Built, but undocumented
Years of product knowledge had to become manufacturing instructions.
The situation
I recently spoke with a founder whose company had gone from building a handful of prototypes to producing and selling industrial equipment every week.
As sales increased, the team began looking for ways to improve its supply chain. One priority was finding a better manufacturer for a custom component used in its machines. The existing supplier had created quality and communication challenges, and the founders wanted to explore alternatives that could support continued production.
They had an established design, working machines, and experience assembling the product themselves. The next step was preparing the information a new manufacturer would need to provide a quote.
The plan
The team started by reviewing its engineering drawings and assembling a request for quotation (RFQ) package. The goal was to give potential suppliers consistent information so they could be evaluated on cost, capability, lead time, and quality.
As they worked through the package, they identified several areas that needed more detail. Some critical dimensions and tolerances weren't fully documented, and one component selection remained open because the founders wanted to give manufacturers flexibility to propose an equivalent part.
These details mattered because they influenced which suppliers could take on the work. A machine shop could manufacture the component to a completed drawing, while a supplier expected to help finalize the design would need additional engineering capabilities.
Where uncertainty remained
The founders knew how the component needed to function because they had been building and using it for some time. But much of that knowledge lived within their engineering and production teams.
During the review, questions came up about how a new supplier would verify the finished parts. What dimensions needed to be inspected? What pressure and leakage tests should be performed? What documentation should accompany each shipment?
The team had methods for checking parts internally, but those expectations hadn't all been translated into requirements that an outside manufacturer could follow.
Without that information, suppliers could make different assumptions about the work, making their quotes difficult to compare and leaving questions about how incoming quality would be managed.
What needed to be proven first
Before committing to a new supplier, the team needed to establish what a manufacturer would be responsible for delivering and how that work would be verified.
That meant clarifying the drawings, identifying critical dimensions, defining acceptable component substitutions, and documenting inspection and test expectations. It also meant deciding which engineering decisions the company would retain and where it wanted supplier input.
The process prompted changes beyond the immediate sourcing project. The founder later shared that his team had rebuilt its drawing template and started writing test plans for modules, recognizing that the same discipline should extend across its products.
The company eventually continued producing the component with its existing machine shop and found a separate domestic supplier for the valves. The sourcing work had helped establish a more structured approach to manufacturing requirements, regardless of which supplier was ultimately selected.
The pattern
As hardware companies grow, the knowledge used to build early products needs to become documentation that manufacturers can execute against. Clear specifications, inspection criteria, and supplier responsibilities make it easier to evaluate partners and maintain quality as production expands.
At Hardware Velocity, we help founders prepare for manufacturing by connecting engineering requirements, supplier capabilities, and quality expectations before sourcing decisions are made. That includes identifying gaps in the manufacturing package and determining what needs to be resolved before suppliers can be evaluated.