Why time to market is increasingly lost during industrialisation

On paper a project often looks well under control. The schedule is set, the development team is assembled and the first prototypes deliver positive results. Yet the biggest delays often only appear later in the process. Not because the idea was wrong or the development team underperformed, but because the product turns out not to be ready for production.

• The design works, but is not yet reproducible.
• The prototype functions, but is not yet scalable.
• Specifications are approved, but tooling, assembly or suppliers require more time than expected.

It is precisely in that transition from engineering to production that much time to market is lost.

Pressure on R&D teams is increasing

R&D teams are increasingly asked to develop faster, smarter and more efficiently. Innovation cycles must shorten while the technical and commercial demands on new products increase. Products must not only function well, but also be reliable, manufacturable, affordable and scalable.

This creates a difficult tension. When speed is prioritised, the focus is often first on getting the product to work. Questions about production, assembly and industrialisation therefore tend to be postponed to a later stage. That seems logical: the product must be technically correct first, then you look at how it can be manufactured.

In practice that sequence often causes delays. McKinsey describes that complex product development projects regularly face schedule slippage and budget overruns. A key cause is that complexity is underestimated early in the project and only becomes visible later through dependencies, technical changes and capacity issues.

For R&D Managers this means that predictability becomes at least as important as speed. A project that starts quickly but has to return to engineering several times late in the process does not ultimately save time.

Why industrialisation often starts too late

Many organisations still see product development and industrialisation as successive phases. First the product is designed, then it is tested and afterwards production is considered. That approach seems clear, but fits less well with the complexity of modern product development.

A design decision has an immediate impact on production. The choice of plastic, the wall thickness of a part, tolerances in a housing, the number of parts in an assembly and the way electronics are integrated all determine how easily a product can ultimately be manufactured and scaled.

When these choices are only evaluated during industrialisation, much is often already fixed. The design has internal approval, suppliers have been contacted, tooling is prepared and the timeline towards market introduction has been communicated. At that point change is still possible, but every modification has greater consequences for time, cost and schedule.

A small adjustment to a part can, for example, affect the mould. A material change can affect strength, shrinkage, finish or certification. And a change to assembly can mean that test setups, work instructions or supplier agreements need to be revisited. That creates delays at a moment when there is little room left.

The delay starts earlier than the moment when it becomes visible

When a project slips during industrialisation, it often seems as if the problem originates there. Tooling takes longer than planned, suppliers encounter constraints, initial production runs deliver deviations or assembly is more complex than anticipated. The delay becomes visible at that point, but that does not mean the cause lies there.

In many cases the delay is the result of choices made earlier in the development process. A design may be logical from a functionality or user experience perspective, but insufficiently assessed for manufacturability, assembly or scalability. That does not make it a bad design, but it is a design in which certain risks only surface late.

Those risks often arise because different disciplines look at the product from their own responsibilities. Engineering focuses on performance, supply chain on availability, manufacturing on reproducibility, finance on cost and marketing on the launch date. All those perspectives are important, but when they only come together late in the process, surprises occur.

This is a familiar problem for R&D Managers. Teams work hard and projects can seem on schedule for a long time, while important production questions are not yet fully answered. The delay then does not arise when the project slips, but when manufacturability, assembly and scalability are incorporated into design decisions too late.

Complexity makes planning less predictable

Product development is becoming less linear. A change in one component can affect material choice, tooling, assembly, packaging, certification and service. This makes it increasingly difficult for R&D Managers to plan projects with full predictability.

That complexity directly affects the deployment of people and resources. Engineers who should be working on the next development phase are re-engaged with changes to the existing design. Project managers must adjust schedules, suppliers wait for final specifications and commercial teams receive less certainty about the launch date.

This creates a chain reaction that extends beyond a single project. Late changes not only cost time within the specific development track, but also put pressure on the rest of the roadmap. When R&D capacity is used for corrections, there is less room for new development, optimisation or strategic innovation.

That is why time to market is not only a scheduling issue. It also touches resource allocation, risk management and portfolio management. Those who want to make projects more predictable must not only look at the schedule itself, but mainly at the design choices and dependencies that can cause delays later in the process.

Design choices determine costs much earlier than is often thought

A large part of the final product cost is determined early in the design process. Once decisions are made about product architecture, material use, part composition and assembly method, it becomes increasingly difficult to structurally reduce costs later without returning to the design.

That makes cost control in product development more complex than merely monitoring development hours or prototype costs. The real impact often lies in choices that determine how a product will be produced, assembled, tested and maintained. A design that functions technically can still lead to high production costs if manufacturability, assembly or material behaviour were not considered early enough.

McKinsey states that the majority of costs are locked in at the point the product design is determined. The same is true for sustainability: much of the impact is already decided during the design phase. That means R&D decisions affect not only the development budget, but also margin, scalability and the total product lifecycle.

For R&D Managers this presents a significant opportunity. By making cost, manufacturability and sustainability part of design decisions earlier, there is more room to improve products structurally. Not by correcting later in the process, but by making choices from the start that are both technically and economically sound.

Manufacturing readiness begins during engineering

Manufacturing readiness is about whether a product is ready to be produced reliably, at scale and cost-efficiently. That requires more than a working prototype, because a prototype mainly proves that a concept can function technically. Series production requires something else: repeatability, predictability and control over quality, cost and process.

Therefore parts must be consistently producible, assembly must be controllable and suppliers must be able to deliver the desired quality. Tolerances, material behaviour and production processes must also be assessed early enough. If those questions are only asked after the prototype stage, there is a risk that a technically sound product proves difficult to manufacture.

Design for Manufacturing and Design for Assembly are therefore becoming increasingly important in product development. Not as a final check, but as part of the engineering phase. By including manufacturability and assembly early, risks become visible sooner and design choices can be adjusted before tooling, supplier agreements or validation tracks are largely fixed.

This not only makes the development process more efficient, but above all more predictable. A product designed with production in mind from the start needs fewer correction cycles and moves more smoothly towards series production.

Time to market is won before the production phase

Many organisations try to speed up time to market primarily by shortening the development phase. That can be valuable, but it does not always solve the underlying problem. If a product is designed faster but then stalls in industrialisation, the delay merely shifts to a later stage.

Real acceleration happens when engineering and industrialisation are brought closer together. That means production, assembly, tooling, materials and suppliers are involved not only at the end of development, but already influence design decisions during development.

This does not hinder innovation. It actually makes innovation more achievable. By looking earlier at manufacturability, assembly and scalability, risks become visible when there is still room to adjust the design purposefully.

For R&D Managers and Innovation Leads this means time to market is not only dependent on the speed of the development team. It depends primarily on the quality of the decisions made early in the process. A design that considers production from the start needs fewer correction cycles. A product architecture that simplifies assembly reduces the risk of delay. And a material choice suited to the process prevents problems when scaling up.

From product development to predictable introduction

The challenge for R&D Managers thereby shifts from just product development to predictable product introduction. A successful development track does not end with an approved design or working prototype, but with a product that can be produced, assembled and scaled reliably within the desired timeframe, quality and cost.

This requires a broader view of innovation. Not only whether a product works technically, but also whether it is manufacturable, scalable and economically viable. That combination ultimately determines whether an innovation actually delivers value in the market.

At PEZY we therefore do not see engineering and industrialisation as two separate phases. We see them as parts of the same development process. During product development we look not only at functionality and user experience, but also at manufacturability, assembly, material behaviour, tooling, cost and scalability.

Because those perspectives come together early, risks can be recognised sooner and later changes can be limited. Ultimately time to market is not only determined by how quickly a product is designed. It is primarily determined by how smoothly the step to production proceeds.