The Honeywell Integrated Security (HIS) End Users Committee has been getting a lot of attention lately. Built independently by end users, the committee is based on the concept that the customer is always right.
Honeywell has taken the concept one step further by embracing the committee, whose members say that 25-30 percent of the feature sets in the company’s product offerings come directly from the group. Though it is an interesting implementation of an age-old concept, is Honeywell taking it too literally? After all, the largest company in the world (Apple) was built on the exact opposite model.
The Honeywell committee was founded several years ago to create a structured system for providing customer feedback directly to Honeywell’s design and engineering teams. The committee has more than 90 members, not one of whom is in any way a paid employee of Honeywell.
Members of the committee have structured meetings where feedback is collected and then distributed to Honeywell for consideration and implementation into new products. Though the system seems to be effective in providing end users with what they want, it may also be stifling innovation.
Apple, arguably one of the most successfully innovative companies of all time, used a different approach when it came to market research. The company ignored it. Steve Jobs once said: “A lot of times, customers don’t know what they want until you show them.”
Studying market research and customer feedback might provide businesses with a safe method of pleasing and maintaining current clientele, but it is not the kind of strategy that will lead to truly innovative products.
Honeywell did not create the end-user committee, but the company clearly supports it. The concern is that Honeywell will become overly reliant on the committee to fuel innovation. Even spending too much time analyzing this research could become a very unproductive process.
If Apple had created an end-user committee for the iPod and relied on the committee to provide feedback for engineers and developers, we never would have seen the iPhone or iPad. Jobs would have been so distracted trying to store more music on a smaller device that he would never have thought of combining a telephone with it or transferring that technology to revolutionize the tablet. As a visionary, he had to ignore consumer demands and look ahead.
Though Honeywell’s end-user committee seems to be having some positive effect on product development, I would caution Honeywell about relying too heavily on feedback. Living off comment cards might please consumers, but it is a reactive way of doing business.
To be truly innovative, Honeywell will need to look beyond what consumers want and give them something unexpected. In the words of Jobs: “Innovation distinguishes between a leader and a follower.”
Free Download: The Video Surveillance Report 2023
Discover the latest developments in the rapidly-evolving video surveillance sector by downloading the 2023 Video Surveillance Report. Over 500 responses to our survey, which come from integrators to consultants and heads of security, inform our analysis of the latest trends including AI, the state of the video surveillance market, uptake of the cloud, and the wider economic and geopolitical events impacting the sector!
Download for FREE to discover top industry insight around the latest innovations in video surveillance systems.
Look at what axis did in the 90s right? They invented a cameran nobody wanted (or at the time needed) and now they’re amongst the worlds biggest ip manufacturers!
Excellent blog, Colin, and very thought-provoking. As a company, I think Apple are fantastic. Visionary and years ahead of the game. Speaking as a consumer, even the packaging for the company’s products is stunning, while the functionality of solutions like the iPhone and the iPad is genuinely groundbreaking. In short, I believe there is no better (or indeed bigger) legacy than that of Steve Jobs: a man who changed the face of global communications for the greater good of us all. I suspect the ideal scenario in terms of innovation in any business sector is to have a mixture of both… Read more »
Whilst both of these business models are valid, they both have threats attached to them. The Apple dynasty may or may not continue with the same success without Jobs. The threat from Samsung and the like, is huge. Always listening to you customers is OK to a point, but does not tap into the new & emerging markets, the key to this approach is making sure you take things on board, but don’t just deliver what people want, make sure it offers more, you have to make people want your product, and you have to be acutely aware that depending… Read more »
I really think that it’s possible we’re on the verge of seeing a huge contraction in the volume of companies in the security tech space. One of the big boys will lose out in this, and it’s impossible to know who. Innovation (or lack thereof) will only be part of the picture. Timing, marketing and luck will probably come into it too.
I think its unfair to compare a development approach from Honeywell to Apple. As a manufacturer we are always listening to customer feedback, you never know where the improvements can be made and if you are in danger of being blinkered and “in the box” if you are working so closely to something. Innovation in the safety sector is actually extremely difficult and made to be harder than it should have by British Standards unwilling to move with the times and embrace new technology. Take a company called Plumis, a great residential cost effective water mist system, its been tested… Read more »
Apple stakes its success on creating new markets and dominating them (iPhone, iPad). Samsung invests heavily in studying existing markets, innovating inside them (Gallaxy). Honeywell according to your article, relies heavily on its end-user committee to fuel innovation in a reactive way! Innovation in the security sector is not difficult. The leaders are busy pushing analogue kits, choking original thinking. Instead they should be helping customers migrate to the digital IP standard in a cost-effective way. In security, “A lot of times, customers don’t know what they want until you show them” is very true. The main issues are, because… Read more »
‘Stifled by guides’ – it’s a duplicity isn’t it that guidelines will limit both bad products and potentially great products. How can an inventor ever break out and create something truly new if they’re victims of very specific regulations. I think this is a big reason why we tend to see more new products in the security space than we do the fire space.
And I agree it’s an unfair comparison between Honeywell and Apple on the one hand, but it’s certainly an interesting one.
Interesting there, because I find that the feedback I get from people more is that ‘Manufacturers are pushing their overly expensive IP products’ rather than pushing analogue kits as you write here. I definitely agree though that the number 1 focus should be assisting end users in adopting cost-effective and suitable security systems that will improve those 2 elements that you point out: avoiding damage, and investigation.
I’ve worked in product line management and development roles for two different companies in the CCTV industry and seen Mr. Jobs’ observation (“A lot of times, customers don’t know what they want until you show them.”) in action more times than I care to remember. In my experience, focus groups tend to do two things that harm product evolution more than help it: Ask for features that they’ve seen in other products – This can make products overly complex, hard to use, and difficult to master. Apple also mastered presenting features to the user in an accessible manner, so the… Read more »
Yes, Apple have a habit of not having features people do want in the knowledge that eventually it’ll peeter out. I remember the trouble I used to have when I got the first iMac as I didn’t have a floppy disc drive. That meant I couldn’t bring work home with me as computers at school weren’t at the point of CD-RW drives and the internet wasn’t quite what it is now. See again when they released the MacBook Air with no CD drive. I’m not sure we’re quite at the point of releasing security equipment with ‘too much’ as if… Read more »
I think we’ve been offering “too much” on security products for years. Most analog cameras have a “VPhase” adjustment, to synchronize the images on analog systems so they didn’t “roll” when the operator switched from camera to camera; no one ever uses it. Access control software is notorious for adding features to databases just because they can, without regard to the complexity it can add. If you build an integrated system with access control and video management, you’ll likely have two seperate alarm handling systems. And the list goes on…
So while convergence should be about simplification for the end user, it’s anything but. Any systems out there that are doing what they’re supposed to?
There is no denying the fact that Apple swept the whole world with its innovative devices. Honeywell no doubt is using more customers’ friendly approach but I couldn’t agree more with Steve Jobs that sometime they don’t even know what they really want unless you show them. I believe blindly following customers’ requirement can bring in complication for the manufacturers. There is roughly six billion brains all across the world who are ready to give their opinion if asked. But you need to rationalize the demands of your customers based on the technology you are introduced and capacity it can… Read more »