Engineering
Prototype to pilot: closing the handover gaps
A working prototype that could not move to pilot because the documentation, test records, and manufacturing requirements needed to hand it over were missing.
- Stage
- Engineering prototype
- Disclosure
- Anonymised summary
- Last reviewed
Context and constraints
A team had a prototype that performed acceptably in demonstrations. Progress stalled because no party could take it into a pilot build without re-deriving the design intent, the test conditions, and the manufacturing requirements.
Constraints
- The original design was produced under time pressure and partially undocumented
- Manufacturing requirements had to be agreed with an external supplier
- The design could not be restarted from scratch within the available budget
- Confidentiality meant that design specifics could not be published
Our role
- Reviewed the existing design and documented the design intent that could be recovered
- Produced the missing manufacturing requirements in a form a supplier could quote against
- Defined the test conditions that the prototype had actually been validated under
- Listed the gaps that could not be closed without further engineering work
Delivered by other parties
- The original design and prototyping work was carried out before this engagement
- Supplier quotation and commercial negotiation remained with the client
- Mechanical design was owned by a separate party
Key decisions
| Decision | Consideration | How it was verified |
|---|---|---|
| What to recover from the existing design versus redesign | Recovering intent was cheaper, but only where the evidence supported it. | Each recovered element was checked against the physical prototype, and anything that could not be confirmed was listed as an assumption rather than documented as fact. |
| How to state test conditions so they could be repeated | A pass result without its conditions cannot be re-verified by anyone else. | Test records were rewritten so that each result named its setup, conditions, and the revision under test. |
| How to present unresolved gaps to a supplier | Supplying incomplete documentation invites unstated assumptions in the quotation. | Open items were issued as a numbered list with the engineering consequence of each, so that they could be quoted or explicitly excluded. |
Verification evidence
-
Design intent documentation
Written record separating what was confirmed against the prototype from what remained an assumption.
- Scope
- Based on the existing design; not a complete design review.
-
Test record summary
Existing results restated with their setup, conditions, and revision.
- Scope
- Covers only the tests that had actually been performed.
-
Handover gap list
Numbered open items with the engineering consequence of each.
- Scope
- Issued for quotation and exclusion, not resolved by this engagement.
Stated limitations
- This entry describes documentation and handover work, not a completed pilot build
- No production yield, cost, or schedule figures are published
- The gaps identified were not closed within this engagement
- Mechanical design and supplier negotiation remained with other parties
Background
A prototype that works in a demonstration is not yet a design that someone else can build. The distance between those two states is usually documentation, not engineering novelty.
Approach
The work started by separating what could be confirmed from what had to be assumed. Confirmed elements were documented against the physical prototype; everything else was written down as an assumption with its consequence stated.
Outcome
The client gained a supplier-facing package that could be quoted against, and an explicit list of what still had to be engineered. Both were recorded before any pilot commitment was made.