Why time to market is increasingly lost during industrialisation

On paper, a project often appears to be well under control. The planning has been established, the development team is in place and the first prototypes show promising results. Yet the greatest delays often occur later in the process. Not because the idea was flawed or the development team underperformed, but because the product turns out not to be ready for production.

• The design works, but it is not yet reproducible.
• The prototype works, but it is not yet scalable.
• The specifications have been approved, but tooling, assembly or suppliers require more time than expected.

It is precisely in this transition from engineering to production that a significant amount of time to market is lost.

The pressure on R&D teams is increasing.

R&D teams are increasingly expected to develop products faster, smarter and more efficiently. Innovation cycles need to become shorter, while the technical and commercial requirements for new products continue to increase. Products must not only function well, but also be reliable, manufacturable, affordable and scalable.

This creates a difficult tension. As the pressure to move faster increases, the initial focus is often on making the product work. Questions about production, assembly and industrialisation are therefore easily pushed to a later stage of the process. That may seem logical: first, the product has to work from a technical perspective, and only then is attention turned to how it can be manufactured.

In practice, this sequence often causes delays. McKinsey notes that complex product development projects regularly face schedule overruns and budget increases. One key reason is that complexity is underestimated early in the project and only becomes apparent later through dependencies, technical changes and capacity constraints.

For R&D Managers, this means that predictability is becoming just as important as speed. A project that starts quickly but has to return to engineering several times later in the process ultimately saves no time.

Why industrialisation often starts too late

Many organisations still treat product development and industrialisation as sequential phases. First, the product is designed, then it is tested, and only afterwards is it determined how it can be manufactured. While this approach appears straightforward, it is becoming increasingly unsuited to the complexity of modern product development.

Every design decision has a direct impact on manufacturing. The choice of material, the wall thickness of a plastic component, the tolerances of an enclosure, 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 decisions are only evaluated during industrialisation, many aspects of the project have already been locked in. The design has been approved internally, suppliers have been engaged, tooling has been prepared and the timeline for market launch has been communicated. At that stage, changes are still possible, but every modification has a much greater impact on time, cost and planning.

A seemingly minor design change can, for example, affect the tooling. A material change may impact strength, shrinkage, surface finish or certification. Likewise, a change to the assembly process can require test setups, work instructions or supplier agreements to be reviewed and updated. As a result, delays occur at precisely the stage where there is the least room to accommodate them.

The delay starts long before it becomes visible

When a project is delayed during industrialisation, it often appears as though the problem originated there. Tooling takes longer than expected, suppliers encounter unforeseen constraints, the first production runs reveal quality issues, or the assembly process proves to be more complex than anticipated. This is the point at which the delay becomes visible, but it does not mean that this is where the problem began.

In many cases, the delay is the result of decisions made much earlier in the development process. A design may make perfect sense from a functionality or user experience perspective, while not having been sufficiently evaluated for manufacturability, assembly or scalability. That does not make it a poor design, but it does mean that certain risks only become apparent at a later stage.

These risks often arise because different disciplines evaluate the product from their own perspective and area of responsibility. Engineering focuses on performance, supply chain on availability, manufacturing on repeatability, finance on cost and marketing on the launch date. All of these perspectives are important, but when they only come together late in the process, unexpected issues are far more likely to emerge.

For R&D Managers, this is a familiar challenge. Teams work hard and projects appear to be on schedule for a long time, while critical manufacturing questions remain unanswered. The delay does not begin when the project falls behind schedule. It begins when manufacturability, assembly and scalability are considered too late in the design process.

Complexity makes planning less predictable

Product development is becoming increasingly less linear. A change to a single component can affect material selection, tooling, assembly, packaging, certification and serviceability. As a result, it is becoming increasingly difficult for R&D Managers to plan projects with complete predictability.

This complexity has a direct impact on the allocation of people and resources. Engineers who should already be working on the next phase of development are pulled back to make changes to the existing design. Project managers are forced to revise schedules, suppliers have to wait for final specifications, and commercial teams have less certainty about the product launch date.

This creates a chain reaction that extends far beyond a single project. Late design changes do not only consume time within the current development programme, they also put pressure on the broader product roadmap. When R&D capacity is tied up with corrections and redesigns, there is less time available for new product development, optimisation and strategic innovation.

That is why time to market is not just a scheduling challenge. It also affects resource allocation, risk management and portfolio management. Organisations that want to make projects more predictable need to look beyond the project plan itself and focus on the design decisions and dependencies that can lead to delays later in the development process.

Design decisions determine costs much earlier than most people realise

A large proportion of a product’s total cost is determined early in the design process. Once decisions have been made about the product architecture, material selection, part design and assembly method, it becomes increasingly difficult to achieve meaningful cost reductions later without returning to the design itself.

This makes cost control in product development far more complex than simply managing engineering hours or prototype costs. The real impact often lies in the decisions that determine how a product will ultimately be manufactured, assembled, tested and maintained. A design may perform well from a technical perspective, yet still result in high production costs if manufacturability, assembly and material behaviour are not considered early enough in the development process.

According to McKinsey, the majority of a product’s costs are committed at the point when its design is defined. The same applies to sustainability, with much of a product’s environmental impact being determined during the design phase. This means that R&D decisions influence not only the development budget, but also margins, scalability and the product’s overall lifecycle.

For R&D Managers, this represents a significant opportunity. By considering cost, manufacturability and sustainability earlier in the design process, there is greater scope to improve products in a structural way. Not by correcting issues later in the development process, but by making design decisions from the outset that are both technically sound and commercially viable.

Manufacturing readiness starts during engineering

Manufacturing readiness is about whether a product is truly ready to be manufactured reliably, at scale and in a cost efficient manner. That requires more than a working prototype, because a prototype mainly demonstrates that a concept can function from a technical perspective. Mass production demands something different: repeatability, predictability and control over quality, cost and manufacturing processes.

That is why components must be capable of being produced consistently, assembly processes must be robust, and suppliers must be able to deliver the required level of quality. Tolerances, material behaviour and manufacturing processes also need to be assessed early in the development process. When these questions are only addressed after the prototype stage, there is a real risk that a technically sound product will still prove difficult to manufacture.

As a result, Design for Manufacturing (DfM) and Design for Assembly (DfA) are becoming increasingly important in product development. Not as a review step at the end of the process, but as an integral part of the engineering phase. By considering manufacturability and assembly from the outset, potential risks can be identified earlier and design decisions can be adjusted before tooling, supplier agreements and validation activities are largely fixed.

This not only makes the development process more efficient, but also far more predictable. A product that has been designed with manufacturing in mind from the very beginning requires fewer design iterations and moves more smoothly into volume production.

Time to market is won before production begins

Many organisations try to reduce time to market by shortening the development phase. While this can be valuable, it does not always solve the underlying problem. If a product is designed more quickly but then stalls during industrialisation, the delay is simply shifted to a later stage of the process.

Real acceleration is achieved when engineering and industrialisation are brought closer together. This means that manufacturing, assembly, tooling, materials and suppliers are not only involved at the end of the development process, but also help shape design decisions throughout the engineering phase.

This does not slow down innovation. On the contrary, it makes innovation more achievable. By considering manufacturability, assembly and scalability earlier in the development process, potential risks become visible while there is still time to make targeted improvements to the design.

For R&D Managers and Innovation Leads, this means that time to market depends on more than the speed of the development team. It is primarily determined by the quality of the decisions made early in the development process. A design that takes manufacturing into account from the outset requires fewer design iterations. A product architecture that simplifies assembly reduces the risk of delays. And selecting materials that are well suited to the manufacturing process helps prevent issues during scale up.

From product development to a predictable product launch

The challenge for R&D Managers is therefore shifting from product development alone to achieving a predictable product launch. A successful development programme does not end with an approved design or a working prototype. It ends with a product that can be manufactured, assembled and scaled reliably within the required timeline, quality standards and cost targets.

This requires a broader view of innovation. The key question is no longer just whether a product works from a technical perspective, but also whether it is manufacturable, scalable and commercially viable. Ultimately, it is this combination that determines whether an innovation delivers real value in the market.

At PEZY, we do not see engineering and industrialisation as two separate phases. We see them as integral parts of the same development process. Throughout product development, we look beyond functionality and user experience to also consider manufacturability, assembly, material behaviour, tooling, cost and scalability.

By bringing these perspectives together from the start, potential risks can be identified earlier and the need for late stage design changes is significantly reduced. After all, time to market is not determined solely by how quickly a product is designed. It is ultimately defined by how smoothly it transitions into production.