The following is the translation of the Chinese text in Markdown format, with HTML tags preserved:
Author: Mr.Yu
The following topics will be discussed, but not limited to:
-
How did the fake demands that emerge one after another get on board?
-
How are the fake demands classified into soft and hard categories? How are they related to the organizational structure?
-
Sweet for you is poison for others: Do you think fake demands are really fake? I don’t think so!
-
Ideal L9: Why am I always the victim? XPeng: Who said that? There is me.
-
Leader: I propose innovation, and you take the blame. We made the decision happily.
-
Can we avoid the proposal and implementation of fake demands?
…..
(This is a long article, and it may take a long time to read. It is recommended to take a break before reading.)
Recently, I have learned two jokes, which are mostly mocking the cabin function design of Ideal L9.
Sorry, I have to mention Ideal L9 again, because the car comes with traffic.
Therefore, I thought of those seemingly unreasonable function designs, thought of XPeng’s “multi-screen useless theory”, and thought of the comments in the GeekCar article comment section-Making good cars is the main responsibility of car companies. These fancy things are all pseudo-innovation and pseudo-requirements.
Of course, whether you like it or not is everyone’s right. However, seeing such thoughts repeatedly has also led to my thinking.
What is a fake demand? Where did these fake demands come from? And how do they frequently land in the already mature manufacturing industry of the automotive industry? Is it a human problem, an organizational problem, or a problem of the times?
With these questions, I had a discussion with a very experienced product manager- Mr. K, who was strongly required to remain anonymous due to the sensitivity of the topic.
Mr. K and I had a discussion on a series of topics related to fake demands and their causes behind them.
If you also disdain or feel painful about various fake demands in the car, or are interested in the causes behind them, or just want to swear together, you may want to take a look at our conversation.
The following is the transcript of the conversation. Mr.Yu@GeekCar is me, and the other person is Mr.K.
Mr. Yu @GeekCar:
I found a very interesting phenomenon. It is generally recognized that the intelligent cockpit is becoming more and more popular, but many functions and designs that appear in the car can make people clearly feel that they are becoming more and more distorted. And there are also many debates about “fake demands” in industry media and social networks. Actually, I am particularly curious about how these fake demands came about, who proposed them, and how they landed. So I want to talk to you who have been on the front line of the business chain, and see if I can solve these doubts.
Mr.K:Let’s talk about the pseudo-needs in the cockpit, starting from the hardware and software aspects. To begin with, when it comes to the pseudo-need for gaming in the car, I think it is still immature at this stage in terms of the core elements of software and hardware, interaction, and payment models, and cannot be compared to those familiar platforms. For example, SAIC’s new Roewe RX5 has a screen that can be horizontally swiped within a range of about 30 cm, from the middle to the left, which I believe is not only a pseudo-need in terms of functionality, but also in terms of interaction. Additionally, in the past, more than one car in China was designed with an entire instrument panel that can be raised and lowered. From the user’s perspective, I don’t think such a design is necessary or practical. Moreover, the practicality of this type of lifting screen is not significant, and it brings twice the workload for development. Instead of the increased workload, some of the resources should be allocated to refine a more advanced application. This is a typical pseudo-need. Lastly, 3D holographic projection intelligent assistant is another hardware aspect of pseudo-need, which is quite odd and redundant in your cockpit. One car we inspected from First Automobile Works (FAW) may seem cool at first glance, but its practicality is still questionable. Furthermore, due to its lifting mechanism, after being raised and lit, it actually obstructs some of the front visual space.Not only that, I also think it’s not as good as the NOMI from NIO, or those non-anthropomorphic and abstract image designs like Siri, to have a virtual two-dimensional cute girl there.
Mr.Yu@GeekCar:
Overly concrete virtual imagery is not easy to please users, even if the design is exquisite.
Mr.K:
Yes, there are also various virtual reality things inside the car, but I think the prospects are not very clear.
Whether it is the meta-universe that has been popular in the past two years, or VR, AR, XR, etc., in short, various R entering the car, it is possible that the automakers have not figured out its actual scenarios before launching them.
For example, as we can see, NIO announced at NIO Day last year that it would launch its own VR glasses and VR headsets, as well as in-car viewing services. However, from what I can see, it is still relatively mediocre, and not what customers really want, especially when you not only don’t need it but also have to pay a premium for it.
Mr.Yu@GeekCar:
Yes, if viewed from the perspective of single-point, single-item functions, it is indeed difficult for various R in the car to support rich application scenarios. Please continue.
Mr.K:
Then the next one is what you mentioned earlier, playing games in the cabin, which is worth discussing in detail.
Because of work reasons, I tried playing games in different cars, such as Xpeng, Tesla, and LEAP.
Mr.Yu@GeekCar:
The cabin of the LEAP ONE has a game called “Roaring Dragon”, right?
Mr.K:
Yes, a hidden game that is purely interactive with voice and in-car intelligence. There is also the racing game on Tesla, which is played with a steering wheel and matches the vehicle itself quite well.Actually, no one has made it clear how many people actually play games in the car. There has been no real field research or data that can prove how many people are willing to play games inside the car.
Previously, we discussed Ideal One, which is actually a typical case where users stay in the car for a relatively long time. However, most of this time is used for resting and some is due to the boredom that comes from killing time while charging. Especially in winter and summer, it’s much more comfortable to stay inside the car with the air conditioning on. Who wants to stay outside?
To be honest, do whatever you want. Who would play games while holding the steering wheel? Who would shout with the voice assistant for half an hour? Who would keep holding up their arm to continuously touch the touchscreen? If you really want to play games, why not just go home and play with your Nintendo Switch and PS5, right?
Mr. Yu@GeekCar:
Hmm, peripherals and interactions have always been limiting factors for playing games in the car.
Mr. K:
In fact, these are not very comfortable when actually experiencing them. Ironically, many product managers think that if there are users who like something, they should put it in the car. But that’s not the case at all. No one can guarantee whether users will like it or not. This is a false demand.
So games are also one of them. Because games actually require some peripherals, including controllers. I have talked with some Tier 1 personnel, and they have even launched a part of the function of using mobile phones to replace controllers. Then, through wireless and Bluetooth protocols of the mobile phone, they can interact with the car’s large screen. In this way, a controller can be simulated through a mobile phone for playing games.
The idea is pretty good and cost-efficient, and users don’t need to buy a separate controller.
But I think we should go back to the question of how many people are willing to spend time playing games in the car? This is a big question. Until we can answer this question, I think games in the car are just gimmicks.
Mr. Yu@GeekCar:
When you talk about games, you have to talk about screens, which is also the heavy disaster area of false demand.
Mr. K:
Yes, that’s what I want to say. Some time ago, I saw an article you guys posted, which had some opinions on He XPeng. It had some criticism on the fact that there are many screens inside the car. Actually, it can be extended to two questions: the first is that there are too many screens in the car, and the second is that the screens inside the car are weird.Let’s talk about the multiple screens in the car. I don’t think that bigger and more screens are always better. Even in my car, which has three to four screens, I don’t want them to be constantly on while driving because it would be a distraction. Screens can also cause eye strain due to their brightness and reflection, especially at night.
Moreover, some screens come in strange shapes, like the extremely long and narrow screen in the BYD EA1. This type of design can make it difficult to operate while driving because a person’s arm can only reach a limited area, and it can affect driving safety. Any feature that compromises driving safety is unreasonable.
Having many screens in the car may not necessarily be a good thing. While they may make the car look more technologically advanced and modern, are they truly meeting the needs and wants of users, or just satisfying the innovation demands of car companies and suppliers?
Mr. Yu@GeekCar:
In fact, there are many controversies around this topic, and everyone has their own preferences. For example, Nio has a dedicated entertainment screen, while XPeng puts everything besides driving on the central control screen.
Mr. K:
Yes, and let’s talk more about the entertainment aspect. Singing, gaming, and watching movies in the car have become hot topics in the last couple of years.
Singing is an interesting activity that many people enjoy doing in the car, as it allows them to express their feelings, and it can be done while driving or stopped, on or off the road. However, the frequency of singing in the car is unclear, as it can vary from weekly to monthly use, or even just an occasional trial of the microphone before being forgotten.
Mr. Yu@GeekCar:
Despite the uncertainty, singing in the car is a popular form of entertainment, especially for families, groups, and camping scenes. Companies like KTV and its song-selection system have been trying to meet the demand, and the number of installations has been increasing rapidly. Recently, Elon Musk also said that he plans to add karaoke to Tesla’s cars.In our deep user research, there are still quite a few people who like in-car KTV, and I can’t say what the proportion is. After sorting out the results, we found that the attitudes of users towards each other are particularly consistent, basically “I don’t need it, but you have to have it.”
Mr.K:
It is like this.
As an entertainment activity with strong social attributes, KTV has not disappeared with the decline of commercial venues in recent years. The Internet and mobile devices have brought KTV to a more private and personal environment. So, from the perspective of whether it is a pseudo-demand or not, in-car KTV is much more reliable than in-car games at the current stage.
Back to the question, watching movies in the car is actually similar to playing games in the car. To be honest, I won’t bring my partner to watch movies in such a small space in the car. If I have to say, we may spend one or two times experiencing this kind of atmosphere when we just met. But in reality, it won’t last long. In this respect, it is somewhat similar to in-car KTV, “I don’t have to use it, but it’s better to have it.”
In the past, similar experiences in the car were not good for two main reasons. One is that the hardware cannot keep up, and the other is that car companies are not daring to try. After all, both involve costs, and the market and user acceptance are also in doubt. So, on this point, Ideal L9 has made a good attempt.
In summary, singing, playing games, and watching movies derived from entertainment can be classified as semi-pseudo-demands. It takes time to prove how much users actually need them and whether they can be sustained.
Mr.Yu@GeekCar:
The rhythm is good, and I think your mind map must be more than that, let’s continue.
Mr.K:
On the level of pseudo-demand, software also has a very heavy disaster area, which is the services we talked about before, such as ordering takeout, booking movie tickets, booking air tickets, booking train tickets, and booking hotels in the car, classified as service class. A fundamental reason, whether it is querying, placing an order or payment, mobile applications are already very convenient. Based on rational considerations, I don’t have to give up the convenience of my phone and turn to do it in the car.
If you operate on the car’s entertainment system, you have to hold your arm and touch or turn the page. In most cases, you can’t pay directly, and you still have to hold your phone to scan the QR code that pops up. To be frank, it is like taking off your pants and farting.Actually, it’s easy to understand the intentions of all parties involved. Everyone wants to expand the market for third-party apps through in-car interfaces, while also providing a sustainable revenue stream to ensure the normal operation of in-car service applications. However, the actual experience is still not good enough. Either the entire process is cumbersome and troublesome, or the availability is extremely low, with applications only providing the most basic information framework.
Moreover, some manufacturers have implemented voice-activated search and booking/payment for the entire process, with repeated voice confirmation. In fact, if I really have the time or am in a hurry, I could just park the car on the side of the road and solve it with a few clicks on my phone. It’s really more efficient and convenient than operating on the car’s display. The basic logic of many in-car service applications is still the extension of mobile applications on the car’s display, so how can they beat mobile phones?
Mr.Yu @GeekCar:
The fundamental issue is not whether we should use in-car systems to order food or book tickets, but that if we use the in-car system, we are restricted to only using the in-car system. Using a mobile phone is truly anytime, anywhere, and compared to that, whether there are advantages or not, its existence is questionable.
And talking about this reminds me of something. A friend of ours used to work for a major voice technology company, and when it comes to the use of voice commands for these services, he gave me a conclusion. Based on their previous backend data, the number of users who call these services through voice commands is almost negligible, to the extent that it has no impact on daily active and monthly active users. So I think this can also indirectly confirm what you said.
Mr. K:
So let me summarize it briefly. To disprove something, we need to consider many factors, such as the convenience of the experience, the frequency of use, and whether it is a strong demand. This also applies to services that are not very convenient to use, such as WeChat in the car. It is easy to develop a mistaken mindset that if we put high-frequency applications that people often use on their mobile phones in the car, users will like it. This approach is actually inappropriate. “Getting in the car” is a huge challenge for scenarios understanding and design.
Next, I’ll give two examples. Let’s not say whether or not they are false demands, but I think there is objective meaning to discuss them.
The first is remote control of the car. Users can use a mobile application or even a car key as a remote control to control the vehicle’s forward and backward movements and turning. However, in actual operation, the vehicle’s movement speed is extremely slow, and there is obvious response delay.
Mr. Yu @GeekCar:
It sounds like my home’s sweeping robot. Who would need that function?
Mr. K:Yes, it’s a bit like a remote control car. BYD has been doing this for a long time.
Let me give you an example. I often get home from work at 9 o’clock at night and there are no parking spaces nearby. Occasionally, I can find one or two tight spaces. You know what, this feature really comes in handy. I get out of the car first, then slowly back in using my phone to control it. It’s slow for a reason, because safety is involved. When I park securely in place, the same goes for getting back in the car, you’ll find this feature very useful.
For example, I heard of one that was even more extreme than my situation. The car owner himself is very “robust”, probably weighing around 200 to 300 pounds, and he enjoys this feature very much. Because he doesn’t have to lean sideways and suck in his stomach between two cars every time the car comes to a stop.
Let me give you another example that is not a pseudo-demand, but a positive one. Remote air conditioning control is definitely one of them. I use this function every day.
You see, this summer was particularly hot, so I would remote start the air conditioning in the car five minutes before I got in. I’m telling you, at that moment when you get in the car, you’ll feel that this feature is really worth it. If you ask me to spend 20,000 RMB on such a feature, I would be willing to do so.
Of course, that’s an exaggeration. But you can understand that such features hit the user pain points very precisely.
Mr. Yu @ GeekCar:
That’s right, many remote control features are something you won’t appreciate until you use them. They make you feel pretty good. I think big guys should be pretty happy with it too. Convenience is one thing, but not having to suffer because of your body type can reduce psychological self-loathing.
Remote air conditioning is just too necessary. You don’t know, every time you open the car door in the summer and sit down, I reflexively say “wo cao” with a drawn-out tone for about five seconds, it’s become a habit.
Mr. K:
That’s what it means, some experiences are irreversible.
Next, let’s take a look at another level of the problem, which is what you are most curious about, the source of pseudo-demands.
In my mind map, it is also divided into three levels: the first is the culture of the enterprise and the team, the second is the decision-making mechanism of the enterprise, and the third is the analysis ability of demand.
In terms of corporate and team culture, the most obvious characteristic is that as a company, there is actually no awareness of user experience.
Let me give you an example. You can see where the problems are when you look at it as a whole.
I have worked for a traditional automaker for a few years, I won’t say which one, but it’s not far from us.
Now, when developing a certain function, the marketing department or the product planning department will propose the demand, they may conduct some research, may provide some broad requirements, and then it will be passed down to the R&D department, or the product team, or the research institute.You may think that a research institute like ours is just one business unit but there are actually several, such as the one I work in – the connected car department. Within this department, there are various departments that deal with issues related to the cabin.
When we receive these requirements from the project team, they want to see feasible plans, which may be hardware adaptation plans in the early stages or software plans in the later stages. However, a strange problem arises; you will find that many traditional car companies do not have complete research and development capabilities.
What do you think happens next?
Mr. Yu @GeekCar:
So it’s the supplier’s turn to come into play, right?
Mr. K:
Yes, since we have to rely on the supplier, the next problem arises. Suppliers prefer to promote their own existing solutions and capabilities to OEMs. So suppliers don’t want you to provide so much customization.
So this is where cost control comes in. Because if you propose many customized things, suppliers can still do it, but it will generate a lot of additional development costs.
Then there is another problem; R&D costs, mold costs, and various fees. OEMs don’t want to pay for them, and it is not possible to let the supplier take care of them. They all want low costs, so what should we do? Use what we already have, like IN-Vehicle Infotainment (IVI) systems made by many well-known manufacturers in China.
The reality is, this negotiation process is very similar to ordering food in a restaurant. As the first party, you just need to place the order. They will pitch to you, how we developed this feature, it has been used in other models and works very well, there is no need for secondary development, or only minimal development is needed.
When the leader hears that it has already been used in other cars without any problems, that’s it, and it’s a done deal.
This is very realistic and common. Because cost is considered the biggest constraint. You will find that there is no careful thinking by the product team or serious analysis of requirements in this decision-making process, it is straight to the point.
This is one of the most common reasons why fake needs often become a reality and why I was very annoyed when I worked in a traditional car company.
Mr. Yu @GeekCar:
I didn’t think of this. I always thought that there were more reasons at the enterprise culture or decision-making mechanism level. I didn’t consider the element of business bargaining.
Mr. K:This is also why I left traditional car companies. Their internal product teams or similar departments have too weak a say, almost non-existent. This leads to products that may not meet user needs, or even worse, be criticized by users. This is the root cause of the strange phenomena we see today.
Mr. Yu@GeekCar:
So, to sum up, no budget if needed, no voice if needed. It sounds pitiful.
Mr. K:
Yes. Why several new forces in the car industry are highly respected among industry insiders, of course, salary is only one aspect. The main reason is that they are open enough in product innovation and tolerant enough in the face of innovative thinking. This is determined at the level of corporate genes.
But one challenging point for traditional car companies is that the organizational structure and division of labor that have come from traditional fuel vehicles make it difficult for them to transform smoothly.
On this matter, I will say a little more. They want to transform, but they are still blocked by several realities.
The first point is that the key personnel they want to hire are often expensive, and the enterprise is often reluctant to break the existing salary system, so these talents are directly “leveraged”.
The second point is more complicated and more realistic. Even if the enterprise really hires so many people, it also needs to pay additional costs to manage the people in these departments separately. Because it is difficult to integrate the new team with the existing team.
For example, the senior employees in my company are all at the salary level of 200,000 yuan per year. It is not easy to make them work with new colleagues earning 500,000 yuan per year. This is at the enterprise management level. You can’t blame anyone, but this kind of internal friction will not only appear in traditional car companies, but some well-known new forces and new strengths are also difficult to avoid.
So, to sum up, you see some new functions being implemented, which may feel familiar, but many companies have them. Why? The first point is that this is the norm of cooperation and game between car manufacturers and suppliers. The second point is that some functions are indeed done for the sake of form or for the sake of doing. This is related to the decision-makers of the enterprise. At this time, when it comes to leaders, you know that it must be a state-owned enterprise.
Mr. Yu@GeekCar:
Understood. I have also worked in a state-owned enterprise office for a long time, and I understand when you say it.
Mr. K:
Therefore, this decision-making mechanism in which leaders have the final say is troublesome for rapid innovation.If this person is just like Li Xiang, the top product manager of Ideal Automotive, then it’s all good. But you should know that the leaders of traditional car companies are either directly parachuted in or come from other places. If not, they are not in charge of the cockpit, and even their work background has nothing to do with the user experience field. Do you think they will have the correct decision-making results? Obviously, it’s impossible, so in terms of decision-makers, their professionalism and past experience are completely matched.
Mr.Yu@GeekCar:
Professionals do professional things, but it doesn’t mean that everyone who manages and makes decisions is also professional. Is that the meaning?
Mr.K:
Yes. There is also an interesting phenomenon, that is, no one makes decisions, and the leaders don’t either.
Why does this happen? Because everyone is afraid of taking responsibility, both up and down. When you propose some new ideas and suggestions, no one supports you at the decision-making level. The suggestion may be good, but everyone thinks that if this function is launched, will it have a negative impact, will it be criticized, and will it be backlashed by public opinion. So everyone just doesn’t make decisions, and many ideas are killed.
Mr.Yu@GeekCar:
Hmm, it’s the philosophy of how adults deal with things. When there are things that can be said or not, people often choose not to say them, at least it is a safe approach.
Mr.K:
Yes, perhaps a bit far away from our topic. Let’s pull back to the point of lack of user experience awareness.
It is precisely because of this part of the deficiency that “following the trend” has become the so-called safe approach you mentioned. That is, if others have it, we must also have it, and we will use the same suppliers as others. Some decision-makers do not even consider whether this feature is easy to use and practical or whether it conforms to the positioning of their own brand products. In fact, this is very dangerous.
The lack of user experience awareness in the decision-making level will also bring another problem, that is, the professional ability of the product team may be very poor, and they may not have the habit of conducting in-depth user analysis and research for a long time. But how can you develop a product without these? Isn’t that truly making a product behind closed doors?
For example, in our to B project, when someone in the team has an idea, we will conduct a lot of user research, covering from B-end to C-end, and let the results speak. It turns out that even though some ideas may seem reasonable, they are dangerous if they are detached from the factual basis. Because you can only represent yourself, not everyone.These two points are interrelated. The less a product team has the power of discourse and professional ability, the more likely it is to come up with brainless solutions when facing innovation targets, which leads to the emergence of fake needs, or what we call pseudo-demand landing.
Mr. Yu@GeekCar:
Is there a more pure form of pseudo-demand that comes about purely for the sake of looking cool and showing off skills?
Mr.K:
Yes, this is actually similar to the idea of following the crowd, but more radical. For example, the 3D holographic image we mentioned earlier looks really cool. We even got a sample and it looked pretty cool.
Honestly, when you operate it in the car, you’ll find that the “two-dimensional” cute girl has only a few fixed actions and a few sets of clothes to change into. I really don’t understand what the use of this is. And this thing will consume a lot of BOM costs. Why bother, right?
So, if you pay attention to products, you’ll find that this kind of thinking exists in many car companies. If a couple of companies do this, you might think they’re just acting on their own, but if it becomes a common phenomenon, we all need to be vigilant. Therefore, I think that when enterprises launch hardware designs, software, or services, they should think closely about user needs and pain points. Solving problems, bringing practical convenience, product or feature performance can exceed expectations, or even balance user expectations is OK.
Mr. Yu@GeekCar:
Can you give an example? Positive or negative examples are both fine.
Mr.K:
I think the popularity of the Ideal L9 can be used as an interesting example.
There is a car network red on Douyin (a Chinese video-sharing social networking app) who is particularly funny because the Ideal L9 has a refrigerator, and he makes jokes about it. Actually, having a refrigerator in the car is not a particularly new idea. There are many aftermarket car refrigerators, but most of them are not very practical.
Mr. Yu@GeekCar:
How do you interpret this product design?
Mr.K:
In fact, during my own driving process, there are occasionally a few moments when I feel that having a refrigerator in the car is quite useful.
The first scenario is when my daughter buys ice cream and eats it in the car. But she can’t finish it and has nowhere to put it, so she holds it and slowly melts, making the back seat look messy. At that time, I thought it would be great to have a refrigerator.## Scene Two
We went on a short trip as a family a few times, and on some of these occasions, it was quite hot outside and I suddenly felt like having an iced drink. Actually, I could stop at a rest area or a retail store to buy one, and the need wasn’t that strong. But at that moment, I thought it would be great to have a fridge in the car.
So, do you think the car fridge is useful? Is it really necessary? I have some doubts.
Mr. Yu @GeekCar:
I think we can approach this problem in this way. Let’s take the example of the remote opening of air conditioning or the preheating of seats we just mentioned earlier. If we don’t have these functions, in seasons with extreme temperatures such as summer and winter, you will feel overheated or frozen the moment you get in the car, and the emotional cost at that moment will be very high.
As you joked earlier, this feature is worth an extra 20,000 yuan to me. With a car fridge, you can keep things warm or cold, take your small children out, and when the little ones express themselves, which is often through crying, reminding you that they need to be fed with formula or other basic needs. At this point, you can use a thermos that is filled with hot water or breast milk.
When I interviewed my friend before, he also said that when his child was young, going out was pretty much determined by how far the child could go, so the car was packed with things.
Or say, when you are driving and suddenly feel like drinking a can of ice-cold Coca-Cola, really craving it. Then someone sitting in the back seat can take it out from the fridge for you to drink. At that moment, you will also feel very satisfied.
The two examples I gave are not about the monetary value of the product itself, whether it is high or low, worthy or not. It is about when your needs are met, the emotional value at that moment is the highest.
Mr. K:
Yes, it’s about satisfying emotional value, I agree with you.
Let’s continue. The last part of my mind map is how to implement the avoidance of false needs.
Actually, when we were talking about the sources of these problems earlier, more or less, their opposites are what we want to do. Enterprises have more than just a product department, there is also R&D of software and hardware, user experience, and so on. The management should give enough resources to strengthen the capabilities of these departments. Give the product managers the power of speech, believe in their professionalism and capabilities. Of course, this requires the ability in the first place. New players are like this, and traditional car companies should be even more so. Speaking of which may sound a bit broad, but it is very important, I put it in the first place.
Mr. Yu @GeekCar:
You mean, don’t treat product managers as servants to leaders/bosses, or make their job just to please them.
Reminds me of a friend of mine who draws pictures in an engineering design institute, and he describes his job as “serving all the old artists”.
Mr.K：
Yes. The second point is about cost. You just talked about business model, including some of the relationship between OEM’s own business decisions and commercial procurement. I think enterprises need their own efficient product and R&D teams to support what they want and should do, instead of following the trend. From the current situation, following the trend is one of the sins of pseudo-demand landing.
If a company has just started and the scale of R&D team is not large, it is not impossible to purchase ready-made solutions. But enterprise managers should have the awareness of quickly building their own product platform. If possible, invest more resources and time in this area. Be confident in planning and exploring when you have a strong backbone.
In fact, I suggest that everyone can learn more about the concept of enterprise “platformization”. Look at the enterprises like Wuling, NIO and Tesla, which do well in this aspect. Correspondingly, they have launched models with good sales volume in their respective segmented areas. And the most important thing is that you can hardly see many pseudo-demand on their products. Platformization is a very efficient concept to improve internal efficiency and resource utilization.
The third point is understanding the users. In fact, I think managers and decision makers should think clearly that they need to understand the market, communicate with users face to face, and conduct quantitative surveys and qualitative reports. And they need to confirm the authenticity of user needs, that is, to solve their basic demands and pain points, which is the starting point.
Mr.Yu@GeekCar：
I think you are indirectly increasing the workload of the marketing department and product colleagues.
Just kidding, please continue.
Mr.K：
The fourth point is small but refined, rather than large but complete. This is my personal opinion.
To explain, in the application ecology, we need to invest more resources and efforts, and repeatedly polish it to make it more sophisticated and available. Instead of having all applications available on the car at once. For example, we have done a project before where we were really doing addition, and added all kinds of things on the car-level application layer. For example, CarPlay and CarLife are both added. Why? Because they want to cater to anyone who likes either. We have no research support, but the leadership thinks it should be added.Translate the following Markdown Chinese text into English Markdown text, professionally, preserving HTML tags inside Markdown, and only outputting fixes and improvements without any explanations.
For example, some third-party apps on the market, some popular apps on phones, are all being added to the car, making it more comprehensive. Companies like XPeng are famous for their rich application ecosystem, but some apps do not work well in cars, such as some mobile masterpieces that cannot run on Qualcomm Snapdragon 820A. Look at some cars that even include office apps like WPS. What’s the scenario here? I don’t think this is right.
On the positive side, you can take a look at the Ideal ONE. Each application on it has been carefully considered and deeply adapted. For example, the Roadbook app that recently came out and children’s audio-visual content apps. This is very consistent with the positioning of the vehicle, right?
There is one last point to understand, and that is the value of the user experience. There is a public formula in the field of product management that can be shared:
User Value = (New Experience-Old Experience) – Replacement Cost
This formula means that every innovative point must consider the difference between new and old experiences, as well as the cost required for iteration from old to new. Because users may need to learn and adapt, the result of the subtraction in this formula might be the most honest indicator of the user value.
Mr.Yu@GeekCar:
So, if we leave aside the decision-making mechanism of car companies, the more acceptable approach is either experience-oriented or product-oriented.
Mr.K:
It must be user experience-oriented and product-oriented.
It’s not a problem for leaders to have ideas. Of course, the leader can propose them, and everyone can propose them. Isn’t there a platform called “Everyone is a Product Manager”? But not everyone can be a qualified product manager, and the key is who proposes it.
Sometimes there is a problem, and that is when the boss has proposed a requirement, and I have to prove it and make it happen. This can produce a feeling of superiors assigning tasks to subordinates. If I cannot do it, or if I cannot realize the boss’s idea, there may be problems in the workplace.
This phenomenon generally occurs in traditional state-owned enterprises. In contrast, I think the new forces are still fine. Everyone is relatively open-minded, and I won’t necessarily rush to implement it just because you proposed it. Business-wise, I will still implement it, but that is another matter.
Where is the technical bottom line of a product manager, and where is their right to speak? Are they living for the leader’s goals or for the product? These are things that need to be carefully considered and resolved.
Mr.Yu@GeekCar:### Mr.K:
You are absolutely right. We cannot force innovation to be put into quantifiable KPIs.
Forcing innovation for the sake of innovation, without proper mechanisms to control it, can easily go off track. And the essence of this issue is still those points you mentioned earlier:
-
What useful value and services have we provided to users?
-
Are we capable of solving problems discovered through user research?
-
What completely innovative aspects do we have? Do we have the ability to implement them?
Without fully understanding these questions, and being under pressure to meet KPIs, it is easy to come up with hasty and fake demands. After discussing all those questions we just went through, the final result still depends on factors beyond us.
Mr.Yu@GeekCar:
Okay, I don’t have any more questions. I think this discussion may become a very dark topic.
Mr.K:
Actually, I think you have done a great job of presenting this issue. Everyone knows, including the points we just discussed, that there may be a large part that is clear to people. But someone still needs to show the problem truly and give advice through presenting reality and analyzing the issue. As long as it resonates with your own thinking, it is always enlightening and valuable.
Mr.Yu@GeekCar:
So after all that we’ve discussed, the summary is “People are in the game, and they aren’t in control”.
Mr.K:
I’m looking forward to seeing whether you write this sentence or not.
Mr.Yu@GeekCar:
If I don’t forget, you will definitely see it.
In conclusion:
Thank you to everyone who has read this far, the content is not short.
Actually, this Mr.K you saw is not just one person.
These discussions come from my in-depth communication with several senior product managers and HMI designers in the industry. Everyone has a lot to say, and each person has accumulated at least over ten thousand words’ worth of material.
To be as comprehensive and easy to understand as possible, I adopted a way to present the dialogue content.
To be honest, whether doing the job or making decisions, everyone faces pressures from different angles and levels.
“Acting in one’s own capacity, seeking the best policy, and performing one’s duties to the fullest.” I believe that no one wants to do things that are not valuable and meaningful.
I sincerely hope that in the future, users will face fewer laughable fake demands and more refreshing true experiences. Product managers can have less unspeakable bitterness and gain more self-recognition from the realization of value.
This article is a translation by ChatGPT of a Chinese report from 42HOW. If you have any questions about it, please email bd@42how.com.