Bringing Beetle-Repelling Technology to Market

Evaluating Dr. Hofstetter's beetle-repelling device for market readiness, using innovation loops, RWW analysis, and strategic investments to ensure successful commercialization.

Summary

Dr. Hofstetter’s beetle-repelling device, though innovative, faces challenges in commercialization due to limited practical applications and navigating intellectual property. An investor’s evaluation would consider the product’s market readiness, consumer needs, and business viability using tools like the innovation loop and RWW process. Initial investments should focus on real-world testing with organic avocado farmers, followed by iterative development for broader markets. Scaling the product, gathering data, and adapting to technology advances are essential steps to ensure successful market adoption and competitiveness against alternatives like organic pesticides.

How products come to market is just as important as the product itself. An inventor could create something amazing that completely misses the mark on consumer needs. Some of the best products that come to market innovate using technologies available to us today. Dr. Hofstetter did just that when creating a device to ward off beetles that infest a variety of trees throughout the US. He is struggling to bring his product to market. Some promising lab results have encouraged him to seek partnerships or funding to further field testing and development. Limited practical applications and creating a viable business while navigating the IP are also getting in his way. This analysis will look at whether investing to commercialize his device is worthwhile and what steps he and I, as an investor, could take to make that decision. 

Before beginning my evaluation of this new device, I would understand that technology is not the product. The product I would be bringing to market would be comprised of technology, the consumers, and the business. It would be important for me to get to know the plans Dr. Hofstetter had for his innovations, future incremental technology, and his pension for continuing his work. To better understand the product, I would first look at the existing product to understand where it sits regarding the innovation loop. The innovation loop looks to see if a product has a creative vision, if it enables technologies that exist today, if it is being created in the right place at the right time, where is sits in the Gartner Hype Cycle, and the adoption feasibility of the innovation itself. His product does have creative vision in that it establishes a new way of preventing beetles from breeding in and killing their host trees and enable rudimentary sound recording and amplification devices. It is certainly position in the right place and the right time as boring type beetles are sweeping the US and destroying native tree populations. The innovation sits just before the beginning of the hype cycle because an early proof-of-concept has been created but is not generating any significant media buzz. Instead, some markets have expressed interest in his product through direct conversations. Commercial viability is also unproven. Right now, the product exists in a technical sandbox and through careful consideration it can come to market without being a technical Hail Mary. 

I would use the RWW process to gauge the maturity of this product. RWW is a technology readiness test that establishes if the product is real, if it will win in the marketplace, and if it is worth doing. All three need to be true before moving forward. Even though the product worked in a lab environment it is not a real, ready-for-the-shelf product that could be sold in stores immediately. I would need to be confident in Dr. Hofstetter’s development plan before being comfortable with this portion. This product does have the potential to win, especially with organic avocado farmers who do not want to use pesticides to protect their trees. One identifiable threat to this innovation is an eco-friendly FDA pesticide. I would fear that it could gain market edge because its application could treat an entire orchard where the audio device can only treat one tree at a time. I would also be unsure if the product is worth doing before digging deeper into Dr. Hofstetter’s future product plans and vetting his innovation with my own technology management process. 

Both the innovation loop identification and RWW analysis are useful tools for defining my minimum winning game (MWG). My minimum winning game in this case is articulating a clear plan with Dr. Hofstetter to bring the acoustic disruption technology to market. The first part of the MWG is linking the technology to the market need which we did with the RWW process. Knowing that we can first launch this product to avocado farmers means we can then identify our first achievable goals launching to that segment. I would choose this route over a consumer testing group because it only requires one customer to initiate a study. These farmers have already expressed interest in the device, and it would be easier to engage with one of them instead of signing up a hundred consumer participants. I would split my investment in the product up over various stages. The first stage includes providing funding to test the product in the real world with a small-scale farm that includes mature trees. Mature trees have the highest production value to farmers so gathering data on the devices effective relative to tree age is an important marketing point. With my initial investment I would ask Dr. Hofstetter to prepare enough devices to launch this first test. 

Assuming the first test was successful and organic avocado farmers are purchasing enough devices to fund further research I would ask Dr. Hofstetter to draft up derivatives of his current design. Iterations could continue specifically for our initial market launch while we collect data and begin to explore technology development for alternative markets. The next batch of devices would be prepared for other beetle species and other climates. We would need to prove the robustness of the acoustic disruption technology to cross the chasm of early adopters to mainstream market adoption. To be successful we would also need to gather more data. This means further innovation using existing technologies that capture and transmit weather information and insect acoustics. This data would be cross-referenced with the information gathered in the lab to determine how we deploy variants personalized to specific geographies. In doing so we will also better understand the various failure modes we should be aware of for different climates. This approach mitigates the concern about being punished out of the market by broad spectrum organic pesticides while pursuing our goal is to be the most effective against specific beetle species. 

Further research would include developing technology to disperse acoustics beyond a single tree. Single-tree based devices would be effective for consumer use but it would be tough to find success in other markets. Zone-based devices increase the attractiveness to our markets like large-scale growers or forestry services. The current device innovates existing technology and as that technology becomes better there is an opportunity to positively scale our products along with it. Moore’s law is an observation that technology becomes smaller and better about every eighteen months. This was an observation from 1965 and this time has sped up significantly since then. This gives Dr. Hofstetter to retool the internal components of the devices without having to change the overall form factor. 

Optimally managing the engineering and technology development process is crucial to capitalizing on technology through innovation. Partnering with Dr. Hofstetter will require planning for a series of products that incrementally improve his existing work while broadening the scope to include new species and markets. Ensuring the approach is adaptable and forward-looking means that a company is prepared to break into new markets, overcome environmental obstacles, and anticipate competing products.