Recap of Monday and Tuesday

On Monday, we did an initial Pugh Analysis of all of our designs to weight its possible use for the team selected piece La soriddez. In order to do a Pugh Analysis, we first came up with some evaluation criteria. These criteria are important in the storage for the piece and are features that we think the final solution should include. Examples of some of our criteria include: breathability, visibility, ease of use, and contact with piece. Then setting the original packing solution as a baseline for the analysis we rated each design with a 1, 0, or -1, as respectively being better, the same, or worse than the current solution in the evaluation criteria.  From this, we were able to eliminate many of the weaker designs from the pool of possible ideas. Once this was completed, we broke up into teams of two and completed an initial Pugh Analysis of all the designs for possible use for our individual pieces. The initial analysis was very labor intensive as about 200 designs had to be analyzed for each of the five pieces.

Today, the team spent some time working on a presentation for our CCE meeting. In this presentation, we included who was on the team, what our goals for the summer were, some of our daily activity, and what must be done to complete many of our goals (including the Pugh Analysis).

Brainstorming 301

For the third round of brainstorming, we consolidated our ideas into more solidified categories. Each of the subcategories were unified and strengthed by tying similar ideas together. Similar ideas were further consolidated by making sure that the ideas did not overlap into multiple categories and that similar index cards were stacked on top of each other. Next, the ideas were tied to the design objectives as detailed in the comprehensive design analysis phase report. In reassessing the design objectives, we elaborated on the current objectives and insured that the original objectives covered everything. We then dedicated more time to brainstorming specific ideas about how each design objective can be met. Those additional ideas that spawned from concentrated brainstorming of the design objectives were then added to the collection of ideas by category. Next, we focused on the key components of our storage solution. These components are the necessary elements that our solution cannot do without and include the categories: interface with object, human interaction, shape/form, and technologies. We created several idea maps to visually display the key components and each physical element related to each component. From here, we can more easily visualize our options and potential ideas to follow through with in the design phase.

Brainstorming 201

After brainstorming 500 ideas on note cards, in order to productively access our ideas, we needed to organize them.  Before we could organize them, however, we needed to be able to see all of them. We chose the biggest conference room in the Oshman Engineering Design Kitchen (OEDK) for our pallet. All the walls are glass windows, so we taped all our note cards onto the wall so that we could see them all at once. Once the walls were completely covered in note cards, we needed to categorize them to reduce confusion. We read through the cards to look for common themes that could become categories. We initially built four categories: materials, features, concepts, and geometry.

These four categories were still fairly daunting, so we did a further breakdown of each category into more specified sections. Within the materials category, we divided the cards into smaller groups of types of materials, such as metals, fluids, and foams. For the features, we determined that some of the cards indicated specific parts, like different styles of handles, while others were possible features, like temperature monitoring. The concepts section was broken down into cards that suggested building off of a specific existing concept, or new ideas that could stand alone. For the geometry category, we first made a section of the different possible outside shapes, like a sphere or pyramid. In the remaining cards, we saw groups of different ways to interface with the art piece, such as through suspension, anchoring, or nesting.

Adding these more specified sub categories made it possible for us to view our ideas in an organized matter. It also enabled us to find cards that repeated similar ideas. When we found those cards, we stacked them on top of each other, so that we weren’t throwing out any cards, but we were paring the field in order to have a more concise group to work from. We also made an important extra category: the ridiculous category. We didn’t dispose of outrageous ideas, but set them aside, so that inspiration could still be drawn from them.

For more pictures of our brainstorming session, please visit our Flickr page.

Brainstorming 101

It was time to start brainstorming in the Solution Phase for our project. We had an hour to fill out 100 note cards each. Each card contained ideas or pictures for possible storage solutions. Ideas included both the practical and the hyper-imaginative; from storing art in already existing slat crates to padding it with fluffy clouds. We listened to music while filling out these cards and looked through various idea books to get the creativity flowing. Some of the techniques we applied while brainstorming include: adapting ideas, subtracting ideas, combining ideas, and using opposite ideas.

When the hour was up and our cards were flush with open-minded innovation, we mixed our cards up and divided them amongst ourselves. Then we looked through the stack of everyone’s ideas, writing new ideas that they spawned or elaborating on existing ideas. This exercise allowed our creativity to soar to new heights.  This form of sharing ideas can open minds to new dimensions, new avenues, and new sources of creation. All in all, brainstorming served as a invaluable platform for the work we face ahead.

Team Name Brainstorming

Following our team-building activity and strategy meeting we held a brainstorming session to select a team name. First, we individually took five minutes to write down initial ideas on a piece of paper. Second, we verbally shared those ideas with the group. We used those ideas as solutions or to cultivate new ideas, writing each on the dry-erase board. After throwing out the least desireable names, at the end of the brainstorming session we were left with the following names:

  • Inno-Crate
  • Sculpto-Cradle
  • TexoSkeleton
  • ArtArmor
  • ModPod
  • Artadillo

Because it was so hard to decide on a finalized name, we decided to toy with a conglomeration of various names. In the end the result was ARTadillo-Inno-Crate-a-Pod. Catchy right? Well it was a temporary fix.

After researching which domain names were actually available and seeking a name that captured the function of our team, we decided to reconsider ARTadillo-Inno-Crate-a-Pod. We chose a name that is short, simple, and explanatory. The name is ArtArmor.

Brainstorming with a time limit was was not as completely satisfying as we had initially intended though it served as a perfect way to generate many options and as a warmup for the remainder of the week which was spent brainstorming for solutions to the project.

EDAAC Elevator Pitch: Version 1

After listening to a myriad of 90-second elevator pitches at the Rice Alliance Life Science Technology Venture Forum, we decided to create a pseudo-pitch of our own. Elevator pitches are meant to grab the attention of perspective investors, employees, or collaborators by offering a unique solution to an irresolute problem. Successful presenters provide business plans and goals their companies seek to achieve. We wrote our pseudo-pitch as if we were a pre-seed company seeking funds to fuel our developing idea. 

The Crown Jewels of England—the desk of Stephen F. Austin—The Thinker Statue—what do each of these priceless pieces have in common? The need for superior long-term storage solutions.

EDAAC’s new line of products will actively set a new standard for storage solutions in museums worldwide.

Currently wooden boxes are constructed and custom fit to each individual piece. When the item is on display, these boxes are discarded because they take up too much space. These custom-built boxes are both monetarily costly and time expensive. Our collapsible storage boxes are created from recycled materials and save space, time, and money by paying for themselves over the course of three years—saving each museum thousands of dollars/year thereafter.

We have tested the market by conducting field searches and interviews with preparators and registrars at one of the finest museums in the US. They are enthusiastic about revolutionizing the museum storage industry, and their feedback has given specific insight into what features these boxes should possess.

Our management team consists of the Chief Registrar and Conservator, PhD’s from the Rice Engineering Department, and President David W. Leebron. Our concepts have been protected as intellectual property of Rice University. We are seeking seed funds in the amount of $500,000 to create our first line of Owl Pak boxes. Join us, as the Owl Pak soars to new heights in the realm of preventive conservation. Thank You.

Rice Alliance Life Science Technology Venture Forum Discussion Recap

Our team recap of the Rice Alliance Life Science Technology Venture Forum generated several discussion points. Here’s a brief transcript that highlights the personal observations about the Technology Venture Forum.

What was one thing you learned from attending the Rice Alliance Life Science Technology Venture Forum?

Caleb Brown: Venture Capital (VC) firms fund companies at different stages of the growth process. Finding the right VC is important including knowing what types of deals they are interested in or ones they would not waste their time/capital on.

Rhodes Coffey: I learned what an angel is: a venture capitalist individual or group that supports start-ups that are in their very early stages of development. One such example is the Houston Angel Network that supports start-up companies.

What distinguished the good companies from the bad?

Kristi Day: One of the best companies was iShoe because I actually remember the name, what the company does, and the presentation. The name suggests what the product pertains to, so it’s not vague and forgettable. The presentation was easy to listen to, and kept my attention.

The worst? I don’t remember. I completely forgot the name, their product, their service, etc. They blended in, seemed the same as all the others.

Nicole Garcia: iShoe was definitely the best company that presented. She mentioned everything in a fast, clear and knowledgeable manner, as well as display the confidence in her presentation which represents the confidence that her company has in their product.

What new perspective did you gain about business plans/elevator pitches or creating a business?

Rhodes Coffey: New perspective about business plan/elevator pitch: Presentation matters more than content, time is of the essence, Present the most important things now and discuss later—capture the VC’s interest and elaborate later

Kristi Day: I realized that being able to relate to what they were talking about, or get a visual picture of how it works, was really important. If I had some type of mental picture of what it was or who would use it, I felt like I actually understood it to an extent.

Independent of a grasp over the technological aspects of a company, how could a pitch pique your interest?

Caleb Brown: Making slides that are visually appealing and accessible to audience members of all educational backgrounds—not just life sciences.

Kristi Day: If a clear, widespread need or demand for it was demonstrated. If it was unique and new and different, not just a slight improvement to something else.

Nicole Garcia: If the audience does not know anything about what you are selling, to make it more interesting you should simply cut the jargon.

After seeing these examples, if this summer’s program developed into a real company, what must be taken into account when pitching the company?

Caleb Brown: Let the audience know what sets your company apart from all other similar products on the market and how could your product impact the market.

Rhodes Coffey: Emphasize how this is a breakthrough technology and would gear to the available market. Discuss how this is better than previous technology, project how much money would be needed to make this profitable, discuss the marketing team in place and for the future, gear toward certain VC’s, emphasize how archaic and time-consuming the storage solutions are now and how our technology would change art conservation and storage for good.

Kristi Day: I think a wide application would need to be demonstrated. When I think of “museums” that doesn’t seem like a very large market. It would somehow have to be solving a problem that seemed like a big, widespread problem, or made it seem like people would really want it.

Nicole Garcia: For our specific project, I believe it would be best to make it a product that is needed. Emphasize the current problems in the museums, and the possible damage that no solution would lead to, as well as how this problem would effect everyone.

Rice Alliance Life Science Technology Venture Forum

Today we attended Rice Alliance’s Life Science Technology Venture Forum. The Life Science Technology Venture Forum provides a learning atmosphere where burgeoning companies could present a progress report to investors and to explore funding options. This is a prestigious event to be included in as Rice Alliance goes out of its way to select a top list of companies doing business in the sector as well as the leading venture capital firms. In the morning we saw business plans from companies like Microtransponder and Nano3D Biosciences. In the afternoon we saw multiple elevator pitches by companies like iShoe, Lono Medical Systems, Respiratory Research Inc. and Thrombovision.

The forum provided the EDAAC team a great opportunity to shift our focus from one of engineering and design to exercising our business minds. Both the business plan presentations and the elevator pitches were enlightening to the group and without a firm grasp of the technologies involved we were able to assess each presentation simply upon its merit as a presentation itself. The criteria that merged as most important was: presenter’s energy, focal points, flow, and opening/closing.

The highlight of the conference were the two keynote speakers: Leighton Read, MD of Alloy Ventures and in the afternoon Alex Suh of California Technology Ventures. Both provided perspectives paramount to getting in and out of the funding cycle provided by Venture Capital and also how to think like an entrepreneur.

Dr. Read’s presentation could have been entitled “How to run your business on the Cowboy Code” as he went through the steps of being a cowboy and tied that to business actions. His tip of “do what has to be done” provided a nice segue to discuss the importance of identifying and acting on trends, waves and constants in business services and investing. His note  “ride for the brand” addressed how loyalty can affect your career, both positively and negatively.

Alex Suh’s presentation peeled back the mystique of running a VC firm leaving a realistic cut-and-dry view of the relationship between startups and VCs. In his top ten list of “Reasons a VC says “no” to funding a company” he criticized the lack of preparation of some companies in both their business plans and background research. Several other points alluded to naivete that can cloud the projections of startups, for example, statements like “we will be profitable in two years” or “we don’t have competition we’re so superior” that demonstrate a lack of experience and realism.

We followed up the Forum with a frank discussion of what we learned and how we would act in a professional . Our personal observations were nothing surprising, mainly that companies spent too little time on their presentations which manifested itself in many ways. First, vague presentations left viewers with a dim idea of the strengths of the companies technology, market strengths and financial model. Overly technical presentations obscured the brilliance of the company, bewildering the audience and leaving them wondering why the company was superior. Too many presentations suffered from laconic or low-energy delivery. Our final conclusion was that speech writers should at least be consulted because there seems to be a low correlation between business acumen and presentation skills.

Return tomorrow for a recap discussion of our individual impressions of the Life Science Technology Venture Forum.