Back in the days when I first stepped into product design over 20 years ago, a seasoned engineer shared a universal solution: If it doesn’t work, just add another component. This was the magic fix to all design challenges at the time. Whenever there was an issue, adding another part often gave a quick and effective solution.

But with time it got outdated as the industry developed and profit margin fights here and there made this mindset obsolete.

A new rule has been drawn: ‘Anything goes, but one more component less’ to the MAX. Modern product design seeks simplicity, efficiency, cost reduction and solutions while avoiding complexity.

All extra parts raise manufacturing costs, increase assembly time, and increase the chance of defects. In this time every penny counts, it’s all about subtraction thinking to keep the profitability.

Have you dared to challenge the normal way of thinking and take away just one more piece? It could be the answer that decides your product’s success in today’s competitive market.

1. The Universal Design Formula — “If It Doesn’t Work, Add Another Component” 

When I began in product design in 2003, I met an experienced engineer with a lot of knowledge. Every time he met me, I was a young professional and he was always eager to share his wisdom with me. He once told me, one day, the “universal formula” to solve design problems: “If it doesn’t work, just add another component.” Adding another component to the machine would solve the problem were there an issue with the design. When a problem couldn’t be solved, just keep adding a component until the issue was solved.

Indeed, this approach did help me solve many design problems. For example:

• Uneven illumination? Add a light guide plate;
• Light leakage? Add a black mylar;
• Insufficient strength? Add another reinforcing part;
• EMI failure? Add EMI clips or foam.

It helped smooth out many of my design challenges, solving them by using the method of “if it doesn’t work, just add another component”. Over the time as I was getting more experience, I started noticing that this approach has some flaws.

2. The Cost Problem of “If It Doesn’t Work, Add Another Component” 

The various philosophies of design that I saw over time after that plastic injection molding company, transitioned from my first one and I was exposed to cost awareness. Integrated Product Development (IPD) was one of the key concepts which changed my perspective. What I came to realize was that, while the main purpose of product design is to solve technical problems, profitability is the core responsibility of the designer.

There are several cost implications with each additional component in a product.

• Manufacturing one more part adds all the needed materials, production hours, and power usage.
• Each new product part needs custom mold development which brings with it substantial initial expenses.
• Multiple parts raise assembly labor expenses because of their complex arrangements.
• More components mean a greater chance of defects, leading to higher rejection rates and rework expenses.

Component stacking is a common issue in many industries, one being injection molding. However, some companies continuously add parts to refine the designs without figuring out the hidden financial consequences. As a result, manufacturing costs get inflated, and profit margins are shrinking.

I came to understand the importance of designing with efficiency in mind through IPD. Reduction of costs with functionality maintained can be achieved by simplification, material optimization, and part integration. Good design should add no complexity, instead it should aim towards being minimalistic with each component being used for a purpose and there not being any redundancy.

Finally, cost conscious design is between functionality and profitability. If we think of manufacturing constraints early in the design process, we can conceive of innovative as well as economically viable products.

3. “Do Whatever It Takes, But Subtract One More Component” 

The times have compelled us to dump the old thinking of ‘add one more’ and embrace the new way of thinking ‘Do whatever it takes, but subtract one more component.’ Product design is based on a ‘subtraction thinking’.

If we want to survive in a competitive market and make more profits, then we need to start from the very beginning, that is, reduce the number of components in a product so as to reduce cost. This is the simplest of cost cutting methods but also the hardest to achieve as every component has a purpose:

• They may be crucial for functionality;
• They may enhance product strength;
• They may improve user experience.

Generally, when we hear design teams building the case or the reason for each component, they usually translate as saying ‘The previous designers must have had a reason for them.’ However, that is actually lazy thinking. The real work is to break from ‘what worked before must be right’ and simplify every detail of the design.

4. How to Achieve “Do Whatever It Takes, But Subtract One More Component” 

Then how do you subtract an additional component such that when you do ‘Do whatever it takes’, you still get there? Mindset and technology both must be applied for this.

Mindset Level 

On the mindset level, we need to learn to question. You have to ask yourself whether each component is actually necessary. In this regard, we can take a cue from the industry leaders such as Elon Musk who keep questioning and simplifying to optimize the products.

Mindset level: His cost cutting framework is “Problem – Delete – Simplify – Accelerate – Automate” and this is something we ought to apply in product design as well.

Technology Level 

Here are the technical measures we should use to reduce components:

1. Remove unnecessary functionality by analyzing functionality
2. Reduce parts by eliminating excess features
3. Reduce number of transfer paths between components, and eliminate intermediate parts.
4. Improve element face design to simplify construction methods.
5. Reduce component variety by use of standardization and common design.
6. It can be used to reduce the requirement for separate components by using integration design.
7. Optimizing manufacturing process to eliminate unnecessary steps.

These principles can be used to dissect each component, decide if it’s actually necessary, and then replace or optimize it in some other way.

5. Breaking the Psychological Barrier: Overcoming Resistance to Change 

The main obstacle when using subtraction thinking is the mental block against taking things away. Designers and engineers have an automatic response to keep parts because they think their work will become less reliable and user-friendly. People naturally resist removing elements from their work but this mindset causes unnecessary design expansion and higher expenses.

People oppose subtraction thinking because they believe every existing part holds necessary functions. Design teams usually support surplus components because they believe earlier designers added them for a good reason. Despite seeming correct this approach leads to outdated products because they do not keep up with new technology and material advancements.

Companies should create space for employees to test new ideas and ask questions about unnecessary additions to their designs. Collaborations between groups who design analyze and make products help everyone see new ways to simplify their work. Through prototype development and testing companies prove that fewer parts do not equal diminished product quality instead they produce better and more effective results.

Leaders need to adopt new thinking patterns to see subtractive design as an opportunity instead of a risk. Looking at subtraction as a chance to both lower production costs and make products easier to use and manufacture will help companies reach better results. Organizations that follow this mindset will escape old design patterns to create leaner and more profitable items.

6. Real-World Success: Companies Thriving with Subtraction Thinking 

Major companies show that removing unneeded elements in their products generates superior results while making more money. Tesla and Apple serve as excellent examples of subtraction thinking success.

Tesla’s electric vehicles showcase the power of simplification. Instead of typical automakers Tesla produces vehicles with integrated software technology and uses multifunctional parts. The result? The company reduces its expenses while creating more dependable systems that need less upkeep. Through this approach Tesla has transformed car production methods without losing its focus on top-quality technical advancements.

Apple applies the same approach when designing its products. Apple builds elegant devices through their habit of getting rid of unnecessary features from MacBook unibody to iPhone design. Apple improves product toughness and lowers production expenses while providing better user experiences through the integration of frame antennas and headphone jack removal.

Various businesses succeed by designing products that deliver core functionality through minimal material usage including Dyson in home appliances and IKEA in furniture design. These companies prove that minimalism does not mean losing important features but instead developing better performance through design review.

When observing successful companies businesses can implement subtraction thinking methods to save money and develop easier production processes that benefit customers. The goal is not to take parts away but to design every element of a product from a new perspective while keeping profits stable.

Final Words 

I learned from an experienced engineer in 2003 about the valuable practice of adding more components when initial designs fail.

Any new component added to the design system may create hidden financial damage in 2025. Normal business procedures that appear harmless trigger hidden losses that lower our profits.

Due to growing expenses and decreased profits companies need to modernize their product design methods. Review your product design and Bill of Materials when current hidden production costs persist. Your company will achieve superior results when you accept the requirement to reduce by one additional component.