I Served As A Judge At The Monozukuri Hardware Cup Japan Qualifiers

I had the opportunity to serve as a judge at the Monozukuri Hardware Cup (held online) on 2/25. https://hardwarecup.monozukuri-startup.jp/

It’s positioned as the Japan qualifying round for an event whose finals are held in Pittsburgh. (This year the finals will apparently be held online too.) This was my first time judging a pitch event rather than presenting at one, and having actually done it, I can honestly say that presenting on stage is far less nerve-wracking than judging. Lol. Judges, more than presenters, have to think within a limited time (usually you only get one or two questions), anticipate to some extent how the presenter will respond, and still steer the exchange toward something fruitful and useful as input for the judging. It really made me use my head. But it was extremely interesting. I’d be happy to help out again if I get the chance.

Since I have the opportunity, I’d like to introduce some of the startups that presented and add my own perspective on them. (In the actual event I commented on the startup that placed third, but there are things I want to say to a lot more companies.) Through the commentary below, I hope to share the essence of my own approach to shaping business plans and setting the direction of a vision.

Let’s start with Water Design Japan and Magic Shields. https://www.waterdesign.tokyo/ https://www.magicshields.co.jp/product-/

Water Design Japan attaches a special nozzle that generates bubbles, eliminating the need to clean water pipes. The bubble-based technology itself is nothing new, but while existing products on the market are expensive external devices or units built into washing machines, this one just requires swapping out the pipe nozzle. Magic Shields makes a mat out of a specially structured absorbent material that acts as a hard floor in normal use and as a cushion when a fall occurs.

These two companies were an eye-opener for me. In a sense, the hardware industry today has become extremely “softwarized,” with massive platforms combined with arrays of sensors, big data, and AI running rampant. Yet what these two companies have in common is that an extremely simple hardware product simply solves the problem. To avoid any misunderstanding, this wasn’t the focus of my judging. I never said anything like “this leans too much toward software, so it’s no good.” But in an industry where it’s easy to let your guard down and assume hardware has already been done to death, it impressed me that simple hardware technology can still combine social significance, market potential, and flexibility for horizontal expansion this well. It made me want to start racking my brain again starting tomorrow. Another strength common to both was that their costs matched the market. When you build a hardware product meant to solve some minor inconvenience, it often ends up costing $200 or $300, and risks becoming a product only early adopters find fun enough to buy. Their strength was that, precisely because they are simple, they could offer prices competitive enough to go head-to-head with existing generic products on the market.

Next, CYBO. https://www.cybo.jp/

I think it’s fair to describe it as an ImPACT-originated, University of Tokyo-originated startup developing a system aimed at early detection of cancer cells. The key word here is “system” — a series of integrated processes. In a sense, it’s a bet. As I understand it (though only as a layperson), the detection process involves imaging, analysis, and sorting. Simply put: look at the cells (hardware), judge them (software), and separate them (hardware). This isn’t a process built around some radically novel idea in itself; the point is the efficiency, speed, and precision achieved through this integrated system. For something like the AI component, there are generally many competing approaches, and it’s very hard to simply rank them by superiority. But in terms of performance as an integrated system, there’s a real possibility of reaching something no other company can match. Not just “somewhat better,” but a level competitors simply cannot follow — that struck me as the key point.

Next, LANGUALESS, the company that went viral with Inupathy. https://www.inupathy.com/langualess/

It’s a product that collects heart rate information via microphone and uses it to estimate a dog’s emotions, and I imagine the underlying technology is likely something like an HRV-based approach. That inevitably raises questions of accuracy. There are two possible stances: “it’s an entertainment product, so why be picky about accuracy,” versus “no, by improving accuracy further we can expand the range of applications.” In their presentation they took the latter position, but personally I found myself favoring the former. That’s because the accuracy required of, say, ECG products used in medical devices is extremely high. Having a big vision like “if only we could detect illness in pets” is great, but realistically, there’s a gap that has to be called flatly impossible from a technical standpoint. They may need to rethink the underlying technology entirely. Depending on the case, they may even need to reconsider the “pet” target itself (though at that point, is it even the same company anymore?). Given that they’ve set their sights on the pet market — a market whose scale is not to be underestimated — I think they should consider committing fully in that direction. Expanding to other animals, or building a platform to collect data pairing pets’ heart rate data with their states (in a sense, training data) — I felt it would have been better to wring everything possible out of the market using what current technology can already do. They probably do have ideas like these in mind already, but there’s a saying that deciding what not to do is just as meaningful as deciding what to do, and I felt that applied directly to their situation.

I can’t cover everyone, so let me close with Edgecortix. https://www.edgecortix.com/

They’re a company aiming at a silicon IP business to realize edge AI. As Mr. Murakami (a fellow judge) also pointed out, this is a domain where the BIG GUYS come charging in aggressively, so naturally the question arises: “What’s your reason for saying you can win?” In other words: “How are you going to manage when you’re outmatched in funding, organizational strength, and sales power?” That’s a hard question to answer. But it’s actually a very fundamental question that should be directed at almost every startup. There are a few patterns of “model answers” one might consider.

• “We hold a special patent”
• “We poached members who were doing R&D at Company X”
• “We’ll enter from a niche market first and take first-mover advantage there”

And so on. It depends heavily on the situation, so I can’t generalize, but personally, I don’t put much trust in the somewhat clichéd pattern of leaning hard on patents and team members as the main pillars. The reason is obvious: the case where the team falls apart out of nowhere is a disaster that happens all too often. A company that places heavy emphasis on patents needs to make full use of the advantage that patent provides, and it’s engineers who actually do that. There’s no fairy tale where holding a patent just turns into money on its own. You need a reference product to demonstrate its effectiveness, you need to shape that proprietary technology into a form partners can easily use, and you need to keep providing FAE-style support as they adopt it. Engineers do most of that work. Without engineers capable of fully making use of it, a patent can fairly be called meaningless. And then there’s the team. Nothing is as insubstantial as “the team.” Startups have high personnel turnover, and precisely because the team is small, it can fall apart over something minor. That said, this is somewhat of an exception when a key technical person is a co-founder, or when the founder and CEO is themselves the researcher or inventor. I asked a question along these lines, and since they answered in terms of “the team” (the CEO himself has no specialty related to silicon), I have to say I found that a bit precarious. That said, the metrics they presented, such as power consumption reduction, were excellent. But this is a hard thing to assess at a pitch contest. There’s no way to discuss the validity of those numbers on the spot. So when things like ideas about the target market come up in response to a question, that’s when it really lands for me.

This ended up being a bit of a condensed write-up, but I’ll close here. I hope this is of some help to anyone who is thinking about launching a startup, or who has already launched one and is preparing to take on a pitch contest.

Originally published in Japanese at https://clazytech.com/2021/03/396/. Translated with LLM assistance and reviewed before publication.