Time out from the looking around at what others are up to. Since for the last couple of weeks I've had some time to advance on the prototype. YAY!
(Though, if you want to get a head-start on my review of the rivals check out: Cogenra.com)
The biggest issue for me is keeping the costs down but not being so thrifty that I quit (the cheapest option.) Running lean is one way to maintain an eye on the goal. EVERY item on the to do list is seen from the "how does this get me closer to the goal" stand point. Even the decision to make a prototype needed to be evaluated. "Running lean" is also a way to not let a venture like this one stink up the rest of your life.
I read a pretty good book on moving ideas into the marketplace a while back. "One Simple Idea." (I get no $ for that link and actually prefer to buy books from vendors that collect sales tax - to save me the hassle and 'cause it is more fair. But they are the easiest to link to and the reviews are useful. A fight for another day I suppose.) The book is very good and has the advantage of being one of the few about product licensing aimed at individuals with new ideas. There was a lot of pent up demand and the usual invention books don't meet it. So good on Key (the author) for addressing it. Totally worth the price. I have some reservations here and there but even the stuff I thought was off the mark was very much worth hearing his perspective on. He gives enough detail, as I recall, that you can draw different conclusions. I think of that as pretty rare (but then again I AM inclined to draw my own conclusions.)
So in that book he describes three different types of prototypes. Each has a use and a different cost to achieve. And he argues quite well that you should do just the minimum to get your product across and not waste effort and money on anything extra. In the licensing biz the licensee usually just needs to understand the product so depending on the context they might just need a compelling "looks like" prototype or mockup. The licensee usually knows more about how to make it than you, the inventor, do. So any effort to simulate their contribution (manufacturing and packaging) is not well spent. They just need to understand the new thing and the benefit it provides. Like a hurdler, we just need to clear that hurdle with the minimal energy so we can roll to the next hurdle and do the same.
The other two types after "looks like" are "works like" and then the dreaded "works like and looks like." I'm working on a "works like" because I'm pretty sure the illustrative/educational job needs to be done in 3D and some of the folks I'll be talking to would prefer to see it in material form rather than in computer simulation, where it behaved rather well ;^) . (How do we punctuate around emoticons?) My current theory about how the business side will go is that the prototype will open the door to more simulations. Which is good because my invention is a form factor and optimizing it really should be done in simulation where we can iterate fast. But for now a prototype is required, I think.
I called the "works like and looks like" prototype "dreaded" for good reason. If you find yourself doing one you better have good reasons because the expense is often enormous to make just a small number of anything (the whole point of mass production is to get the advantages of scale.) The more complex the item the more fiddly bits you'll be making in pricy small batches (or sourcing small batches.) Key has what seems like good advice: never do a Works and Looks Like if another type will do. It is more efficient and shows your customer (in the licensee case) that you are in business mode and not wasting resources on unnecessary work.
So, as to keeping costs down, I'm building a test platform that should let me hook up and then tear-down the assembly safely and repeatedly for storage and improvements. The framework is wood, since I can work it easily with the tools at hand. Then for the other bits I am in perpetual "bodger-mode" (in the rough and ready, maker, sense.)
A good example of this bodger-mode, this weekend I grafted in a part from this type of clamp: Jorgensen hand screw.
I needed an adjustable sliding component. For $22, I got the drive screw (and a spare!) The only tricky part then was finding a 15 mm drill bit on short notice... A call to Pastime Hardware in El Cerrito came up empty (a rare occurrence) BUT they referred me to Atalic Ace and suggested I check on 19/32nds as well. Bingo (meaning "Success!" for my non-native English readers) on both counts.
Some time with a paper model, some drawings (sketches really) and off to make sawdust! By 1:30 Sunday afternoon I had a working lift attached to the test bed and all for under $50 (yes it was an expensive drill bit! But now I know deep down that 19/32nds of an inch is darn close to 15mm and really, isn't the pursuit of knowledge what we are all about?!)
Remind me to tell y'all about how brake parts found their way into the prototype project as well.
OK next time a look at Cogenra and maybe Volther too...
No comments:
Post a Comment