![\"\"](\"http:\/\/base.binus.ac.id\/product-design-engineering\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/3\/2022\/05\/5-Elon-Musk-Steps-640x347.png\")
<\/p>\nHow do you design, build and launch a rocket into space in a radically different way from past attempts? That\u2019s the question that faced Elon Musk\u2019s SpaceX, and he recently revealed the process he has embedded into the organisation to make it possible.<\/p>\n
Musk\u2019s 5 Step Design Process<\/em>\u00a0consists of making the requirements less dumb;\u00a0delete the part or process; simplify and optimise the design; accelerate cycle time; and automate.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n THE 5 STEPS.<\/strong><\/p>\n This model was revealed by Musk in an interview after he was asked whether the grid fins of his latest rocket design fold in (see the Origins below for the full interview with\u00a0Everyday Astronaut<\/em>).<\/p>\n Musk explained that they didn\u2019t, but then expanded by outlining the 5 step process SpaceX was aiming to \u201capply rigorously\u201d, and which led to the grid fin decision. See the Origins tab below for the original video interview and view the following\u00a0points for each step in more detail:<\/p>\n Make the requirements less dumb.<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Musk notes that\u00a0\u201cyour requirements are definitely dumb, it does not matter who gave them to you.\u201d<\/em>\u00a0Similar to\u00a0Framestorming<\/a><\/em>\u00a0and its reminder to \u2018question the question\u2019, Musk uses this step to test assumptions, pointing out that requirements from a \u2018smart person\u2019 are often the most dangerous since you might not question them enough.<\/p>\n Delete the part or process.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n \u201cIf you\u2019re not adding things back in at least 10% of the time, you\u2019re clearly not deleting enough.\u201d<\/em>\u00a0Musk suggests starting lean and building up when and if required, but warns that the bias will be to add things \u2018in case\u2019,\u00a0\u201cbut you can make \u2018in case\u2019 arguments for so many things.\u201d<\/em>\u00a0He goes further, arguing that each requirement or constraint must be accountable to a person, not a department, because you can ask that person about its relevance and purpose, rather than having a requirement that nobody owns and persists for years despite being redundant.<\/p>\n Simplify or optimise the design.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n \u201cPossibly the most common error of a smart engineer is to optimise a thing that should not exist,\u201d<\/em>\u00a0Musk explains, emphasising the importance of working through the first two steps before trying to optimise. To do this effectively, Musk argues that each engineer needs to take a holistic view of the project, pointing to previous mistakes where engineers had invested enormous resources into reducing the weight of the rocket\u2019s engine\u00a0but hadn\u2019t adequately addressed the equivalent problem of reducing payload weight.<\/p>\n Accelerate cycle time.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Musk embraces the drive to go faster but warns against pointing your efforts in the wrong direction, saying\u00a0\u201cif you\u2019re digging your grave, don\u2019t dig faster.\u201d<\/em>\u00a0He seems to recommend an accelerated\u00a0Agile approach<\/a><\/em>, but only after the first three steps of his process are satisfied to ensure that you\u2019re moving faster in the right direction.<\/p>\n Automate.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n Musk warns against automating before the earlier points are addressed. He relates the story of streamlining a robotic process to build battery mats in the Tesla Model 3. He describes investing massive time and effort to automate and streamline that problematic process before he finally asked what the mat was for. He discovered that it had been created to reduce sound but was no longer required.<\/p>\n IN YOUR LATTICEWORK.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n Musk\u2019s design process stems from an engineering perspective to streamline and rethink rocket design but can be applied to almost any design project from UX, a marketing campaign, or product design more broadly.<\/p>\n Elements of Musk's process reflect his championing of\u00a0First Principle Thinking<\/a><\/em>, and consistently challenging assumptions. We\u2019ve already identified links with\u00a0Framestorming<\/a>,<\/em>\u00a0and the idea of questioning the question, and his approach is also reminiscent of\u00a0Occam\u2019s Razor<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n The rejection of including more and more features \u2018in case\u2019 counters the\u00a0Redundancy\/ Margin of Error<\/a><\/em>\u00a0model, and Musk\u2019s approach of building \u2018good enough\u2019 is very aligned to\u00a0Lean Startup<\/a><\/em>\u00a0and\u00a0Minimum Viable Product<\/a>,<\/em>\u00a0in fact he refers to a \u2018Minimum Viable Rocket\u2019<\/em>\u00a0in the interview.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n