Product Systems,
Not Product Monoliths
Don't design the Thing; design the System that generates the Thing.
Most companies build monoliths—unique solutions designed from scratch. Smart companies build systems—modular architectures where components recombine to create infinite variety.
The Efficiency Frontier
The goal is to break the trade-off between variety and efficiency. By maximising component commonality, we can offer infinite variety without infinite cost.
Victorinox/LEGO. Mass Customisation. Innovation on one part updates the whole system.
Ford Model T. "Any colour as long as it's black." Efficient but rigid.
Bespoke creation. Every product is a prototype. Slow, expensive, fragile.
The Holy Grail: Moving Top-Right
Four Pillars of Modularity
Executive Summary: Iconic systems that scale through recombination.
Victorinox
The Masterclass
The System: A standardized chassis + tool library.
They don't invent new knives; they configure existing capabilities for specific personas.
Predictable innovation & SKU agility.
LEGO
The Universal Interface
The System: The "Stud and Tube" coupling (1958).
A brick from 1960 still clicks into a brick made today. The system outlives the products.
Infinite play from finite components.
Milwaukee
The Energy Anchor
The System: The M18 Battery Interface.
The tool is no longer the product; the battery is the platform. Tools are just accessories to the power source.
Massive ecosystem lock-in.
Taco Bell
K-Minus: The Kitchen as Assembly Line
The System: Glen Bell (1962) standardized the menu. John Martin (1989) formalized "K-Minus"—removing the kitchen, outsourcing prep. Seven core ingredients reconfigured into 50+ items. Innovation became culinary geometry, not supply chain complexity.
Speed and efficiency at scale.
Victorinox: The Combinatorial Engine
Capability StackingThe Elsener Legacy
In 1884, Karl Elsener founded a knife workshop in Ibach, Switzerland. His breakthrough wasn't creating a better knife—it was creating a system for building infinite knives. The standardized spring mechanism (patented 1897) became the platform that powered over 400 product variations, all from the same architectural foundation.
The Platform Demonstrator
The Swiss Champ XXL is unwieldy and impractical. It contains 73 functions and is too wide to hold. But it isn't meant to be a product; it is a proof of the platform. It proves that the racking, spring-loading, and spacing systems work for everything.
The Approach
The Outcome
Products are just configurations.
Hiker: Chassis + Blade + Wood Saw.
Golfer: Chassis + Blade + Divot Tool.
Innovations (e.g., a better steel) enhance the entire platform instantly.
Shared vs. Unique DNA
Shared Foundation enables Infinite Variation [1]
LEGO: The Universal Interface
Backward CompatibilityThe Christiansen Principle
In 1932, Ole Kirk Christiansen founded LEGO in Denmark. His son Godtfred refined the vision: create a universal system where every element connects to every other element, across all sets, forever. The "Stud and Tube" coupling mechanism (Patented 1958) became the immutable interface—the platform that outlives all products built on it.
The System of Play
LEGO does not build toys; it builds a system. It is a strict geometric standard that ensures everything connects. A brick from 1960 fits perfectly with a brick from 2025—the interface is eternal.
The Approach
The Outcome
Because the interface is immutable, LEGO can iterate wildly on the "skin" (Branding) without breaking the system. A brick from 1960 fits a brick from 2025.
Product Lifespan vs Interface Lifespan
The Platform (Interface) persists; The Products (Sets) cycle [2]
Milwaukee: The Energy Anchor
Ecosystem Lock-inThe $626 Million Bet
In 2005, Techtronic Industries (TTI) acquired Milwaukee Tool for $626.6 million. It was a struggling brand. TTI made a radical strategic pivot: stop competing on individual tools. Instead, build an energy ecosystem. Focus on the trades that matter most—mechanical, electrical, and plumbing (MEP)—and solve the hardest problem first: portable power.
The Risky Decision
Most manufacturers were choosing: put intelligence in the battery or the tool. TTI chose both. Expensive. Risky. But it meant every M18 battery could talk to every M18 tool through Digital Power Management. In 2009, Milwaukee launched the M18 system with a promise: backward compatibility forever. They would never abandon users. Every future tool would work with every past battery.
The System Architecture
The Outcome
By 2024, the M18 system powers over 250 tools—from drills to heated jackets to LED tower lights. The battery became the product. The tools became accessories. Once a tradesperson commits to M18, switching costs are prohibitive. Milwaukee can now launch edge-case tools (leaf blowers, inflators) in months, not years, because the hardest problem—portable, intelligent power—is already solved.
Tools per Battery Platform
Exponential growth of SKUs on shared power rails [3]
Taco Bell: K-Minus and the Vanishing Kitchen
Assembly Line InnovationGlen Bell: The Standardization Pioneer
In 1962, Glen Bell opened the first Taco Bell in Downey, California. His innovation wasn't authentic Mexican food—it was systematization. He pioneered commercially pre-fried taco shells (mass-produced, not hand-made) and a streamlined menu with standardized ingredients. Speed trumped authenticity. Replicability trumped craftsmanship.
John Martin: The K-Minus Revolution
In 1983, John Martin became CEO. By 1989, he unveiled "K-Minus"—literally "Kitchen Minus." The radical idea: get the kitchen out of the restaurant. Outsource dicing, slicing, and prep. Transform the back-of-house into an assembly line using pre-prepped ingredients. The result: restaurants needed less space, less equipment, less skilled labor.
The Ingredient Platform
The Outcome
Under Martin's leadership, Taco Bell grew from a $600 million regional chain to a $5 billion national brand. The key: innovation is culinary geometry, not supply chain complexity. A new menu item doesn't require new ingredients or new equipment—just a new arrangement of existing components. Launch time: days, not months.
Seven Ingredients, Infinite Combinations
Same seven ingredients, exponential menu growth [4]
The Misalignment Traps
When modularity goes wrong.
The Frankenstein's Monster
Bolting incompatible parts together without a shared DNA or interface. The result is a disjointed, ugly mess with visible seams.
(It's the Monster that's the problem, not the Creator).
The XXL Fallacy
Just because the platform can hold 73 tools, doesn't mean the customer wants them all at once. Shipping "Bloatware" instead of curated solutions is a failure of empathy.
The Proprietary Trap
Creating "Standard" interfaces that aren't actually standard across teams. This leads to "Silos of Excellence" but "Systemic Failure".
The Elsener Test
Named for Karl Elsener, founder of Victorinox
Before building a product, ask yourself these three questions to determine if you're creating a platform:
1. The Configurator Test
If a customer asked for a custom version tomorrow, could we build it in days (configuration) or would it take months (engineering)?
2. Innovation Inheritance
If we improve a core component (e.g. sharper steel), does every product in the portfolio get better instantly?
3. The Silhouette Test
Can we change the branding/skin drastically to reach a new segment without breaking the core functionality?
So What? Why This Matters Now
I started noticing this pattern everywhere. Not in boardrooms or whitepapers, but in everyday products around me.
In the Scouts, the constant debate was about who had the best penknife. It had to be Victorinox—that was non-negotiable. But which model? The Hiker? The Climber? The Pioneer? Interestingly, not one of us ever had the Swiss Champ (too impractical). What struck me even then: we all understood that these were variations of the same system. Different configurations for different needs. Same DNA.
At home, I have two modular ecosystems: DeWalt for DIY, Ego for garden tools (ride-on mower, chainsaw, leaf blower). Once I committed to a battery platform, every subsequent tool purchase was obvious. The hard decision—choosing the system—happened once. Everything after that was just adding capabilities.
As a teenager, I worked Saturdays at Burger King while studying. Even at 16, the customization system was obvious: core ingredients, infinite combinations. "Have It Your Way" wasn't a marketing slogan—it was an architectural decision. The kitchen was an assembly line, not a workshop.
Now, as a parent, I watch LEGO evolve. My kids don't just play with bricks—they build Star Wars sets, Harry Potter castles, Friends cafes. I can get out my childhood LEGO from the 1980s, and it clicks perfectly with their 2025 sets. Backward compatibility across 40+ years. LEGO has expanded into films (which themselves became revenue generators, not just marketing—The LEGO Movie grossed $469M), brand partnerships, theme parks. The system is eternal. The products are disposable.
The Architecture Tax
Then I started seeing the inverse pattern. Large, mature firms—household names with decades of dominance—unable to respond to market shifts. Not because they lacked talent or capital, but because their architecture was constraining, not enabling.
Every new requirement requires re-engineering from scratch. Every market shift demands a complete rebuild. Nimble startups dance around them. Disruptive innovations make entire product lines obsolete. These aren't failures of vision or speed—they're failures of architecture. The monolith becomes a prison.
The LEGO Way
Then there's LEGO. A 90-year-old company that's more relevant today than ever. Why? Because they stayed true to their core—the Stud and Tube interface—while innovating relentlessly from it. The platform is sacred. The products are disposable.
- →1958: Basic bricks and plates
- →1977: Minifigures (new layer, same interface)
- →1998: Mindstorms robotics (sensors, motors)
- →2024: Licensed themes, digital integration
The platform enables infinite evolution without breaking backward compatibility. That's the goal.
"Your architecture is either an engine of possibility or a cage of constraints. Choose carefully."
Product systems aren't about over-engineering. They're about strategic modularity—knowing which interfaces to stabilize (your core) and which implementations to iterate on (your products). It's the discipline that lets you respond to disruption without abandoning your foundation. It's the difference between evolution and extinction.
References & Data Points
- Victorinox AG. (2022). The Swiss Army Knife Anatomy. Technical breakdown of the Officer's Knife spring mechanism (Patent 1897).
- LEGO Group. (2020). The LEGO System in Play. Historical patent data (1958) regarding the backward compatibility of ABS bricks.
- Milwaukee Tool. (2009). M18 Battery Platform Launch. Techtronic Industries TTI acquisition (2005) and Digital Power Management system. See: Milwaukee Story
- Taco Bell Corp. (1989). K-Minus Concept. John Martin's kitchen transformation strategy. Historical documentation via Company Histories