases of hardware development encompass six main activities. The transition from Phase 1 to Phase 2 typically happens when a handful of functional working prototypes have been made.

Research methods
Pilot

We first developed a list of around ten questions designed to elicit the challenges of low-volume hardware production and approaches taken to overcome these. We then ran two pilot interviews with those involved in low-volume production. The interviewees discussed their pain points, corroborated aspects of our hypothesis that Phase 2 of manufacturing was still problematic, and provided valuable insights into a typical process (or lack of process!) that is followed by a hardware creator to manufacture devices.

STUDY PROCEDURE

Following our pilot study, we conducted 25 semi-structured interviews to gain a comprehensive understanding of the common challenges associated with low-volume electronics manufacturing. Our interviews focused on several key themes:
(1) sourcing components
(2) identifying and collaborating with manufacturing partners
(3) designing products for manufacturability
(4) testing and validating product functionality
(5) navigating complex certification and regulatory landscapes.

We also explored each participant’s personal motivations, the tools and methodologies they employed, and their financial strategies, including cost management, pricing decisions, and profitability. To capture the full scope of their experiences, we tailored additional questions based on each interviewee’s unique journey, enabling us to uncover deeper insights into their specific obstacles and the innovative strategies they developed to overcome them.

PARTICIPANTS

We divide our participants into two categories: creators and enablers.

Creators: We define creators as individuals who have undertaken low volume hardware device manufacturing either alone or a as a part of a small team.

Enablers: On the other hand, enablers are individuals who assist creators in achieving their goal. they include (but are not limited to) individuals at hardware start-up incubators and accelerators, crowdfunding organizations and contract manufacturing companies. 

We used snowball sampling to recruit interviewees. We tried to balance interviewees in terms of creator vs enabler and by geographic location.

DATA ANALYSIS (THematic Analysis)

All interviews were audio recorded and later transcribed for data analysis. We then performed open coding on the transcribed audio interviews to identify recurring themes. Next we analyzed our codes using thematic analysis to identify (1) common challenges and issues associated with low-volume manufacturing; and (2) any mitigation strategies adopted to overcome these issues. Finally, we used member-checking  with one enabler and one creator to validate our results.

We uncovered four major themes that hinder the transition from prototype to scalable low-volume production:

1. Gaps in Technical Knowledge: Many creators, even those with technical backgrounds, lack the specific expertise required for scaling prototypes to production. Issues like component sourcing, design for manufacturability, and compliance testing were frequently misunderstood or underestimated.

2. Gaps in Non-Technical Knowledge: Financial planning, regulatory compliance, and supply chain management were common pain points. Many creators underestimated the true cost and complexity of bringing a product to market, resulting in underfunded projects and delayed launches.

3. Minimum Viable Rigor: Even when creators understood best practices, they often failed to implement them rigorously. Inadequate testing procedures and loose documentation standards led to production errors and increased costs.

4. Building Relationships and Professional Networks: Successful productization often depended on strong partnerships with manufacturers and industry peers. Creators who invested time in building these relationships were better able to navigate production challenges and achieve scalable outcomes.

These findings highlight the need for improved resources and structured guidance to support hardware creators in overcoming the technical and operational barriers to successful productization.

You can watch my talk at CHI conference at this link below: