That brings me to the last item I wanted to discuss today, arguably the most important. It's about cockpit design. >> You're asking me about cockpit design? That's unexpected, Susan. >> I know. It's at a different level of specificity, but I can explain the strategic implications. The cockpit controls, as a human machine interface, provides us with great opportunities for creating marketable selling points for the new plane, especially if the SMA cockpit can be arranged in a new way. Still reliable, and functional, in compliance with all safety standards and building on the great ideas of the past, but differentiated from that of other planes. The launch order from the Chinese was a huge win for us and we all hope rather expect that winning that order gives us a better chance at future orders in that country. There are a lot of companies in China that need to move cargo around. >> Yes, that's what we hope. >> As good as it is. The launch order came with strings attached. In the six months since we won the order, engineers from the Chinese company have become a fixture on our new plane project. They are involving themselves in a large number of design activities. Never before have customers been so involved in the details of design processes at SMA. Indeed, to my knowledge, nothing quite like it has ever before been seen in the aerospace industry. >> I thought customers had been involved in design decision since the early days. >> To be sure. Touring mockups of airplane interiors, discussing major design decisions, that sort of thing, has long been commonplace. But we've gone much, much further for the new plane. Our engineers have developed design toolkits that allow our lead users, who are typically experienced pilots known for having expertise and strong opinions to create their own prototype control arrangements to try out in simulation. The toolkits allow customers to fly simulated planes with cockpit control arrangements of their own design. >> So they can just make up whatever arrangements they like, whether or not it's feasible? >> Configurator software prevents impossible designs from being created. It also makes sure that designs adhere to certain principles of sound cockpit design. But beyond these constraints, many new things were made possible. >> So, I'm guessing customers love this >> Our customers weren't sure what to make of the toolkits at first. Once they started to try them though, they embraced the new approach. We first shared the toolkits with domestic companies and later, with the launch customer, which raised enthusiasm about the approach to a whole new level. Everyone’s excited. The result has been rich conversations and collaboration between pilots and the engineers who developed the controls for the new plane. Together, these teams of lead users and engineers have made breakthroughs which should result in a cockpit interior vastly better and different than any other airplane company can offer. We'll win design awards. >> Well that all sounds brilliant Susan. I'm not sure I see the problem. >> I haven't come to the problem part yet. Ordinarily, I'd just handle this myself. But I thought I should brief you on it and get your input because now marketing and two customers are involved. It has the potential to become a bigger deal. I didn't want you to be blind-sided by it. >> Well, let's hear the rest of it. >> The problem is that now we have too many design suggestions. Suggestions in which different customers have become very invested. >> But can't we do different versions for each customer? >> We could, but there's enthusiasm for very different designs. One might even say that the different designs represent very different human machine interface paradigms. They're not that compatible. To accommodate all of them would involved a rather substantial degree of customization for each customer. Probably an economically infeasible degree. Also, common cockpit configurations solve certain certification problems for pilots. Boeing 757 and 767 airplanes have the same cockpit, which facilitates pilot certifications on both. A lot of variety in cockpits will lead to complexity in pilot certification. >> So, we asked customers what they wanted, they told us, and now we can't give everyone everything they've asked for. Do I have that right? >> Pretty much. Though there's one more wrinkle. >> Yes. >> You probably remember Rick Arsenault. He's our best expert in cockpit controls. Really tall guy with dark hair. >> I guess I remember him. Pretty opinionated as I recall. >> That's right. Well, he has his own ideas about how the cockpit should be laid out. >> And his ideas are different from what the customers want? >> Well, not entirely, but yes, in important ways. Classic stuff, huh? I don’t think we should discount this. The engineering tradition in this area takes as its basic assumption that there is no such thing as pilot error. The pilot is assumed to be an integral part of the human machine interface. If a pilot gets information from the machine and reacts to it in a way that causes a problem, the interface is presumed to need correcting. Based on this ethos, the design of the cockpit has evolved and been incrementally improved to a very high level of sophistication. Continuing in this tradition suggests that we begin with the current state of art, probably Boeing 787 cockpit design. >> Which is what Arsenal is arguing for. >> Not exactly. Arsenal is from this tradition and he did start this way, but he's a pretty forward looking guy. He would be happy to adopt some of the customer innovations but he delivered a designed quite different from what any customers have asked for. He says the designs the customers are advocating are based on what pilots have already experienced. >> Well that would certainly be true, wouldn't it? Isn't that the whole point? Customers know their needs better then anyone else so are the best position to innovate, right? >> Yes, of course. But, Rick says the lead user suggestions are too incremental, insufficiently imaginative. Because customers can't imagine future possibilities fully, Rick says. They ask for incremental improvements in what they already know. He's inclined to favor more advanced configurations than the pilots suggest, which provides degrees of freedom that pilots don't even think about. >> Well it's the pilots that have to fly the planes. >> Yes, but Rick's design he says, represents a whole new approach, that provides benefits, customers, even lead users, the most aggressive pilots, would never ask for, because they don't yet know they actually want it. Once pilots see his design and get used to it, Rick thinks they'll see it for the breakthrough that it is. >> Will the customers see any of their designs in his? >> Some, but just some. >> Well, can't we use some kind of objective, functional test to decide? Surely different configurations perform differently. Can we just choose the best performer? >> Well, they're all pretty good. And it's hard to define performance in this case. Performance in human-machine interaction is the net effect of both the machine part and the human part. It typically takes a whole lot of testing before we begin to see the subtle second order effects. The unintended consequences, that sort of thing. We could test them all, but that would be expensive since they're all so different. In my opinion, we really need to make a choice at this stage or narrow it down at least. >> You have your own favorite design? >> I do. And I'll make that call if you want me to. But no matter what we choose, somebody's going to be unhappy. Customers who've we've asked to be involved will be upset if we don't adopt their suggestions. They've put a lot of their own effort into this. Also, sales reps are taking up positions in favor of their specific customer's positions. It's getting to be a bit of a battle. >> Well, where did we go wrong? Involving our customer sounds like a good thing. Having guys like Rick involved sounds like a good thing. >> What we've got here is battling paradigms. On the one hand, we've got user driven innovation. On the other, we've got design driven innovation. User driven innovation fans say, the large number of customers relative to the number of designers, will come up with more ideas and better ideas. Because they know their own needs best, especially these lead users, who are the most expert and creative ones. Design driven innovation fans, say that user suggested innovations will be constrained by what customers already know, or can extrapolate from their individual, thus limited experience. Whereas designers, who are better able to anticipate future needs and trends, make innovative leaps that go beyond what customers can imagine and propose to them a radically new, presumably better way of living, of interacting with things. >> So who's right? >> There's evidence in both camps. I personally think both are very promising and useful approaches. I like what my people have done with the toolkits a lot, but also deeply respect Rick and really like his design. And I agree with him that no customer would ever have suggested it. >> So maybe we should have just chosen one approach or the other, not both. >> Maybe, or maybe there is a way we get the two approaches to sync up to reinforce each other. Maybe not knowing enough about how to do that is where we ran into trouble. >> Susan, I see the issue and I appreciate your bringing it to my attention but I don't feel at all qualified to help with the decision. >> Oh, I'll do that. What I want you to understand is what has happened when you hear about this from someone else. Which I predict you will. When I make the decision someone, probably someone in marketing on behalf of one of our customers will likely appeal the decision to you. >> I'll tell them what I just told you. That I'm not qualified to make this decision and that I won't overrule you. >> That's fine. I appreciate you backing me up. >> Susan, I placed my bet on you a long time ago. And it's a long term bet. And I see no reason to go back on it now. Though, I'm still waiting to see how it works out. Thanks, Jim.
