
How to not fuck up your manufacturing startup - johnnybowman
http://johnnybowman.org/post/153644788496/how-not-to-fuck-up-your-manufacturing-startup
======
Strangework
So wild! Such a surprise to find this on the front page of Hacker News. If it
weren't for the author's username, I might have missed this gem.

I had worked at Edenworks as a software engineer for a few years, alongside
Johnny. I don't pretend to know enough to speak on manufacturing itself, but
Johnny's remarks on software development are spot-on.

When I had come onboard, I had naively suspected a typical software startup
experience; rampant technophilia with an obsession for integrating the
freshest software technologies. If 'Software is King' is true everywhere else,
why shouldn't it be true here?

Edenworks is not a software startup, however, and it's important to realize
that. Manufacturing is an entirely different beast, which makes steady,
deliberate movements (i.e. it doesn't move fast, and it shouldn't break
things). When the main product being developed is a tangible system, redos are
way more costly. Adding flashy software features does not expedite this;
lashing the latest and greatest Javascript library onto the fronted does not
add value... not reliable value anyways.

When it comes to developing a manufacturing process, software should be
flexible and let the process demands come first. The typical workload is more
concerned with running test trials than hacking up something new.

For me, this realization was more emotional than organizational - sometimes
you have to curb your hype. To add real value to the product, I had to watch
my ego. In a manufacturing company, the Process is King.

~~~
m_eiman
_When the main product being developed is a tangible system, redos are way
more costly._

Even when primarily doing software, this can come into play.

I know of a customer who had about 5000 card readers in an access control
system, where bugs in the card reader firmware required a firmware update.
Doing this required walking to a reader, unmounting it from the wall, updating
the firmware, re-mounting the reader. Rinse and repeat 5000 times.

A rough estimate is that upgrading all the readers on the site took about a
man-year of technicians walking around updating things. Let's just say that
when more bugs were discovered, the customer who paid for it all was less than
pleased…

Lesson learned: always make secure remote firmware updates possible on your
devices.

~~~
SixSigma
> Lesson learned: always make secure remote firmware updates possible on your
> devices.

Lesson apparently not learned: get it right first time.

Software isn't special

[http://www.gettingitrightfirsttime.com/report/](http://www.gettingitrightfirsttime.com/report/)

~~~
m_eiman
Software IS special. Compared to hardware, software is (usually) so easy to
update that it's (usually) cost effective to not do it right the first time.
NASA etc is different, and they work differently.

Everyone knows this and act accordingly - which is why we have to live with
ever changing requirements for projects.

------
mb_72
Although my main gig is software, I've also been manufacturing electronic
music gadgets for 15 years. The most significant difference in thinking for me
was, for hardware, always keeping in mind "this item is being shipped across
the world, must work perfectly upon arrival and for hopefully a long time
after that, and is almost impossible to update without the customer incurring
hassle or the company incurring expenses". Contrast that to software where
problems are generally easily able to be fixed and - most importantly - can be
updated almost instantly.

Especially after some recently problems with my hardware business that
necessitated the return of some units for repair, and the hold-up of
manufacturing while we worked out what was wrong, I've come to realise that
the easily-updateable nature of modern day software really gives us such power
and flexibility, it should never be taken for granted.

------
ffwacom
"All of these things take time away from getting shit out the door, but they
ensure you don’t get fucked. In manufacturing, you optimize for not getting
fucked." The language is a giveaway he has been involved in manufacturing

------
Animats
The startup mentioned is an urban indoor farm for lettuce. As a manufacturing
process, it's a good case. One product. Few changes. No need to retool for the
2017 Lettuce. Few operations. (In a manufacturing plant, an "operation" is one
step in the process.) This is the best case for classic mechanization. You
just need to do the same thing over and over while holding the process
parameters within tolerance, and do it cheaply.

This indoor farm, EdenWorks, has a nearby competitor, AeroFarms, in Newark.[1]
AeroFarms claims to be much bigger, and claims a new patented technology for
growing plants on a cloth substrate made from recycled plastic bottles, with
the plant roots in a nutrient-enriched spray mist instead of water or soil.
(AeroFarms may be exaggerating how far along they are. See Google
StreetView.[2]) Welcome to manufacturing, where it's about volume and price.

[1] [http://aerofarms.com/](http://aerofarms.com/) [2]
[https://goo.gl/maps/amxpekwPEGr](https://goo.gl/maps/amxpekwPEGr)

~~~
avn2109
>> "...No need to retool for the 2017 Lettuce."

These indoor farm outfits have nothing to do with lettuce. There's a reason
they're building them in/around NYC, aka in the densest concentration of pot
smokers the world has ever seen, far from Humboldt county's fields and
Colorado's manual hydroponics.

The business model is just to get the automation figured out with some low-
value crop, e.g. salad greens, while waiting for the legislature to
decriminalize. The day Albany finally comes around to the idea, they'll retool
for sticky green weed faster than you can pin up a Bob Marley poster.

It'll take them about fifteen minutes after the governor's signature dries to
get the first pot plants started. The economics could not possibly work out
for lettuce alone.

~~~
michaelt
Do you think this explains the reports of Toshiba [1] Fujitsu and Olympus [2]
growing lettuce in clean rooms? I was under the impression that weed
legalisation was low on the political agenda in Japan.

It might be that these producers expect higher human-labour costs, making
automation more profitable - such as due to rising nationalism reducing the
supply of cheap migrant labour.

[1] [http://qz.com/295936/toshibas-high-tech-grow-rooms-are-
churn...](http://qz.com/295936/toshibas-high-tech-grow-rooms-are-churning-out-
lettuce-that-never-needs-washing/) [2]
[http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/05/13/national/science...](http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/05/13/national/science-
health/fujitsu-harvests-low-potassium-lettuce-grown-plant-clean-
room/#.U3N6Uq1dXoh)

~~~
rmah
Japan is a different situation. There is very little arable farmland left
underutilized in Japan. There are millions of acres of farmland sitting
dormant in the USA.

~~~
rlonstein
> There are millions of acres of farmland sitting dormant in the USA.

However in the higher energy cost future the production, processing, and
distribution of that farm product to a far away base of consumers is not
viable. The various direct and indirect subsidies and availability of
relatively cheap fuel, which is itself subsidized, make it possible to get
fresh foods to urban consumers. It seems like a smart play to plan for
arcologies or reuse of decayed urban cores around food production.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
As I understand it, the whole aim of agriculture is reduced energy per unit
output. The reason some US farmland lies dormant is, its slightly less
productive per unit effort.

Further, any other high-tech food solution (electric boxes that grow lettuce
under lights etc) is more energy-expensive. Can't bean letting Mother Nature
do all the work, and just driving by later and picking up the food.

Also there is a surfeit of farmland (read: food production) in the US. Iowa
produces enough calories to feed 2 United States all by itself. The feds pay
to leave 10% of Iowa fallow. Not as a soil-conservation effort (though that is
a result) but instead to control supply. Which is yards cheaper than trying to
support prices. So that's part of it too.

~~~
rlonstein
> Further, any other high-tech food solution (electric boxes that grow lettuce
> under lights etc) is more energy-expensive. Can't bean letting Mother Nature
> do all the work, and just driving by later and picking up the food.

I like the simplicity of that description-- which might be true for grains,
where huge tractors and combines can roll through the fields-- but glosses
over all the work done on a farm for other products. It also ignores that
there are significant risks to letting Mother Nature take her course where as
indoor farming can control light cycle and intensity, watering and humidity,
CO2 level, temperature, and (probably) greatly increase density while (maybe)
minimizing pest control and herbicides.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Economies of scale are hard to beat. The whole point of agricultural science
for a century is reducing costs per yield. One farmer and 1000 acres are going
to beat any room full of indoor-farming boxes and controls, right?

Field applications are really very cheap - a few dollars 'cides per acre
total. And yield 10K's of kilos of product.

------
fencepost
From the article: "A good, defensible manufacturing strategy is one where
you’re applying and protecting (ideally via patent) a faster, cheaper, more
reliable way of doing something in your industry, by borrowing a proven
approach from a parallel industry."

If you're looking for a formalized system designed to help with some of this,
take a look at TRIZ[1][2]. I'll just steal one note from the "What Is TRIZ"
article - "Somebody someplace has already solved this problem (or one very
similar to it.) Creativity is now finding that solution and adapting it to
this particular problem."

A big part of the basic tooling for TRIZ is the results of people going
through a huge mass of patents looking for patterns of problem categories and
how they were solved.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIZ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIZ)
[2] [https://triz-journal.com/triz-what-is-triz/](https://triz-
journal.com/triz-what-is-triz/)

~~~
leodeid
I read the wikipedia page and that "what is TRIZ" article, and I still don't
understand what it is. At times, it sounds like an automated program
(especially with statements like "More than three million patents have been
analyzed to discover the patterns that predict breakthrough solutions to
problems"). But at other points, it seems like a human-centric problem solving
strategy, but without the strategy. It describes problems and then solutions
without any discussion of the in-between.

Do you have experience with TRIZ? What "is it" to you?

~~~
amk_
They teach you this stuff in product design classes.

TRIZ is a way of breaking down an engineering design problem into the thing
you want to change, and the thing you can't change (a "contradiction"), then
resolving it. A "TRIZ Matrix" is a reference tool that suggests ways of
resolving conflicts between common design parameters (strength, weight,
durability, manufacturing tolerance, etc.) based on a number of principles
that have been validated over the years, like "nesting" or "prior action".
Over the years, 40 standard principles (and 39 parameters) have emerged. They
all have somewhat cryptic, consultant-handbooky names but make sense when you
see some examples[1].

E.g., you have a beam and you want to make it stronger, but can't make it any
thicker. You consult your matrix for "strength" vs "area" and get some
suggestions such as "use composite materials". Or, applying the principle more
generally, you try to extract techniques from the patent library or
publications that resolve the problem.

[1]:
[https://www.triz.co.uk/files/triz_40_inventive_principles_wi...](https://www.triz.co.uk/files/triz_40_inventive_principles_with_examplesfeb15.pdf)

~~~
pjc50
This reminds me of Brian Eno's "oblique strategies".

------
AbrahamParangi
"Figure out software after everything else" I also work at a manufacturing
startup ([https://markforged.com](https://markforged.com)) and I disagree.

Manufacturing is ancient. Software as a field has been around for 45 years
(give or take). If you're not working at a pure software company, the software
for your particular field is probably in its infancy.

If you're looking to innovate, it is orders of magnitude _more_ fruitful to
look to the software improvements which can be made to your technology because
orders of magnitude _fewer_ man-hours have been spent by humans so far solving
those problems.

"In indoor farming, we see a lot of competition focus on how data will drive
yield increases, yet they haven’t figured out how to regulate air temperature
in their facility." I have to assume that these competitors are looking for
the innovations that will make them 10x more competitive. Startups are dead by
default. Innovation is the only way to survive.

~~~
banjomascot
I disagree with you - Figure out your process and automate with software.

Your software will only be as good as your process. There are mid-market ERPs
that are 30 years old or more (specifically, Dynamics NAV comes to mind).
These software solutions implement the processes that have been honed by
humans for more than a thousand years. It is much easier to innovate
elsewhere. I am curious which specific ERP packages you have found to be
innovative.

~~~
kriro
Figuring out the process is a complex task. A complex task that (imo) is very
likely to be solved better by some sort of AI approach than human tinkering.
That's where I see software innovation in production. Having an efficient
lab/simulation toolkit where you can constantly improve your processes
(probably a human/computer hybrid).

~~~
exolymph
> A complex task that (imo) is very likely to be solved better by some sort of
> AI approach than human tinkering.

Citation extremely needed.

------
dilemma
Process as competitive advantage is an ace point. Most companies fail from
mismanagement.

Competitor teardowns is another good one, but what information do you use for
that? How do you determine who their suppliers are?

~~~
dylandrop
It depends what you're manufacturing, but the obvious answer is probably
either

• visit their website

• buying their product and looking it up the parts online

• talk to your vendors

For the last one, this is particularly relevant if you're buying in a market
with few suppliers.

~~~
johnnybowman
agreed and also trade shows. Simply asking "who are you a supplier for in
Industry X" is surprisingly fruitful.

------
kriro
Very interesting read, especially since I had a production management focus at
university that I've only partly used so far (when developing ERP software not
when running my own company).

"""A good, defensible manufacturing strategy is one where you’re applying and
protecting (ideally via patent) a faster, cheaper, more reliable way of doing
something in your industry, by borrowing a proven approach from a parallel
industry."""

I very strongly disagree with this and find the thought process very
unnatural. Patenting something you copied almost feels like it's against human
nature to me. Humans essentially learn via copy and improve. Thankfully
business practice patents are not valid in some countries.

I also disagree with the thoughts on not focusing on software or at least
think the author undervalues the potential role software can play. I think
some of the major problems in production management are very ripe for
algorithmic innovations. Plant layout planning and job scheduling (basically
most operations research) seem very suitable to AI/learning based approaches.
Non trivial simulations are also very important for well run production
companies (anecdotally, from the ERP development experience).

~~~
huhtenberg
> _Patenting something you _ copied _ ..._

Strawman. That's not what your OP's quote says.

~~~
kriro
The OP describes competition teardown and learning from what they do,
essentially reverse engineering their processes and also applying things from
other domains to your own domains. I think seeking patent protection for your
own processes when you actively recommend tearing down processes of your
competition is a bit odd.

"""borrowing a proven approach from a parallel industry"""

I've translated that to copy+improve. I mean what if that approach was patent
protected? How would you go about borrowing that proven approach?

~~~
coldtea
> _I 've translated that to copy+improve. I mean what if that approach was
> patent protected? How would you go about borrowing that proven approach?_

That's why he talks about borrowing it from ANOTHER domain, where even if its
patented, it doesn't apply to yours.

------
contingencies
Putting aside for a moment the author's experience, our own experience at
[http://8-food.com/](http://8-food.com/) has been somewhat similar in its
difference from conventional startupry but quite distinct in its apparent
relationship to conventional manufacturing.

We are producing a series of vending-machine-like service locations which
automatically prepare and retail hot meals from fresh ingredients. We have of
course the manufacturing process for these machines to keep in mind, but in
addition the machines themselves are essentially miniature factories and so
all of the theory, literature and best practices of the manufacturing economy
proper apply - albeit scaled down in time, space and (usually!) cost - to our
machines.

So far it has been very interesting to read the literature of other
engineering disciplines and to translate concepts between them and our
experience in software. Thus far I believe there are some great processes that
software can teach manufacturing, but also vice versa.

------
edblarney
"It’s easy to find new ways to make shit more complicated. It’s hard to find
new ways to make shit simpler. "

Applies to software just as well :)

~~~
wheelerwj
its just a general life lesson.

"Everything shoukd be made to be as simple as possible, but no simpler."
-einstein

this shouldn't detract from the complexities of manufacturing vs software

~~~
voidlogic
Also
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle)

------
kiresays
Do you find merging the software and process/manufacturing side of things to
be advantageous? I'm a process/chemical engineer getting into software and am
wondering if it's worth splitting time.

~~~
banjomascot
In this order:

1) Product (will people buy it?)

2) Process (can you scale it?)

3) Software (now scale it)

------
PascLeRasc
It's always nice to see hardware/not-SaaS content on here.

------
pipio21
Yeah, the main difference is that in the Software world companies like google
make products in beta form and use their customers as testers. They could
improve the product "on the fly".

On the other hand in manufacturing having a big recall for a defective or
incomplete product usually means "instant bankruptcy".

Even big companies like Samsung(Galaxy recall) or Volkswagen(Dieselgate) or
BP(Deepwater oil spill) have to suffer immense loses from "moving fast and
breaking things".

~~~
smallnamespace
The reason this works for Google but not for manufacturers is because
manipulating and transporting electrons is many orders is magnitude cheaper
than for atoms.

------
keithnz
having been through a number of tech businesses who do manufacturing... (
[https://www.taitradio.com](https://www.taitradio.com)
[http://www.compacsort.com](http://www.compacsort.com) and now
[http://www.outpostcentral.com](http://www.outpostcentral.com) ) the key thing
to me is how fast you can innovate which is all about how quick you can try
ideas. As a startup, contract manufacture as much as possible so you can scale
your production up and down. Definitely focus on your processes, kill bad
product lines as quick as possible. Spend the time on making things robust,
keep things as simple as possible as long as possible. Sell and promote your
brand as much as possible.

.... and you are going to fuck things up anyways. But hopefully not in a
terminal way. Some fuckups are learning opportunities, some fuckups are
because you don't learn the right things from previous "learning
opportunities".

------
kylehotchkiss
Hi Johnny! Great to see you on HN... and great article about some of the
challenges with manufacturing!

~~~
johnnybowman
Hi Kyle!

------
unixhero
He forgot to mention: Big clients with aggressive legal stange who promise
millions then strangle and cancel the contract you had with them when you've
sunk 1000s or hours into R&D.

~~~
ju-st
A lesson from history and geopolitics: Never trust more powerful entities.

------
DougN7
Does anyone else get turned off by the needless vulgarity?

------
DoofusOfDeath
I wish HN wouldn't use this language in its headlines. It means I can't read
it when my little kids are nearby.

~~~
j2bax
You could use an extension that swaps out swear words for alternatives like
"fudge". One of my coworkers used one.

~~~
DoofusOfDeath
Thanks, that's great idea. Will check it out.

------
bbcbasic
Any need for the F word?

~~~
tubularhells
Oh for fuck's sake, stop it.

~~~
radisb
c'mon, give him a fucking break.

