November 30 TOP

There wasn’t much activity amongst the group over the past week due to thanksgiving break. We did have a chance to get together before the break to refine our presentation and hammer out some of the weak spots. We felt pretty good about our previous elevator pitch presentation, so it wasn’t hard expanding the slides. Now that we can use more slides, it makes it easier to clarify our points.

The group interview during class last Tuesday proved to be quite insightful. It was nice to hear what everyone felt about the group dynamics and the direction we are heading in. No one seemed to have held any punches during the interview, which provided tremendous feedback for the rest of us. Our group has never had any problem with beating around the bush when discussing various problems or expressing opinions, so it’s good to know we are always on the same page.

Steven has had a chance to fine-tune the presentation over the past couple days. Hopefully we’ll get a chance to rehearse it in the next couple days so we’ll be ready for the VCs.

November 23 TOP

After practicing our elevator pitch over the weekend, we presented to our class on Tuesday. Our whole group was very happy with how the presentation went. We felt that we related our idea in a very clear concise way. This felt great compared to our previous experiences being in front of the class and not being able to communicate effectively to the class what we were going to use our technology to accomplish. After several heated debates among the group over whether we thought we would make it to the next round, we were very excited to hear that we had. We have set up another meeting time next week to just work on the next presentation.

We're now almost completely finished our final draft of the feasibility study. This weekend we all worked to fill in some of the holes we had in the market and industry sections. This mostly had to do with our competitors and other third party developers in the industry. In addition, we have been tweaking the financials to make them more realistic. We have had some setbacks in accomplishing this since many of our industry contacts have been unreachable in the past week. Nevertheless, we are pushing forward.

It was also rewarding to hear this week that Steven (the inventor of our technology) is serious about going forward with this idea. It is still unclear who from the group may join him, but he is very excited about spending time further developing this business.

November 16 TOP

After finally deciding on a direction for feasibility (or at least for the purposes of this study for the time being), we put together a presentation for the elevator pitch during our meeting this week. Things finally seem to be more focused and on track. Since our new path is not too far away from our old ones, re-writing the feasibility has proven to be less daunting than we thought. We basically covered all the key areas in the previous draft, so we only need to make minor tweaks here and there to the content.

Our latest meetings have found that Japan is where the market lies for our product. All aspects of the feasibility seem good, but a major problem we have is the difference in cultures. Perhaps our feasibility would go over well her in America, but we could possibly be perceiving business the completely wrong way in Japan. This is definitely a section that needs to be looked into more.

The most unfortunate news for the week is that our contact in Sega is no longer available, which leaves many of our burning questions unanswered. Some whitepaper was acquired by our group on the video game industry, which can hopefully fill the holes, but more research is still necessary for our final draft.

November 10 TOP

We met with professors Allan and Pickard this week to discuss the rough draft of our feasibility study. We were all very anxious about the meeting because of the rough nature of our draft due to the large amount of time we spent finding the right product and market for our technology. As compared to other groups, we felt we had a less mature draft because they had a product with a clear market from day one. To our surprise, the meeting was very positive. Both professors were very supportive of our process, and said that if anything we had a more realistic experience than some other groups.

We left the meeting feeling very charged and excited for the next steps. We further refined our business model as producing a playable game demo utilizing our proprietary technology and selling this game concept to a large Japanese arcade manufacturer such as Capcom or Sega and collecting royalties. We're all enjoying finally having a clear focus that we can all get behind. In addition, we're very excited that one of our team members was able to get an introduction to the president of Sega entertainment in the U.S. We believe that we will be able to tap him for significant information and resources to further our study.

This coming week will be a light work load for most of the group since three members will be out-of-town for a significant part of the week. Due to these individuals’ travel, we will not be able to meet during our usual meeting time and will have to once again meet late Wednesday night.

November 2 TOP

We discovered this week that 3d stereo shutterglasses do not work well with LCD displays. We then decided to go after the console market, and to do so, we will initially develop an arcade game. The arcades have been the testing arenas for new games and technologies. A game’s success in the arcades determines its success in the console industry. Our idea is to introduce an arcade game in Japan, where the industry is mature and readily accepts innovations. If the arcade game and the use of the interfaces are proven to be successful in Japan, we will then go into developing a console application.
Since our IP is in the interfaces, we will develop the arcade game around them. Our target product is a console game, but the arcade application will help to prove the concept and reduce the risk of the venture.

We will look for established arcade developers and distributors, and will partner with them in the development of the game. Interestingly enough, right after our meeting and decision on the new business model, one of our team members coincidentally met a player in the arcade industry that will probably be very useful in developing our new technology feasibility draft.

We tried using conference calling to meet this week. In our first attempt, Steven called from New York while we met at USC. The conference went better than we expected, as we were able to focus on the issues and use our time efficiently. We tried a second conference call, using the Caltech phone system where everybody was supposed to call from home, but we were not successful. We will try it again next week.

We plan to meet with Professor Allen on Tuesday to discuss our original feasibility draft, and we hope that she will understand our special set of conditions. Most of our research has focused in finding an industry and an application for our technology. The process has been infinitely valuable, but because of it, we have not being able to develop a specific draft. The results of our research have forced us to constantly change the product and the industry. However, we now believe that the development of an arcade game followed by a console game will be the perfect match for our technology.

October 26 TOP

This week we worked in putting together the first draft of the feasibility analysis and despite the time constraints, the results were surprisingly positive. We realized that our data was incomplete, and at a given point we had to decide between continue researching or completing the best feasibility study with the information on hand. The development of the draft forced us to focus on areas that we had not touched deeply before, which immensely clarified our business proposition. The financial analysis proved to be a challenge, as many assumptions had to be made. Some of the assumptions appeared straightforward, but we realized that wide ranges of data and uncertainty of time frames produce a variety of results with very different financial consequences.

The dynamics of the group was not that great. We believe that we need to focus on a greater effort to improve communication between meetings. We are considering setting up conference calls during the week, as we all have different schedules, live far away from each other, and find it difficult to meet more than once during the week.

Now that we have a specific product defined, we expect to accelerate the development of our feasibility analysis. We plan to focus on acquiring specific information regarding
the demand and cost for the development and the production of the interface devices. We will also explore the constraints and benefits of using different 3D displays methodologies. But most importantly, we need to continue our search for a knowledgeable contact in the video game industry.

We plan to meet with Professors Allen in the beginning of November, review the draft, and have a discussion about gaps and improvements to the project. After that, we will meet with our mentor, Mr. Glanville.

On a personal note, Steven submitted his Ph.D. thesis and is now Dr. Schkolne!

October 19 TOP

After a week of research on the video game industry, we have decided to make it the focus of our feasibility study. A video game using a less expensive screen based on Anaglyph or Parallax stereo technology could be feasible.

The idea is to share the expenses and revenue from the development and sale of a game with an existing video game company. The new game would signal other developers who would then want to acquire the technology and create their own games. We would then sell a development kit or Application Programming Interface, including input devices, to these companies and license the right to use it.

The main concern is the fact that only a small percentage of games developed becomes a success, and most of the creative control during development would be in the hands of the partner video company. 3D interface would be responsible for the development and production of the input devices, since we own their patents.

We realize that with only a few days left for our feasibility study draft, we will not be able to provide a top quality one. But we believe that the exercise would pinpoint the areas in which we need to concentrate. Steven is defending his thesis at Caltech this week and three other members of the team are in the middle of midterms at USC… perfect timing. This week promises to be a challenge.

We believe our main focus for the next weeks would be to identify and contact successful video game companies. The success of the project is intimately dependent on the selection of a company with experience, not only in development, but also in marketing and distribution.

October 12 TOP

Once again we found ourselves switching our target industry. After some initial feedback from players in the CAD industry, and after realizing that by replacing the interface’s screen by one based on auto stereo or by using anaglyph glasses, we could find valuable application in the video game industry, we decided to change our focus once more.

We face the dilemma of continuing the research on multiple industries or making a choice, based on incomplete information, that would allow us to deliver a quality feasibility study on time. Differences of opinions about the path to follow had created some tension in the group. Even though all members of the group agree that the continuous task-switching is forcing us to lose momentum, some want to continue exploring different industries while others want to focus only on one industry.

We compromised and decided to dedicate 80% of our time this week to research the video game industry, and 20% of the time on other industries.
It is clearer now for the group that the use of the technology as an experience is more
valuable than the use of the technology as the means to generate a product. That understanding is what led the group on the path of the video game industry. An advantage of this situation is that motivation and enthusiasm may increase since two of our group members really enjoy these games and have been dedicated players all their lives.

The highlight of the week was our meeting with John Glanville form the Athenaeum Fund (Investors). John will be acting as one of our mentors and guiding us during the development of the feasibility analysis.
Mr. Glanville sees 3D Interface as a platform technology that could be broken down in different applications depending of the industry. He suggested doing a feasibility study that would show pros and cons of the application in each industry; a very interesting approach but one which differs from the guidelines of our class. He also came up with a new possible application on visual training where workers of a manufacturing industry with low education level and maybe a language constrain could use the interface to learn and practice the manufacturing process of a specific product.
We really value John’s input and look forward to working with him.

October 5 TOP

This week we concluded that our target should be the industrial design market. Secondary research showed us that the arcade business is not as attractive as we initially thought Interviews with gamers in local arcades gave us a sense of the amount of money they would be willing to spend in one game. Our solution seems to be too expensive for an arcade application and it would be difficult to compete with other already available cheaper games.

During our demo to Alvaro Villa, President, of AVG Inc, we received some valuable feedback:

• The cost of the system would have to be reduced for an arcade application.
• The level of excitement while playing the game is low compared to existing games.
• It would be difficult to reach the necessary throughput (players/minute).

He believes there is potential for an application that could educate and motivate kids with learning difficulties.
He also believes that he could use the technology in an upcoming dark ride that he is currently designing.

After narrowing our focus, we were able to design a plan including primary and secondary research that will improve our knowledge of the market. Our intention is to identify exactly the form of the product that would be most useful to the users of industrial design software. We will initially interview users of AutoCad, CATIA, Solid Works, Maya and Alias. We set up interviews with Mark Lefitz, a user of CATIA, that worked on the special effects of the movie “The Matrix,” Gary Fitzgerald, an auto designer for the firm Design Works, and Greg Norman, a CATIA consultant.

For the second stage of our research, we plan to directly contact software design companies as well as manufacturers of 3D screens.

The team feels that since we now have a target industry identified, we are able to advance in the development of our feasibility study. Valuable time was spent on our initial research and we now need to concentrate on our feasibility draft.
Maintaining a fixed schedule for our meetings continues to be a challenge. Flexibility and adaptability seem to be the most valuable qualities of our team members, but we believe it is necessary to maintain a fixed meeting schedule.

September 28 TOP

We have now a new member on the team, Opas Lopansri. Opas was one of two undergraduate students that were interested enough in the project to show up to our open house at Caltech. Opas is a student of business and administration, focusing in entrepreneurship at the University of Southern California.

This week we conducted primary and secondary research in some of the industries that we defined as possible targets during our first meeting.
We had one-on-one interviews with representatives of the amusement park, animation and design industries.
We visited AVG Inc, a leader in the design of amusement parks. Three main points came out of our interview;
There is definitely value in an attraction involving manipulation in space of virtual three-dimensional objects.
The cost of the game would have to be drastically reduced if we want to compete in the arcade market.
The game would have to be reliable and be able to overcome the stress of continuous use.

We made an appointment for a demo at Caltech where we would present the technology to the president of AVG, and continue our discussion around a possible product.

We also contacted and interviewed members of Pixar, a well know digital animation company, and IDEO a renowned industrial design company. The animator felt very comfortable with the process he follows now, and did not see a significant value in the use of the proposed tool. At the same time, the designer expressed that the tool would have to drastically add functionality to the software that he uses now for him to feel the need to change to a new way of doing things.

We performed secondary research using the Internet in the areas of science museums and arcade games. We realized that museums like elaborated and unique systems, so we would have to customize our product for each application, and that the market has limited growth. In the area of arcade games, we found that prices of most arcade games vary between $2,000 to $7,000 dollars.
We ordered a game survey with information regarding the arcade industry from the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions.

One of the difficulties that we experienced as a group was the conflict of schedules. We are now five members, and flexibility becomes important when deciding the time for our meetings. Cantor’s, on Fairfax was our place of reunion this week, and even though the relaxed atmosphere goes with our personality styles, we found the noise distracting. We had a very exciting meeting, and in general we felt that we met what we had set to accomplish for the week.

We narrowed our research to the Arcade/Game and the Design industries, where we believe using the technology as a plug-in to exciting software could be our niche.

We identified Maya and Catia as the design solution that we could target, and planned to interview users of theses software packages during the next week. At the same time, we will continue our research in the arcade industry and present a demo to the president of A.V.G (Amusement parks

September 21 TOP

The 3D Interface team was formed with the purpose of developing a feasibility analysis for a technology that allows the creation, editing, and manipulation of three-dimensional shapes on a semi-immersive virtual environment. This technology is the result of the research conducted by Steven Schkolne as part of his doctoral thesis at Caltech.

The 3D Interface system allows the user to create surfaces in space using the hand. These shapes can then be manipulated, edited and scaled by a number of tools. Objects created by other 3D system can also be brought to the user space for manipulation. The system facilitates conceptual exploration and a better spatial understanding of the objects being manipulated.

During this week, the group officially met for the first time. We have four members in the group at this point; two Caltech students and two USC Marshall MBA students:

Steven Schkolne is the inventor and developer of the 3D interface. He is currently writing his PhD thesis in 3D interfaces at Caltech. Steven received his B.S degree with highest honors in Computer Sciences from Carnegie Mellon and has also informally studied fine art at the Art Center College of Design in Pasadena. He has worked for Silicon Graphics and Microsoft, consulted for Designworks/USA, taught at Caltech and CalArts, and published
his work in international journals.

Juan Felipe Vallejo is a second year MBA PM student at the USC Marshall School of Business, focusing in finance and marketing. Juan Felipe also has an M.S. degree with honors, in Electrical Engineering, a professional certificate in international trade, and ten years working experience, including five years in the automated test equipment industry in the developing marketing and technical support of new products worldwide.

Bede Broome is a medical school candidate at UCLA and a doctoral candidate at Caltech, where his focus has been in systems neuroscience. Bede has a B.A. degree from
Princeton University with a Major in Chemistry and a Minor in Computer Science.

Drew Batshaw is currently a second year MBA student at the USC Marshall School of business and is the recipient of the Citigroup endowed fellowship. After receiving his B.A. in Computer Science from Vassar College, Drew worked as a software consultant to the telecom industry for 3 years. Following his work as a software consultant, Drew became the CEO and Co-founder of Completemind (an on-line psychotherapy company)

The first item discussed during our lunch meeting in Little Tokyo was the possibility of including some other members in the group. We decided to have two open houses at Caltech, where the tech scholars and Art Center of Design’s students attending our 552 Technology Feasibility class could appreciate first-hand the 3D Interface technology.
We analyzed the pros and cons of increasing the number of members in the group.
The dynamic we experienced in the group and our impressions of each other were positive, but we were reluctant to add more personalities to the mix. We believe an industrial designer could be helpful with the understanding of what it takes to develop a more robust prototype.

As a group, we analyzed the different industries in which the technology could have an application and we came up we three specific areas: 3D packaging, Edu-tainment, and CAD plug-in.

3D packaging explores the advantages of the system for the arrangement of objects in space. The system could be used in Industrial Design, Biotech and CAD.

In the area of Edu-tainment, a combination of education and entertainment, the semi-immersive experience would be the main aspect of the system to be exploited. The gaming industry (amusement parks) and education (science museums) would be the niches for the product.

CAD plug-in refers to the use of the system tools as interfaces with existing 3D design systems.

We divided the task of doing some initial research in each of these industries that would allow us to define the industry to use as the focus of our feasibility analysis.