Stoopid Release Cycles

[BenBreeg 493]

Some of this assumes everything is linear, that they don't start working on the next thing until finished with the current one.  In reality you would have research and prototyping happening all the time, hoping through that iterative process you will identify processes, designs, or technology that you can leverage in future generations of products.  For a physical product, while feedback from the market is important post-launch, there are certain things I should already have confirmed before launch.  As I said before, we really don't know what their process is like, what data they have available, and how they are thinking.  It could be bonkers or they could be getting the results they want.  But I do think the small number of players in the equipment world is not good for consumers.

[psulion22 402]

17 hours ago, PBH said:

Even more reason for them to slow down. 

Supply chains are in turmoil because materials and production capability have become scarce.  Companies can not afford to delay the manufacturing of product while they can obtain necessary materials because that availability may not be there when they are ready to produce.  They're booking production line usage months or years out, and can't pull back because another company will scoop it up.  That's what happened in the car industry with COVID.  Car sales were slow, so auto makers cut back on their purchase and manufacturing of chips for the next cycle.  Consumer electronics manufacturers bought up all that suppply and openings because sales were high.  When the auto makers saw an return to normal for buyers, they couldn't get the chips they had given up back.

[VegasHockey 1280]

1 hour ago, psulion22 said:

Supply chains are in turmoil because materials and production capability have become scarce.  Companies can not afford to delay the manufacturing of product while they can obtain necessary materials because that availability may not be there when they are ready to produce.  They're booking production line usage months or years out, and can't pull back because another company will scoop it up.  That's what happened in the car industry with COVID.  Car sales were slow, so auto makers cut back on their purchase and manufacturing of chips for the next cycle.  Consumer electronics manufacturers bought up all that suppply and openings because sales were high.  When the auto makers saw an return to normal for buyers, they couldn't get the chips they had given up back.

Manufacturing automobiles is significantly more complex when compared to hockey equipment. With cars you have raw materials, hardware, software, soft goods, safety systems, rigorous testing for compliance at many different levels and countries . I almost used that as an example previously but because building a car is as complicated as building a rocket ship, I stayed away from it. 

[psulion22 402]

4 hours ago, PBH said:

Manufacturing automobiles is significantly more complex when compared to hockey equipment. With cars you have raw materials, hardware, software, soft goods, safety systems, rigorous testing for compliance at many different levels and countries . I almost used that as an example previously but because building a car is as complicated as building a rocket ship, I stayed away from it. 

The point was not to compare manufacturing a car to manufacturing hockey equipment. The point was to illustrate how the auto industry caused probably the worst inventory shortage in the history of the automobile by reducing their orders for semiconductors amid a supply crisis. This ain’t limited to cars. Dozens, if not hundreds, of industries cut back on their chip orders and manufacturing and faced massive inventory shortages when they couldn’t get those chips back later. Global production capacity is still severely stunted. Reducing the production runs for hockey gear at factories could result in the same shortages later when the forfeited capacity can’t be regained or the materials can’t be obtained. 

Edited August 25, 2022 by psulion22

[Stewie 721]

Yeah, who is to say that the switch to the 7 isn’t just to diversify raw materials to help keep up with production and shortages. They could have already been working on the 7 and faced shortages of the raws to manufacture the 6 in the next batch so just decided to switch over and start manufacturing the 7. 

[VegasHockey 1280]

14 hours ago, psulion22 said:

The point was not to compare manufacturing a car to manufacturing hockey equipment. The point was to illustrate how the auto industry caused probably the worst inventory shortage in the history of the automobile by reducing their orders for semiconductors amid a supply crisis. This ain’t limited to cars. Dozens, if not hundreds, of industries cut back on their chip orders and manufacturing and faced massive inventory shortages when they couldn’t get those chips back later. Global production capacity is still severely stunted. Reducing the production runs for hockey gear at factories could result in the same shortages later when the forfeited capacity can’t be regained or the materials can’t be obtained. 

It wasn't only the automobile industry that caused and is suffering from semiconductors shortages. The chip shortage is also slowing or halting IoT projects. In my current role I spend a lot of time working with various technology companies, both hardware and software related. This article is pretty good in summarizing some of the issues but it barely even scratches the surface. Jabil also did a good job explaining such as well. 

Snip "But there's been a boom in demand for lower cost chips, which are embedded in an ever-wider variety of consumer products, meaning the older, 200mm technology is more sought after than ever. Industry news site Semiconductor Engineering highlighted the risk of a chip shortage, partly due to a lack of 200mm manufacturing equipment, back in February 2020. As the pandemic unfolded, early signs of fluctuating demand led to stockpiling and advance ordering of chips by some tech firms, which left others struggling to acquire the components. People working from home have needed laptops, tablets and webcams to help them do their jobs, and chip factories did close during lockdowns."

Snip "An atrocious winter storm in Texas shutdown semiconductor factories, and a fire at a plant in Japan caused similar delays."

Snip "Logistical headaches are compounding the situation. Oliver Chapman, chief executive of OCI, a global supply chain partner, says that for many years the cost of shipping was not of great concern for many tech firms because their products are relatively small, and suppliers could fit lots of them inside a single 40ft container. But the cost of moving shipping containers around the world has ballooned because of sudden shifts in demand during the pandemic. It is accompanied by a rise in air freight fees and the lorry driver shortage in Europe."

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-58230388

https://www.jabil.com/blog/global-chip-shortages.html

2 hours ago, Stewie said:

Yeah, who is to say that the switch to the 7 isn’t just to diversify raw materials to help keep up with production and shortages. They could have already been working on the 7 and faced shortages of the raws to manufacture the 6 in the next batch so just decided to switch over and start manufacturing the 7. 

Its unlikely they started production of the Trigger 7 without at least having some feedback from the Trigger 6. I am not saying they are doing a waterfall methodology, but its unlikely they are developing a new product without at least some feedback on the previous generation. Usually CCM releases sticks for testing and to Pro players 6-9 months before launch date. So its likely the Trigger 7 has been "alive" for at least a year. The problem is testing with Pros and others isnt the same as testing for retail. We saw the durability issues of the FT3 and Trigger 5. We have seen this with durability issues with Bauer Carbonlite blades. Testing in a lab or controlled environment, or with a small group is never the same as a much large sample size. 

Anyway. Didn't meant to derail the conversation. Just providing some opinions. 

[stick9 890]

Hockey companies aren't the brightest but I doubt they wait until product launch to gather and evaluate user feedback. That sort of thing is usually done earlier on so critical issues can be addressed before mass production. In most cases. Exploration on the 7 is already in progress when the 6 launches. Maybe sooner if changes in tooling or new raw materials are needed.

 

[VegasHockey 1280]

23 hours ago, stick9 said:

Hockey companies aren't the brightest but I doubt they wait until product launch to gather and evaluate user feedback. That sort of thing is usually done earlier on so critical issues can be addressed before mass production. In most cases. Exploration on the 7 is already in progress when the 6 launches. Maybe sooner if changes in tooling or new raw materials are needed.

 

Hence why I said "It's unlikely they started production of the Trigger 7 without at least having some feedback from the Trigger 6. I am not saying they are doing a waterfall methodology, but it's unlikely they are developing a new product without at least some feedback on the previous generation. Usually, CCM releases sticks for testing and to Pro players 6-9 months before launch date. So, it's likely the Trigger 7 has been "alive" for at least a year. The problem is testing with Pros and others isn't the same as testing for retail. We saw the durability issues of the FT3 and Trigger 5. We have seen this with durability issues with Bauer Carbonlite blades. Testing in a lab or controlled environment, or with a small group is never the same as a much larger sample size."

Edited August 28, 2022 by PBH

[BenBreeg 493]

Durability should be the easiest thing to test TBH.

[VegasHockey 1280]

9 hours ago, BenBreeg said:

Durability should be the easiest thing to test TBH.

You would think so.... 

[stick9 890]

I'd like to think they already know what the 6 does and doesn't do well. Waiting for the masses to chime in just confirms what you already know. Besides, any changes you have planned for the 7 may make that feedback irrelevant. 

FWIW, I would trust the pros word over the masses. A pro is going to know right away if the blade feels dead or the balance is crap. 

 

Edited August 29, 2022 by stick9
Edited for clarity

[BenBreeg 493]

2 hours ago, stick9 said:

I don't think you understand just how difficult it is to build up what you consider a finished product halfway thru development.  

 

Can you clarify what you are asking?  I'm not sure what you mean by build a finished product halfway through development.

[stick9 890]

1 hour ago, BenBreeg said:

Can you clarify what you are asking?  I'm not sure what you mean by build a finished product halfway through development.

Ugh, posting before coffee. Reading it back now I can see where gets fuzzy. I edited the original post for clarity.

Let me see if I can do a better job. User feedback on the 6 may be irrelevant because of the changes planned for the 7. If those changes are significant enough you really should be testing the 7. In that regard, coming up with a few hundred "looks like & feels like" samples half thru development is very difficult. I'm guessing NDA's and other legal mumbo-jumbo would also be involved.

I know each version is an improvement on the previous version. I tend to look at them in a vacuum. Sometimes a tiny little change ends up having a massive impact. 

Edited August 29, 2022 by stick9

[BenBreeg 493]

Gotcha.  While I don't have any insight internally, I have done new product development for over 20 years as an engineer, human factors lead, and product manager.  I teach it for certifications and speak to college classes on it.  

I would think there are activities happening in parallel depending on a longer term roadmap rather than simply jumping from one model to the next.  It depends on the requirements, but also the priority of the requirements.  There are always tradeoffs.  Durability at the expense of weight, etc.  You are always getting feedback, whether it is from customers using current products or internally.  So you can be testing and developing things in the "lab" to maximize a certain aspect of performance.  As you look toward the next product, you can start incorporating new learnings and iteratively test and build, test and build.  Then you start to see how things work together in combination and again, iterate until you are confident in a final product.

Most of my career was in Class 2 and 3 medical devices, so not only did we have to iteratively test (driven by regulatory requirements based around risk), we had the time and budget to do so.  But there are still approaches when you have fewer resources.  As for testing, people don't have to know they are testing a specific model, and NDAs are pretty straightforward to do.

So I don't know how they actually do things, but the process for iterative development is pretty well-understood.

[stick9 890]

I don't have any internal insight either. Like you, I've worked in product development for the last 25 years. I'm the guy in the lab building the prototypes and running the tests.