Martin Shawn Egan

They describe it as the discipline governing how a product is seen, touched, understood and used—a meeting point for engineering, psychology, manufacturing, marketing and creativity.

• Design shapes visual appearance, color and finish, ergonomics and usability, sound and tactile feedback, user interface, brand identity, manufacturing quality and the emotional connection a buyer forms.
• The reasoning is that consumers buy with emotion and justify with logic, making those touchpoints decisive in whether a purchase feels right.
• Egan reports 35+ years and hundreds of consumer and commercial products across appliances, vending systems, storage products and industrial equipment.

The vending-machine project is the worked example.

• At Crane Merchandising Systems, customers used a simple keypad to enter codes such as A3 or D7 and hoped the right product would drop.
• Research showed many lacked confidence in their purchase.
• Working with engineering and marketing, the team introduced capacitive touch controls, LED illumination, a more readable display and product confirmation before purchase.
• In Egan's account, the interface added about $4 per machine and helped move vending toward the touchscreen systems common today.

Read original

Successful products still require engineering, manufacturing, tooling, ergonomics, cost reduction, user behavior, safety and commercialization. Those non-visual disciplines, they argue, are what a brand is paying for—not a stage tacked onto a finished look.

The vending-machine redesign is the demonstration: the post credits research, controls, feedback and cost control—not appearance alone—with changing the customer experience and helping pave the way for touchscreen vending.

Read original

The goal: a product that solves a real customer need, can be manufactured, meets the target cost and is ready for production, not simply one that looks good.

The Farrier Hoof Pick project illustrates the full sequence. Egan also points to an MSE Products NPD Project Estimator, which returns a preliminary estimate of engineering hours and cost so prospective clients can price a project before committing to a definition phase.

Read original

Egan credits engineer Jack Lestrange with the firsthand walkthrough at the booth.

• The process is worth investigating, they argue, for lightweight, stiff components at volumes above conventional prototyping but below dedicated tooling.
• Separate vendor literature figures from evidence of how a specific part will perform.

The post cites CBAM 25 brochure figures: an 18 x 17 x 4 in. maximum build volume, 50-60 micron layers, roughly 11,800 cm3/hour production speed and listed print accuracy of plus or minus 0.005 in. in X/Y.

• Before selecting the process, verify part orientation and directional properties, minimum features and tolerances, surface finish and post-processing, actual cost at the required volume, and thermal and chemical performance for the chosen fiber-polymer combination.
• Egan plans to explore CBAM for early T1 and T2 prototypes of a handheld tool whose production components are planned in aluminum.

The post describes a prototype-stage test on a project still slated for aluminum production. Before choosing the technology for production, ask what the prototype is meant to validate.

Read original

Announcing that MSE Products LLC would attend IMTS in Chicago, they framed the show as a chance to learn about new manufacturing technologies, meet potential partners and expand the supplier resources the firm can offer clients.

• The post also describes work spanning industrial design and engineering through prototyping, tooling, manufacturing and production support.
• The business is described as Ballwin, Missouri based and positioned under American design and engineering.

The pre-show note is the example, not a product case: it sets up meetings with suppliers and manufacturers to connect clients with production partners. Egan credits Austin Etter with bringing the show to their attention.

Read original

The post recounts a vending-machine redesign at Crane Merchandising Systems.

• Customers used keypad codes such as A3 or D7 and were not confident the right product would drop.
• The redesign added capacitive touch controls, LED lighting, a more readable display, and purchase confirmation.
• Egan says the interface added about $4 per machine and improved the experience.
• The example connects interface choices to customer confidence and illustrates their view that design must account for engineering, manufacturing, cost, and user behavior.

For brands planning a campaign

For a consumer-product brief, ask Egan to identify a specific point of user uncertainty and show how proposed changes affect usability, production cost, and manufacturing. Since the post describes a past project, ask how its results might apply to a new product.

Egan uses a Farrier Hoof Pick project to describe a sequence from concept sketches through industrial design, engineering, prototyping, tooling, and manufacturing.

• They say the aim is not just a good-looking design: the product should address a customer need, be manufacturable, meet a target cost, and be ready for production.
• Before using this process as a model, ask for project dates, technical specifications, and measured outcomes.

For brands planning a campaign

This is a practical starting point for scoping a project that needs concept design, engineering, and manufacturing readiness. Before agreeing on scope, ask for the deliverables, decision gates, cost assumptions, and production constraints at each stage.

After a visit to Impossible Objects at IMTS, Egan describes CBAM as a process that patterns polymer powder onto reinforced-fiber sheets, stacks and presses the sheets, then removes unbonded fiber.

• They connect the method's potential to lightweight, stiff parts and production volumes that may fall between conventional prototyping and dedicated tooling.
• They also distinguish machine specifications from part guarantees and call out checks such as tolerances, orientation, finish, cost, and application-specific performance.
• They plan to explore CBAM for early prototypes of a handheld tool whose production components are planned for aluminum.

For brands planning a campaign

For a product-development campaign, this post can support a discussion about material and process selection during prototyping. Treat the stated machine specifications as claims from literature cited in the post, not proof of performance for a particular part; define tests and requirements before recommending a process.

Egan describes attending IMTS to learn about manufacturing technologies, meet potential partners, and expand supplier resources for clients. They present MSE Products' work as spanning industrial design and engineering through prototyping, tooling, manufacturing, and production support.

For brands planning a campaign

If supplier access or production handoff matters to a brief, ask which suppliers and capabilities are relevant to the product, what MSE Products would manage directly, and how manufacturing readiness would be assessed.

The post lists the customer touchpoints design affects: visual appearance, color and finish, ergonomics and usability, sound and tactile feedback, user interface, brand identity, manufacturing quality, and emotional connection. They report 35+ years and hundreds of consumer and commercial products, naming appliances, vending systems, storage products, and industrial equipment as categories.

The post warns that AI can generate attractive product renderings in seconds, but images alone do not make a product manufacturable or profitable. Engineering, tooling, ergonomics, cost reduction, user behavior, safety, and commercialization still need to be worked through.

For brands planning a campaign

Expect a design engagement focused on usability, manufacturability, and commercial outcomes—not appearance alone. Scope deliverables to include engineering and production input during the design phase, not as a later handoff.

Examples: Source 1

Earlier machines used simple keypad buttons: customers entered codes such as A3 or D7 and hoped the right product would drop.

• The post says many lacked confidence in the purchase.
• Working with engineering and marketing, the interface was redesigned with capacitive touch controls, LED illumination, improved display readability, product confirmation before purchase, and updated styling.
• The change cost roughly $4 more per machine and, in Egan's account, changed the customer experience and helped lead toward today's touchscreen vending.

Design decisions follow from observed customer behavior, then translate into a specific unit-cost figure and commercial outcome—not an argument based on aesthetics.

For brands planning a campaign

For a consumer or commercial product with a usability problem, this approach offers a clear starting point: behavioral research, a concrete list of design changes, and a cost-per-unit figure to weigh against the expected lift in customer confidence or conversion.

Examples: Source 1

The goal is not just a good-looking design, but a product that solves a real customer need, can be manufactured, meets a target cost, and is ready for production. The post points to an MSE Products NPD Project Estimator, which returns a preliminary estimate of engineering hours and project cost.

For brands planning a campaign

A brand can assess this as a single-thread engagement from concept through production readiness, using the estimator for an initial scope before committing to a paid definition phase.

Examples: Source 1

Egan explains the steps: carbon-fiber or fiberglass reinforcement feeds through as a substrate; inkjet deposits a pattern for each cross-section; polymer powder adheres to the pattern; excess powder is removed; patterned sheets are stacked and pressed under heat; and unbonded fiber is removed.

• The post reports CBAM 25 literature figures—18 × 17 × 4 in. maximum build volume, 50–60 micron layers, about 11,800 cm³/hour production speed, and listed print accuracy of ±0.005 in. in X/Y—and distinguishes machine specifications from guarantees for a given geometry.
• Before selection, it recommends verifying part orientation and directional properties, minimum features and tolerances, surface finish and post-processing, actual cost at volume, and thermal and chemical performance for the chosen fiber–polymer combination.
• A planned MSE Products application is T1 and T2 prototypes of a new handheld tool whose production parts are aluminum.

The approach is to explain an unfamiliar process step by step, label vendor literature figures as specifications rather than results, and list the application-specific questions a buyer should answer before choosing the technology.

The post presents CBAM as worth investigating for demanding engineering applications, not as a default choice. Ask what application-specific testing is needed to confirm material and process selection.

For brands planning a campaign

Useful when a project needs a defensible prototype-stage technology decision with manufacturing intent. The output should include trade-offs and verification items, not a vendor endorsement.

Examples: Source 1

The aims are to learn about new manufacturing technologies, meet potential partners, and expand the supplier resources the firm can bring to clients. The post describes capabilities from industrial design and engineering through prototyping, tooling, manufacturing, and production support, and identifies the business as Ballwin, Missouri based, with American design and engineering positioning.

For brands planning a campaign

For a brand seeking sourcing introductions alongside design and engineering, this supports evaluating the engagement as design plus supplier access. The geography and positioning also matter to brands prioritizing domestic manufacturing.

Examples: Source 1

The posts don't say whether they own or work for the business; ask them to clarify their relationship.

View example

They present this as past employment.

View example

They describe technical specifications and questions to verify before selecting the process.

View example

Gafvert writes about robotics teams needing grippers, brackets, and pads that withstand field use, and about moving from CAD to a testable, engineering-grade part quickly.

• Both writers treat materials and process as production decisions rather than experiments.
• Both also report from IMTS 2026, sharing what they saw and whom they spoke to, including named people.

Gafvert writes as a materials and additive-platform advocate for Carbon, focusing on one supplier’s materials and software and on parts already in production.

• Egan covers the wider chain a client buys—industrial design, engineering, prototyping, tooling, manufacturing—and does not sell a materials platform.
• Their CBAM post separates vendor-literature figures from what a specific part will do and names what still needs verification.
• Gafvert is the closer read for additive materials in robotics; Egan for product design and development process.

Read original · Original 2

One post explains an open format for capturing operator heuristics and cause-and-effect relationships so plant-floor AI has thirty years of missing context; another frames vertical, domain-specific AI as where foundation models create value. Like Egan, Mohan makes a practical case for adoption, with named collaborators and a specific next step at a trade show.

Mohan focuses on software and data for the plant floor—agents, telemetry, knowledge formats—and writes from a vendor role at Augury, with a Google partnership as the frame.

• Egan focuses on the physical product: shape, usability, tolerances, tooling, and production cost.
• Readers following Egan for product design will find Mohan useful for understanding what happens to machine and operating data once the product is in use, not for design or development guidance.

Read original · Original 2

Both explain how manufacturers can turn available technology into a business result: Khan traces shop-floor signals through context and insight to execution and measured outcomes; Egan traces a concept sketch through engineering, prototyping, tooling, and manufacturing to a product that meets target cost. Both also publish show-takeaway posts that name what they heard rather than what they sell.

Khan writes about operational data and AI systems for manufacturers—ERP, planning, inventory, predictive maintenance, and edge and cloud decisions—from a data and AI practice.

• Their unit of value is the business problem resolved end to end.
• Egan writes about products and the design, engineering, and manufacturing work that produces them; their unit of value is a manufacturable product at target cost.
• Khan is the better follow for factory data and AI adoption; Egan for the product itself.

Read original · Original 2

Gafvert's posts describe robotics teams held up by tooling lead times: a new gripper geometry meant a new tool, while a different durometer meant new samples and a wait.

• They present a CAD-to-testable engineering-grade part in the same day using Carbon materials and Design Engine latticing software, with the same part and material carrying from testing into production.
• If the buyer already knows what the part must be and needs faster iteration plus production-grade material selection under load, heat, and saltwater exposure, this is a better-matched starting point than a design consultancy.

The posts focus on materials and additive processes, not industrial design, ergonomics, user experience, or consumer product form.

• The buyer would still need someone to define the product, user problem, and target cost.
• The posts also read as supplier-platform messaging for Carbon rather than independent advice, anchoring the engagement to one materials ecosystem rather than an open comparison of processes.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

Mohan's posts describe Augury publishing an open industrial profile to capture operator heuristics, trust rules for incoming readings, and cause-and-effect relationships.

• They also describe pairing Google's Gemini reasoning with machine telemetry for role-based agents delivered to manufacturing teams.
• Choose Mohan over Egan when the deliverable is operational AI inside a factory, not a physical product a consumer buys.

The posts cover software and AI systems, not industrial design, mechanical engineering, prototyping, tooling, or manufacturing readiness for a discrete product.

• They are largely company and partner announcements, including a live demo at a trade-show booth.
• A buyer seeking a handheld consumer tool designed and engineered to a target cost should look elsewhere.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2

Khan's closing IMTS takeaways lay out that sequence — define the outcome, connect the systems, contextualize the data, decide what belongs at the edge, then apply AI to a real decision — and describe Fuzzitech's position as a connected, trusted data foundation that supports better operating decisions. Choose Khan over Egan when the buyer's problem is data and operating decisions rather than a new product.

The posts cover AI systems and integration, not design, engineering, prototyping, or production work.

• They discuss the problem space and where Fuzzitech believes practical AI begins, rather than showing named client outcomes.
• A buyer needing a concept designed, engineered, and prepared for tooling should look elsewhere.

Examples: Source 1 · Source 2