It might not be necessary to produce a proof of concept and instead go straight to a prototype.
The decision to develop a proof of concept or go straight to prototype development is dependent on the risk associated with developing, manufacturing, marketing or the technologies associated with a product or service. Often a prototype will be sufficient to take to market or put into service.
We quickly developed a proof of concept design showing how we could focus a camera and achieve sufficient depth of field to enable real-time video capture of the larynx. The customer was impressed, and we took the concept further to develop an award winning video laryngoscope.
The concept was for an autoinjector to deliver a drug over a period of hours. We worked with our client to produce an electromechanical concept and an algorithm to be implemented in software to read positional sensors and control the mechanism. A power budget was produced to prove that the battery capacity required could be provided by a practical sized battery and space/volume budget was produced to prove that the electronics could be miniaturized to fit into the volume of the product concept. A rig to allow the electromechanical concept to be tested was fabricated by our client and we coded the algorithm. The rig was evaluated, and the mechanism and algorithm developed to prove the concept was viable.
The cost of product development and the time to market are often critical. Consequently, it's sometimes more effective to identify the minimum set of features and specifications that make up a commercially viable product, system or service and first develop this - often referred to as the minimum viable product or MVP.
Another way of looking at this is that we are looking for features that can be left for a future version of the product so that we can get to market sooner.
Delaying or reserving features also allows us to plan future versions of a product and create a product roadmap, or a product range.
