Real product development experience
that shaped how
Additive Labs builds.

The challenge

The device had to feel simple, premium, and easy to hold while carrying a dense internal system. Like many early-stage hardware products, the idea was clear at a high level, but the product still needed engineering structure. The physical size, internal layout, sensor access, battery placement, charging strategy, PCB packaging, and feedback logic all needed to work together.

The product also needed to avoid feeling too clinical. In a beauty and personal-care context, a device can quickly become intimidating if the interaction feels medical, overly technical, or data-heavy. The experience needed to feel soft, intuitive, and consumer-friendly while still being technically credible.

Privacy and data sensitivity also had to be considered early. Instead of assuming that every device should collect, store, or display detailed user data, the product direction leaned toward simpler device-side feedback and minimal unnecessary personal data handling.

The work

This experience involved shaping the early product architecture and translating a broad device idea into a more defined hardware direction. The work considered how the enclosure would feel in the hand, how internal components would be arranged, where sensors could be placed, how the PCB and battery could fit inside the form factor, and how firmware behavior would support the user experience.

The mechanical direction was developed around real internal constraints rather than styling the shell in isolation. The enclosure needed to respect the size and position of electronics, charging components, sensor contact areas, LEDs or indicators, and assembly logic. This helped reduce the risk of creating a beautiful outer form that would later fail when electronics were added.

The product direction also considered prototype feasibility. Early hardware decisions were made with testing, iteration, and future manufacturability in mind. The goal was not to over-engineer the first version, but to create a clear enough path that the concept could move toward physical testing without collapsing under avoidable packaging or integration issues.

Engineering decisions

One of the most important decisions was to treat the device as a complete system instead of separate mechanical, electronic, and firmware tasks. For compact hardware, every millimeter matters. A small decision around enclosure thickness, sensor placement, battery position, or PCB orientation can affect ergonomics, assembly, heat, usability, and manufacturing.

Another important decision was to simplify the user feedback experience. Rather than making the product feel like a diagnostic instrument, the direction focused on a more natural consumer interaction. This type of decision matters because good hardware is not only about technical function. It is also about how people understand, trust, and use the product.

The challenge

This experience involved manufacturing programs where the risk was not just technical design, but the gap between design intent and supplier execution. A part may be drawn correctly, but if the supplier interprets the manufacturing requirements incorrectly, the result can be a wrong quote, wrong process, wrong timeline, or wrong production plan.

In one situation, a major quote discrepancy was identified before it created a serious budget issue. The issue required more than simply comparing numbers. It required understanding the part, the manufacturing process, the supplier’s assumptions, and the commercial impact of the mismatch.

In another situation, delayed components created production pressure. Waiting passively would have put the timeline at risk. The work required reviewing alternatives, understanding which parts could be prioritized or substituted, and helping protect production continuity.

The work

This experience involved reviewing manufacturing requirements, checking supplier assumptions, validating quotes, identifying cost risks, and helping correct the direction before the problem became more expensive.

The work required both engineering and commercial judgment. The technical side involved understanding geometry, process selection, material implications, tolerances, supplier capability, and manufacturability. The commercial side involved understanding cost impact, schedule risk, vendor communication, and production consequences.

Supplier recovery work also required clear communication. When a quote or production assumption is wrong, the goal is not just to identify the mistake. The goal is to correct the path in a way that protects the project.

Engineering decisions

One important decision was to review quotes through a technical lens rather than treating them as purely commercial documents. Manufacturing quotes often contain hidden assumptions. If those assumptions are wrong, the quote may look acceptable on paper while creating serious problems later.

Another decision was to focus on production continuity during supply disruptions. When components are delayed, the question becomes: what can still move forward, what can be substituted, what needs approval, and what creates the least risk to the final product?

This experience reinforced that manufacturing readiness is not a single checkpoint. It is a continuous process of checking assumptions before they become expensive.

The challenge

Aerospace engineering builds a different kind of discipline. Small assumptions matter. Geometry affects performance. Flow behavior, pressure, drag, structure, and constraints cannot be ignored. Unlike purely visual design, performance-led engineering requires a clear understanding of physics, analysis, iteration, and validation.

This experience included advanced engineering work connected to high-speed aerodynamics, supersonic systems, wind-tunnel development, nozzle design, CFD, and drag-reduction studies. These projects required translating theory into practical engineering decisions.

The work

The work involved studying aerodynamic behavior, developing performance-led designs, using simulation-led thinking, and understanding how mechanical systems respond to real physical constraints.

Supersonic and high-speed systems require careful attention to geometry and flow behavior. Nozzle design, wind-tunnel development, and aerodynamic analysis all require a disciplined process: define the objective, understand the constraints, calculate or simulate the behavior, design around the physics, and refine based on results.

This foundation also created a strong respect for testing and assumptions. In engineering, a design is only as strong as the assumptions behind it. That lesson carries directly into product development, even when the product is not aerospace-related.

Engineering decisions

One important decision was to approach design through function first. In performance-led engineering, geometry is never just visual. It has a job to do.

Another important decision was to use analysis as a design guide, not as a decorative afterthought. Simulation and calculation are most valuable when they help shape the design direction early, not only when they are used to justify a design that is already locked.