One of my new customers is trying to get VC's investment at the moment. The basic way is to develop a prototype of the target product. I suggested the following alternatives.
These different prototyping startegies are primarily different around the following aspects:
- The degree of getting trust from VC
- Reusable elements created by the prototype
- The cost of prototyping
- The cost of complete development, which includes both the cost of prototyping and further development of a complete product
- The period of prototyping
- The period of complete development
- Risks mitigated
- The major milestone reached
Prototyping Strategies:
| ID | Description of prototyping strategy |
| P-1 | Use pictures, slides, static web pages, or some other static technique to show what the critical system features will look like; Develop executable, exploratory prototype on one or two target platforms to prove fatal technical risks (including the USP) are almost mitigated, so the conceived solution is feasible technically. The prototype will be thrown away in normal development |
| P-2 | Almost same as P-1, the difference is the exploratory prototype should be executable on all target platforms, so all fatal technical risks are mitigated |
| P-3 | Executable, ‘throw-away’ prototype with critical system features (including the USP), with basic layout implemented, running on one or two target platforms |
| P-4 | Almost same as P-3, the difference is the prototype should run on all target platforms |
| P-5 | P-3 plus prototyping of important features with pictures, slides, static web pages, or some other static technique |
| P-6 | P-4 plus prototyping of important features with pictures, slides, static web pages, or some other static technique |
| P-7 | Evolutionary prototype with critical system features (including the USP), with basic layout implemented, running on one or two target platforms |
| P-8 | Almost same as P-7, the difference is the prototype should run on all target platforms |
| P-9 | P-7 plus prototyping of important features with pictures, slides, static web pages, or some other static technique |
| P-10 | P-8 plus prototyping of important features with pictures, slides, static web pages, or some other static technique |
| P-11 | P-8 plus important features involved in the evolutionary prototype |
Comparison of Different Prototyping Strategies:
| Prototyping Strategy | The degree of getting trust from VC (0 - lowest, 100 - highest) | Reusable elements (0 - least, 100 - most) | Cost of prototyping (0 - lowest, 100 - highest) | Cost of complete development (0 - lowest, 100 - highest) |
| P-1 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 70 |
| P-2 | 20 | 15 | 20 | 70 |
| P-3 | 40 | 20 | 40 | 100 |
| P-4 | 60 | 25 | 45 | 100 |
| P-5 | 50 | 30 | 50 | 100 |
| P-6 | 60 | 35 | 55 | 100 |
| P-7 | 40 | 50 | 60 | 70 |
| P-8 | 60 | 55 | 70 | 70 |
| P-9 | 50 | 75 | 70 | 70 |
| P-10 | 70 | 80 | 80 | 70 |
| P-11 | 95 | 95 | 100 | 70 |
(Continue) Comparison of Different Prototyping Strategies:
| Prototyping Strategy | Period of prototyping (0 - shortest, 100 - longest) | Period of complete development (0 - shortest, 100 - longest) | Risks mitigated (0 - least, 100 - most) | Major milestone reached |
| P-1 | 20 | 70 | 20 | Around LCO |
| P-2 | 20 | 70 | 30 | LCO |
| P-3 | 40 | 100 | 40 | Around LCO |
| P-4 | 50 | 100 | 50 | LCO |
| P-5 | 60 | 100 | 40 | Around LCO |
| P-6 | 60 | 100 | 60 | LCO |
| P-7 | 70 | 70 | 75 | Around LCO to LCA |
| P-8 | 80 | 70 | 85 | LCA |
| P-9 | 70 | 70 | 85 | LCA |
| P-10 | 80 | 70 | 90 | LCA |
| P-11 | 100 | 70 | 95 | Around IOC |
* LCO – Life Cycle Objectives
* LCA – Life Cycle Architecture
* IOC – Initial Operational Capability
The values set in the cells above are my assessment for this specific project. Maybe you can set your own assessment value to adjust them for your specific. If you want to calculate the weighted sum of each prototyping strategy, then that would be a more scientific method. I think you can decide the weight of each column if needed.