The Lean LaunchPad

Lecture 2: Value Proposition

Steve BlankJon FeiberJon Burke

http://i245.stanford.edu/

Agenda

• Team Bus Model Presentations• Value Proposition

– Product– Service– Ecosystem

VALUE PROPOSITIONS

images by JAM

what are you offering them? what is that getting done for them? do they care?

Step 1. Spec. the Value Proposition

• Product(s)?• Service(s)?• Ecosystem?

• Is it a company or product?

Value Proposition – Common Mistake

• Is it just a feature of someone else’s product• Is it a “nice to have” product• Is it a “got to have” product• Can it scale to a company?

Value Proposition - Discovery

• Product – Long term vision– features – Benefits– Minimum Viable Product spec

• For a web/mobile app– Low fidelity MVP live and running

• Understand Customer Problem and Solution• Test Market Type

Product

• Problem Statement: What is the problem?• Technology / Market Insight: Why is the problem so

hard to solve?• Market Size: How big is this problem?• Competition: What do customers do today?• Product: How do you do it?

Step 2: What’s the Minimum Viable Product – Physical

• First, test your understanding of the problem• Next test your understanding of the solution

– Proves that it solves a core problem for customers – The minimum set of features needed to learn from

earlyvangelists- Interviews, demos, prototypes, etc- Lots of eyeball contact

Step 2: What’s the Minimum Viable Product – Web/Mobile

• NOW “low fidelity” web/app for customer feedback– First, tests your understanding of the problem

• LATER, “high fidelity” web/app tests your understanding of the solution– Proves that it solves a core problem for customers – The minimum set of features needed to learn from

earlyvangelists- Avoid building products nobody wants- Maximize the learning per time spent

Step 2: What’s the Testing the Minimum Viable Product – Web/Mobile

• Smoke testing with landing pages using AdWords• In-product split-testing• Prototypes (particularly for hardware)• Removing features• Continued customer discovery and validation• Surveys• Interviews

Step 2: What’s the Testing the MVP– Web/Mobile - Tactics

• Interview customers – make sure they have a matching core problem

• Set up web site landing page to test for conversion– What offers are required to get customers to use the product

(e.g. prizes, payment)– Use problem definition as described by customers to identify key

word list – plug into Google search traffic estimator - high traffic means there is problem awareness

• Drive traffic to site using Google search and see how deep into a registration process customers are willing to go through

Pivot ExampleRobotic Weeding

Talked 75 Customers in 8 Weeks

Our initial plan

20 interviews, 6 site visits…We got OUR Boots dirty

WeedingVisited two farms in Salinas Valley to better understand problem

Interviewed:• Bolthouse Farms, Large Agri-Industry in Bakersfield• White Farms, Large Peanut farmer in Georgia• REFCO Farms, large grower in Salinas Valley• Rincon Farms, large grower in Salinas Valley• Small Organic Corn/Soy grower in Nebraska• Heirloom Organics, small owner/operator, Santa Cruz Mts• Two small organic farmers at farmers market• Ag Services of Salinas, Fertilizer applicator

MowingInterviewed:• Golf: Stanford Golf course • Parks: Stanford Grounds Supervisor, head of maintenance

and lead operator (has crew of 6)• Toro dealer (large mower manufacturer) • User of back-yard mowing system• Maintenance Services for City of Los Altos• Colony Landscaping (Mowing service for stadiums)

Autonomous Vehicles for Mowing & Weeding

We reduce operating cost- Labor reduction- Better utilization of assets (mow or weed at nights)- Improved performance (less rework, food safety)

Mowing- Owners of public or commercially used green spaces (e.g. golf courses)- Landscaping service provider

Weeding- Farmers with manual weeding operations

Dealers sell, installs and supports customer

Co. trains dealers, supports dealers

- Mowing Dealers- Ag Dealers

- Innovation- Customer Education- Dealer training

Dealer discount COGS seek a 50-60% Gross MarginHeavy R&D investment

- Dealers (Mowing and Ag)- Vehicle OEMs (John Deere, Toro, Jacobsen, etc)

- Research labs

Asset saleOur revenue stream derives from selling the equipment

Engineers on Autonomous vehicles, GPS, path-planning

Found weeding in organic crops is HUGE problem; 50 - 75% of costs

Crews of 100s-1000

Back-breaking task

(Ilegal) labor harder to get

1-5 weedings per year/field

$250-3,500 per acre and increasing

Food contamination risk

Decision to make – mowing vs weeding

Application If ROI is < 1 yr they will buy

Labor costs significant?

Autonomous would solve

problem?

TAM

Mowing of large fields

Yes.Professionally

run organizations

Yes Yes Adjusted up toxxx

Weeding in Agriculture

Agri Industry: YES!

Large Growers: Yes

Small Growers: No

YES! for organic crops

They are spending $500/ac!

Not necessarily

Key need is weed vs. crop

differentiation

TAM increased to $2.6 B (Total

organic)

Target Market (organic

specialty) 162 M/yr

18%/yr growth

Autonomous vehicles WEEDING

We reduce operating cost- Labor reduction (100 to 1)- Reduced risk of contamination- Mitigate labor availability concerns

- Low density vegetable growers- High density vegetable growers- Thinning operations- Conventional vegetables

Dealers sell, installs and supports customer

Co. trains dealers, supports dealers

- Ag Dealers- Ag Service providers

- Innovation- Customer Education- Dealer training

Dealer discount COGS seek a 50-60% Gross MarginHeavy R&D investment

- Ag Dealers- Ag Service providers

- Research labs

Asset saleOur revenue stream derives from selling the equipment

Engineers on Machine VisionTwo problems:- Identification- Elimination

1 Week – 1 CarrotBot

Confidential

CarrotBot

• Machine Vision data collection platform– Monochrome & Color

Cameras– Laser-line sweep (depth

measurement)– Encoders

(position/velocity)– Onboard data

acquisition & power

CarrotBot 1.0

The Canvas Updated

•Research Labs•Equipment Manufacturers•Distribution Network•Service Providers

•Technology Design•Marketing•Demo and customer feedback

•Cost Reduction•Remove labor force pains•Eliminate bio-waste hazards

•IP – Patents•Video Classifier Files•Robust Technology

•Farming conventions.•Demo, demo, and demo!!•Proximity is paramount

•Organic Farmers•Weeding Service Providers•Conventional Farmers

•Dealers•Direct Service•Indirect Service• … then Dealers

•Asset Sale•Direct Service with equipment rental•… then Asset Sale

Value-Driven

Visit Highlights

Above: Organic Carrots, 7wks. Top right: Conventional carrotsBottom Right: Very weedy. Will require multiple passes of hand weeding

Visit Highlights

Carrot vs. WeedsDue to small root systems, carrots have no chance against weeds

Visit Highlights

Organic Broccoli, closely cultivated. Weeds close to plants are hand-picked

Visit Highlights

State of the Art in Weeding Technology for Organic Crops

Customer Hypothesis

Hypothesis Confirmed• Growers interested in own equipment

• Industrial (10,000s of acres) • Large (1,000s of acres)• Willing to pay $100k for one

unit

• Smaller growers (100s of acres) usually subcontract the labor services or rent equipment

• All purchases through local dealers• Customer service is essential

Pre-Test

Post-Test

Customer Map #1 – Industrial Growers

Example: Bolthouse Farms – Large Industrial Carrot Producer – 8K acres/yr

• Equipment Operator

• Director, Ag Technology• Justin Grove, interviewed

• VP, Growing Operations

• CFO, CEO (Jeff Dunn)

• Local Farm Mgr• Cliff Kirkpatrick, visited

Equipment Operator

Cliff, Farm Mgr

Customer Map #2 – Service ProvidersExample: Ag Services – Service Provider, Salinas Valley

• Equipment Operator

• Service Mgr

• ?? (service mgr’s boss)

Me (left), Marty (middle, Service Mgr), Doug (right, Grower)

• Grower

The Business Plan Canvas Updated

•Research Labs•Equipment Manufacturers•Distribution Network•Service Providers

•Technology Design•Marketing•Demo and customer feedback

•Cost Reduction•Remove labor force pains•Eliminate bio-waste hazards

•IP – Patents•Video Classifier Files•Robust Technology

•Farming conventions.•Demo, demo, and demo!!•Proximity is paramount

•Mid/Large Organic Farmers•Agricultural corporations•Weeding Service Providers

•Mid/Large Conventional Farmers

•Direct Service•Indirect Service• … then Dealers

•Direct Service with equipment rental•($1,500/d; 120d/yr )•Low density: $1,500/d•High density: $6,000/d

Value-Driven

World Ag Expo interviews:the need is real and wide spread

• 10+ interviews at show– Everyone confirmed the need– Robocrop, UK based, crude

competitor sells for $171 K

• Revenue Stream– Mid to small growers prefer a

service– Large growers prefer to buy, but

OK with service until technology is proven

– Charging for labor cost saved is OK, as we provide other benefits (food safety, labor availability)

The Business Canvas Updated

•Research Labs•Equipment Manufacturer•Distribution Network•Service Providers• 2 or 3 Key Farms

•Technology Design•Marketing•Demo and customer feedback

•Cost Reduction•Remove labor force pains•Eliminate bio-waste hazards•IP – Patents

•Video Classifier Files•Robust Technology

•Farming conventions.•Demo, demo, and demo!!•Proximity is paramount

•Mid/Large Organic Farmers•Agricultural corporations•Weeding Service Providers

•Mid/Large Conventional Farmers

•Direct Service•Indirect Service• … then Dealers

•Direct Service with equipment rental•Low density: $1,500/d•High density: $6,000/d

Value-Driven• R&D• Bill of Materials• Training & Service• Sales

Autonomous weeding - Final

We reduce operating cost- Labor reduction (100 to 1)- Reduced risk of contamination- Mitigate labor availability concerns

- Low density vegetable growers- High density vegetable growers- Thinning operations- Conventional vegetables

Direct- Provide high quality service at competitive price

Direct - Alliance with service providers- Eventually sell through dealers

- Innovation- Customer Education- Dealer training

Costs for service provisionCOGS seek a 50-60% Gross MarginHeavy R&D investment

- Ag Service providers

- Research Institutes (eg UC Davis, Laser Zentrum Hannover)

- 3-4 key farms

Service provision- Charge by the acre with modifier according to weed density - Eventually move to asset sale

Engineers on Machine VisionTwo problems:- Identification- Elimination

Market Type

Definitions: Four Types of Markets

• Clone Market– Copy of a U.S. business model

• Existing Market– Faster/Better = High end

• Resegmented Market– Niche = marketing/branding driven– Cheaper = low end

• New Market– Cheaper/good enough, creates a new class of product/customer– Innovative/never existed before

Clone Market

Existing Market Resegmented Market

New Market

Market Type determines: Rate of customer adoption

Sales and Marketing strategies Cash requirements

Market Type

Existing Resegmented New

Customers Known Possibly Known Unknown

Customer Needs

Performance Better fit Transformational improvement

Competitors

Many Many if wrong, few if right

None

Risk Lack of branding, sales and distribution ecosystem

Market and product re-definition

Evangelism and education cycle

Examples Google Southwest Groupon

Market Type - Existing

• Incumbents exist, customers can name the mkt• Customers want/need better performance• Usually technology driven

• Positioning driven by product and how much value customers place on its features

• Risks:– Incumbents will defend their turf– Network effects of incumbent– Continuing innovation

Market Type – Resementing Existing

• Low cost provider (Southwest)• Unique niche via positioning (Whole Foods)

• What factors can:– you eliminate that your industry has long competed on?– Be reduced well below the industry’s standard?– should be raised well above the industry’s standard?– be created that the industry has never offered? (blue ocean)

Market Type – New

• Customers don’t exist today• How will they find out about you?• How will they become aware of their need?• How do you know the market size is compelling?

• Which factors should be created that the industry has never offered? (blue ocean)

For Tomorrow’s Presentation

• What were your value proposition hypotheses? • What did potential customers think about your

value proposition hypotheses?– Get out of the building and begin to talk to customers

for Oct 12th – Talk to 10-15 customers more by Oct 18th – Follow-up with Survey Monkey (or similar service) to

get more data• Submit interview notes, present results in class.• Update your blog/wiki/journal with progress

customers and value prop

Examples

Group Privacy: Nan, Jim, Sundaresan

• Protect privacy for users of location-based services (LBS)

The Business Model Canvas: ver 0.0

Privacy-concerned customers

who use LBS

Creating awareness

Own website

educationalIncreased privacy

Technology

Privacy advocacy

groups

Developing costs

Marketing costs

App revenue (direct or shared)

LBS App Providers

Bundling with LBS apps

trust

Building trust

The Business Model Canvas: ver 0.1

Privacy-concerned customers

who use LBS

Creating awareness

Own website

educationalIncreased privacy

Technology

Privacy advocacy

groups

Developing costs

Marketing costs

App revenue (direct or shared)

LBS App Providers

Bundling with LBS apps

trust

Building trust

Smart phone users uneasy about privacy

Subscription

No loss of service quality

How to Test

Large number of privacy-concerned LBS users

Willing to pay for protecting locations Directly or indirectly

Able to reach them with low cost Able to ease their concerns through

education endorsement by privacy watchdog

groups LBS app developers are willing to

partner Privacy groups are willing to

endorse

Existing market researchTalk to customers

Bid on Google AdWords for location privacy(now no ads)

Talk to customersTalk to privacy advocacy groups (e.g.,25,000 adults stalked by GPS)

Talk to LBS app developers

Talk to privacy advocacy groups

Methodologies• User interviews at Tresidder and I-Corps (11)• LBS Domain Expert Interviews (1)• Google AdWords (up and running)• Online Survey (32 responses)• Privacy Group Interviews (pending)

Hypothesis 1:Large number of privacy-

concerned LBS users

• User Interviews - Reasons for lack of concern– Trust the provider– Don’t believe that data can

be used against them– Never crossed their mind– Don’t use LBS– Don’t have smartphone– Data already available to

carriers & government• Survey: 66% not concerned

• User Interviews – Reasons for concern– Uncertainty how data

used/misused– General unease

• Survey: 34% concerned– 37% chose not to use a

LBS because of privacy concerns

Most had low concern about location privacy

Hypothesis 2:Willing to pay for protecting locations

• User Interviews – Unwilling to pay– Not interested in even a free

service– Not concerned enough to

pay– Not enough value add

• Survey: 28% would not use it even if it is free, 54% would not pay

• User Interviews – Willing to pay:– $15/month for total privacy

protection, only a “few bucks/month” for location privacy

– $1/week– $5 one time payment

• Survey: 46% willing to pay– 9%: $1– 19%: $10– 9%: $1/month– 9%: $5/month

Even some unconcerned customers are willing to pay!

Hypothesis 3: Able to reach them with low

cost• Yes – at least at first• Google Ad Words:

– Should be cheap at first - We are the only advertiser for “location privacy” (and related)

– Location privacy is a popular search term

Hypothesis 4:Able to raise awareness through education

• Yes• User Interviews – education may prove effective to

some, as many did not think about or understand that LBS providers would get their location data, and indicated more concern

Hypothesis 5: Able to ease concerns through endorsement

• Yes• User interviews – endorsement from “famous

people” and “serious organizations” would help ease concerns on the effectiveness of privacy protection.

Hypothesis 6: LBS app developers are willing to partner• No – so far• Domain expert interview:

– LBS app developers will hate our service– Increase LBS app’s operational cost

• User interviews– Overwhelming issue – not lack of privacy protection

• But lack of perceived LBS value– Secondary: LBS reputation and trust

Hypothesis 7: Privacy groups are willing to endorse

• Unknown

Market Size Estimation

Number of Users Entire market

> 100m unique Google Maps mobile visitors/month

Served available market 55% users concerned about

sharing location information [Nielsen 2011]

Target market Open Question, but rapidly

growing market

Pricing• Originally considered 1x

payment• But customers naturally

assumed subscription service

• Possible to charge more?– Reduced price --/-->

willingness to use

Pivot Point?• Not yet, but if user interview data trends against our

hypotheses…• Two new models to consider

– Licensing– Location based monitoring

• Privacy scorecard• Hyperlocal news

Hypotheses:

• Improved novel (integrated) thermal dissipation technology can significantly improve LED lighting performance and reduce cost

• Our technology allows direct replacement of commercial high lumen but low efficiency incandescent bulbs with LEDs without light quality/output compromises

• This can deliver a scalable business model

ARKA LightsHigh Performance Heat Dissipation Technology for LED Lighting

Reduced number of LEDs

Higher lumens in the same form factor

Commercial Customers

-Replacement Lamps

- Indoor Applications

Trade Presence, publications, shows

Direct Sales to Institutions

Web based demos, education

OEMS

Luminaires Manufacturers

System integration

Requires no infrastructure changesASME,

Professional Groups

Environmental conscious Groups

Systems Design

IP

Government Agencies (DOE)

Cost of Sales

LED manufacturers

Luminaire Manufacturers

Developments Costs

Sale of Products

Suppliers Certifications

Awareness Building

Increased reliability

Experienced manufacturer as a partner

Component supplier costs

CANVAS FOR ARKA – Version 1

• We’re talking to (some combination of):– OEMS– Architects (Rita Koltai – Koltai Lighting Design)– Technical Experts/Consultants (Stanford

University), Prof. Robert Davis, (CMU)– Lighting designers and manufacturers (Greenray

Lighting)– Lighting Distributors (Stanford Lighting)– Facility Managers (Sheraton Hotel)– Retail Outlets (Pottery Barn)

GETTING OUT OF THE BUILDING

1) Prof. Robert Davis, Founder of CREE – a leading LED company- Heat transfer is a major issue. Not sure whether the internal phonon reflectance may in fact be the leading thermal limit.

2) Prof. James Harris, EE Department, Stanford University- Heat transfer issue – The phonon reflection increases significantly with the doping of new materials. This reduces thermal conductivity of the LED. Eventually it becomes the limiting factor. Need to include reduction in the thermal conductivity in the heat transfer modeling.- Bought six PAR38 lights for his family room last week. Wants them to last 20-30 years as changing them with a ladder was a major hassle.- Light intensity was lower than incandescent bulbs it replaced. Not happy about that.

CUSTOMER FEEDBACK

3) Mr. Mo, Co-owner of Greenway Lighting, Santa Rosa, California

- T8 lighting (tube light replacement) is their main product. PAR38 replacement is needed, but not available today. They recommend PAR30, a much lower intensity product. The available PAR38 do not meet the lighting intensity and light quality demands for replacing the current incandescent lights.- Replacing light bulbs is a major hassle. Costs $400 to rent a cherry picker to replace bulbs – makes very expensive. Need to have longer life.- Offered a business proposition to do thermal design of his LED lights on a consultation basis (Not an attractive business model for us due to very low returns and limited scalability).

CUSTOMER FEEDBACK

4) Prof. George Tayo, ME Center for Design, Stanford University- LEDs are evolving very rapidly. Thermal issues are similar to PCs – cooling will remain major issues as performance and quality envelope will continue to expand.

5) Mr. Bruno (maintenance supervisor) – Sheraton Hotel, Palo Alto - Use 100’s of PAR38 in this hotel. Replace every 6 months or so. Would be happy with longer life product - Current weight of LEDs might prevent them from being used in establishments with high ceiling. (Heavy aluminum heat sink adds significantly to weight).

CUSTOMER FEEDBACK

6. Pottery Barn Staff – Pottery Barn, Palo Alto Title 24 has changed the procurement patterns of corporate

headquarters regarding light fixtures – no dimming or two-way switches (Need to become familiar with local laws)

Use incandescent lights for all general illumination (counted 34 in front foyer alone) without dimming or daylight control. Extensive use of CFLs in displays (not directional so less suitable for task lighting).

7. Paul (salesperson) – Stanford Electricals - • Advocate of LEDs; largely ‘self-educated’• Indicated that rising prices (~30% in last 6 mths) of fluorescents

(due to phosphor costs) and falling LED prices will boost LED sales• Indicated unwillingness of smaller retailers to experiment with new

suppliers products’ • Highlighted form factor of LEDs and emphasized that products need

to be used without changing current infrastructure. • Seeing significantly increased adoption of LEDs by customers

(particularly over last 5 mths)

CUSTOMER FEEDBACK

Lower purchase cost

Higher lumens in the same form factor

Commercial Customers

-Replacement Lamps (PAR38)

- Indoor Applications

Trade Presence, publications, shows

Direct Sales to Institutions

Web based demos, education

Luminaire Manufacturers

System integration

Requires no infrastructure changes

ASME, Professional Groups

Environmental conscious Groups

Systems Design

IP

Government Agencies (DOE)

Cost of Sales

LED manufacturers

Luminaire Manufacturers

Developments and Certification Costs

Sale of Products

Suppliers

Certifications

Increased reliability

Experienced manufacturer as a partner

Component supplier costs

CANVAS FOR LED – Version 2

Reduced weight

Awareness Building

Thermal modeling of LED cooling

IMMEDIATE Next steps

• Conduct further interviews to asap validate value proposition and channel hypotheses– OEMS and Institutions– Specifiers and Contractors

• Begin work on key activities including reduction of technology to practice (prototyping)

Summary

• Contacted 8 diverse feedback nodes (experts, customers, supply chain)

• Partially validated three components of the initial canvas. – Learned more about possible value proposition. – Modified key activities to include thermal modeling– Recognized need for engaging with OEMs asap

Disclaimer – The conclusions drawn here are based on a limited data collected. Further validation will be conducted.

I-Corps 10/11/2011

Ground Fluor Pharmaceuticals

Advanced Chemistry for Pharmaceutical Progress

Team: Kiel Neumann (EL)Stephen DiMagno (PI)Allan Green (Mentor)

I-Corps 10/11/11 68

PET is a non-invasive medical diagnostic technique for cardiac, brain, and tumor imaging GFP technology makes new (unknown) and known (but clinically inaccessible) [18F]-labeled radiotracers readily available Fast, multiplatform, high efficiency synthesis of these fleeting, precious agents. Initial target indications: pediatric neuroblastoma, Parkinson’s disease.

Ground Fluor Pharmaceuticals

General methodology for adding fluorine to

lead compounds of interest

The Business Model Canvas

Accessibility (RCY)PuritySpeedPET/SPECTMultiplatformSensitivity (nca)Specific compounds

IPPoP dataRegulatory planUnderstanding of the regulatory process

Contract cGMP precursor manufactureSalary, RentsClinical trials

SOPs for precursors and drugsRecruit clinical sitesIn vivo animal studiesDevelop regulatory plan for pre IND meetingID cGMP CROFund-raising

cGMP manufacturerRadiopharmaciesNuclear Medicine and Radiology departments

Technical Assistance (Image Atlas)FDA regulatory support

Radiopharmacies

Equipment producers

Prescribing physicians

Radiologist who perform studies

Sales of intermediates

Technology license

Product license (royalty)

Direct sales of precursor

R&D and clinical studies presented in journals and meetings

Drug developers

Pharmaceutical development companies

IPPoP data

Radiologists

Technical assistance

- Face to face with attending Radiologist at Stanford University

- Face to face with radiopharmacist at UCSF

- Conference call with Nuclear Radiologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering

- Conference call with president of medium size drug company with PET

product at the FDA- Telephone conference with cGMP facility

Out of the Building

I-Corps 10/12/11 71

Out of the Building

I-Corps 10/12/11 72

- Immediate need for our product- Currently used SPECT product for neuroblastoma is limited by

absence of correlative CT data- Our lead PET agent would provide more information on

existing imaging equipment base- Two customers offered to participate in clinical trials

- Potential for further development of other tracers identified in interviews

- Actual need for the general procedure- Allow access to previously unknown tracers

-Initially seeking to market method technology-too diffuse, but many opportunities (i.e. product-driven opportunities more than general technology-driven)

-Need to identify specific imaging product opportunities-Validated hypothesis for immediate need of tracers-Raised question on identity of lead compound pipeline for Parkinson’s disease-Recruited two potential partners for clinical trials

Impact on the Value Proposition Hypothesis

73

I-Corps 10/11/11 74

Total Market in PET imaging

Approximately 2.2 million procedures in the US.

Drug costs range from $700 (on-patent) to ~$150 (generic FDG)

US sales of radiopharmaceuticals for PET and SPECT $1.2 billion

US sales expected to grow to $6 billion by 2018

Global numbers approximately 2x

Source: Bio-Tech Systems Report #330; data for 2010.

I-Corps 10/11/11

75

Accessible Market in PET imaging

• 2500 installed PET scanners• PET radiopharmacies cover the entire US market• Radiopharmacies have an interest in proprietary agents as a

basis of competition in their market.

I-Corps 10/11/11

76

Target Market in PET imaging

Neuroblastoma

Prevalence: about 6000 US cases about 1000 new cases per year

Subjects receive 3-6 images/yearto follow response to therapeutic protocols

World market at U.S. x 2 gives potential of 40,000-70,000 scans/year

Drug costs $500/per gives ~$20 - $35 M

Parkinson’s Disease

DatSCAN sales in Europe ~$100 M

The world's highest recorded prevalence of Parkinson's Disease of any region is in Nebraska, with 329.3 people per 100,000 population

US – 600,000 patients 1 scan per year @ $500 = $300 M

Target CustomerFast Market Expansion

8 Million

Severe OSA

686,000

Treated

Untreated

7.4 Million

Home Diagnosis Device Market Growing at CAGR of 7%

Frost & Sullivan

8 Million

Severe OSA

686,000

Treated

Untreated

7.4 Million

Target CustomerCurrent treatment ineffective

Option #1: CPAPContinuous Positive

Airway Pressure

Therapeutic treatment of OSA growing at CAGR of 17%

Frost & Sullivan

Option #2: SurgeryUvulopalatopharyngoplastyMaxillomandibular AdvancementTonsillectomy

8 Million

Severe OSA

686,000

Treated

Untreated

7.4 Million

412,000

Treatment Effective60%

274,000

Treatment Ineffective

40%

Initial Target CustomerCurrent treatment ineffective

8 Million

Severe OSA

686,000

Treated

Untreated

7.4 Million

412,000

Treatment Effective60%

274,000

Treatment Ineffective

40%

Target Customer

Initial Target CustomerCurrent treatment ineffective