How to negotiate the technology development valley of death.. from a developer

1. Technology R&D
How to negotiate the (Development) Valley of Death
Andrew Bowyer
Commercial Director
Magna Parva Ltd

2. Dramatis Personae
The Inventor
The Investors
The Developer
Benefits from the development process
The Vendor
Benefits from the market
The Customer
Benefits from the capability

3. On Curtain Up...
At the Proof of Concept, only the Inventor believes in the
technology (Push)
No other players have the evidence they need to invest (No
Pull)
The Developer only sees risks
The Vendor is waiting for the market to be identified
The even the most outgoing Customer is nowhere to be seen
Recipe for stalemate
‘Suspension of Disbelief’ is not enough to get the money
flowing

4. TRL Explanation
Technology Readiness Levels
Used in many places, ESA, NASA, MOD, etc
Runs from TRL 1 (‘Basic Principles Observed and Reported’) to TRL 9
(‘Technology Proven in Service’)
Important milestones relate to ‘Environments’ – both physical and
integration
Physical environments and integration into systems are determined by
applications
Applications
With associated markets and volumes
Applications are the motive to raise TRL
So they must exist and they should focus activity from the very start

5. The Valley of Death
From Technology Readiness Level 3 to TRL 6
The phase of technology R&D between:
Critical function experimentally shown and analytically understood –
‘Proof of Concept’
Product prototype shown to work in a ‘relevant environment’
This transition is a dramatic one
From a highly supported laboratory setup to a manifestation of the
technology that bears clear relation to a product with an application

6. Why the VoD exists
At TRL 3, even if an application and a market are believed to
exist, there is no evidence that the technology can be built into
a product that works in a real environment
Downstream participants lack confidence as a result
Narrowing the scope for investment interest
So either there is no investment or it is limited such that
development takes place too slowly
Resulting in interest & enthusiasm waning rather than
building

7. High Risks
In low TRL R&D, management failures are more common than
true technical failures
Test failures are not technical failures
This is because at low TRL’s, it is still not certain that the
technology will work in any practical sense & it is the purpose of
the activity to establish one way or the other
“TRL3. Active R&D is initiated. This includes analytical studies
and laboratory studies to physically validate the analytical
predictions of separate elements of the technology. Examples
include components that are not yet integrated or
representative.”

8. Step in the Key Player
The Developer
Who sees the immediate technical risks
Who knows best how to address the risks
In what order, with what investment
Who has an inkling of likely applications
Who needs to balance the risks with the opportunities,
namely
New market entries
Secondary intellectual property (‘solutions’)
Skill base expansion

9. Portrait of the Developer
Wide experience base
Engineering practice
Technology
Markets
Highly flexible
Highly disciplined
Eager to learn
Eager to exploit secondary IP

10. Magna Parva Approach
Promote itself as the Developer
Take a position on likely applications and markets
Assess the development risks
In general
For the ‘intended’ application
For other identified applications
Assess the value of potential secondary IP
Cost the development based on the above
Participate fully in the search for funding

11. In a nutshell
Magna Parva takes a new, integrated, intelligent, long term
approach to technology development opportunities
Magna Parva maximises the return from the development
process as well as adding value to the end result
Magna Parva is an organisation that is optimised for this
function and is therefore more economical and efficient than
the alternatives

12. Contact
Andy.bowyer@magnaparva.com
www.magnaparva.com
www.inspacemanufacturing.com
www.mp-packaging.co.uk