Design Agency vs EMS vs Design-to-Manufacture Partner: Who Should Build Your Hardware Product?

One of our recent clients came to us after six months of frustration and missed milestones. They had worked with a well-known industrial design studio in London to create the external form and appearance of their product. The electronics and firmware were developed by a remote team based offshore. For manufacturing, they had lined up a contract factory in Eastern Europe. On paper, each partner had delivered what was promised. In practice, nothing aligned.

When production began, mechanical tolerances were off, key components were misaligned, and connectors had been rotated by ninety degrees. The injection-moulded parts would not eject cleanly from the tooling. Each party believed they had fulfilled their scope, but no one had reviewed or validated the complete assembly as a working system. As a result, the project was delayed, rework costs mounted, and the startup had to rebuild its supply chain under pressure.

This scenario is not unusual. Founders building hardware products often face a difficult question early in the journey: who should actually build the product? Should they work with a design studio? Hire a firmware specialist? Go directly to a manufacturer? Or engage a firm that manages the entire process from end to end?

This article outlines the key types of partners you’ll encounter in hardware development, with their strengths and limitations clearly stated. It includes real-world scenarios, explains how to combine or separate responsibilities when needed, and provides a structured decision flow to help you determine what type of partner best fits your needs.

Understanding the Types of Hardware Development Partners

In the hardware ecosystem, the titles may vary, but most firms fall into one of four categories. Each serves a distinct function. The confusion arises when these roles are assumed to be interchangeable.

Industrial Design Studio

An industrial design (ID) studio focuses primarily on the physical appearance, form factor, and user interaction of a product. Their scope often includes initial sketches, 3D CAD models, surface textures, and material selection. The goal is to ensure the product looks good, feels intuitive, and reflects brand intent. Some studios offer limited mechanical engineering or 3D printing capabilities, but full integration with manufacturing is uncommon.

• Strength: Strong expertise in aesthetics, user ergonomics, and product differentiation.

• Limitation: Typically lacks ownership of production constraints, DFM (Design for Manufacturability), and tooling considerations.

  
  

Electronics or Embedded Systems Consultancy

An electronics consultancy specialises in circuit design, PCB layout, embedded firmware, and power systems. These firms are technical by nature and can handle complex board design, firmware development, and sometimes system integration. However, most are focused on function rather than form, and may not address mechanical fit, enclosure constraints, or compliance documentation unless asked explicitly.

• Strength: Excellent capability in electronics, firmware, and debugging complex systems.

• Limitation: Usually works in isolation from mechanical design and final assembly processes.

EMS / Contract Manufacturer

An EMS (Electronics Manufacturing Services) provider or contract manufacturer is responsible for mass production, including sourcing, assembly, testing, and shipping. They excel at high-volume output and optimising cost. However, EMS firms generally expect to receive production-ready inputs. They do not typically participate in early-stage design or validation and will not resolve design conflicts that emerge during production unless prompted.

• Strength: Efficient and cost-effective mass production capability.

• Limitation: Requires complete, validated inputs and offers little support for upstream design issues.

Design-to-Manufacture (D2M) Partner

A D2M partner takes ownership of the full product journey, from concept to production. This includes industrial design, electronics, mechanical engineering, prototyping, pilot runs, tooling, compliance, and supply chain setup. The D2M model avoids fragmented handoffs by integrating all disciplines under one team, allowing for better alignment between design intent and manufacturing reality.

• Strength: Holistic ownership across design and production with fewer surprises downstream.

• Limitation: Not always necessary for narrowly scoped projects or well-defined component-level changes.

Weighing the Options: What Startups Should Consider

For startups, the right choice depends heavily on your internal capabilities, current progress, and risk tolerance. Below is a summary of the pros and cons of each partner type, framed for early-stage teams.

Partner Type	Strengths	Limitations
Industrial Design Studio	Exceptional product appearance and user interface design	Often disconnected from production, tolerance, and cost
Electronics Consultancy	Strong technical expertise in PCB and firmware systems	Limited scope beyond electronics; integration left to you
EMS / Contract Manufacturer	Scalable, repeatable production at low unit cost	Not involved in design or validation; assumes full readiness
D2M Partner	End-to-end control with reduced risk of disconnects	Higher initial cost; may be excessive for minor tasks

Example Scenarios: What Do You Actually Need?

To help ground the discussion, here are three common startup scenarios with recommendations on partner fit.

Scenario 1: “We just need a PCB redesign.”

In this case, your product already exists, but the circuit board requires an update — perhaps to address EMI noise, reduce component cost, or improve power management. This is a clearly scoped task where you do not need to rework the enclosure or change the production setup.

Recommended approach: Engage an experienced electronics or embedded consultancy that can make the necessary changes and validate the updated board through functional tests.

Caution: Be sure to share the enclosure CAD and assembly constraints to avoid fitment issues during integration.

Scenario 2: “We have a prototype and now need 500 production units.”

You have proven the concept with a prototype and want to build your first real batch. However, pilot manufacturing involves many steps beyond prototyping: design validation, tolerance stacking review, FAI (First Article Inspection), and line setup.

Recommended approach: Work with a D2M partner who can review your design, address production risks, manage tooling and fixtures, and supervise the pilot run.

Caution: Avoid handing over development files directly to an EMS unless your design is production-ready and fully documented.

Scenario 3: “We have an idea and want someone to take it all the way.”

You may have a sketch, a product brief, or a clear market opportunity, but no technical team in-house. You’re looking for a partner who can translate this into a real, manufacturable product.

Recommended approach: Choose a D2M firm that can own the entire process, from initial design through to final assembly and shipping.

Caution: Verify that the firm does all key work in-house or under tight control. Many agencies say “end-to-end”, but subcontract everything past prototyping.

Can You Mix and Match Partners?

Yes, it is possible to work with different partners across the product lifecycle. However, this only works if you, as the founder or engineering lead, are equipped to manage interfaces between disciplines.

For example, you might use a design studio for early concept development, then pass the work to a D2M firm or an EMS for refinement and production. Alternatively, you might keep electronics in-house and outsource enclosure design.

If you plan to mix partners:

• Ensure that handoff deliverables are clearly defined and verified (e.g. CAD files, BOMs, Gerbers, test protocols).

• Confirm who is responsible for production readiness checks, tooling validation, and field test preparation.

• Schedule multi-disciplinary design reviews before locking designs, to catch integration issues early.

This model offers flexibility, but it also introduces additional potential failure points. Coordination and accountability must be deliberate.

Decision Flowchart: Who Should You Work With?

Use the flowchart below to determine the right type of partner based on your situation.

Conclusion

The biggest mistake early-stage hardware teams make is not selecting the wrong partner; it is assuming that every firm offering “product development” does the same work. The reality is that industrial designers, EMS firms, consultancies, and D2M partners each solve different problems. What matters is matching their strengths to your real needs.

If you’re evaluating partners now and want a second opinion, we’re happy to walk through your current plans and share how we typically allocate scope between disciplines.

Would you like to see the partner evaluation map we use on internal projects? Let us know. We’re happy to send it over.