Why Hardware Development Takes So Long

Good news everyone! Your prototype boards have finally arrived. Your team powers them up, starts testing, and discovers a problem that requires a layout change. It’s a simple fix and your engineer does it in a day.

Unfortunately, the replacement boards won’t be ready tomorrow…or the next week for that matter. There’s fabrication, component procurement, assembly, shipping, and another round of testing. Meanwhile, firmware needs reliable hardware, manufacturing needs updated files, and someone is asking whether the original launch date still holds.

One day of engineering work has become weeks of elapsed time. That’s the reality of working in hardware.

Previously, we’ve explored the biggest issues that engineers face today including finding and retaining hardware talent and managing increasingly complex products. But even when you have the right people and a sound approach to complexity, there’s another challenge: hardware development simply takes time.

But how much of that time is necessary? And how much comes from waiting, unclear decisions, or repeating work that could have been avoided? Modern engineering teams need to answer those questions if they want to keep long projects moving. Here are eight practical ways to do that.

Key takeaways

• Build schedules around dependencies, supplier lead times, and test readiness.
• Give every prototype a clear purpose and define its tests before ordering parts.
• Prepare firmware, fixtures, documentation, and manufacturing work while hardware is being built.
• Review sourcing, manufacturability, and compliance risks before committing to a final design.
• Use controlled releases and a shared PLM record to keep teams working from the right product revision.
• Track the causes of delays so each build improves the next development cycle.

Why hardware development cycles get so long

Unlike software, hardware development is bound by the physical world. A schematic becomes a PCB layout, which becomes a fabricated board, which gets populated, assembled, and tested. Problems uncovered downstream may send the team back through several of those steps.

NeuronicWorks describes this as hardware’s lack of an “undo” button. Rework is sometimes possible, but changing built hardware has constraints that editing a design file does not.

That doesn’t mean every long project is inefficient. Some testing requires time. Some processes have unavoidable lead times. A novel design may need multiple experiments before the team understands its behavior.

The useful distinction is between three kinds of time:

These can, and usually do, compound. A late component substitution might require layout changes, another build, and additional verification. Suddenly, a sourcing issue affects the entire schedule.

So how do agile hardware teams mitigate these long development cycles?

1. Build a schedule around what can block the next step

“PCB layout complete” is a useful milestone. It doesn’t tell you whether you can actually build the board.

Are the parts available? Has the manufacturer reviewed the files? Is assembly capacity reserved? Will the test fixture be ready when the hardware arrives?

A realistic schedule includes the dependencies between engineering work and external commitments. Map the path from design through purchasing, fabrication, assembly, bring-up, verification, and pilot production. Identify which activities determine the earliest possible completion date: your critical path.

For each important dependency, record an owner, a needed-by date, and the consequence of a delay. Confirm supplier estimates rather than treating an old quote as a permanent promise.

For example, finishing layout early won’t advance assembly if a required component arrives three weeks later. Identifying that constraint sooner gives the team options such as to evaluate an alternative, adjust the build, or make an informed purchasing commitment.

Your team leads should review the critical path weekly. Ask: What could stop the next build, and when do we need to act? Then, include recovery time where there is a good amount of uncertainty. A schedule that assumes every new subsystem will work immediately and perfectly is more fantasy than reality.

2. Make every prototype answer a specific question

A prototype should produce evidence that supports the next engineering decision.

“Build a prototype and see what happens” leaves too much unresolved, especially for complex hardware. Does the team need to validate power consumption? Check thermal performance? Confirm mechanical fit? Demonstrate that the complete system meets its functional requirements? All these should be defined before ordering parts.

Sometimes an evaluation board, simulation, or rough mechanical mockup can answer the immediate question faster than a complete custom product. You might, for example, investigate a processor’s power behavior on development hardware while the enclosure concept is still evolving.

Fictiv’s guide to pre-production hardware testing explains how testing changes across engineering, design, and production verification. It also recommends planning tests before ordering build components and determining quantities from those needs.

For each build, specify:

• What you need to learn.
• Which tests will provide that evidence.
• What constitutes a satisfactory result.
• What decision follows a pass or failure.
• How many units testing requires.
  
  

And reserve those units. A prototype on its way to an investor demo can’t be part of any destructive testing (this has happened before!).

3. Do useful work while the hardware is being built

Fabrication and assembly take time. But that shouldn’t be idle time for your team. That window can also be preparation time.

Firmware engineers can develop against appropriate development hardware. Test engineers can prepare scripts, fixtures, equipment, and data collection. Manufacturing teams can review assembly instructions and resolve questions. The goal is for the team to be ready when the hardware arrives.

Of course, parallel work requires a modicum of coordination. If firmware development assumes one pin assignment while the PCB team changes it, the teams may create rework instead of saving time.

Document the assumptions that allow work to proceed: interfaces, signal definitions, expected behavior, and revision compatibility. Then, assign someone to communicate changes. The goal of getting your team on the same page is to eliminate all the bottlenecks you can.

4. Bring sourcing and manufacturing into the design early

A component can meet every electrical requirement and still become the reason your build is late. What’s the old saying? “A component in the hand…”

Review availability, lead times, lifecycle status, and expected production quantities during component selection. And repeat those checks before major builds because conditions can change during a long project.

Where appropriate, identify and qualify alternatives. “We’ll find a replacement later” is a weak contingency plan if a substitution could affect layout, firmware, thermal behavior, or qualification.

Likewise, manufacturing needs the same early attention. Ask your manufacturer to review relevant fabrication, assembly, inspection, and test requirements while the team still has room to respond.

Take the example of a connector that works perfectly on a hand-assembled prototype but is difficult to install consistently on the automated production line. Discovering that before release gives you time to adjust the design or assembly approach.

Pro tip: before ordering a build, hold a short readiness review with engineering, sourcing, and manufacturing. There, you can resolve missing information and record accepted risks. Give everyone a clear opportunity to identify what could stop the build.

5. Plan compliance and verification before the final prototype

“The product works” and “the product is ready to ship” are two very different sentiments.

Depending on the product and its intended markets, teams may need safety, electromagnetic compatibility, environmental, reliability, or other testing. These requirements can influence architecture, materials, layout, enclosure design, and documentation.

Identify the relevant needs early with qualified specialists. Establish the test plan, required configurations, sample quantities, and external appointments before the schedule depends on them.

For electronics, early EMC checks can expose problems while changes are still manageable. UL Solutions explains that EMC pre-compliance testing can identify likely sources of failure during early design, helping teams address issues before full testing. But it doesn’t replace formal compliance work.

Record exactly what was tested, including hardware revision, firmware version, setup, and relevant components. When something changes, the team needs to determine which results remain applicable and which checks must be repeated.

That traceability becomes especially valuable when testing spans several builds and months of development.

6. Protect each build from endless scope changes

Long projects give everyone plenty of time to think of additional features. That’s less a blessing and more of a curse. A new sensor. Another interface. A slightly different enclosure. Each request may sound modest on its own. Together, they can keep a product in development indefinitely.

Agree on what the next build must accomplish and what can wait. Before procurement and manufacturing commitments, the team should establish a defined baseline: the configuration everyone has agreed to build.

Changes will still happen, of course. But now they can be evaluated with their consequences (ie. delays in shipping) visible to everyone. And keep the criteria for greenlighting changes high-level:

• Does the request correct a safety issue or prevent a known failure?
• Is it necessary to meet an agreed requirement?
• Or is it merely an enhancement for a later revision?
  
  

A “small” sensor addition may be worth doing. But if it requires a board redesign, enclosure changes, and additional verification, the launch plan needs to reflect that work. And it all has to be worth the cost of time and effort.

7. Use PLM to keep everyone building the same revision

Over a long project, product information accumulates across CAD tools, spreadsheets, email, shared folders, and conversations. Eventually, someone has to answer basic questions: Which BOM is approved? Which drawing should the supplier use? Did that component substitution make it into this build?

If those answers are unclear, teams lose time investigating. Worse, they may order or build the wrong configuration.

This is where Product Lifecycle Management becomes particularly useful. A shared product record gives engineering and downstream teams a consistent place to find parts, BOMs, revisions, documents, and approved changes.

A good PLM helps teams manage those records and coordinate engineering changes. For electrical teams, Duro’s Altium 365 integration can generate an eBOM in Duro, bring in part choices, and support releases and change orders; saving time and keeping all these documents in one place.

The team still needs a clear release process, of course. For example, when a component changes after procurement begins, you need to document what happens to existing inventory and which builds receive the replacement. Updating the design alone doesn’t do much for creating that all-important digital thread.

The PLM’s role is to help the results of engineering work remain clear across these handoffs. That reduces opportunities for administrative confusion to trigger another expensive build cycle.

8. Track where time goes to improve the next cycle

“We’re behind schedule” is a problem in this cycle to be addressed before the next. It’s a great opportunity for improvement of the entire process.

Track a few intervals that reveal where your process slows down:

• Design readiness to approved release.
• Release to assembled hardware.
• Hardware arrival to completed testing.
• Days blocked, grouped by cause.
• Additional build rounds, grouped by the reason they were needed.
  
  

Use those measures to guide decisions. If approvals consume more time than expected, review ownership and availability. If testing starts late, investigate preparation and equipment access. If component substitutions repeatedly disrupt builds, revisit sourcing checks.

After each build, identify the largest preventable delay and choose a concrete improvement.

Also preserve what worked: proven circuits, test scripts, fixture designs, assembly feedback, and supplier lessons. Record the conditions under which they were validated so future teams can judge whether reuse is appropriate.

The next project should benefit from the time you spent on this one.

What to do before your next hardware build

You don’t need to overhaul the entire development process this week. Start with the next build.

Your homework:

1. Define what the build must prove.
2. Identify its three biggest schedule dependencies.
3. Confirm component availability, supplier capacity, and test readiness.
4. Check that everyone can locate the same approved build package.
5. Decide how changes will be handled after release.
   
   

Each build should produce useful evidence. Each handoff should give the next team what it needs to move forward.

Want to keep BOMs, revisions, and engineering changes coordinated throughout your next development cycle? Explore Duro’s PLM and see how a shared product record can help your team keep moving.