Osterwalder Business Canvas

Currently we are exploring two different methodologies:  autonomous mowing of large industrial spaces; or autonomous weeding machines for agricultural use, particularly for organic farming. 

Below is the business model canvas for our company.  We will begin testing these hypotheses to help select the method to build a business around.

	Customer Segments	Value Propositions	Channels
Hypothesis	Segment 1: Mowers Owners of public or commercially used green spaces (i.e. golf courses). Landscaping service providers Segment 2: Farmers Manual weeding operations	Cost Reduction: -reduced labor cost -better utilization of assets -improved performance (less rework, food safety)	Dealer Network: Partner stores, wholesaler Direct To Consumer: retrofit existing equipment
Experiment	Customer Identification: Would you use this system if you got it for free? $5K? $10K+?	Customer needs:  Does automation save labor costs?	Where/how is equipment purchased?
Pass/Fail Signal	Pass: Interest for 5K or more.  Fail: no interest, or only for cheap (<<5K)	Pass:  Large reduction in operating costs (i.e. >25%) Fail: Little or no reduction in operating costs	Pass: Buy from dealers or direct sales Fail: Rent/lease, do not own equipment

	Customer Relationships	Revenue Streams	Key Resources
Hypothesis	Personal Assistance Dealers and demo partners (pre-sale), support/training center (after sale)	Asset Sale Equipment sales, service contracts	Intellectual & Human Technology, innovation, patents
Experiment	Willing to listen to a dealer explain the system?  Willing to travel to see a demo?	Will end users purchase new w/ system installed? Retrofits? Service contracts?	Is the technology ready?  Can we succeed if similar products exist?
Pass/Fail Signal	Pass: Interest in the technology, willing to learn more Fail:  No interest, happy with current systems	Pass: Will buy new equipment, or retrofit. Fail: will not buy new, or retrofit.  No contracts.	Pass:  Technology is ready for deployment.  Few, if any, competing products. Fail: Technology far behind

	Key Activities	Key Partners	Cost Structure
Hypothesis	Innovation & Customer Support Develop HW/SW, integration, marketing, customer support	Research labs, equipment manufacturers, dealers	Value-driven:  focus on customer support.  Variable costs:  main costs are COGS.  Some scale benefits for purchased components
Experiment	Feasible development effort? Easy to understand, use and troubleshoot? Trustworthy?	Can we do R&D in house?  Design the machines ourselves?  Build own distribution network?  Serve market with own sales force?	Prefer low price over good customer support/high quality/reliability?  Price-volume elasticity?
Pass/Fail Signal	Pass:  Low investment to develop technology.  System is easy to deploy and reliable. Fail: Too costly to develop equipment.  System is too complex for end user.	Pass:  Leverage off of current developments at other research institutions.  Dealer/distributors willing to engage. Fail:  Unable to use existing technologies.  Dealers unwilling to engage for fair price	Pass: Customers willing to pay extra for higher quality system and service.  Leverage economies of scale for purchased items. Fail: Customers prefer low cost, cheap systems.  High cost of purchased/subcontracted items.