We caught up with Scott at his home in San Diego, between a trip to China and attending MDM West, a Medtech Tradeshow.

‍

Loft: Thanks for speaking with us, we know it's Chinese New Year, so your factory is closed, but this is the busy tradeshow season. We are delighted to interview you and want to focus on the later stages of product development, specifically on how to engage with potential OEMs or factories. Given your background at FES and the work you are doing in Consumer, Mobility, Medtech and Life sciences, you likely have very valuable insights to share. We are particularly interested in discussing your unique background. You have an undergraduate and master's degree in industrial design but also served in the military–we find it fascinating and would like to understand how one transitions from the military to the very different world of product development.

‍

Scott Gant: Let's explore my background.  I served in the Marine Corps for six years, leaving as a Captain. Originally, I pursued an undergraduate degree in Industrial Design, and my interest in Design and Engineering started even before college. While at Virginia Tech, enrolled in a creative writing course, my teacher recognized my passion and introduced me to the field of Industrial Design. She recommended a book from her husband, the Dean of the School of Architecture, who was starting a Master's program in Industrial Design at the time. Although Virginia Tech did not offer an undergraduate program in Industrial Design then, I was inspired to follow this path. However, I first joined the Marine Corps and served for six years, always knowing that I would eventually return to Industrial Design. My military experience endowed me with robust problem-solving skills and leadership training, which have been invaluable in my career managing Industrial Design and Human Factors teams at companies like HP, Dell, and Kodak. The Marine Corps instilled a strong sense of teamwork and mission accomplishment, enhancing my ability to manage projects, assess risks, and lead teams effectively in both consulting and corporate environments. This unique blend of military discipline and creative passion for Industrial Design laid a solid foundation for my career, helping me embrace risks, handle ambiguity, and foster an entrepreneurial spirit. Coming out of the Marine Corps, I adopted a very pragmatic viewpoint. While others might stress over minor details, I often reminded my team that in the grand scheme of things—when we are choosing colors, forms, and other design elements—nobody's life is at stake. To some, this might seem like a dispassionate approach to design, but for me, design is fundamentally a business activity. It's about selecting the right solution among various variables. It’s not so much about perfecting the last pixel, but more about broadly hitting the target to meet overall business objectives.

‍

Loft:  I'm glad you mentioned that, because many design leaders often struggle to justify the role of design within an organization, especially on the corporate side. I always emphasize that design can be a powerful tool—it can act as a key differentiator. Even for commodity products, good design can significantly elevate a brand!

‍

One of the most valuable lessons I learned during my time at Dell, where I managed teams across gaming, laptops, and commercial business units, involved negotiating cost tradeoffs of designs

‍

‍Scott Gant: Absolutely, and it all needs to fit within the project's overall targets including cost. For example, deciding whether you can afford a premium-feeling dampened hinge—it might make a difference, or it might not. These choices are crucial to debate and determine where to allocate funds. One of the most valuable lessons I learned during my time at Dell, where I managed teams across gaming, laptops, and commercial business units, involved negotiating every feature with the procurement team assigned to a program. This included decisions as detailed as choosing between a green, blue, or white LED. We had to justify every penny, which, although challenging, taught us to be more mindful and not to overload a solution with unnecessary design elements. For instance, deciding between a glossy finish, which could be more expensive due to lower yields, and sticking with a white LED that fits the brand's current language was a typical trade-off to consider. Navigating these decisions through a cross-functional team to meet the right cost target for a product was an invaluable, albeit not always enjoyable, process.

‍

Loft:  Being part of those conversations is crucial. Sometimes you can be blindsided by processes, but that's all part of the learning curve. Designers need to be involved in discussions about costs, resources, and necessary trade-offs. I’m glad you mentioned this, as it highlights the importance of not just presenting design as beautiful or high-quality, but also explaining the reasons behind these attributes. This involvement not only helps articulate the story of design more effectively, detailing why something is considered high quality, beautiful, or important, but also balances cost.

Building on that aspect. With the current geopolitical situation where we see a disruption of current supply chains due to tariffs. Considering your unique position, where you have access to technology that supports your supply chain and can produce in regions less affected by tariffs, I'm interested in how you balance cost targets with the quality of design in your projects. Specifically, I’d like to understand your process for ensuring that, when you move to a new supply location, you still can produce a quality product.

‍

Most people recognize that the realm of consumer electronics and medical devices is a bit of a political football, yet it remains a global economy. Most components still come from China and will likely continue to do so for many years. 

‍

Scott Gant: I've been with FES International for 16 years, and up until 2018, we handled all our assembly and production in-house in Shanghai. However, the first round of tariffs in 2018 prompted us to set up an alternative production facility in Thailand. This move was about maintaining the continuity of quality and consistent program management with no compromise in the quality of products previously made in China. The main challenge was achieving cost parity with production in China. Most people recognize that the realm of consumer electronics and medical devices is a bit of a political football, yet it remains a global economy. Most components still come from China and will likely continue to do so for many years. This is something that industrial designers often overlook, although the majority of the cost in consumer electronics is attributed to the PCBA and the electronic bill of materials.

At FES, our challenge was finding equal or better quality plastics, metals, and other commodities for full product assembly. If we could source these materials locally and qualify the supplier, we opted to go local to reduce the lead time from order placement to production. However, we still source components globally—from Europe, Japan, Korea, the US—and maintain the same quality standards at our factories as before the tariffs. Navigating this landscape involves substantial risk, especially for companies attempting to relocate their production bases. Some suppliers often promise better prices or schedules, but issues like slipping schedules or quality management failures are common. My advice is to take extra time to ensure that a new supplier can actually meet their promises before making significant changes. It's easy to be enticed by a low initial quote, only to find the costs escalating due to unforeseen production challenges, leading from one challenging situation to another.

‍

Loft:  How important is strategic portfolio management for manufacturers with a range of products? For those who haven't ventured into this yet—perhaps only beginning to consider changes yesterday—what advice would you offer? Should they look into dual sourcing? How do you typically advise on these matters?

‍

Scott Gant: I would advise those transitioning from corporate environments, where they may have been a significant figure at companies like Dell or Philips, to adjust their expectations when moving to a startup or a smaller company. In such larger corporations, vendors often respond to you based on the company’s prestige. However, in a smaller setting, you aren't seen in the same light, and it’s crucial not to carry that corporate weight around, expecting the same level of treatment. When engaging with suppliers, treating the interaction as a partnership rather than a transaction can yield much better results. If you approach suppliers with a partnership mindset, they are more likely to work with you through challenges, common in hardware production, rather than if you treat the relationship transactionally. Beating down a supplier over a few pennies can backfire when issues arise, whereas a spirit of collaboration fosters mutual support and problem-solving. Moreover, it's important to be aware of the total cost of ownership, not just the immediate costs. I’ve seen scenarios where too much focus is placed on minor cost components, like a few pennies off a plastic part while neglecting broader financial impacts such as testing, packaging, transportation, and warehousing costs in the US. Understanding the full landscape, including elements like HS codes for imports, can prevent overlooking significant expenses that dwarf those minor savings. Additionally, the costs incurred from third-party logistics (3PL) services can be substantial. Every time a 3PL handles the product—for instance, picking and packaging—it can add considerable cost to each unit, which some may not anticipate.

Overall, maintaining a broad perspective on your supply chain and the landed costs, rather than just the details of the product design, is crucial for effectively managing your business’s finances and operations.

‍

Loft:  How do people start that strategic relationship? Is it personal connections? Is it introductions? What's the typical way to get started with a new OEM partner?

‍

Scott Gant: Our primary method for establishing new customer relationships is through referrals, which account for about 95% of our clientele. These referrals often come from engineers or designers who have previously worked with us, or from entrepreneurs who return to us after starting new ventures. We take great pride in the fact that once customers start working with us, they tend to continue doing so. If someone finds us through our website or another channel, they can simply contact us directly. The typical process involves discussing their product and what they aim to achieve, and we quickly assess whether we're a good fit. We prioritize being upfront and will promptly communicate whether we can meet their needs or if it’s not the right match. If not, I will refer them to someone who can help. We see our role as an extension of our client's team, which ties back to preferring a partnership over a transactional approach. If our work contributes to a client's success, it's a win for everyone involved. We invest a lot of time and resources, often unbilled, especially during critical periods like holidays, to ensure projects cross the finish line. 

Many of our original customers, some of whom have grown their businesses into hundreds of millions in revenue, have been with us since the beginning. My long tenure at FES, much longer than I initially expected, is largely due to my business partners’ ability to evolve and adapt, such as incorporating more automation in our factory in Thailand. This forward-thinking approach and commitment to ethical, respectful treatment of both customers and employees are core to our culture and success. Building lasting relationships based on mutual success simplifies processes and makes interactions more efficient. When routine communications are streamlined, saving time and effort, it reinforces the value of sticking with a supplier who understands your needs and makes business easier. This approach has kept many of our clients loyal for years.

‍

Loft:  How difficult is it to maintain such relationships? Working in large companies like Dell, where supply chain management was a precise science focused on cost down to the pennies, personal relationships often seemed absent. How do you manage that aspect?

‍

We've been successful in growing alongside our customers, enabling us to advance together without the need to shift partners during critical growth phases.

‍

Scott Gant: Maintaining relationships in environments where there are frequent changes at large OEMs is indeed challenging. For example, companies like Dell and HP have procurement strategies focused on reducing costs year-over-year, changing vendors, and keeping options open through dual sourcing. Understanding that this is just the nature of how these companies operate allows you to decide whether it's worth engaging as a supplier. At the end of the day, these companies need good suppliers just as much as we need them. To maintain a long-term view and stay in the game with such suppliers requires recognizing these challenges. Despite the frequent shifts, we have been consistently working with Dell since 2007, largely because we operate in the rugged notebook and tablet space—a niche that doesn't attract tier-one contract manufacturers due to its lower volume and higher touch requirements, which suits us well. We've managed to scale up to over a million units a month for various clients, not because we started at that scale, but because we've grown into it. If a customer initially needs a million or two million units per year, they will likely attract a tier-one manufacturer. But it's crucial to consider who can support you both now when you're smaller, and as you grow. You don't want to have to search for a new supplier and go through operational disruptions just as you're scaling up. We've been successful in growing alongside our customers, enabling us to advance together without the need to shift partners during critical growth phases.

‍

Loft:  You've held roles as a corporate leader and also led your own startup, and now you're helping other startups and corporate leaders. What is it like being on both sides of the fence? Do you find yourself wearing different hats, and how have you managed the transition between these different mindsets?

‍

Scott Gant: I feel fortunate in my career to have had the opportunity to design my own products and build companies. It's incredibly hard work to create a brand and manage a company, especially after the excitement of designing the initial product. I'm glad to have done it and to have experienced a couple of successful exits. This personal experience of being on both sides has been invaluable in offering advice when asked. Often, designers in their early careers take whatever jobs they can to hone their skills, but many aspire to eventually design their own products and start their own companies. One of the biggest challenges is recognizing that you're not the center of the universe. The best startups and clients I've worked with are those willing to ask questions and listen to those who have been through it before. My experiences provide a useful data point for others, though I'm sure I didn't do everything the best or only way. Having been on both sides helps me maintain a more relaxed approach during various processes, whether it's RFQs, product launches, or navigating unexpected challenges like tariffs, price increases, or competitive pressures. Knowing how to stay calm, ask the right questions, and put our best foot forward gives me peace of mind in my daily work and makes it a pleasure to do what I do. It's somewhat cliché to say you have to love what you do, but genuinely, the energy and drive of the startup community inspire me daily. Whether it's working on medical devices, consumer electronics, or even agricultural products, the diversity of projects keeps me engaged and constantly learning. In contrast to the predictability of working on a single product type at large corporations like Dell or HP, working at a design consulting firm offers a variety that is both challenging and enjoyable. It's like every day is a box of chocolates—you never know what you're going to get, and that variety keeps me on my toes and fuels my passion as if it were my hobby.

‍

Loft:  How do people build resilience in the product development space? As you mentioned, hardware development is challenging, and the process often presents unexpected hurdles, almost like discovering an unforeseen appendix in a book. What advice would you give to those involved in product development and supply chain management, particularly from a design perspective? How do they maintain resilience when they're often designing and planning for manufacturing simultaneously?

‍

Scott Gant: Oh, man, my mind goes in many directions on how to answer that. If I'm running my company, my focus is on staying ahead of the competition and ensuring we consistently deliver value. It’s about the principle of 'trust but verify.' When you're working with a company like FES, you want to be confident that you're receiving the best-manufactured goods at a competitive price and avoid becoming complacent. For a customer with a product that's performing well—say, selling off the charts on Amazon or in retail—the reality is that success attracts competitors. If you created a popular product, like a unique widget during the holiday season, soon you might find the market flooded with similar items. It's a reminder not to rest on your laurels for too long. We live in a world where your success will inevitably draw competitors who can add features or make slight improvements to your design. Staying ahead in such a dynamic, competitive environment is like being on a hamster wheel; you have to keep moving and innovating. That's the challenge and, in a way, the excitement of working is product development.

‍

Loft: Pretty fascinating conversation. Thanks for your time and great insights! We appreciate your valuable thoughts and viewpoints.

‍