Continue reading with these related posts
The web development landscape evolves rapidly, with new technologies emerging while established frameworks adapt to changing needs. Based on our experience building solutions for clients across various industries, these five technologies have proven most valuable for delivering robust, scalable applications in 2024.
Choosing the right tolerance‑analysis tool matters. This article compares CAD‑integrated tools, specialist solvers, statistical packages, and Excel methods, and provides a step‑by‑step selection and ROI framework for engineering teams.
Tolerance stack errors are expensive and often avoidable. Learn the seven most common mistakes engineers make, real examples, and a prevention checklist you can apply immediately to reduce scrap, rework, and warranty risk.
Every successful product starts as an idea. But here's the uncomfortable truth: most ideas never should become products. The difference between a sketch on a napkin and a product generating revenue isn't inspiration—it's a systematic approach to concept development that separates viable opportunities from expensive lessons.
As mechanical engineers who've worked across aerospace, automotive, and packaging automation, we've seen brilliant ideas fail because they skipped proper concept development, and mediocre ideas succeed because someone took the time to validate them properly. This article walks you through the proven framework we use to turn raw ideas into concepts worth investing in.
Walk into any engineering firm and you'll find drawers full of sketches, CAD models of "revolutionary" designs, and prototypes gathering dust. These aren't failures of engineering skill—they're failures of concept development.
The statistics are sobering. Research suggests that only about 1 in 10 product concepts make it to market, and of those, 40-50% fail to meet their business objectives. The culprit? Most teams jump straight into design without answering fundamental questions:
Proper concept development isn't about killing creativity—it's about focusing it. By investing 2-4 weeks in structured concept development, you can save months of wasted design time and tens of thousands of dollars in prototype costs.
Our concept development framework consists of four phases that progressively filter ideas through increasingly rigorous criteria:
Each phase eliminates concepts that don't meet threshold requirements, allowing you to focus resources on the most promising opportunities. The goal isn't to find the perfect concept immediately—it's to identify 2-3 strong candidates worthy of deeper development.
Think of it as a funnel: start wide, filter rigorously, end focused.
Most engineering brainstorming sessions fail because they either (a) suffer from groupthink where the loudest voice wins, or (b) become unfocused idea dumps that waste time. Effective brainstorming requires structure.
Start by breaking the problem into its fundamental functions, not solutions. For example, if you're designing automated packaging equipment:
Poor problem statement: "We need a faster conveyor" Good problem statement: "We need to increase throughput by 40% while maintaining orientation accuracy of ±2 degrees"
Decompose this into functions:
This functional view opens up solution spaces you might otherwise miss. Maybe the answer isn't a faster conveyor—it could be better buffering, parallel processing, or eliminating unnecessary steps.
SCAMPER is an acronym for seven idea-generation prompts:
We used SCAMPER when designing a can-topping system for a brewery. By asking "What if we eliminated the need for precise positioning?" we shifted from a complex servo-driven system to a simpler gravity-based approach that reduced cost by 60%.
List all your constraints, then systematically remove each one and ask "If this weren't a limit, what would we do?" This often reveals which constraints are real and which are assumed.
For a heavy equipment fixture project, we assumed hydraulic actuation was required because "that's what everyone uses." When we removed that constraint, we discovered pneumatic actuation was sufficient and reduced system complexity significantly.
Some of the best solutions come from asking "How do other industries solve similar problems?"
Create a two-column list: problems in your domain, and analogous industries. Research their approaches.
During brainstorming:
Target outcome: 20-40 rough concept sketches with 2-3 sentence descriptions.
Now comes the reality check. Technical feasibility asks: "Can this actually be built with available technology, within physical laws, and at a scale that makes sense?"
Before you model anything in CAD or run simulations, do back-of-the-envelope calculations:
Force and stress: Will the components withstand expected loads? Thermal: Can heat be managed or will temperatures exceed material limits? Kinematics: Do the motions physically work or do they require impossible accelerations? Power: Is the required power practical for the application?
For a conveyor system concept, a 5-minute calculation showed that achieving the target acceleration would require 3× the motor power that could fit in the available space. Concept eliminated—time saved.
Even if something is theoretically possible, can it be made?
Ask:
We once designed an elegant injection-molded part with undercuts that required 3-axis slides. Feasible? Yes. Practical for 5,000 units/year? No—the tooling cost would have been 15,000.
Rate each concept's key technologies on the 1-9 TRL scale:
A concept requiring multiple TRL 3-4 technologies is high-risk. You're not just developing a product—you're doing R&D. That's fine if you know it, but most projects need TRL 6+ for critical subsystems.
Identify applicable standards early:
Some concepts die here. If your idea requires 2 years of FDA approval but you need revenue in 12 months, you have a mismatch.
For each remaining concept, create a simple risk matrix:
| Risk Factor | Likelihood (1-5) | Impact (1-5) | Score | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supplier availability | 3 | 4 | 12 | Identify 2+ sources |
| Patent infringement | 2 | 5 | 10 | Freedom-to-operate search |
| Manufacturing yield | 4 | 3 | 12 | Prototype early |
Concepts with multiple high-score risks (15+) need stronger mitigation strategies or may not be worth pursuing.
Create a simple 1-5 scoring rubric:
Total scores above 15-16 are red flags.
Target outcome: 5-8 technically feasible concepts with documented risk assessments.
Engineers often skip market research or do it superficially. This is a mistake. The market doesn't care how clever your solution is if it doesn't solve a problem people will pay for.
B2B technical products often have multiple stakeholders:
Each has different priorities. The plant manager cares about uptime and ROI. The operator cares about ease of use. The purchasing department cares about cost. Your concept must address all of them.
Conduct 10-15 structured interviews with potential customers. Not surveys—actual conversations.
Good questions:
Bad questions:
Listen for emotional language—words like "frustrating," "hate," "wish," "dream." These indicate real pain points.
Research existing solutions:
Create a competitive matrix:
| Solution | Price | Key Strengths | Key Weaknesses | Market Position |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Competitor A | $50K | Established, proven | Slow, requires operators | Market leader |
| Competitor B | $30K | Low cost | Unreliable | Budget option |
| DIY approach | $10K | Flexible | Labor intensive | Current standard |
| Your concept | $35K | Automated, faster | Unproven | New entrant |
If your concept doesn't offer a clear 2-3× improvement in at least one dimension that customers care about, rethink it.
Estimate market size with a bottom-up approach:
If your addressable market is less than 10× your development cost, the opportunity may be too small.
Determine pricing through:
For industrial equipment, a 1-2 year payback period is typically required. If your system costs 30,000/year in labor, that's a good ROI. If it saves $15,000/year, that's marginal.
Find 2-3 potential early adopters willing to collaborate on development. Offer:
Their involvement validates market interest and provides real-world testing insights.
Target outcome: Documented evidence of market demand, competitive positioning, and pricing validation.
You have technically feasible concepts that customers want. Now: can you make money?
Rough estimate of investment required:
For a typical mechanical system, budget:
Don't forget software development if firmware or control systems are involved.
Build a rough bill of materials (BOM):
Aim for a 3-4× multiplier: if your product sells for 10,000-$13,000 (40% gross margin or better).
Calculate units needed to recover development costs:
Break-even volume = Development cost / (Selling price - Unit cost)
If you spend 40K with $12K unit cost:
Break-even = $200K / ($40K - $12K) = 7.1 units
Can you realistically sell 8+ units? If not, the concept may not be viable unless development cost can be reduced.
What do you need to bring this to market?
Be honest about what you have vs. what you need. A concept requiring an injection molding partner when you've only worked with machine shops adds risk.
Decide early:
We generally recommend patenting only if:
How will you generate revenue?
Your business model affects pricing, development priorities, and long-term viability.
Target outcome: A 1-2 page business case for each remaining concept showing projected costs, revenue, and break-even timeline.
You've now filtered your initial 20-40 ideas down to perhaps 2-5 viable concepts. Time to choose.
Create a matrix with criteria weighted by importance:
| Criteria | Weight | Concept A | Concept B | Concept C |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technical feasibility | 25% | 8 | 6 | 9 |
| Market size | 20% | 7 | 9 | 5 |
| Development cost | 15% | 6 | 4 | 8 |
| Time to market | 15% | 7 | 8 | 6 |
| Competitive advantage | 15% | 9 | 6 | 7 |
| Manufacturing risk | 10% | 7 | 5 | 8 |
| Weighted score | 7.4 | 6.7 | 7.2 |
Adjust weights based on your priorities. A startup might weight "time to market" at 25% while an established company might prioritize "competitive advantage."
Test your top concepts against different future scenarios:
Which concept remains viable across scenarios? That's often your best bet.
If resources allow, consider pursuing 2 concepts in parallel through early development phases. This hedges your bets and provides fallback options if one concept encounters unexpected issues.
However, be disciplined: by the prototype phase, commit to one concept. Split focus during detailed design and manufacturing setup leads to mediocre results on both.
Document your selection with:
This becomes your reference point when inevitable challenges arise and stakeholders question the direction.
Let me share a real example from our work with True North Brewing.
The brewery was canning beer using a semi-automated line. The can seamer required manual placement of plastic toppers on each can before sealing. At 30 cans/minute, this required a dedicated operator and created a production bottleneck.
We generated 15+ concepts:
Key insights from brewery interviews:
We selected a hybrid approach: gravity-fed magazine with pneumatic escapement and orientation verification.
Why it won:
The system has processed tens of thousands of cans with minimal intervention. The brewery achieved their productivity goal and recovered their investment in 8 months through labor savings.
Key lesson: The winning concept wasn't the most technologically impressive—it was the one that best balanced customer priorities (simplicity, cost, reliability) with technical feasibility.
The problem: Engineers often anchor on the first concept that seems clever and defend it against all criticism.
The solution: Force yourself to fully develop at least 3 different approaches. Set a rule: no CAD modeling until you have 3 sketched concepts evaluated against criteria.
The problem: You build an elegant solution to a problem customers don't actually have or won't pay to solve.
The solution: Conduct VOC interviews before generating solutions. Validate that the problem is painful enough to justify a solution.
The problem: Designs that look great in CAD but are impossible or uneconomical to manufacture.
The solution: Involve manufacturing engineers or machinists during concept development. Show them sketches and ask "Can you make this? What would it cost?"
The problem: Spending 6 months on concept development when 4 weeks would suffice.
The solution: Set a time-box (3-4 weeks for most projects). Accept that you're making decisions with incomplete information—that's inherent to innovation. Plan for iterative refinement.
The problem: Trying to incorporate everyone's pet feature results in a bloated, unfocused concept.
The solution: Identify a single decision-maker (usually the technical lead or product manager) who owns the final call. Gather input broadly, but decide centrally.
The problem: Assuming your idea is unique, only to discover established competitors after you've invested in development.
The solution: Spend 2-3 hours on Google, industry forums, and patent searches. If you can't find competitors, you might be solving a problem no one has.
Brainstorming and collaboration:
Feasibility calculations:
Market research:
Documentation:
Concept evaluation scorecard:
Criteria (weighted) | Concept A | Concept B | Concept C
--------------------|-----------|-----------|----------
Technical feasibility (25%)
Market opportunity (20%)
Development cost (15%)
Time to market (15%)
Competitive advantage (15%)
Manufacturing risk (10%)
VOC interview script:
1. Tell me about your current process for [problem area]
2. What works well about it?
3. What's frustrating or problematic?
4. How much does that cost you (time/money)?
5. What have you tried to improve it?
6. What would make you switch to a new solution?
7. What's your budget range for solving this?
Risk assessment template:
Risk | Likelihood (1-5) | Impact (1-5) | Score | Mitigation
-----|------------------|--------------|-------|------------
[Technical risk]
[Market risk]
[Regulatory risk]
[Supply chain risk]
Congratulations—you've navigated the messy front end of innovation and emerged with a concept worth pursuing. But concept development is just the beginning.
In the next article in this series, we'll dive into Requirements Engineering: Defining What Success Looks Like. You'll learn how to translate your validated concept into detailed engineering specifications that guide design decisions, enable effective communication with stakeholders, and create measurable success criteria.
Key topics we'll cover:
Take time to document your concept development work:
Remember: changing your concept now costs days. Changing it after requirements are defined costs weeks. Changing it during design costs months. Invest the time to get it right at this stage.
At Blackrock Engineering, we've guided dozens of products from initial concept through production across aerospace, automotive, heavy equipment, and packaging automation. Whether you need facilitation for brainstorming sessions, technical feasibility assessments, or full concept development services, we can help you navigate this critical phase efficiently.
Contact us to discuss your product concept, or check out our Mechanical Engineering services to learn more about how we support product development from sketch to shop floor.
Next in series: Requirements Engineering: Defining What Success Looks Like →
This is Part 1 of our 10-part series "From Sketch to Shop Floor: The Product Development Journey." Subscribe to our RSS feed to get notified when new articles are published.