1
APPENDIX B
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Program Solicitation: NSF 97-64
Closing Date: June 12, 1997
SBIR Phase II-- Proposal Cover Page
TOPIC NO.
SUBTOPIC NO. (if any)
000000-11111-1111-22222
N/A
TOPIC TITLE
Development of Matchmaker Project’s Phase II
SBIR
PROPOSAL TITLE
EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER (EIN)
OR TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
(TIN)
111-222-3333
ADDRESS (including address of Company Headquarters and zip code plus four digit extension)
NAME OF COMPANY
The Matchmaker Project
The Matchmaker Project
Old Dominion Computer Science Department
Hampton Blvd
Norfolk, Virginia, 23529
REQUESTED AMOUNT
$261,333
PROPOSED DURATION
6 months
PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE
May 1st 2004 to October 1st 2004
THE SMALL BUSINESS CERTIFIES THAT:
1. It is a small business as defined in this solicitation (Section 2.12)
2. It qualifies as a socially and economically disadvantaged business as defined in this solicitation. FOR STATISTICAL
PURPOSES ONLY.
3. It qualifies as a woman-owned business as defined in this solicitation. FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY.
4. NSF is the only Federal agency that has received this proposal (or an overlapping or equivalent proposal) from the
small business concern. If No, you must disclose overlapping or equivalent proposals and awards as required by this
solicitation. (See Section 3.3.m)
5. A minimum of two-thirds of the research will be performed by this firm in Phase II
6. The primary employment of the principal investigator will be with this firm at the time of award and during the conduct
of the research.
7. It will permit the government to disclose the title and technical abstract page, plus the name, address and telephone
number of a corporate official if the proposal does not result in an award to parties that may be interested in contacting
you for further information or possible investment.
8. It will comply with the provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ( P. L. 88-352) and the regulations pursuant thereto.
9. It has previously submitted proposals to NSF (EXCLUDING PHASE I SBIR).
10. It previously submitted this proposal (which was declined previously) and significant modifications have been made
as described in Section 4.5 of this solicitation.
Y/N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
PRINCIPAL INVESIGATOR / PROJECT DIRECTOR
NAME TRENT BUSCH
TITLE PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
SOCIAL SECURITY NO.
HIGHEST DEGREE / YEAR
E-MAIL ADDRESS
111-22-3333
TELEPHONE NO.
B.S. Ceramics Engineering, 1996
FAX NO.
tbusch@cs.odu.edu
WEB ADDRESS
555-1212
NAME
(SAME AS PRINCIPAL)
555-1213
http://www.cs.odu.edu/~cs411w/Spring04/MM/index.html
COMPANY OFFICER (FOR BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL MATTERS)
TITLE
TELEPHONE NO.
2
INVESTIGATOR)
PRESIDENT'S NAME
DENNIS RAY
OTHER INFORMATION
YEAR FIRM FOUNDED
NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AVERAGE
PREVIOUS 12 MO.:6
CURRENTLY: 6
2003
PROPRIETARY NOTICE: See Section 5.4 for instructions concerning proprietary information.
(Check Here if proposal contains proprietary information.)
NOTE: The signed Certification Page MUST be included immediately following this Cover Page with the original copy of the proposal only.
NSF FORM 1207 (SBIR 12/96)
3
Certification Page
Certification for Principal Investigators
I certify to the best of my knowledge that:
(1) the statements herein (excluding scientific hypotheses and scientific opinions) are true and complete, and
(2) the text and graphics herein are as well as any accompanying publications or other documents, unless otherwise
indicated, are the original work of the signaatories or individuals working under their supervision. I agree to accept
responsibility for the scientific conduct of the project and to provide the required progress reports if an award is made
as a result of this application.
I understand that the willful provision of false information or concealing a material fact in this proposal or any other communication submitted
to NSF is a criminal offense (U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 1001).
PI/PD
Name (Typed)
TRENT BUSCH
Signature
Date
May 2nd, 2004
Certification for Authorized Organizational Representative or Individual Applicant
By signing and submitting this proposal, the individual applicant or the authorized official of the applicant institution is: (1) certifying that
statements made herein are true and complete to the best of his/her knowledge; and (2) agreeing to accept the obligation to comply with NSF
award terms and conditions if an award is made as a result of this application. Further, the applicant is hereby providing certification regarding
Federal debt status, debarment and suspension, drugfree workplace, and lobbying activities (see below), as set forth in the Grant Proposal
Guide (GPG), NSF 95-27. Willful provision of false information in this application and its supporting documents or in reports required under
an ensuring award is a criminal offense (U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 1001).
In addition, if the applicant institution employs more than fifty persons, the authorized official of the applicant institution is certifying that the
institution has implemented a written and enforced conflict of interest policy that is consistent with the provisions of Grant Policy Manual
Section 510; that to the best of his/her knowledge, all financial disclosures required by that conflict of interest policy have been made; and that
all identified conflicts of interest will have conflict of interest policy. Conflicts which cannot be satisfactorily managed, reduced or eliminated
must be disclosed to NSF.
Debt and Debarment Certifications (If answer "yes" to either, please provide explanation.)
Is organization delinquent on any Federal debt?
YES
Is the organization or its principals presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared
YES
ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by a Federal Department or agency?
NO X
NO X
Certification Regarding Lobbying
This certification is required for an award of a Federal contract, grant or cooperative agreement exceeding $100,000 and for an award of a
Federal loan or a commitment providing for the United States to insure or guarantee a loan exceeding $150,000.
Certification for Contracts, Grants, Loans and Cooperative Agreements
The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief, that:
(1) No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or
attempting to influence an officer of employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a
member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan,
the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal Contract,
grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.
(2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an
officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, and officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in
connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL,
"Disclosure of Lobbying Activities," in accordance with its instructions.
(3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers
including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements and that all subrecipients shall certify and
disclose accordingly.
This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into.
Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any
person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each
such failure.
4
Authorized Organizational Representative
Signature
Date
Name /Title (Typed)
May 2nd, 2004
CRAIG GILKEY/ OPERATIONS DIRECTOR
Telephone Number
Electronic Mail Address
Fax Number
555-1212
cgilkey@cs.odu.edu
555-1213
5
APPENDIX C
National Science Foundation
Small Business Innovation Research Program
Program Solicitation No: NSF 97-64
Project Summary
FOR NSF USE ONLY
NSF PROPOSAL NO.
NAME OF FIRM
ADDRESS
The Matchmaker Project
Old Dominion University
Hampton Boulevard
Norfolk, Virginia 23529
PRINICPAL INVESTIGATOR (NAME AND TITLE): Trent
Busch, Project Manager
TITLE OF PROJECT: The Matchmaker Project
TOPIC TITLE
TOPIC NUMBER AND SUBTOPIC LETTER
The Development of the Matchmaker Project’s Phase II
000000-11111-1111-22222
SBIR
PROJECT SUMMARY
(200 words or less)
This Small Business Innovation Research Phase II project intends to enhance
initial communication between singles by incorporating compatibility, portability, and fast
data transfer into their dating lives.
Both independent and government research state that compatibility is critical for
the development of long-lasting, romantic relationships between adults. Single adults who
attend social gatherings lack a means of determining whom they are compatible with. The
majority (79%) of relationships developed at social gatherings fail because the initial
encounter failed to reveal critical compatibility differences between two adults.
Based on these facts, the project has three critical research objectives for Phase II:
(1) to introduce a portable and confidential means of determining compatibility between singles,
utilizing a wireless, self-sustaining network, (2) to determine the ideal size of a file/ bit stream
between nodes in a self-sustaining, wireless network, and (3) research existing compatibility-based
Internet dating services to determine the most critical areas of compatibility.
This research will be composed of the following Phase II milestones: 1) examining user
surveys from existing dating services, 2) development of a Service Discovery Protocol for
a Bluetooth ™ network, and 3) a test trial of 350 such wireless devices on a 7-day cruise on board
the Carnival Sensation.
The first commercial application of this project is to implement the software into an existing
PDA for sale to the consumer or to a Cruise Line. A second commercial application(s) would be from
the overall industrial improvement of data transfer between wireless PDAs.
Potential Commercial Applications of the Research
6
The product being developed can be used by cruise ships so they can distribute them to singles on
single’s cruises. By using the MatchMaker, the single patrons will be able to meet other single people
on the ship with whom they share common interest. Later in the life of the MatchMaker, it will be
made available to the general public and they will be able to use it to meet people as well.
Key Words to Identify Research or Technology (8 maximum)
PDA, COTS, compatibility, Matchmaker, fast data transfer, SDP, service discovery protocol
NSF Form 1304 (SBIR 12/96)
7
Table of Contents
SBIR Phase II-- Proposal Cover Page .................................................................. 1
Certification Page.................................................................................................. 3
Project Summary .................................................................................................. 5
SBIR PART 1: Results of the Phase I Project ....................................................... 8
Section 1.1: Social Impact of the Problem ......................................................... 8
Section 1.2: Prototype Development ............................................................... 10
SBIR PART 2: Phase II Technical Objectives, Approach and Work Plan: .......... 13
Section 2.1: Phase II Technical Objectives ..................................................... 14
Section 2.2: Required Hardware ..................................................................... 14
Section 2.4: Compatibility Research ............................................................ 16
Section 2.5: Market Research...................................................................... 17
SBIR Part 3. Organizational Information ............................................................. 18
Section 3.1: Phase II Staffing Overview .......................................................... 18
Section 3.1.1: Project Manager ....................................................................... 19
Section 3.1.2: Program Team – Phase II ........................................................ 19
Section 3.2: Future Staffing (Phase III) ........................................................... 20
References ......................................................................................................... 21
Biographical Sketches ........................................................................................ 24
Summary Proposal Budget for Overall Project ................................................... 25
Appendix I: Project Milestone Chart and Payment Schedule .............................. 28
Project Milestone Chart ................................................................................... 28
Payment Schedule .......................................................................................... 29
Appendix II: Indicators of Commercial Potential and Commercialization Plan .... 30
Introduction of SBIR Project, Expected Outcomes, and Impact ...................... 30
The Company .................................................................................................. 30
Market, Customer, and Competition ................................................................ 31
Intellectual Property Protection........................................................................ 34
Financing and Revenue Stream ...................................................................... 34
Appendix III: Evaluation Plan .............................................................................. 35
Information about Principal Investigator/Project Directors .................................. 37
Certificate Of Current Cost Or Pricing Data ........................................................ 39
8
SBIR PART 1: Results of the Phase I Project
During Phase I, the Matchmaker project was split into two distinct sections of
research: (1) social impact of the problem, and (2) prototype development. The
latter of the two was obviously critical for the future design of the product. The
first, the social research, was included based on the gross social impact of the
problem definition (see Summary).
Section 1.1: Social Impact of the Problem
The Matchmaker project wanted to ensure that the most extensive possible
research of the Problem Definition was accomplished prior to Phase II.
Therefore, the Matchmaker project continued its research efforts from Phase I in
hopes of achieving this goal. This research was conducted with direct aim at
validating the Problem Definition, the project’s Societal Goal, and to support our
Research Objectives (listed below):
(1) Definition of the Problem: Both independent and government
research state that compatibility is critical for the development of longlasting, romantic relationships between adults. Single adults who attend
social gatherings lack a means of determining whom they are compatible
with. The majority (79%) of relationships developed at social gatherings
fail because the initial encounter failed to reveal critical compatibility
differences between two adults.
(2) Societal Goal: This Small Business Innovation Research Phase II
project intends to enhance initial communication between singles by
incorporating compatibility, portability, and fast data transfer into their
dating lives.
(3) Research Objectives: The Matchmaker project seeks to develop a
Phase II product that will:
a) Introduce a portable and confidential means of determining
compatibility between singles, utilizing a wireless, selfsustaining network
b) Determine the ideal size of a file/ bit stream between nodes in a
self-sustaining, wireless network
c) Research existing compatibility-based Internet dating services
to determine the most critical areas of compatibility.
Matchmaker project developed its research though multiple sources. Examples
include references like online news articles and U.S. Census documentation.
After compiling these references, the Matchmaker project discovered the likely
need for further social development of this project: incompatibility.
9
The U.S. Census of 2000 states that ‘incompatibility between former partners’ is
the primary factor behind the increase in the percentage of divorced men and
women in the United States between 1970 and 2000 (U.S. Census, 2003). The
Census of 2000 also contends that the percentage of unmarried adults in the
United States increased between 1970 and 2000, while the number of married
adults in the U.S. declined (see Figure 1; U.S. Census, 2000). Dating experts
attribute numerous societal factors as the cause for these occurrences. These
factors include media influence, a lack of stigma associated with single parent
homes, an increased number of children being raised by single parent homes,
and/or a lack of compatibility between married couples (U.S. Census, 2003). Of
these four factors, dating experts agree whole-heartedly with the findings of the
U.S. Census. They insist that for long lasting relationships to succeed,
compatibility needs to be the primary component (Mason, Sullivan, 2003).
Nowhere is the need to utilize compatibility for singles more evident than at social
gatherings. Recent data states that 82% of singles social gatherings provide
singles no means of meeting others with whom they are compatible (Mason,
2003). Those singles without a means of other compatible singles are left to
utilize a process that could be described as anything but ‘timely.’ On average,
singles interviewed by MSNBC reported that on a typical night at a bar or club,
they spend 3.3 hours trying to ‘meet someone.’ And by no means does this infer
that they are truly compatible with this person; this is just to ‘acquaint him or
herself where there may or may not be some basic attraction’ (Mason,
2003). Furthermore, the majority of singles’ events that utilize match-up methods
are described as either ‘poor’ or ‘less than adequate’ (Frommers, 2003). The
singles’ events that do utilize ‘compatibility’ usually determine it based on one
category of an individual’s lifestyle. While singles gather at these functions with a
single common interest, there is no way to bridge multiple interests together for
large numbers of individuals. For example, a member of the Wasamutten Ski
Club will have no way of identifying which members are Jewish, much less which
are married.
Such limits on existing match-up methods create our objective for pushing the
Matchmaker Project into production (and beyond).
10
Figure 1 details the increase in the
percentage of Divorced/Separated
(Men and Women) since 1970, along
with a decrease in the percentage of
Married Men and Women since 1970
(taken from U.S. Census.org). The
Census terms ‘unmarried’ as
individuals who are either divorced,
have never been married, or are
widowed.
Figure 1
Section 1.2: Prototype Development
This semester, the Matchmaker Project worked extensively to produce a
prototype capable of meeting basic functionality requirements of our proposed
future product. The future product, it was deemed, would need to meet the
following set of functionality requirements:
11
1) Utilize a pre-manufactured, COTS (Cost Off The Shelf) hardware
component of similar construction to a typical pocket PC device. The
following components were to be present on the device (typical of
Pocket PCs in use):
a. Be of small size (no greater than 6” by 3” by 1/2”)
b. Have a 2-way navigational keypad
c. Require no external source of power, and utilize a BATTERY
OF SUCH AND SUCH POWER REQUIREMENTS
d. Incorporate a color screen
2) Be capable of incorporating a self-sustaining, wireless, Bluetooth ™
network between itself and other Matchmaker devices in the area. This
network would serve to transfer user profiles between each device
linked to the network. Such a network would utilize Class 2 Bluetooth
™ transmission standards.
3) Incorporate a software algorithm capable of determining compatibility
between two user profiles
4) Constructing and implementing a basic graphical user interface for use
in the future (Phase III) product.
5) Harvest interviews/surveys from existing compatibility based Internet
dating services.
6) Construct an item survey based on the results of analysis performed in
requirement (5).
Based on the following objectives, we noted that only a portion of the functionality
would need to be proven. Some requirements had been previously established,
tested and proven. These included the (1) development of the hardware, i.e. the
Pocket PC, and (6) the development of a complex, multi-question user survey
based on the results of step (5).
The majority of Pocket PCs on the market today meet the projects four (Item (1),
parts a. through d.) specifications (Wireless.com, 2003). Furthermore, the costs
of designing, building, and manufacturing these devices are absorbed by a
supplier (i.e. through a COTS purchase contact with a manufacturer of Pocket
PCs). Further explanation for utilizing this method for acquiring hardware is
detailed in Part Two, Phase II Technical Objectives, Approach and Work Plan.
At the beginning of Phase I, the members of the Matchmaker project quickly
acknowledged the futility of trying to exceed industry standards for compatibility
matching. Most existing Internet based dating services utilized at least one PhD
in psychology (Warren, Mason, 2004). The Matchmaker Phase I staff did not
include a licensed psychologist. This decision was based on what was available
at the time (both funding and personnel). None of the current staff had any
expertise in that field, and hiring a psychologist would have been far too costly for
the Phase 1 budget.
12
Increasing the size of the user profile questionnaire provided other problems as
well. This concern stemmed from the limited amount of data that could be
transferred within a quick (less than 2 second) period of time. The larger the user
profile, the longer the required transmission time. The Matchmaker project staff
was optimistic about the data transfer rate, and early tests proved that larger files
(220 KB) could be transmitted. However, as the time required to transfer
increased, so did the possibility of loosing connection. In a multi-user
environment, this could be catastrophic.
As a result of these two concerns, the Matchmaker project staff concluded that
designing a complex, detailed questionnaire during Phase 1 was unfeasible. The
alternative agreed upon for Phase I was to complete a limited, three item user
profile. This smaller profile would merely test the devices’ algorithm (to ensure it
could operate given multiple areas of compatibility). For Phase II, the group
agreed to develop a somewhat detailed User Profile with the help of a PhD in
psychology. The size of this profile would be determined during Phase II file
transfer tests (see Part Two, Phase II Technical Objectives, Approach and Work
Plan).
Item (2) of the final product’s functionality (establishing a wireless network) was
also reduced in girth for development in Phase I, Constrictions on Phase I budget
and personnel limited our test equipment to the accession of 2 Bluetooth ™
wireless USB transmitter/receivers. The group agreed that focusing on the
delivery of the user survey itself was enough to prove feasibility for this area of
development. Bluetooth™ networks had been successfully tested utilizing similar
devices in the past (Sony, 2003).
These facts left three requirements to be achieved during the prototype phase,
Phase I. These included:
1) Develop a software algorithm capable of determining compatibility)
between 2 profiles.
2) Test the delivery of user surveys over a wireless Bluetooth selfsustaining, network (consisting of 2 nodes).
3) Constructing and implementing a basic graphical user interface for use
in the future (Phase III) product.
These three objectives became the focus of our prototype during Phase I of the
SBIR. The overall end result of the prototype (based on these objectives) was a
successful prototype that met the three requirements listed above.
The implementation of the project’s software algorithm was a complete success.
Some difficulty in maintaining the schedule was experienced. The algorithm was
not completed until twelve days after initial the initial expected completion date.
However, Phase 0 planning allocated a two week buffer for unforeseen
difficulties in constructing the algorithm. As a result, this delay did not affect the
13
overall project results. There also were no surprises during testing of this
algorithm; this component passed both testing and evaluation without difficulty,
There were also some unforeseen positive results as a result of the development
of the software algorithm. Initial estimates for the algorithm’s size were guessed
at over 100 KB. However, the final design of the algorithm was different from
early estimates by two distinctions. First of all, the algorithm implemented was
purely software based. This eliminated the concern of integrating more hardware
into the device. Secondly, the final algorithm was very compact in size (KB). Our
future device will only sacrifice 13 KB of memory to hold the algorithm, and as a
result, sacrifice less processing time to utilize the algorithm. Reduced processing
time will also likely improve the results of the load testing during Phase II as well.
The second functionality test of the project was to develop and test the delivery
of user surveys across a Bluetooth™ self-sustaining, wireless network. As
mentioned before, focus was placed on the delivery of the user profile itself. Our
communication tests with two Bluetooth™ USB transceivers were moderately
successful during this phase. The only difficulty was an unforeseen start-up
period required by both the transceivers. Once both devices were powered up,
the Windows operating systems on each laptop computer required approximately
4 minutes to set-up the network. Once established, the network actually
performed better than expected. Successive tests demonstrated that the two
laptops could be separated by almost 50 meters before the connection was lost.
As mentioned before, our future tests will include multiple devices with
interference from other wireless networks. Based on current tests, so long as the
startup time is accounted for, the outcome of should be excellent.
Our final functionality requirement, developing the graphical user interface, was
accomplished with little difficulty. In our future product, the graphical image
display will serve as the means for the user to program, see results, and make
selections. Utilizing Visual Basic, the project constructed a user interface which
implemented all required functionality of the future device.
These facts more than provide the group a ‘green light’ for receiving grant
funding for Phase II SBIR.
SBIR PART 2: Phase II Technical Objectives, Approach and
Work Plan:
As previously mentioned in Part 1, Results of Phase I Project, the results from
Phase I proved the Matchmaker’s design prototype met all initial functionality
requirements. Future development of the product will bring the Matchmaker
14
project’s design from prototype into marketable product. The functionality of the
final product design requires meeting the following technical objectives:
Section 2.1: Phase II Technical Objectives
1) Utilize a pre-manufactured, COTS (Cost Off The Shelf) hardware
component of similar construction to a typical pocket PC device. The
following components were to be present on the device (typical of
Pocket PCs in use):
a. Be of small size (no greater than 6” by 3” by 1/2”).
b. Have a 2-way navigational keypad.
c. Require no external source of power, and utilize a BATTERY
OF SUCH AND SUCH POWER REQUIREMENTS.
d. Incorporate a color screen.
2) Be capable of developing a Bluetooth ™ Service Discovery Protocol
(SDP). This Protocol is essential for
3) Harvest interviews/surveys from existing compatibility based Internet
dating services.
4) Construct an item survey based on the results of analysis performed in
requirement (5).
As mentioned in Part 1, Results of Phase I Project, the scope of Item (2) will be
broadened to fully meet the stated requirement. The Matchmaker project has
developed a plan based on these six design elements.
Section 2.2: Required Hardware
Singles that travel or frequently attend social gatherings like singles’ cruises will
utilize this device. To meet these specifications, the Matchmaker device will be
small (4.46 in. x 2.75 in. x 0.50 in.), lightweight (4.37 oz.) device, powered by a
rechargeable battery. A user will answer a multiple-choice questionnaire
concerning his or her interests, and this information will be stored as the device’s
‘user survey.’ The user’s device will then broadcast its own user survey and work
in tandem with other Matchmaker devices to determine which user’s surveys are
compatible. The surveys are relayed from device to device via a wireless,
electronic signal each one broadcasts. After receiving another user’s survey, the
user’s device uses an algorithm to determine if the two profiles are ‘compatible.’
Once compatibility is determined, the device transmits a picture image to the
other device along with a picture request from the other device. The vibrating
mechanism in each Matchmaker device activates, and each user sees a picture
image and profile in the Liquid Crystal Display screen.
Our SBIR Phase I findings concluded that the Matchmaker device can be built
utilizing existing, readily available hardware technology. In fact, our Phase II
SBIR pre-production prototype (and Phase III products) will be composed entirely
of one COTS (Cost Off The Shelf) Component: the Hewlett Packard iPAC Pocket
PC. The HP iPAC meets all of our specific technical requirements. It’s small,
15
lightweight, and utilizes existing wireless technology that has been on the market
for over 3 years. By utilizing an existing HP distributor, our price per unit (single
iPAC) will be $200 per unit (including shipping). Our initial estimate of cost to
design and produce the hardware in-house came to $260 per unit. But reduced
production costs are not the only benefit gleaned from utilizing the iPAC.
There are two other advantages in using the IPAC as our sole hardware
component. First, it reduces our development costs to software only. Shock
testing, ergonomics testing, and a hardware replacement warranty are all costs
absorbed by Hewlett Packard. And secondly, our engineering staff is reduced
from our original projection made during Phase 0. Our original plan called for two
level 3 engineers; that plan now consists of one level 3 engineer (the Software
Engineer). Besides the 30 iPACs purchased, the only hardware cost incurred
from Phase II is the cost of two desktop computers (a total cost of $1,200).
Thanks to the incorporation of the IPAC, the most essential tasks to get the
Matchmaker device into production will center on software development. At the
completion of Phase I (June 15th, 2004), the Matchmaker Project will have a
completed, compatibility-based software program to compare user profiles. This
program will be transferred onto thirty (30) HP iPACs for field testing, through the
utilization of a Bluetooth Developer Kit (at total costs of $7,500 and $10,000,
respectively). Field tests will include indoor and outdoor range tests, to determine
the effectiveness of the iPACs at given distances from each other. These tests
will also include load testing (groups of iPACs will ‘load’ each other with survey
requests), fault seating, and will utilize obstacles and walls of various
thicknesses. To ensure these tests are executed on a scientific and timely basis,
the Matchmaker Project will hire a level 3 software engineer at the beginning of
Phase II.
Section 2.3: Bluetooth Service Discovery Protocol (SDP)
Our product also requires a means of transmitting user profiles from one device
to the next. The reasoning for this is simple. Without a wireless method to
transfer user profiles, the portability of our product is lost. For this activity, our
device will need a fairly small (less than 5 cm by 2 cm by 1 cm) transmitter,
whose power consumption is minimal at best. The device also needs to be able
to set up its own slave-node network system. Requiring the addition of signal
exchangers or boosters is far too costly for our SBIR budget, and almost
completely removes the ‘portability’ aspect of the device. Furthermore, the device
will need a fairly secure means of transmission, particularly one without a lot of
interference from other wireless transmissions. Our initial design speculations
suggested using either 802.11 g Ethernet or Sony Bluetooth technology as
means of transmitting. After reviewing the requirements of both technologies, the
group settled on testing with Sony Bluetooth during Phase II.
Our communication tests with two Bluetooth USB transceivers were successful
during this phase. This may be an indicator of future difficulties in testing during
16
the next phase. Transmission between transceivers was successful so long as
both were kept perfectly still and separated (indoors) by a distance of less than
10 meters. Our future tests will include multiple devices with interference from
other wireless networks.
The development of a Bluetooth™ Service Discovery Protocol (SDP) is critical for
the continuance of the project. According to our research, current laws and
technical specifications require any device that plans on utilizing Bluetooth™ to
write its own SDP for that device. As such, there is
A level 3 software engineer will be employed as the overall administrator for the
software development of our SDP Protocol. He or she will be employed to work
100% of the time of Phase II, at a total cost (from June 15th, 2004 to January
15th, 2005) of $35,000. To assist the software engineer in the field testing, two
ODU undergraduate computer science students (each who have completed CS
250) will be employed as software testers as well. The undergrad students will be
employed for the entire phase as well (100%), at a cost of $40,000. To further
justify their use, the undergrad students will be utilized for essential
clerical/secretarial tasks as needed, including answering the office phone. During
Phase III, software development tasks are nonexistent. The software engineer
will ensure that the Matchmaker device’s software is ready for mass production
by January 1st, 2005. However, our budget realistically accounts for ‘error
recovery time,’ in case software needs to be fixed after production (at an
estimated cost of $250 per error). Therefore, the software engineer and software
testers will be employed for only a fraction of the length of Phase III (at a
combined cost of $55,250).
Being located in our own Computer Science department benefits our project both
in manpower and in reducing overhead. The Matchmaker Project will employ the
original SBIR Phase 1 team. This will eliminate both advertising costs and the
need to include a week-long ‘employee indoctrination’ period for the first six
members. This one week, although it seems like an insignificant period of time,
translates into $11,350 of cost savings for Phase 2. The location also supplies
the Matchmaker Project with an excellent source of qualified software testers and
software engineers to hire from. This reduction in advertisement reduces the total
initial hiring costs of our personnel to a final cost of $6,300. Furthermore, office
space and utility costs will be null, thanks to the space supplied by Old Dominion
University. Office equipment costs includes office supplies (such as paper and
printer cartridges) and the before mentioned desktop computers for Phase II and
Phase III. The total cost of the office supplies comes to $4,300, and includes 15
USB storage keys (one for each member of the Matchmaker Project).
Section 2.4: Compatibility Research
The final Milestone to accomplish is the construction of a compatibility-based
questionnaire. This questionnaire doesn’t need to exceed industry standards for
17
‘compatibility matching’. It must, however, be effective at providing basic
compatibility matching between other Matchmaker users. As mentioned in
section (1), the majority of online dating services employed compatibility as a
means of matching customers. Also, the Matchmaker group’s research agreed
with this approach. Therefore, the product’s matching was entirely compatibilitybased. To help with the construction of a user profile that meets this requirement,
the project will employ a Psychologist on staff.
Section 2.5: Market Research
Another most essential group of tasks to ensure the Matchmaker device reaches
production focus on generating a sales contract with a cruise line. For this
purpose, the marketing staff, initially consisting of our own marketing director, will
expand to include both a marketing consultant and a legal consultant (Lawyer) at
the start of Phase II.
The priority of accomplishing the cruise line sales contract cannot be more
emphasized. Therefore, the marketing consultant will be employed on a full-time
(100%) basis during both Phase II and Phase III. The total (salary and benefits)
cost of the marketing consultant during both Phase II and Phase III will be
$133,000. Considering the essential nature of the sales contracts (and the fulltime employment of the job), this is an adequate financial representation of what
will be accomplished. During Phase II, both the marketing director and the
marketing consultant will be directly tasked with traveling to and lobbying the
three largest cruise lines, Carnival, Norwegian, and Royal Caribbean.
Conveniently, all three cruise lines are headquartered in Miami, Florida. As a
result of this, the marketing consultant will be renting a studio to work out of in
downtown Miami for the entirety of Phase II (six months). This studio will be at a
total cost of $12,000, including the price of utilities and rental deposit. The
marketing director and marketing consultant will together have an additional
$38,000 in travel expenses, to be used in pursuit of a contract to sell a bulk order
of Matchmaker devices to the before mentioned cruise lines.
The legal consultant is utilized for two purposes. The first is to oversee and draft
sales contracts. These sales contracts include those with the Matchmaker group
and potential cruise line customers, and the Phase III order contract for our
COTS hardware, the HP iPACs. The second purpose will be to keep the legal
consultant on retainer in case of any unforeseen legal difficulties or lawsuits arise
(at the combined cost of $30,000, including both retainer and contract fees).
Being located in our own Computer Science department benefits our project both
in manpower and in reducing overhead. The Matchmaker project will employ the
original SBIR Phase 1 team. This will eliminate both advertising costs and the
need to include a week-long ‘employee indoctrination’ period for the first six
members. This one week, although it seems like an insignificant period of time,
18
translates into $11,350 of cost savings for Phase 2. The location also supplies
the Matchmaker Project with an excellent source of qualified software testers and
software engineers to hire from. This reduction in advertisement reduces the total
initial hiring costs of our personnel to a final cost of $6,300. Furthermore, office
space and utility costs will be null, thanks to the space supplied by Old Dominion
University. Office equipment costs includes office supplies (such as paper and
printer cartridges) and the before mentioned desktop computers for Phase II and
Phase III. The total cost of the office supplies comes to $4,300, and includes 15
USB storage keys (one for each member of the Matchmaker Project).
The greatest fiscal savings for Phase II comes in the way of capital costs. There
are none; the capital costs for this project come to exactly zero dollars. Since the
utilities and leasing fees are covered by Old Dominion University, there are no
‘location/facility’ expenses we need to be concerned with. And since the Project
utilizes COTS hardware components, it doesn’t need to purchase or rent any
mass production equipment.
The project’s Phase II time schedule is based on the limited amount of software
work we need to accomplish. Phase II will center on turning our initial ‘roughsketch’ Phase I prototype into a producible, working model for the customer.
Since the hardware development costs are null in terms of time and money, our
Phase II timeline will be as cost effective as possible. Our only tasks to
accomplish in Phase II consist of the software design and marketing contract
aspects already mentioned. Our cost effectiveness is part of the reason our SBIR
Grant Request for Phase II was accepted. Our budget costs for Phase II
($371,000) were well under the SBIR Phase II funding cap ($750,000). But the
greatest advantage of the Phase II schedule and budget is this: the cost of
maintaining the Matchmaker project during Phase II comes to.
During Phase II, the number of employees we hire is quite small. This reasoning
is validated in terms of cost. Personnel salary costs, accounting for 88% of the
total costs of our project, are by far the most expensive costs of the project. By
limiting our Phase II staff to nine employees, we limited the total cost of
personnel for Phase II to $272, 500. Our Phase I project staff consisted of the
following members: project manager, operations director, SBIR director, technical
service director, research and development director, and marketing manager.
The nine employees of Phase II include the original Phase I project staff, the
software engineer, the marketing consultant, two software testers, and a
psychologist.
SBIR Part 3. Organizational Information
Section 3.1: Phase II Staffing Overview
The Matchmaker project team management’s goal is to work closely with the
customer to fully understand the system requirements and field a system that
19
meets those requirements. The management approach for pursuing this is
based on the philosophy that successful programs are delivered by goal-oriented
teams.
Section 3.1.1: Project Manager
The Project Manager will lead the Matchmaker team throughout Phase II and III
of the SBIR process. The Project Manager is responsible for all planning,
programmatic, technical, and financial aspects of the Matchmaker project. The
Program Manager is the primary Point of Contact (POC) for the customer.
The primary duties of the program manager include supervision of all planning,
scheduling, financial, and technical activities, and customer liaison. In order to
facilitate customer involvement, the project manager will provide planning and
schedule recommendations, and assist in resolution of technical and
programmatic issues.
Section 3.1.2: Program Team – Phase II
Color Key
Proje ct
M anage r
SBIR Funded
Company Funded
Ope rations
Dire ctor
R&D Dire ctor
Product
M anage r
Le gal Affairs
Dire ctor
M arke ting
Consultant
Le gal
Consultant
Software
Engine e r
Psychologist
Te chnical
Se rv ice Dire ctor
Software
De v e lope r
Software
De v e lope r
Figure 2: Phase II Management Structure
To comply with the requirements set forth by the NSF SBIR funding, the
company will be providing the services of those positions highlighted in
blue in the above figure (figure 1). Those positions directly contributing to
research are highlighted in green and will be funding by SBIR funding.
20
Through an extensive system selection process, the Matchmaker Team (figure 1)
is experienced with the implementation of each component that will comprise the
Matchmaker project. The functions of each member are as follows:
 Project Manager: The Project Manager manages all budget
and timeline milestones for the Matchmaker project. This
position is constant throughout the SBIR process (Phase IIII).
 Operations Director: The Operations Director manages the
day to day operations of the Matchmaker project. As the
project moves into phase III (production), the Operations
Director will place heavy emphasis on the manufacturing of
the Matchmaker in conjunction with sales.
 R&D Directory: The R&D director manages all research for
the Matchmaker project. The research performed in Phase
II consists of both technical and societal topics.
 Product Manager: The Product Manager manages all
aspect of the customer’s relationship including sales and
market of the Matchmaker to our clients. The Product
Manager also manages customer feedback so that we may
constantly refine our device as determined by our market.
 Legal Affairs Director: The Legal Affairs Director provides
support for our contract and funding from our sources. Since
this product will be an FCC device, this position will ensure
that we meet federal compliance of radio devices. The Legal
Director will provide assistance to the development with
contractual agreements with our customers and vendors.
 Technical Services Director: The Technical Service Director
coordinates all technical support pre and post the sale of the
Matchmaker unit. The Technical Services Director
coordinates with the Product Manager and the R&D Director
reliability and performance data acquired from the field.
In Phase II, a psychologist will provide services to the company by performing
research within the field of relationship sociology. With this assistance, the
Matchmaker project will assured of providing a highly probability of a successful
match. The psychiatrist will also be available during the product testing to help
us refine our products to those results.
Section 3.2: Future Staffing (Phase III)
During the initialization of Phase III, several positions will be created to support
the four direct reports to the Operations Director. The positions emphasize
manufacturing, sales and support for the Matchmaker device. All positions
during Phase III will be funded by the company. (Figure 2)
21
Proje ct
M anage r
Ope rations
Dire ctor
R&D Dire ctor
Hardware
M anage r
Product
M anage r
Le gal Affairs
Dire ctor
M arke ting
Consultant
Software
Engine e r
Software
De v e lope r
Te chnical
Se rv ice Dire ctor
Le gal
Consultant
Te chnical
Support
Sale s
Te chnical
Support
Custome r
Se rv ice
Te chnical
Support
Software
De v e lope r
Figure 3: Phase III Management Structure
References
1. Bear, M. (2002). U.S. Mobile Commerce: Fact or Fiction? Retrieved from
American Press Institute.com on October 10th, 2003 at
http://www.americanpressinstitute.org/content/1520.cfm?print=yes
2. Cellular-News.com (2002). Sony Ericsson T608. Retrieved on October
22nd, 2003 at http://www.cellular-news.com/story/8423.shtml
3. ComputerBits.com (2002). PDAs and the Small Business Retrieved.on
September 10th, 2003 from
http://www.computerbits.com/archive/2003/0800/pdaandsb.html
4. Cruising.org (2003). Number of Cruise Ships in the Caribbean. Retrieved
March 27th, 2004 at
http://www.cruising.org/cruiselines/ShipIndex.cfm
5. Cruises.about.com (2003). Cruise Passenger Travel Increases in 2003.
Retrieved September 30th, 2003 from
http://cruises.about.com/cs/officialinfo/a/MARADstats0603.htm
6. Dynamic Travel.com (2003). Programs Offered by Cruise Lines. Retrieved
September 28th, 2003 at
http://www.dynamictravel.com/singlesguide.htm
7. East Bay Buisness Times.com (2002) PDAs to Grow Moderately (In
2003). Retrieved September 20th, 2003 at
22
http://eastbay.bizjournals.com/eastbay/stories/2002/04/01/daily41.h
tml
8. Frommers.com (2003). Matching the Cruise to Your Needs. Retrieved
September 21st, 2003 at
http://www.frommers.com/activities/single/article.cfm?destid=SINGL
E&arti cleid=538
9. Frommers.com (2003). Carnival Cruise Lines (analysis). Retrieved
September 22nd, 2003 at
http://www.frommers.com/activities/single/article.cfm?destid=SINGL
E&arti cleid=538
10. Griffen, Ilene (2002). Singles Guide to Cruising. Retrieved from Caribbean
Lime Travel.com October 10th, 2003 at
http://www.caribbeanlime.com/singles%20guide%20to%20cruising.
htm
11. Hagan, Pat (2002). Even Singles Cruises Have Rules. Retrieved from
Cruisemates.com on October 1st, 2003 at
http://cruises.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%
2Fww w.cruisemates.com%2Farticles%2Fsingle%2F
12. Mason, Anthony (2003). Cyber Courtships Catching On. Retrieved from
CBS News.com October 23rd , 2003 at
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/09/eveningnews/main577
356.shtml
13. Matchmaker Budget (2003). Retrieved on March 26th, 2004 at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/matchmakerODU/files/
14. Ready 2 Go Travel.com (2003). Cruise Line Demographics. Retrieved
October 28th, 2003 at
http://www.geocities.com/ready2gotravel/cruiselinedemographics.ht
ml
15. Saltzstein, W. (2003) Bluetooth: the Future of Wireless Medical
Technology? Retrieved October 15th, 2003 from Device Link.com at
http://www.devicelink.com/mddi/archive/02/02/001.html
16. Semiconductor Business News (2003). TI offers ROM-based Bluetooth
Processor For $5 Solution In Volume Products. Retrieved on
October 1st, 2003 from
http://www.mwee.com/printableArticle?doc_id=OEG20011211S004
1
17. Sony Ericson T68i Website(2003). Retrieved September 13th, 2003 at
http://www.sonyericsson.com/T68i/
18. Sullivan, B. (2003). Online Dating: Everybody’s Doing It. Retrieved from
MSNBC.com on September 30th, 2003 from
http://www.msnbc.com/news/806278.asp?0dm=B17GB&cp1=1
19. Weaver, J. (2003). Video, Voice and Instant Gratification. Retrieved from
MNBC.com on September 30th, 2003 from
http://www.msnbc.com/news/809820.asp?0cb=-416105685&cp1=1
23
20. U.S. Census.org (June, 2001). America’s Families and Living
Arrangements. Retrieved October 5th, 2003 at
http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p20-537.pdf
24
Biographical Sketches
Craig Gilkey is a senior at Old Dominion University majoring in Computer
Science, and plans on graduating in May of 2004. Craig has been in the United
States Navy for the past 10 years, and until his current assignment to ODU,
worked in the Health Sciences. Craig earned an Associate’s in Health Sciences
(A.S.) from George Washington University in 2000, and has attended numerous
military training schools, including Field Medical Service School and Military
Laboratory Technician School. Craig has visited 13 foreign nations both through
the Navy and on vacation (which includes attending 2 different cruises).
Trent Busch is a ceramic engineer (Alfred University, 1992) working toward his
master in Computer Science. During the past 10 years, Trent has held positions
such as Plant Engineer, Technical Service Engineer, and Product Manager.
Having successfully implemented win-win projects for his customers that
provided a 10% increase in net income for his company, Trent earned the Most
Valuable Player Award– Kentucky Tennessee Clay Company. Trent has
published two articles in the Journal of the American Ceramic Society and
presented papers to industry conventions. With extensive project management
experience acquired from an industry leader in management, Trent looks forward
to applying his engineering background to the CS culture, while becoming part of
a dynamic company in the future.
Nick Hundstad is a senior at Old Dominion University, with a completion of a B.S.
in Computer Science and a minor in Computer Engineering he intends to return
to industry. Nick held a position at Catalyst Communications Technology
Incorporated for two years and has worked at nHance for a year where he is still
employed.
Sharina Broughton is a senior at Old Dominion University and plans to receive
her BS in Computer Science with a minor in Computer Engineering in May 2004.
She currently volunteers at a local high school as an assistant to Java and C++
programming teachers. Upon graduation, she plans to pursue a career in
programming, web development or databases.
Josh Lazernick is working toward his Bachelors in Computer Science from Old
Dominion University, the most recognized school in South Norfolk. With no
official recognition for his computer talents, Josh is trying to show off his skills in
computer programming, web design, and mathematics. Josh has experience in
web publishing, Microsoft Windows, and C++. Josh also has introductory
knowledge of Java, Unix, X-Windows, Paintshop Pro, Photoshop, Xara 3d,
Internet Relay Chat, and open-GL.
Michael Urban is a senior studying Computer Science with a Math minor at Old
Dominion University. He expects to graduate in May 2004. He has attened
Tidewater Community College.
25
Summary Proposal Budget for Overall Project
[Place Holder]
26
27
28
Appendix I: Project Milestone Chart and Payment Schedule
Project Milestone Chart
The Matchmaker project’s Phase II development will include the following
Milestones:
Tasks
Days
Start Date
End Date
Budget Analysis for Phase II
60
05/15/04
07/15/04
Training Guidelines for Maintenance Personnel
15
06/20/04
07/05/04
Software Testing (with Hardware)
210
5/16/04
12/16/04
Set up Hardware Contract
144
5/30/04
10/24/04
Preliminary Product Sales Contract
45
05/30/04
07/14/04
Market Analysis: Open Sale
120
07/01/04
10/01/04
Test Analysis
30
12/01/04
01/01/04
Final Pre-Production Product Review
10
01/01/05
01/15/05
The Matchmaker project attached these Milestones to four specific areas of
development. These include Required Hardware, Bluetooth Service Discovery
Protocol (SDP), Compatibility Research, and Market Research.
29
Payment Schedule
Phase II
Duration: 8 months
Salaries
Project Manager
Operations Director
R&D Director
Product Manager
Legal Affairs Director
Technical Service
Director
Software Engineer
Software Developer
Psychologist
Marketing Consultant
Legal Consultant
SBIR Funded
Company
Funded
#
1
1
1
1
1
% of work
dedicated to
project
50%
80%
80%
100%
50%
Duration of
work
during phase
(months)
8
8
8
8
8
1
1
2
1
1
1
100%
100%
100%
75%
100%
20%
8
8
8
8
8
8
#
$ each
2
$600
X
1
$10,000
X
#
$ each
Cost for
Phase
X
X
X
Cost for
Phase
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Hardware/Software
Hardware
Desktop Computers
Software
Bluetooth Developer Kit
Cost for
Phase
Cost for
Phase
Marketing
Cost for
Phase
Cost for
Phase
Travel Expenses
Participate at Cruising
Convention
Advertising
Sample Units
1
$50,000
X
1
1
30
$20,000
$10,000
$250
X
X
X
Website
6
$30
X
Total
$632,713
$261,333 $371,380
One-eight of each cost in this table will be allocated each month for the entire
eight months of Phase II.
30
Appendix II: Indicators of Commercial Potential and
Commercialization Plan
Introduction of SBIR Project, Expected Outcomes, and Impact
Dating experts agree whole-heartedly with the findings of the U.S. Census. They
insist that for long lasting relationships to succeed, compatibility needs to be the
primary component (Mason, Sullivan, 2003). However, most singles would
contend that it is tough to try to find someone with the same interests without
having to enlist some help. This ‘help’ often comes in the form of meeting others
through a trusted friend or though an online Internet dating service. But neither
of these two methods comes in handy at group functions. At large group
functions, a friend’s knowledge about all the individuals present is not very deep.
Often friends are not even sure who is single. An Internet dating service like
Match.com might be utilized by only a handful of people at a particular group
function. And this handful of Match.com users might not contain anyone with
whom you are ‘compatible.’ This leaves singles with an unanswered question:
“How can I find someone I am compatible with while I’m at my favorite gettogether?”
This is where the motivation to develop the MatchMaker originates. The goal of
this SBIR research is to develop a product that will improve communication
between people who are compatible and to help eliminate the time people waste
trying to get to know someone with whom they turn out to not be compatible.
The technical objectives of this project are to develop a portable MatchMaker
device that allows communication with other MatchMaker devices over a wireless
network, to develop an algorithm that will determine compatibility between users
and to have the device produce output in real time. We will fulfill the portability
requirement by purchasing Hewlett Packard IPAQs as our main hardware
component. The IPAQ’s will house all of the functionality of the device. In order to
utilize a wireless network and real-time output, we will equip the IPAQ with
Bluetooth, which is a technology that enables communication between portable
devices. To develop the algorithm, we will employ a psychologist to research
compatibility and determine what criteria we will use to determine compatibility
and software engineers to create a program that compares the criteria and
determines whether the criteria of the users being compared constitutes a match.
The innovation this product will introduce is the ability to autonomously
communicate with other devices coupled with the power to stimulate contact
between single people. The anticipated societal impact of this innovation is to
encourage communication between people who are compatible and help them
find happiness in a partner.
The Company
The MatchMaker project team is currently a group of six individuals dedicated to
the research and development of the MatchMaker product. In order to effectively
31
make the transition from Phase II to the production stage, we will employ the
Phase II project management team with the addition of six staff members: three
technical support workers, a sales worker and a customer service representative
and a hardware manager. In order for this team to grow as a business, we plan
to expand our market from cruise lines to the general public.
Market, Customer, and Competition
We intend to market our final product to cruise ships so that they can distribute
them on their single’s cruises. Our research shows that this is a highly lucrative
market. The cruise industry in the US has been in a rapid growth phase over the
past ten years. The cruising industry produced a record year for 2003 with over
9.52 million worldwide guests enjoying cruise vacations in 2003. This is a 10.2%
increase over the 8.6 million who cruised in 2002. Nearly 8 million North
Americans cruised in 2003 which is a 6.9% increase compared with the nearly
7.5 million who cruised in 2002.1
There are 153 cruise ships that service passengers originating from the US.2
Cruise ships attained a 102.6% load factor in 2003 (compared with 98.6% in
2002), demonstrating the enormous demand for cruise vacations.3 With such
growth, there has been increased competition among companies trying to
differentiate themselves to attract higher net income per passenger. With 56% of
Americans being single (US Census 2000) cruise companies are focusing on the
single’s market.
According to solvedate.com, there are five ways for a single person to find a
potential partner: on his or her own, in virtual communities, with personal ads,
through traditional dating services, and though online dating services. Each of
these services has its advantages and disadvantages. These methods are our
current competition and we plan to diminish their threat by incorporating their
advantages and eliminating their disadvantages.
If a person decides to search for someone on his or her own, there are time
constraints, a narrow social reach, and a low frequency of meeting people.
These flaws leave the person to rely on friends, relatives, and other social
networks as means to meet new people.
Virtual communities (chat rooms, instant messaging, and email) increase social
isolation. “A recent Stanford study of 4,113 individuals reported that the more
time people spend using the Internet, the more they lose contact with their social
environment” (solvedating.com, 2004). The purely text-based services also lack
1
Cruise Lines International Association, February 26, 2004, CLIA MEMBER CRUISE LINES POST STRONG
PASSENGER GROWTH WITH OVER 9.5 MILLION CRUISERS IN 2003 at
http://www.cruising.org/CruiseNews/news.cfm?NID=156
2
Cruise Lines International Association, Cruise Line and Ship Profiles as presented on March 28, 2004 at
http://www.cruising.org/cruiselines/ShipIndex.cfm
3
Cruise Lines International Association, February 26, 2004, CLIA MEMBER CRUISE LINES POST STRONG
PASSENGER GROWTH WITH OVER 9.5 MILLION CRUISERS IN 2003 at
http://www.cruising.org/CruiseNews/news.cfm?NID=156
32
effective communication. When online, people lose the ability to properly register
sincerity and sarcasm, which are usually revealed by facial expressions and the
tones in a person’s voice. Delays of even a few seconds in an online
conversation can display a false hesitation or disinterest. Another study showed
that online groups took about three times longer to develop impressions of each
other than if the group had meet face-to-face (solvedating.com, 2004).
Personal ads have an inadequate membership size, take away the ability to
judge physical appearance, have a financial overhead, and have a small space
for descriptions and what the advertiser is looking for in a relationship. Because
customers are usually charged by the word, they usually find that they are limited
in their specifications. Many personal ads do not convey more than the gender,
race and age of the author, the desired gender, race and age he or she is looking
for in a match and a few words briefly detailing the author’s hobbies and
interests. There is no physical appearance feed back since photos are not
published in the papers. The user’s short description is lumped together with
everyone else’s which limits the chances of the ad being noticed unless the
author paid extra money to make the ad stand out.
Traditional dating services have low membership size and usually involve a high
financial cost. This service works by introducing customers to other customers.
The effectiveness of this service relies heavily on who else has paid for this
service.
With online dating services, member profiles are unreliable, there is a
considerable financial cost, and membership retention is hard. Many online
dating services do not include pictures due to the lack of interest or lack of
technology. Pictures are not a good source of information online anyway.
Studies have shown that people are more likely to lie about themselves online.
People generally only post flattering pictures and sometimes the pictures do not
accurately reflect the person’s true appearance. Also, there are monthly fees the
customer must incur. For these services, members have to pay twenty to forty
dollars per month. A member is no good to the service if he or she has not
checked for a match for a couple of months or if he or she fills out a profile but is
unwilling to pay the fee to be able to communicate.
The Matchmaker combines the strengths of these four options and eliminates the
weaknesses of them. The Matchmaker solution is portable so you take it out into
the real world with you and meet people face-to-face. Non-matches are weeded
out by matching software. The face-to-face meeting is key to solving most of the
other dating services shortcomings.
The Matchmaker saves its user’s time. It has a profile that is quick and easy to
fill out. Once the profile is filled out, the user simply has to carry the device
around with him or her and let it find other singles that meet the criteria. This
saves the user the embarrassment of walking up to someone and being rejected
33
because the other person is not single. It also allows users to focus on people
that they match with.
When you’re face-to-face with someone, ineffective communication is reduced by
being able to see his or her reactions. The user can see what they think about
the other person and if they are wasting time. When the person the user is
talking to tells jokes or uses sarcasm, it will be easier to tell because the user can
hear the tone of voice and see facial expressions. Also, in the matchmaker
profile there is a section that allows users to tell a little about themselves in their
own words. This allows the user to see if they share common interests, giving
them something to talk about. This effective communication helps to eliminate
slow impressions.
Pictures may be worth a thousand words but seeing someone in person is
priceless. It is easy for someone to just fake the information in a profile. It is a
little harder for someone to fake a picture. However, when face-to-face with
someone it is hard for him or her to hide the way he or she looks. The user can
know if he or she attracted to their match.
With the Matchmaker device the user’s decision to walk up and talk to someone
does not have to be based purely on looks. They can also look over the profile
and see if they have things in common. The decision to date someone should
not be based purely on looks or what he or she’s written in the profile, so the user
also gets to talk to the person. When you are staring someone in the eye it is
harder for him or her to deceive you. The user can ask questions about the
profile and see if the other person really does like reading poetry or whatever
else may be in the profile.
Costs, and membership problems are addressed by the alliance of The
Matchmaker project, cruise ships, resorts, and other social gathering locations.
The cruise ships, resorts, and other social gathering locations will take on most of
the cost for the user, charging a limited fee. In return they will attract to their
other services customers who are singles looking for a way to meet matches.
Since these locations will be handing the matchmaker devices to other singles,
the frequency of matches will go up. Membership retention will also not be as big
a deal because only people with the device will be on the system, unlike online
dating services where profiles may remain up for a long time after the person is
no longer using the service or has already found a match.
Our approach towards obtaining customers involves establishing a close
relationship with the cruise industry as well as select participants of singles cruise
orientated programs. The cruise line industry is comprised of two main marketing
focuses: the cruise lines and the travel agencies. Initial sales contacting will
begin and in Phase II and continue throughout the production phase. A
production prototype will be produced during this Phase II. To test the
34
acceptability and viability of the MatchMaker, a lot of 150 units will be produced
for real world testing and evaluation.
This real world evaluation will take place on a cruise ship and be done in
coordination with a singles, cruise oriented travel agency. In order to ensure
acceptability an exit survey will be given to participants; focus of the exit survey
will be placed on key development topics and overall general users’ opinion. The
projected group of participants will number around three hundred; half will be
given the device to allow a comparison to be done between those with and those
without the MatchMaker.
Some issues that may hinder success in the production phase involve gaining
acceptance from society. New technologies usually take a while to become
accepted by the general population. There can sometimes be a stigma
associated with new gadgets because of the preconceived notion that gadgets
are for “nerds.” However, there is a low chance that this will be a problem for our
product because they will be implemented on IPAQs, which are now common
devices. There are also more serious risks that are associated with this product.
The Matchmaker cannot guarantee the integrity of its users nor of the information
that they submit. We have no control over how its users portray themselves nor
over what they do with the information they receive from other users. Our
potential users may have a fear of using this product because it does not protect
against stalking or because there is a chance people may use it as a prostitution
tool. There is no way to prevent this from happening once the product is sold to
the general public, but while it is on the cruise ships, the onboard security will
handle any problems that may arise in that arena.
Intellectual Property Protection
To protect the intellectual property developed relating to the Matchmaker
product, we will copyright the software used in the device.
Financing and Revenue Stream
Our most recent market analysis indicates that we will be able to sell a total of
15,000 MatchMaker devices over the next 2 years. The MatchMaker will be sold
at a $400 per unit pricing schedule. We will acquire the HP IPAQ units and
prepare them for shipping for approximately $200 per unit. We are able to
achieve a sales rate of 600 units per month with our hardware taking the first
month to fill the pipeline within our production. Our budget indicates that we
expect a revenue of $240,000 per month with our profits being -$159,583 for the
1st month. Other months with the exception of the last month will bring in an
$80,417 per month profit and the last month will bring in $200,417. We will have
gained a $1.97 million income by February 2007.
We will only require corporate funding for the first month of production. This
leads to a capitalization cost of $160,000 to start up our production cycle. All
funds will be recovered within three month of this initial expense.
35
Appendix III: Evaluation Plan
This portion of the SBIR document details the evaluation plan for the
MatchMaker project. Project evaluation appraises the progress and performance
relative to the project’s initial or revised plan. The evaluation also appraises the
project against the goals and objectives set for it during the selection process.
During the various stages of the project, the MatchMaker’s management team
will be running numerous evaluations on the schedule and budget. The
MatchMaker project will be evaluated mainly at the end of each project phase.
This evaluation will test the products’ milestones and compare the pre-production
timelines set.
During testing of certain aspects of the project that will involve customer input
(such as the comparison forms), the MatchMaker will call upon testers. Because
the project is planned to be completed before Spring Break of 2005, our flagship
market will involve singles on Cruise Liners.
The major milestones for Phase I are prototype design and the initial software.
The initial software is a java application comprised of compatibility data and the
logic to compare with other devices. To evaluate we will make sure the software
will compare all the data fields, especially those marked critical by certain
devices. Essentially, to evaluate the initial software, we will have to make sure a
minimum of 50% the total fields and all of the critical fields of the compatibility
data match.
In order to test the prototype design, we will need to test the software, Bluetooth
range, stress its limits, and make sure the information stored on the device can
be searched and altered. The device should transmit information and request to
receive data, from the user, if there is a successful match. Also, we should test
that the device should not receive any information on other devices with nonmatching critical sections. According to our specifications, the device will have a
10m range (approx. 33 ft) in open air. To test its limits, we will have several
PCs/laptops come into range with the prototype (all have the software and
Bluetooth capabilities). We will expect the devices to verify they are similar
devices, open a connection, transmit the compatibility information, and if they are
a “match” we will transmit the personal/extended information between the two
devices.
The major milestones for Phase II are durability/hardware testing, on-site testing,
and the proposal of sales contracts to our initial target market.
Durability/hardware testing involves several issues. For the hardware testing, we
will have to test the proper functioning of several components of the device,
including the LCD screen, battery, numeric keypad and buttons, USB port, and
36
main memory. Specifically for the battery and main memory, we would like to
know how long the battery will last and how many profiles we can store. For
durability testing, we will have to make sure the device can still function after
free-falling a minimum of six feet and test how long (under normal wear and tear)
before the device fails. The free-fall will have to be performed on concrete,
hardwood, and marble flooring and still must be fully functioning.
According to MBusinessDaily, Bluetooth cannot even transmit between simple
masonry walls. On a typical cruise ship we are limited to open air areas including
the deck, walkways, lounges/clubs, banquet halls, the central mall, and seating
halls/amphitheaters. Because we have no research on Bluetooth range between
metallic walls, we will run tests in these areas to verify the range. A successful
test will allow us to properly transmit information between these two devices
approximately 33 feet.
During Phase I, we conducted marketing research to gain information on the
singles’ and cruise ship patrons’ demographics. We will take this research and
formulate sales contracts to our initial market. The presentation and
documentation will prove to the cruise line corporations that there is a market and
a demand, and will prove to be a lucrative project should they choose to accept
our agreement.
37
APPENDIX A
Information about Principal Investigator/Project Directors
Submit only ONE copy of this form with your proposal. Attach it on top of the cover page of the copy of your proposal that bears the original
signatures. Leave the back of the page blank. Do not include this form with any of the other copies of your proposal, as this may compromise
the confidentiality of the information.
Please check the appropriate answers to each question for all principal investigator(s)/project director(s) listed on the cover page, using the
same order in which they were listed there:
Principal
Third
Fourth
Additional
Additional
Investigator/
Additional
Project Director
First
Second
Additional
PI/PD
PI/PD
1. Is this person
Female
Male
X
2. Is this person a
U.S. Citizen
X
Permanent Resident
Other non-U.S. Citizen
3. Which one of these categories best describes this person's
ethnic/racial status? (If more than one
category applies, use the category that most closely reflects the
person's recognition in the community.)
American Indian or
Alaskan Native
Asian
Black, not of Hispanic Origin
Hispanic
Pacific Islander
White, not of Hispanic Origin X
4. Does this person have a disability which limits a major life
activity?
PI/PD
38
Yes
No
X
Check here if this person does
not wish to provide some of all
of the above information
REQUIRED: Check here if this person is currently serving (or has previously served) as PI, Co-PI or PD on any Federally
funded project
X
AMERICAN INDIAN OR ALASKAN NATIVE: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of North American and who
maintains cultural identification through tribal affiliation or community recognition.
ASIAN: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of East Asia, Southeast Asia or the Indian subcontinent. This area
includes for example, China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam.
BLACK, NOT HISPANIC ORIGIN: A person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.
HISPANIC: A person of Mexican, Puerto Rico, Cuban, Central of South American or other Spanish culture or origin, regardless of
race.
PACIFIC ISLANDER: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii; the U.S. Pacific territories of Guam,
American Samoa, and the Northern Marinas; The U.S. Trust Territory of Palau; the islands of Micronesia and Melanesia; or the
Philippines.
WHITE, NOT OF HISPANIC ORIGIN: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, North Africa, or the Middle
East.
*Disabled: A person having a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; who has a
record of such impairment; or who is regarded as having such impairment.
WHY THIS INFORMATION IS BEING REQUESTED:
The Federal Government has a continuing commitment to monitor the operation of its review and award processes to identify and
address any inequities based on gender, race, ethnicity, or disability of the proposed principal investigators/project directors and
co-principal investigators. To gather the information needed for this important task, you should submit a single copy of this form
with each proposal; however, submission of the requested information is not mandatory and is not a precondition of award. Any
individual not wishing to submit the information should check the box provided for this purpose. (The exception is information
about previous Federal support, the last question above.)
Information from this from will be retained by Federal agencies as an integral part of their Privacy Act Systems of Records in
accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974. These are confidential files accessible only to appropriate Federal agency personnel and
will be treated as confidential to the extent permitted by law. Data submitted will be used in accordance with criteria established by
the respective Federal agency for awarding grants for research and education, and in response to Public Law 99-383 and 42 USC
1885c.
NSF Form 1225 (SBIR 12/96)
39
APPENDIX E
Certificate Of Current Cost Or Pricing Data
This is to certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the cost or pricing data (as
defined in section 15.801 of the Federal Acquisition Regulations), submitted either
actually or by specific identification in writing, to the Grant Officer or to the Grants
Officer's representative in support of ___________The Matchmaker Project_____* are
accurate, complete, and current as of ______May 1st, 2004__________________.**
This certification includes the cost or pricing data supporting any advance agreements
and forward pricing rate agreements between the offeror and the Government that are
part of the proposal.
COMPANY NAME: ___________ The Matchmaker Project_________
REPRESENTATIVE NAME: _______ Trent Busch_________________
REPRESENTATIVE TITLE: ________Senior Investigator___________
REPRESENTATIVE SIGNATURE: ______________________________
DATE OF EXECUTION***: _________May 2nd, 2004_________
SBIR Organizations are required to submit this certificate with their
proposal. If the proposal is recommended for funding, a second certificate
will be requested by NSF subsequent to a pre-award budget review, but
prior to award.
* NSF will provide the Proposal Award Number.
** (1) Insert the date, month, and year of proposal submission when
submitting with proposal, (2) or the date, month, and year when notified
by NSF that the proposal has been recommend for award and price
negotiations are completed.
*** Insert the date, month, and year of signing