Why Industrial Engineering Needs Better Product Thinking

Why Industrial Engineering Needs Better Product Thinking

TECHNICAL COMPLIANCE IS ONLY PART OF THE JOB

In engineering, it is easy to focus mainly on technical delivery.

When designing an electrical distribution system, for example, the work may involve cable calculations, fault levels, protective device selection, discrimination, equipment ratings, installation constraints, and compliance with standards. All of these must be correct.

However, the finished system must also work for the people responsible for operating and maintaining it.

• Can equipment be accessed safely?
• Are components easy to replace?
• Are drawings and labels clear?
• Can the system be expanded in the future?
• Will the person responding to a fault understand what has happened?

These may appear to be secondary considerations, but they often determine how well the system performs over its lifetime.

I have learned that a good design is not simply one that works when commissioned. It should also be understandable, maintainable, and practical several years after the original project team has moved on.

That is a product mindset: looking beyond delivery and considering the full experience of the people who depend on the solution.

TECHNICAL SUCCESS AND USER SUCCESS ARE NOT ALWAYS THE SAME

Engineering projects are often measured using clear technical criteria. We ask whether the design is compliant, whether the equipment is correctly rated, whether the system performs reliably, and whether risks have been controlled.

These questions are essential, particularly in industrial and safety-conscious environments. However, they do not always tell us whether the solution works well for the people interacting with it.

For example, a control system may operate exactly as intended but provide operators with unclear information. A monitoring platform may collect large amounts of data without helping anyone decide what action to take. A new process may improve efficiency on paper while making everyday tasks more complicated for the people carrying them out.

From a traditional engineering perspective, these systems may still be considered successful. From a product perspective, there is more to question.

A good solution should not only function correctly. It should also be understandable, practical, and relevant to the user’s needs.

START WITH THE PROBLEM, NOT THE SOLUTION

One of the strongest lessons from product management is the importance of understanding the problem before deciding what to build.

In engineering, it can be tempting to move quickly towards a technical solution. Once a problem is identified, teams may begin discussing equipment, software, specifications, or system architecture.

However, the first version of a problem is not always the real problem.

A request for a new dashboard may actually be a request for clearer operational information. A request for additional automation may be caused by an inefficient process. A request to replace equipment may be linked to poor maintainability, limited support, or changing operational requirements.

Product thinking encourages teams to pause and ask:

• What is the user actually trying to achieve?
• What difficulty are they facing today?
• How are they currently working around it?
• What would a successful outcome look like?

These questions may appear simple, but they can prevent teams from spending time and money solving the wrong problem.

USERS OFTEN UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM DIFFERENTLY

Working on engineering and control-system projects has shown me the value of speaking with the people who operate and maintain a system.

Design documents provide important information, but they do not always capture how a system behaves in practice. Operators understand the pressures of day-to-day use. Maintenance teams know which faults occur repeatedly, which components are difficult to access, and which processes create unnecessary delays.

This is similar to product discovery in digital product management. Teams may begin with assumptions, but those assumptions need to be tested with the people experiencing the problem. In both engineering and product development, users may not always describe the perfect solution. However, they can provide valuable insight into their frustrations, priorities, and working environment.

The aim is not to build everything users ask for. It is to understand the reason behind the request and use that understanding to make better decisions.

MORE FEATURES DO NOT ALWAYS CREATE MORE VALUE

A common mistake in product development is assuming that adding more features automatically improves a product.

The same can happen in industrial systems.

More sensors, more alarms, more data points, and more automated functions may appear to make a system more advanced. In reality, they can also increase complexity.

An operator does not necessarily need to see every available measurement. They need to see the information that helps them understand the current condition of the system and decide what to do next.

A maintenance team does not benefit from hundreds of alerts if most of them are not useful. A business does not gain value from a new technology simply because it is modern.

Product thinking shifts the focus from how much has been added to how much value has been created. Sometimes the best solution is not the one with the greatest number of features. It is the one that makes the important tasks easier, clearer, or more reliable.

DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION NEEDS PRODUCT JUDGEMENT

Industrial organisations are increasingly investing in automation, data platforms, remote monitoring, predictive maintenance, and artificial intelligence.

These technologies offer significant opportunities, but successful adoption requires more than technical implementation.

The introduction of technology should begin with a clear understanding of the outcome it is meant to improve.

• Will it reduce downtime?
• Will it help engineers identify faults earlier?
• Will it make decisions easier?
• Will it improve safety, reliability, or efficiency?

Without clear answers, digital transformation can become a collection of technology projects rather than a meaningful improvement programme.

This is where product judgement matters. Product managers are expected to balance user needs, business priorities, technical feasibility, and available resources. Industrial engineering teams increasingly need to make similar trade-offs.

The question should not only be, “Can we build this?” It should also be, “Should we build it, and what value will it create?”

COLLABORATION SHOULD BEGIN EARLIER

Good product development usually involves collaboration between product managers, designers, engineers, users, and business stakeholders. Industrial projects benefit from the same approach.

Engineers bring technical knowledge. Operators bring practical experience. Maintenance teams understand reliability and access. Managers understand budgets, priorities, and organisational risk. End users understand how the solution affects their everyday work.

When these perspectives are considered early, teams are more likely to identify problems before they become expensive.

Involving users only during testing or commissioning is often too late. By that stage, many important decisions have already been made.

Product thinking promotes continuous engagement throughout the lifecycle of a project. Feedback is not treated as a final approval step. It becomes part of the design process.

PRODUCT THINKING STRENGTHENS ENGINEERING

Product thinking is not a replacement for engineering discipline.

Industrial systems still require technical competence, strong safety principles, standards, testing, and careful risk management. These foundations cannot be compromised.

What product thinking adds is a broader definition of success. It encourages teams to consider the user experience, the business outcome, the long-term value, and whether the original problem has genuinely been solved.

My experience in engineering has shown me the importance of building systems that are safe and reliable. My growing experience in product management has helped me see that the strongest solutions must also be useful, understandable, and aligned with a real need.

The two disciplines are not in conflict. They complement each other.

CONCLUSION

Industrial engineering is changing. Systems are becoming more connected, software-driven, and dependent on data. As a result, technical decisions increasingly affect how people work, how organisations operate, and how value is delivered.

Engineers do not need to become product managers, but they can benefit from thinking more like them. That means understanding the problem before selecting the solution, involving users earlier, challenging unnecessary complexity, and measuring success by more than technical completion.

Technical excellence will always be important. However, the best industrial solutions will be those that combine strong engineering with a clear understanding of people, purpose, and long-term value.