MEM Project Report - ir.canterbury.ac.nz

This report is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the award of Master of Engineering Management at the University of Canterbury.

MEM Project Report

Program: Master of Engineering Management

UC Innovators Summer Startup Scholarship

Module: ENMG 680 – Project

Version: 4.0

Author: Bjorn Arndt

Date: 11/02/2014

Project Report V4.0 Page i

DOCUMENT CONTROL

DOCUMENT LOCATION

J:\My Documents\2013\MEM\Project\Arndt_Report

REVISION HISTORY

The versions of this document in circulation are as follows:

Version Date Changes Made

1.0 22/01/2014 Created Document

2.0 29/01/2014 Added Appendices

Proof read document

3.0 06/02/2014 Final Changes Made

4.0 11/02/2014 Required changes

implemented

DISTRIBUTION

This document has been distributed to the following:

Name Title Version Date of Issue

Anna Arndt Reviewer 1.0 29/01/2014

Rachel Wright Project Sponsor 2.0 31/01/2014

Piet Beukman Project Supervisor 3.0 06/02/2014

Piet Beukman Project Supervisor 4.0 11/02/2014

Project Report V4.0 Page ii

ABSTRACT

The reStill is the next generation in home-distillation columns, more commonly referred to as Stills. The

advances in design and control make it easier than ever to produce high quality alcohol. The project

focussed on producing a proof of concept and conducting market validation for the product as it was in

the design/concept stage. This report summarises the planning processes involved in the project, the

progression of the venture to date and analyses the lessons learnt during this process.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author would like to sincerely thank Dr Rachel Wright for her continued support of this venture in

her role as Project Sponsor and Mentor. Her insights and recommendations were timely and helped

ensure that the project was progressing as required.

As well as this the author would like to make a formal acknowledgement of the assistance of John

Chapman during prototype development. His knowledge and skills were essential to assist with building

the prototype.

Finally thanks to MEM staff: To Beverley Hall for her help and support throughout the year and to Piet

Beukman for his continued support of the entrepreneurial spirit in the MEM program and his guidance

throughout the academic year.

Project Report V4.0 Page iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of the reStill venture was to assess the commercial viability of an improved home

distillation column, commonly known as a Still. This required the application of technical ability and

business acumen developed while working towards a Master of Engineering Management (MEM).

VENTURE SUMMARY

While the project was born out of the necessity to fulfil the MEM requirements, the venture was the

outcome of a number of years of research and development by the founder of reStill John Chapman. Mr

Chapman was frustrated by the Stills that were available on the market; they made it extremely difficult

to produce a high quality spirit.

The reStill was designed to solve this by producing the purest alcohol possible (which is 96%) every time,

regardless of the quality of the solution being distilled (the wash). As a result of the vastly superior

performance the design promised, it was thought that the reStill could redefine the home-distilling

market; attracting wealthy executives and professionals to the hobby.

The focus at the outset of the project was to produce a proof of concept, conduct more market research

and to improve the business plan. Funding was secured through a UC Innovators (UCI) Summer Startup

Scholarship this enabled this venture to move forward.

PROJECT ANALYSIS

The analysis of the project was broken into the following sections, which were the key tasks identified in

order to assess the viability of the reStill venture:

1. Product Testing and Development – The V-model for product development was used to ensure

the Still was developed to meet customer requirements. This task took longer than anticipated as

the proof of concept did not work and the design required additional development. Due to time

restraints this task was not finished and the design was not finalised; meaning more development

is required to ensure the product is market ready.

Project Report V4.0 Page iv

2. Market Research and Validation – Research was conducted in an attempt to gather statistics on

the home-distilling market, however no conclusive numbers were found. Instead a greater

emphasis was placed on market validation and finding out if potential customers were interested

in the product. A landing page was developed and online advertising campaigns were setup in an

attempt to get feedback from a wider range of potential customers, which was successful. While

research to date suggests the reStill is too expensive for the current market, there have not been

a sufficient number of responses to reach final conclusions about the viability of the venture.

3. Identifying the IP Strategy – It was found that there are no patents published for home-distilling

equipment and no potential for the reStill to successfully apply for a patent. This was due to the

lack of an inventive step; the novel features of the reStill would be considered obvious

improvements by someone in the distilling profession. The IP strategy should focus on protecting

the brand through use of trademarks and registration of the design.

4. Investigate other applications for the technology – No significant opportunities were discovered

for the reStill other than home-distilling. This is due to the low cost of industrial grade isopropyl

alcohol, which is used for most applications of alcohol other than consumption.

5. Examine the business model and path to market – The original model for the reStill was to

reduce inventory costs by launching the product through online sales. Market validation surveys

indicate that the majority of home-distillers buy their Stills and supplies in stores, which would

significantly increase the cost of launching the reStill.

6. Improve Product Branding – The name was changed from ‘Vox Stills’ to reStill to avoid potential

trademark infringements. Due to lack of certainty about the viability of the venture more time

was not invested in improving the branding.

7. Produce a Technical Report on Still Performance and a Business Plan – Neither of these were

produced due to time constraints.

Project Report V4.0 Page v

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

As with any startup, priorities changed as the project progressed and as a result key deliverables were

not met; nonetheless this did not constitute a failure. The project allowed for application of many of the

teachings from the academic year of the MEM. As well as this the project acted as an external conduit

for learning a number of lessons about both project management and entrepreneurship.

These lessons led to four main recommendations for future attempts at starting a business:

1. Market validation is the key – When developing new products nothing else matters if the

customer does not want it or if the market size is not large enough to return the investment in the

development.

2. Plan conservatively and add contingencies – There are always unexpected issues that arise and

as a result projects tend to take longer than anticipated. This particularly applies to Startups due

to the large degree of uncertainty and risks surrounding the outcomes.

3. Understand the underlying drivers – Starting a business is a huge commitment and it is important

that the business is seen as more than just a way of making money.

4. Keep an open mind - Entrepreneurs need to be open to the fact that their assumptions may be

wrong and that at any point they may need to proceed, pivot or completely restart from scratch.

The following recommendations were made for the continuation of the venture:

5. Continue with Market Validation – Targeted advertising for the landing page will result in more

views and theoretically more responses to the survey. Aim for 50 - 100 responses before reaching

final conclusions about the viability of the venture.

6. Develop the Design Further – If market validation is successful in identifying a demand for the

reStill the prototype needs further development based on information gathered during product

development and the market validation process.

Project Report V4.0 Page vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Document Control.............................................................................................................................. i

Document Location .................................................................................................................................... i

Revision History ......................................................................................................................................... i

Distribution ................................................................................................................................................ i

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................. ii

Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................................. ii

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... iii

1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 Venture Overview ........................................................................................................................2

2.1 Company Structure ............................................................................................................................. 2

2.2 Problem ............................................................................................................................................... 2

2.3 Solution ............................................................................................................................................... 2

2.4 Market ................................................................................................................................................. 3

2.5 Business Model ................................................................................................................................... 3

3.0 Project Formulation ......................................................................................................................4

3.1 Pre-project .......................................................................................................................................... 4

3.2 Funding ............................................................................................................................................... 4

3.3 Project Plan ......................................................................................................................................... 4

4.0 Project Analysis ............................................................................................................................5

4.1 Product Testing and Development ..................................................................................................... 5

4.2 More market research ........................................................................................................................ 8

4.3 Identifying the IP strategy ................................................................................................................. 11

4.4 Investigate other applications .......................................................................................................... 12

Project Report V4.0 Page vii

4.5 Examine business model and establish the path to market ............................................................. 13

4.6 Improve product branding ................................................................................................................ 14

4.7 Produce technical report and business plan ..................................................................................... 14

5.0 Lessons Learnt ............................................................................................................................ 15

5.1 project management ........................................................................................................................ 15

5.2 Entrepreneurship .............................................................................................................................. 16

6.0 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 17

7.0 Recommendations. .................................................................................................................... 18

8.0 Personal Reflection .................................................................................................................... 19

9.0 References ......................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.

10.0 Appendices .............................................................................................................................. 22

Appendix 1: The V-Model For product developement ........................................................................... 22

Appendix 2: Market validation ............................................................................................................... 28

Project Report V4.0 Page 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

This project came about in order to fulfil the requirements to:

Undertake 700 hours on a business related project in order to complete the MEM Project

Module.

Undertake no less than 10 weeks full time work on a business venture for the UCI Summer

Startup Scholarship.

Throughout the academic year the MEM program seeks to teach students the fundamentals required to

successfully commercialise technology and start a business. As a result the objective of this project was

to work through a business startup process and assess the viability of the reStill venture. However the

main goal of this is not necessarily to create a successful venture; it was to apply the teachings from the

MEM course in a practical setting to reinforce the lessons.

This report describes the idea behind the reStill as well as the progression of the project to date.

Particular attention has been paid to why there were differences between the plan presented in the

project charter and the work that was actually completed.

1.1 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

1. Fulfil the set requirements

2. Document the progress of the reStill venture

3. Identify and analyse key challenges faced and lessons learnt

4. Make a formal recommendation as to the future of the venture


2.0 VENTURE OVERVIEW

This venture overview is a summary of the reStill business plan as it was presented at the beginning of

this project. This is in order to provide background for the project and offer insight into the decisions

made during project planning and execution.

2.1 COMPANY STRUCTURE

The reStill venture is currently an unincorporated organisation that started in 2010 as the founder, John

Chapman, undertook to build a still that produced high quality alcohol. After working on different

prototypes for a number of years he developed a design that he believed was capable of performing

better than any still on the market.

When the opportunity arose to work on this venture for his MEM project Bjorn Arndt joined the

venture. Mr Chapman and Mr Arndt are partners in this venture and hold equal shares of 50%.

2.2 PROBLEM

The market for home distillation equipment has been tarnished a great deal over the years, in part due

to the terrible quality ‘moonshine’ produced by many home brewers; the result of which is an

unpleasant stigma around home distilled spirits. This issue has not been caused by the process of

fermenting and distilling alcohol, but rather by the distillation equipment being used.

The stills currently available on the market make it extremely difficult to produce a high quality spirit.

Raw home-distilled spirits have a fruity smell and taste which makes drinking them an unpleasant

experience. It is possible to remove this by distilling the spirit two to three times or by filtering it through

activated carbon. However, both of these options are time consuming and increase the cost of the spirit

produced.

2.3 SOLUTION

The reStill solves the problems inherent in other stills. It does this through intelligent design and the use

of a recently developed packing for the distillation column. Features include:


Spiral prismatic packing (SPP) which is 10 times more effective than

traditional packing in terms of separation performance.

Compound still design which is considerably more effective than the classic

reflux design shared by most other home-brewing stills.

Liquid management as appose to the traditional vapour management

which makes it easier to control

As a result of these features the reStill can consistently produce 96% alcohol regardless of the quality of

the wash. This makes producing high quality spirits a quicker and easier process.

2.4 MARKET

The home brewing market is extremely varied, even though it is predominantly males over 40 [1].

Throughout market validation contact has been made with people from age 18-59, both males and

females. As such it is extremely difficult to define the target market; in terms of both consumer

behaviour and market statistics.

The reStill aims to redefine this market as it has the potential to appeal to a new set of customers. The

reStill will be marketed to executives and young professionals who want to enjoy the home-brewing

hobby, without having to invest the time necessary to perfect the process. The WilliamsWarn Personal

Brewery caters to the beer drinkers in this market and the reStill will cater to the spirit drinkers.

2.5 BUSINESS MODEL

The majority of the manufacturing process will be outsourced as parts can be manufactured in China

and shipped to New Zealand at a low cost. They will then be assembled and tested in New Zealand and

shipped as a finished product. This results in a high gross profit and low overhead costs, giving a low

breakeven point for the business.

The reStill will initially start with online sales. When the product gains some testimonials from the early

adopters and demand increases, it will be distributed throughout New Zealand via home-brewing stores.

A series of phone calls were conducted in 2012 to gauge the interest store owners would have for a

product like the reStill; the response was extremely positive.

Figure 1: reStill

Rendering


3.0 PROJECT FORMULATION

The project was self-directed and therefore it was important to define what the key outcomes for the

project would be instead of taking the ready, fire, aim, approach [2]. This section outlines the process

used to analyse the venture and plan the course of action for the project.

3.1 PRE-PROJECT

In preparation for the project the business plan produced by Mr Chapman was thoroughly examined.

Attention was paid to any weaknesses within the plan; a number of issues were identified that were to

be the focus of the project:

The plan was based on a design that was unproven; proof of concept was needed

There was very little market research/validation; distributors were contacted but no customers

The IP strategy was uncertain; there was mention of patent potential but nothing concrete

Many of the fundamental costs seemed unrealistic, for example the marketing budget

3.2 FUNDING

As the project was a venture by two students it was necessary to secure funding for the work that would

be carried out. An application was successful for a UC Innovators Summer Startup Scholarship which

provided funding and the guidance of Dr Rachel Wright as a sponsor and mentor.

3.3 PROJECT PLAN

A Project Plan was drafted based on the pre-project findings, taking into account the requirements of

both the MEM Project and the UCI Scholarship. The project was broken down into six tasks that were

identified as being crucial to the success of the venture. These tasks were broken down into subtasks

and a plan was drafted to schedule when each task was to be attempted and completed.


4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS

Each of the key tasks identified in the Project Plan had varying time allocated and importance to the

overall project. As a result there were deviations from the plan as the most crucial tasks took longer

than expected. In order to examine the actual course of action throughout the project each of the tasks

has been analysed as follows:

Outline: The details of the task and what was expected from the plan

Outcome: Details of how the task was completed and the results

Comparison: Reflection on the differences between the plan and the reality

Lessons Learnt: The key learnings from completing the task

4.1 PRODUCT TESTING AND DEVELOPMENT

4.1.1 OUTLINE

The latest design of the reStill had not been tested so this was prioritised as the most important task.

This was because it was assumed that the success of the venture relied on a working product. Six

subtasks were identified to ensure the product development was successful, these were:

1. Conduct a literature review to examine the design of the Still

2. Build a prototype of the latest design

3. Commission the prototype

4. Test the distillate to ensure purity

5. Run performance tests

6. Develop the design further.

4.1.2 OUTCOME

A systems engineering process was selected for product development to ensure a streamlined

development that kept costs and timescales relatively controlled [3]. A simplified V-model was selected

as it is applicable to small projects with requirements that are unlikely to change [4]. A summary of the

process is outlined in this section and a full account is attached in Appendix 1.


To begin with still design was researched in literature. A number of home-distillers were consulted to

find out what the requirements for a still are, as they were considered experts in the problem domain

[5]. This led to the customer requirements being defined as follows:

1. The still must produce a high quality spirit

2. It must be easy to use and clean

3. It must produce spirit quickly

Defining these requirements led to a number of changes in the initial

design. This included adding a PID controller to ensure the

temperature control was precise, and increasing the element size to

speed up the boiling process.

A proof of concept was produced and commissioned, which took

longer than planned. This was due to most subtasks requiring

more time than expected; in particular shipping for the electronic

parts and the packing.

The biggest issue during commissioning was ensuring the PID controller ran well; the auto tuning

function on the controller did not work with the still system meaning the controller constants were

calculated by trial and error. When the prototype was completed and it was tested by distilling the

wash. The performance was compared to the customer requirements and the following issues with the

design became apparent:

The alcohol was not high quality; unwanted tastes and smells were present

The Still was not easy to use; the needle valve required constant adjustment

The Still produced alcohol extremely slowly

As a result the still did not meet user requirements and a second iteration of design was undertaken. A

new take-off section for the Still was designed and built to address these problems, which was

successful. Unfortunately the unpleasant smell and taste remained.

At this point a third iteration of design was started but due to time constraints the process was

abandoned. This meant the reStill was not completed and the final distillate was not tested; meaning all

the desired outcomes were not achieved.

Figure 2: The reStill prototype


4.1.3 COMPARISON

Planned time: 312 Hours Actual time: 350 Hours

This task ended up taking far longer than anticipated. This was a consequence of

delays with shipping parts, controller issues and design issues. The biggest delays

were due to the PID controller. It was more difficult to install than anticipated, due to

a confusing user manual and having to find the ideal controller constants by trial and

error.

It was assumed that the design could do what Mr Chapman claimed but this was not

the case. There were a number of issues with the initial design which meant far more

time was spent developing the design than was expected. This resulted in the distillate not being tested

in the Chemical Engineering Laboratories. This was not an issue thought as the reason for testing was to

provide scientific evidence of the purity of the alcohol the reStill was meant to produce. Instead the

impurities were obvious by their smell and taste.

4.1.4 LESSONS LEARNT

Building a prototype takes far longer than expected; here the process did not go smoothly and

unanticipated events occurred frequently. This was not due to poor project management but rather

inadequate planning; the tasks were generally completed as fast as possible and the difference between

the plan and reality was caused by the plan being impractical. The fact that the product development

may take longer than planned was addressed by the risk analysis section of the project plan, yet no

contingencies were made. A risk plan should enable a project manager to factor in contingencies that

help outline what might happen during the course of the project, enabling them to be prepared if

unknown/unforeseen events do occur [6].

The project plan was also based on the assumption that the still would work as Mr Chapman claimed it

would. As this was not the case the project quickly deviated from the plan. This was partly due to the

addition of PID control but there were some issues inherent in the initial design. Proof of concept is an

important step in any commercialisation effort [7]; however, it would have been prudent to assume

there would be some issues with building the reStill and more time should have been allocated to this

task.

Figure 3: PID Controller


4.2 MARKET RESEARCH

4.2.1 OUTLINE

In the initial business plan there was some information about the target market but no numbers or

statistics. Mr Chapman had approached distributors in both New Zealand and Australia to discuss the

Still with them, though there was little evidence of product validation with customers. While there was

mention of the plan to target wealthy executives with the reStill, there was no support of this. Therefore

it was important to conduct market research and validation, the task was broken down as follows:

1. Identify the exact target market and the size of this market

2. Identify assumptions made in the business plan

3. Test these assumptions and validate them

4.2.2 OUTCOME

To begin with, research went into trying to find statistics on the size of the home-distilling market

online. This proved difficult as there is very little information available. This is likely because in other

countries home-brewing is prohibited by law, therefore there are no statistics collected. After making

contact with local home-brewing stores to find out more it became apparent that the home-distilling

market is extremely varied. At this point it was realized that the desired statistics were unavailable,

therefore the focus became validating whether or not potential customers wanted the product.

This process began with the middle-aged executive market. This was seen as a wealthy demographic

that may be interested in taking up the hobby of distilling, if it produced high quality spirits. A list of

potential customers was drafted and a series of interview questions were assembled (See Appendix 2).

These questions were put together using the market validation framework taught during the MEM

course [8]. They focussed on gathering useful information from the customer without mentioning the

product or attempting to sell it to them.

As there are no facts about customers inside the MEM suite [9] 20 to 30 people from this target

demographic were approached, either by cold calling them or setting up an interview by email. It quickly

became apparent that they were not interested in the reStill. It was concluded that the middle-aged

demographic are more interested in beer and wine than spirits. This is likely due to both the craft


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Nu

mb

er

of

Re

spo

nse

s

Price respondents would pay (NZD)

movement [10] and the economic downturn in the 1980s [11] which combined to make locally brewed

beer and wine more popular than the more expensive imported spirits.

As a result the focus shifted to identifying if hobbyist home-distillers were interested in the reStill. A

number of questions were drawn up to conduct interviews with hobby distillers and to gauge their

interest in the reStill (Appendix 2). 15 home-distillers were interviewed and they confirmed that they

were interested in the reStill product. However, they were not interested in buying a new Still due to

cost; the improvement in alcohol quality was surplus to their needs. This was not a large enough sample

to be conclusive, 30 – 50 interviews would be ideal, meaning additional validation was required.

While attending a Lightning Lab startup workshop the concept of landings pages was discussed. This is a

webpage that explains the idea for a product and has a customer survey, which gauges interest in the

product offering. The landing page is an attempt to gather information about potential customers, who

are attracted to the website by online advertising. As online sales were identified as the initial planned

path to market the landing page concept was applicable to this venture; a website was set up (Appendix

2) and online advertising campaigns were created to generate page views.

This was a successful technique for carrying out market

validation and valuable information has been gleaned from the

survey responses. At the time this report was written there

were 33 responses to the surveys on the landing page

(Appendix 2). These responses have validated the findings from

prior market validation interviews; the reStill does solve

problems home-distillers have, but they would not buy it due

to price. The reStill would cost between $1250 to $1500 NZD

and the majority of respondents would only pay between $750

- $1000 NZD (Figure 4). These results show that there is a

mismatch between the price of the product and what

consumers would pay for it. While this appears fairly conclusive it is a small sample of the market; more

results are necessary to draw final and convincing conslusions. However it seems likely that either the

reStill will need redesigning to reduce the cost, or the venture should be abandoned.

Figure 4: Graph of survey responses to the question ‘How

much would you pay for the reStill?’


4.2.3 COMPARISON


This task took longer than anticipated due to a number of reasons. Initially it was difficult to work out

where to start with the market research, as a result time was wasted on the fruitless task of trying to

find statistics on the home-brew market. After that the wealthy demographic showed no interest in the

product, which was a positive result as it validated that they were not the target customer. However this

meant that market validation was repeated for a different demographic, which was unanticipated and

time consuming. Finally setting up a landing page, which was an effective and useful technique, was

never scheduled in the plan. This took a number of days as it required learning how to host domains,

create validation surveys and build a professional website.


When product development was started a number of home-distillers were consulted to find out what

they wanted in a still. However, they were never asked questions to gauge their interest in the product

offering. This was an oversight as those initial interviews focussed purely on the technical development

and an opportunity for market validation was lost.

Market research is more than just gathering numbers and statistics about the potential target market.

While working on the GlassJar venture during the Entré 75K competition, the focus of the market

research was on gauging the market size and getting statistics for the pitch. The most common business

started in the western world is a restaurant because people follow this logic; everyone needs to eat

three times a day, which is a huge amount of meals, therefore the food industry is a good business [12].

However the size of the market is not useful if the market is not interested in the product being offered.

The reason businesses fail is not because there is no market; it is because the product is not wanted by

the market and will not sell [13].

The first step in undertaking market research should be validating whether or not the target market is

interested in the product and what their needs are. In addition to this the first step in a venture like this

one should have been market research, not building the prototype. It is easy to dedicate time to solving

technical issues and not address the fundamental question; ‘do people want this product?’ [14]


4.3 IDENTIFYING THE IP STRATEGY

4.3.1 OUTLINE

There was a brief discussion about patenting the reStill in the initial business plan but no specific

research. As a result a more in-depth analysis of the strategy for protecting the Intellectual Property was

necessary. This included identify existing patents and ensure there is freedom to operate with the reStill.

4.3.2 OUTCOME

The IP strategy was analysed using the process outlined during the MEM program. A patent search was

conducted and it was found that there are no current patents on home-distilling equipment. The

possibility for applying for a patent was explored as the reStill has novel features; in terms of column

design and the use of PID control. However, the key to patenting is the existence of an inventive step

that would not be obvious to someone with knowledge of the industry, which was not present here.

These findings were confirmed by Rob Snoep, a Patent Attorney from CreateIP. Therefore the reStill is

not likely to be issued a patent and the IP protection strategy should be focussed on protecting the

brand through the use of trademarks and registration of the design.

4.3.3 COMPARISON


This task was straight forward and went as planned, taking slightly less time than expected.


It is possible to apply for a provisional patent simply to be able to say ‘Patent Pending’ on the product.

While it may not get issued, a patent it is possible to draw the process out for 2.5 years and continue

using ‘Patent Pending’ as a marketing tool even if the product is not worthy of a patent. At the end of

this, the patent is not published if it is not issued. This is an interesting tactic and an inexpensive one; for

a few hundred dollars any product could have ‘Patent Pending’ status for two and a half years. However,

it does raise ethical concerns about misrepresenting the product. While it is unlikely customers would

ever discover this misrepresentation it may become an issue with potential investors [15].


4.4 INVESTIGATE OTHER APPLICATIONS

4.4.1 OUTLINE

To evaluate the potential for the reStill in applications other than home-distilling, research was

conducted into identifying the uses competitor’s had for their stills and other uses for pure alcohol.

4.4.2 OUTCOME

While conducting a competitor analysis, the company iStill was identified as producing expensive high

performance stills. Research showed that they are made for small scale distilleries and breweries, rather

than the home distilling market. This is not a large market and a great deal of product development

would be required to get the reStill to a similar level.

Alcohol is widely used in Industry as isopropyl alcohol, where it is used for applications from cleaning

through to biofuel. Research was conducted to ascertain whether pure alcohol would work as a

substitute, as chemically they are equivalent. The alcohol produced by reStill is approximately five times

as expensive as industrial grade isopropyl alcohol, thereby making it not economically feasible.

4.4.3 COMPARISON


This task went as planned and actually took slightly less time than expected due to the fact that the

findings were straight forward and as expected.


Initially it was assumed that the iStill business was a competitor due to their Stills having similar

performance capabilities to the reStill. This was used as justification that there was a market for the

reStill as there was someone else already targeting the market. However after inquiring by email about

the iStill it became apparent that they were for commercial distillers. This shows that assumptions need

to be tested before they are used as justification for pursuing a market. It also shows that if another

company is producing a product it does not necessarily mean there is a market for it.


4.5 EXAMINE BUSINESS MODEL AND ESTABLISH THE PATH TO MARKET

4.5.1 OUTLINE

The business model and the path to market were examined in the original business plan but there were

a number of costs and assumptions that did not appear accurate. As a result it was decided to:

1. Examine the cost of manufacture and distribution

2. Examine marketing strategy and costs

4.5.2 OUTCOME

Due to time constraints very little of this work was completed, however, some useful information was

obtained by the market validation surveys on the landing page. These tested a number of the

assumptions made about the path to market and therefore the business model. Initially the reStill plan

was to reduce inventory costs by only selling online. However it became apparent that the majority of

home-distillers prefer to buy their stills and their brewing supplies from a shop rather than online.

4.5.3 COMPARISON


This task was not completed due to time constraints. Because of the extra time spent during market

validation and product development there was not time to assess the business model and path to

market.


These are elements of a venture that are only important if the market validation is successful at proving

a need for the product, and the product works as required. Therefore other tasks were prioritised over

examining the business model and path to market. There was risk inherent in this approach; if it became

apparent that there was consumer demand and a working product, a viable model would be crucial for

success.


4.6 IMPROVE PRODUCT BRANDING

4.6.1 OUTLINE

The initial brand ‘Vox’ stills was considered weak as it is Latin for ‘voice’, and is therefore more suitable

for music applications. There was the opportunity to work with Harvey Cameron Advertising to produce

appropriate branding and artwork for the venture.

4.6.2 OUTCOME

The venture did rebrand from ‘Vox’ stills to reStill as a matter of necessity to avoid trademark

infringement when building the landing page and advertising the venture.

4.6.3 COMPARISON


Harvey Cameron Advertising were initially consulted and offered to work on the branding. However as

market validation showed that there was a lack of certainty about the venture being viable they were

not approached to complete branding work.

4.7 PRODUCE TECHNICAL REPORT AND BUSINESS PLAN

4.7.1 OUTLINE

In order to have proof of the Still performance a technical report about its capabilities was to be

produced. Along with this the plan was to formulate an updated business plan based on the findings of

the project.

4.7.2 OUTCOME

Neither was produced. This task was required if previous tasks proved successful, for example the

prototype performing as required and successful market validation. As a result more essential tasks

were prioritised over spending time on these documents.


5.0 LESSONS LEARNT

After working on the reStill venture over the course of the summer, many lessons have been learnt.

These can be divided into two categories which have been explored in depth below:

1. Lessons about project management

2. Lessons about entrepreneurship

5.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT

Throughout the project tasks did not run to plan, as a result many lessons were learnt about project

management. This was not due to implementation of the plan; it was caused by issues with the plan

itself. This was partly due to starting this venture at the last minute and having to rush the planning

phase, but it can also be attributed to optimistic planning and inexperience.

The project plan was extremely optimistic with its timeframes; in retrospect everything was planned

based on the best-case outcome. An example of this was planning eight hours for commissioning the

Still when in fact it took far longer due to unforeseen issues. It became apparent that the risks were not

properly identified during planning. Management of project risks and issues is one of the most critical

yet easily overlooked aspects of successful project management [16]. This is a problem often

encountered in project management; smart people fail to adequately account for money and time when

planning [17]. While some put this down to overly optimistic projects helping win business and advance

careers [17], here it was more due to optimism and ignorance during the planning process. Whatever

the reasons, this resulted in critical tasks running over time.

Due to inexperience the project plan did not provide an adequate guide for the varying scenarios that

were encountered throughout the project. The main issue was that the tasks were quite general and did

not represent a milestone. For example the task ‘test assumptions and validate them’ is too general and

does not explain what the task will entail or what completing the task will achieve. Instead tasks should

be more specific and have an outcome ‘talk to 20 customers and identify the path to market’. This

would help keep the work focussed on the important outcomes and enable better tracking of project

progress. ‘Having unclear goals and objectives’ was one of the top responses uncovered by PMIS when

they asked ‘what goes wrong with projects?’ during their project management training courses [18].


5.2 ENTREPRENEURSHIP

The biggest lesson about entrepreneurship was finding out the relative importance of tasks during a

startup. Previous experience with the Glass Jar venture focussed on producing a business plan for the

Entré 75k competition. Due to this experience it was assumed that the best way to go about this project

was to work on fixing the issues with the business plan. As a result when market research began it was

all about researching statistics and trying to gauge the size of the target market, which would look good

in a business plan. However knowing the size of the market is not valuable when the market is not

interested in the product [19]. While a business plan can be valuable it should not be the focus of a

startup venture [20].

Proof of concept was prioritised over every other task. The reasoning for this was that if the product did

not work, there was no point in persevering with the venture. This resulted in continued work on

building and testing the prototype even as the task ran over time. It was fortunate that Dr Wright was

aware that this was happening and helped steer the project in the right direction. At that point in the

project a great deal of time and money had been spent on developing the product, with no market

validation to suggest that anyone wanted to buy it.

When market validation was started and potential customers were consulted, it became apparent that

the majority of the assumptions made about the target market were incorrect. As a result it appears

that there is not a large market for the reStill; many potential customers liked the product but they

could not justify the expense of it. They encounter problems when home-distilling but they are not “hair

on fire” problems; the reStill is a vitamin rather than an aspirin [21].

This was the take home lesson from this project in terms of entrepreneurship: It does not matter how

good the business plan is, nor does matter if the product is the best in the world; it is worthless if the

customers do not want it [13]. While this was emphasised a number of times during the academic year it

was not until the mistake was made in practice that the lesson was learnt.


6.0 CONCLUSIONS

Overall the project was successful in fulfilling the requirements of both the MEM Project and the UCI

Scholarship. Even though some of the tasks were not completed the purpose of the project was not

solely to get results, it was intended as a learning process. The value of the project was veritably driven

home by the failure to complete certain tasks; if everything was to go to plan the lessons that were

learnt may not have been apparent.

The project allowed application of skills and knowledge gained throughout the academic year and

provided a chance to learn through doing instead of being in a classroom environment. As a result the

lessons learnt throughout the project have cemented a number of key concepts that were taught during

the MEM course.

The reStill venture has been furthered over the course of the project. While a lot of work was completed

on the prototype the most valuable contribution to the project has been the landing page. This has

opened up a new, relatively effective avenue for market validation. This project may have been

concluded during the early stages of the process if market validation was prioritised as the most

important task. Over half the time spent working on the project was attributed to product development,

branding and drafting an IP strategy which may turn out to be of little value.

The majority of the responses to date have shown that there is not a large willingness to pay a higher

price for the better performance of a Still. This is likely because the root problem being solved by home-

distilling is that alcohol is expensive; it solves this by producing alcohol cheaply. Therefore a more

expensive Still is actually accentuating the root problem and not helping the customer. If the price could

be lowered the reStill may be successful. To do this it needs significant development is needed to ensure

it adheres to the customer requirements with a reduced price.

This development will likely take a fair amount of time and cost a substantial amount of money. As a

result this venture will be difficult to continue in its current capacity; a developed business with a large

research and development budget would be better at developing the reStill from this point. This is

because the reStill is a sustaining innovation; it is improving the performance and progressing along the

current technological S-curve [22]. As a result Clayton Christensen’s postulations are proven correct; a

startup should focus on disruptive, not sustaining innovations [23].


7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS.

A number of lessons have been learnt over the course of the project and the following

recommendations have been formulated for anyone attempting a business startup. Many of these

points were taught during the academic year of the MEM program; however the fact that they are

raised here is testament to the fact that practical application reinforces theory.

Market Validation is the key – When developing new products nothing else matters if the customer

does not want it or if the market size is not large enough to return the investment in the development.

Plan conservatively and add contingencies – Projects tend to take longer than anticipated, especially

Startups as there is a large degree of uncertainty and risks surrounding the outcomes.

Understand the underlying drivers – Starting a business requires huge commitment. It is important that

the startup appeals to the founders as more than just a way of making money. The business is more

likely to be successful and the founders are passionate about the product and believe they are making a

difference.

Keep an open mind - Entrepreneurs need a mind-set that learns from every change that takes place and

every new step of the process. They need to open to the idea that their assumptions may be wrong and

at any point they may need to proceed, pivot or completely restart from scratch. [24]

While the author is not planning to continue work on the reStill due to the findings during this report it

is likely that Mr Chapman will. Therefore two key recommendations have been made to help him

continue the venture:

Continue with market validation - Targeted advertising for the landing page will result in more views

and hopefully more responses to the survey. Aim for 50-100 responses before reaching final conclusions

about the viability of the venture.

Develop the design - If market validation proves successful the prototype needs further development.

One area of development should be the boiler; an element with a larger surface area would more evenly

distribute the heat and stop yeast cells from bursting and causing the unpleasant smell and taste.


8.0 PERSONAL REFLECTION

On a personal level I learnt a lot about my own tendencies. I did not think I was a typical engineer and

therefore all the warnings we received throughout the academic year about getting obsessed about a

product were deemed irrelevant. It was not until Dr Wright really started pushing me to stop focussing

on the product and start on market validation that I realised what I had been doing; even then the

temptation to keep working on the Still was strong. It took real effort to go out and talk to customers

and investigate what they wanted.

During the Glass Jar venture market research was easy because the potential customers were friends;

they were easy to approach and willing to help. However for the reStill venture it was much more

difficult; the potential customers were strangers and I had to build a relationship with them before

asking a multitude of questions. However it is often the difficult tasks that add the most value so it is

important that in future I do not shy away from market validation.

Guy Kawasaki talks about one of the key things for a startup is to make meaning [25] and have a reason

for existing. This was addressed during the academic year in a workshop by Justin Stevenson as having a

‘reason for being’. While it may seem idealistic when I was thinking about what the reason for being for

the reStill was I found myself asking the question ‘If this venture is successful is it going to have a

positive impact on the world?’

The answer I came up with was no, selling people a better home-brewing Still is not helping make the

world a better place. I have realised that while I really enjoy the entrepreneurial challenges I will not be

satisfied if it is all about making money, I would also like to make a difference. As a result, regardless of

the final outcome of the market validation, I am not likely to dedicate much more time to this venture

beyond this Project. I would like to be working towards something that I believe will make this world a

better place.


5.0 REFERENCES

1. Hill, M., Drinking homebrew 'fraught with risk', in Stuff.co.nz2013: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/8177225/Drinking-homebrew-fraught-with-risk.

2. Adams, R., If you build it will they come launch presentation, 2010: http://www.slideshare.net/drrobadams/if-you-build-it-will-they-come-launch-presentation.

3. Elliot, D.C. and P.P. Deasley, Creating systems that work, 2007, The Royal Academy of Engineering: London.

4. MacFarlane, A., et al., The Systems Engineer's Toolbox, U.o. Canterbury, Editor 2013: Christchurch.

5. Inteng. An Active Approach to Requirements Elicitation. 2010.

6. Symonds, M., The problem with project risk management, 2013: http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/it-consultant/the-problem-with-project-risk-management/#.

7. Beukman, P., Comments made during report marking, B. Arndt, Editor 2014.

8. Tallent, B., Market Validation, 2008: http://www.infrasystems.com/market-validation.html.

9. Blank, S., Startup: The Lean Method, 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GPQExuB-lWw.

10. Murchison, C., Interview with Harvey Cameron, B. Arndt, Editor 2014.

11. Norrie, W., Business Mentoring Discussion, B. Arndt, Editor 2013.

12. Adams, R., Market Validation - Why you should do it, NZVIF, Editor 2012: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v13HTrXQq-w.

13. Adams, R. New Venture Creation. 2013.

14. Wright, R., Report Review, B. Arndt, Editor 2014.

15. Snoep, R., IP Strategy Consultation, B. Arndt, Editor 2014.

16. Pacelli, L., Manage Project risks and issues, 2003: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/project-help/manage-project-risks-and-issues-HA010007249.aspx.

17. Price, W., The Cost of Optimism and The Sorry State of Project Management, 2013: http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20131205015048-103827-the-cost-of-optimism-and-the-sorry-state-of-project-management.

18. Beukman, P., What goes wrong with projects?, B. Arndt, Editor 2013: PM Pre-Readings.

19. Wright, R., Project Update Interview, B. Arndt, Editor 2013.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/8177225/Drinking-homebrew-fraught-with-risk

http://www.slideshare.net/drrobadams/if-you-build-it-will-they-come-launch-presentation

http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/it-consultant/the-problem-with-project-risk-management/

http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/it-consultant/the-problem-with-project-risk-management/

http://www.infrasystems.com/market-validation.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=GPQExuB-lWw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v13HTrXQq-w

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/project-help/manage-project-risks-and-issues-HA010007249.aspx

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/project-help/manage-project-risks-and-issues-HA010007249.aspx

http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20131205015048-103827-the-cost-of-optimism-and-the-sorry-state-of-project-management

http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20131205015048-103827-the-cost-of-optimism-and-the-sorry-state-of-project-management


20. Strategies, N. Write a Business Plan? 2012.

21. Skok, D., Why Startups Fail, 2013: http://www.forentrepreneurs.com/business-models/why-startups-fail/.

22. Christensen, C.M., The Innovators Dilemma. 2011: HarperBusiness.

23. Christensen, C.M. and M.E. Raynor, The Innovator's Solution. 2003: Harvard Business School Publishing Corporation.

24. Blank, S., Startups: Pivot or Proceed: How to Decide, 2014: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gDqxBid66zM.

25. Kawasaki, G., Guy Kawasaki "The Art of the Start" @ TiECon 2006, 2011, YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSlwuafyUUo.

26. Nixon, M. and M. McCaw, The Compleat Distiller. 2001, Auckland: The Amphora Society.

http://www.forentrepreneurs.com/business-models/why-startups-fail/

http://www.forentrepreneurs.com/business-models/why-startups-fail/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=gDqxBid66zM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSlwuafyUUo


10.0 APPENDICES

APPENDIX 1: THE V-MODEL FOR PRODUCT DEVELOPEMENT

Verification and

Validation

Project Startup

Define Requirements

High Level Design

Detailed Design

Implementation (Prototyping)

Acceptance Testing

System Testing

(Still testing)

Unit Testing

(Commissioning)

Product Launch

Figure 5: The V-Model as applied during product development of the reStill


REQUIREMENT DEFINITION

The key requirement for a Still is that it produces a concentrated alcohol solution from a solution with a

low concentration of alcohol. It must do this in a way that leaves the alcohol safe for consumption.

Beyond this there were a number of other requirements customers had for a premium still, these were

found by searching online forums to find common frustrations/issues consumers had with their stills and

through holding interviews with distillers.

It was found that temperature control was difficult with current stills; fluctuations in water

temperature/pressure caused inconsistency in the final product. It was also apparent that the time

taken to produce a high quality spirit was frustrating for the majority of users. From this three key user

requirements were formulated:

1. It must produce a high quality spirit

2. It must be easy to use and clean

3. It must produce alcohol quicker than typical stills

HIGH LEVEL DESIGN 1

The Still design was analysed against the user requirements and research was conducted into Still

design, both using literature [26] and online sources. It was found that although the design could

produce relatively pure alcohol it did not meet 2 of the key requirements, which were ease of use and

speed of production. As a result the Still was redesigned as follows:

1. Ease of use is addressed by:

a. Adding automatic temperature control (PID)

2. Speed of alcohol production is addressed by:

a. Increasing the element size to 3kW for quicker heating.

Usually a 2kW element is the maximum allowable for a 2” Column due to issues with column flooding.

However a PID controller scales the power supplied to the element meaning a 3kW element can be used

to heat the boiler quickly and when the column reaches the desired temperature the controller will

lower the power output.


DETAILED DESIGN 1

The design for each component was then analysed to ensure that it was easy to manufacture and

functional. There were a number of small changes made to the take-off geometry to make the prototype

simpler and easier to put together.

PID control was researched and while there was mention of controllers being used on the forums there

were no references for controller constants. However the controller came with an auto-tuning function

and it was assumed that this would be sufficient.

IMPLEMENTATION 1

A prototype was built to design and assembled. This was time consuming due to picking up necessary

parts, measuring each part and ensuring it matched the required design, cutting parts to size and

making alterations and welding.

Other parts such as the column packing and temperature controller were ordered from overseas and

there were 2-3 week shipping times. This caused delays in completing the prototype but as the parts

arrived they were installed into the existing system.

A 200L wash was brewed in a barrel using turbo yeast and white sugar to ensure there would be plenty

of wash for product testing.

UNIT TESTING 1

Each of the parts was tested as it was assembled; first the boiler and then the column and condenser.

Tests were conducted distilling water to ensure all valves were working, there were no vapour leaks and

that the condenser could handle the heat duty being supplied.

Following this the controller was tested with the factory default settings. The aim of using the controller

was to quickly scale the power down when the Still reached operating temperature and then keep the

Still at steady state with little variation. This was not the case, the factory default settings were too

aggressive which resulted in an unstable system.


The auto tuning function was used to try and calculate the ideal control constants for the Still however it

was not successful. This is because the auto-tuning process is great for a simple system but not a more

complex one like a Still. In a simple system the auto-tune function works by cycling the controller output

between 0% and 100% (Figure 6) and using the response from the system (Figure 7) to calculate the

ideal constants for controlling the system.

Figure 6: Graph of the controller output during the auto-tuning

process for a simple boiler (set point at 90°C)

Figure 7: Graph of the temperature response of a boiler during

the auto-tuning process

In the Still this oscillation in controller caused a rapid temperature drop in the column at 0% output

which was followed by a large surge in vapour flow up the column at 100% output, which flooded the

column. When the column floods the temperature drops as large amounts of vapour condense and drop

back down the column, choking the vapour flow coming back up. This meant that the response from the

system was not an accurate representation of its steady state behaviour and the constants calculated

resulted in an unstable system.

There were then two options: Trial and error or building a model of the still to simulate its behaviour

and calculate the constants. It was decided that trial and error would be used over building a model as a

model of the Still would be reasonably complex and therefore time consuming. After a day of trialling

different constants stable control was achieved.

0

50

100

0 20 40 60 80

time (minutes)

85

90

95

0 20 40 60 80

time (minutes)


SYSTEM TESTING 1

The Still was then tested for performance and adherence to user requirements. A number of problems

quickly became apparent:

1. The Still produced approximately 1L of spirit in 5 hours which most stills produce this in an hour.

This made distilling an extremely slow process.

2. The flow rate through the needle valve was not linear. This meant that the valve needed

constant adjusting to keep a consistent flow rate coming out the take-off, which made the Still

hard to use.

3. The spirit had a slight yeasty smell and taste to it, meaning while it was high purity alcohol (95%)

it was not high quality.

As a result the Still was not ready for customers to test, changes in design were necessary to ensure the

Still met user requirements first.

HIGH LEVEL DESIGN 2

The still design and performance was analysed to ascertain what was causing the problems mentioned

in the previous section.

It was identified that after the still reached set point the temperature the controller output dropped off

to about 20%, which meant that the element was running at approximately 600W. This is less than half

the recommended 1.5kW for an element in a 2” column, this was resulting in an extremely low vapour

flow up the column. To improve the vapour flow rate it was decided that more cooling was required to

increase the steady state output of the controller to 50%, or 1.5kW.

The needle valve was directly below the take-off and before the spirit cooling section, meaning that it

had hot distillate flowing through it. It seemed likely that the behaviour of the needle valve was due to

thermal expansion as the valve was heated by the distillate flowing through it. It was decided there

needed to be cooling between the take-off and the needle valve to reduce this variation.

It was thought that the impurities in the spirit were due to the low flow through the column. For proper

separation of the compounds in the column to take place there needs to a decent reflux rate. As it was


there was no reflux taking place and all the condensed vapour was being taken off the column as

distillate. As a result it was assumed that fixing the prior two problems would fix the quality issue.

DETAILED DESIGN 2

A new take-off section was then designed to increase the cooling around the take-off in the form of a

cooling sleeve. This was built around the take-off pipe to ensure the distillate was cooled before

reaching the needle valve.

IMPLEMENTATION 2

A new take-off was built and the differences can be seen between the first take off (Figure 8) and the

second design (Figure 9) which has the additional cooling jacket. It took some time to convince John that

building the second design would be worth it as no other compound stills are designed with a cooling

jacket half way down the column.

Figure 8: Old take-off section

Figure 9: New take-off design


UNIT TESTING 2

The new take-off section was tested with cooling water and the packing and thermocouples were

installed. The take-off section was then installed in the Still.

SYSTEM TESTING 2

The Still was then tested for performance and adherence to user requirements again and this time it

performed much better. The take-off design solved problems with the speed of distillation and the flow

of distillate through the needle valve. One problem was noted and it was that the increased reflux rate

had not solved the alcohol quality issue; the spirit had an unpleasant smell and taste. As a result the

product did not meet user requirements and the design needs improving.

noted


APPENDIX 2: MARKET VALIDATION

INITIAL VALIDATION SURVEY

This initial survey was used to validate the assumption that wealthy middle-aged executives would be

interested in a high performance Still. The following questions were asked:

1. Do you drink spirits?

2. How much would you typically drink?

3. What type of spirit? How much would you spend?

4. Would you be interested in making your own?

5. Why/Why not?

HOBBYIST CUSTOMER DEVELOPMENT

The next step was to make contact with a number of hobbyists and find out what their issues were. This

process followed the customer development procedure discussed in a lightening lab startup workshop.

The aim of this was to find out what their problems were and if the assumptions made in the business

model were correct. The questions asked were:

1. How long have you been distilling?

2. Why did you get into it?

3. What kind of Still do you use?

4. What frustrated you about distilling the last time you did it?

5. What did you enjoy about distilling the last time you did it?

6. What kind of products do you make with your alcohol?

7. Would you consider buying a new Still?


RESTILL WEBSITE

A landing page was produced to test whether or not there was significant interest in the reStill and to

find out more about potential customers. The home page led through to pages that outlined the

features of the Still and asked visitors to fill out a survey to help us produce the right Still for them. The

homepage and the surveys are shown below with a summary of the results.

Figure 10: reStill homepage


Figure 11: Validation survey for current distillers


Figure 12: Validation survey for new distillers


SURVEY RESPONSES

Table 1: New to Distilling

Respondent

What made you

interested in

making your

own spirits

What appeals to you most

about making your own

spirits

How have you

researched home

brewing

How would you

buy a Still if you

wanted one

How much would

you pay for the

reStill

Are you Age

1"Other (use text

box below)"I enjoy drinking

"To save me money", "It

seems like an enjoyable

hobby", "Making high

quality alcohol"

"Brew Shops", "Talk

to mates"

"From a Brew

Shop""$750-1000" "Female" 27

2

"A friend does it",

"Read about it

online"

"To save me money", "It

seems like an enjoyable

hobby"

"Online", "Books",

"Talk to mates""Online" "$500-750" "Male" 20

3

"A friend does it",

"Other (use text

box below)"

Alcohol keeps going up in

price, so its probaby better

to have your own still,

cheaper to make then buy

"To save me money",

"Making high quality

alcohol", "Other (use box

below)"

"Talk to mates" "Other"

If it cost too much

to buy, I wouldnt

bother, I dont want

to pay $500

"$500-750" "Female" 59

4"Other (use text

box below)""Other (use box below)" "Online", "Books" "Online", "Other" "$750-1000" "Male" 29

5"Read about it

online""Making high quality alcohol" "Online" "Online" "$750-1000" "Male" 67

6"Read about it

online"

"Making high quality

alcohol", "Other (use box

below)"

"Online", "Books"

"Online", "From a

Brew Shop",

"Other"

"$500-750" "Male" 34

7"Read about it

online""Making high quality alcohol" "Online" "Online" "$500-750" "Male" 53

8"Other (use text

box below)""To save me money"

"Online", "Books",

"Brew Shops", "Talk

to mates"

"Online" "$500-750" "Male"


Table 2: Current Distillers

First Second Third

1 5 years

"It saves me

money", "Other (use

box below)"

Its useful for

making infusionssuper reflux it makes clean liquor

its a lot of effort,

dificult to clean

Purity of

alcohol

produced

Time taken

per runLook

"Online", "From a

Store"

moving the wash to the

fermenter is pretty

annoyin

"Male" 21"$500-750", "$750-

1000"

2 2 years"It's an enjoyable

hobby"

Still spirits super

reflux

Easy to run, fast,

does not take much

attention to complete

a batch

Temperature control

is difficultPrice of the still

Purity of

alcohol

produced

Time taken per

run"From a Store"

Impurities even from

super reflux, higher %

would help

"Male" 22 "$750-1000"

3 24 months"It's an enjoyable

hobby"

Essencia

Express

Pretty easy to use,

nothing terribly

complicated

Having to get the

cooling water tap to

run perfectly. Just

have shitty taps at

home

Price of the still

Purity of

alcohol

produced

Ease of Use "From a Store"

Getting all the steps

together in the right time

frame - personal

organisation and not

leaving things too long

etc.. Have to always

keep an eye on things

"Male" 26 "$1000-1250"

4

2 years - not

currently

distilling though

"It saves me

money", "It's an

enjoyable hobby",

"To make high

quality alcohol"

Essencia

Express Super

Reflux Still

High quality spirit,

consistent results,

easy to use, safe

(electric)

it's pretty slow to get

really high quality,

high proof alcohol

Ease of Use

Purity of

alcohol

produced

Time taken per

run"From a Store"

the smell of the brewing

wash

the cost of electricity to

run it

the cost of flavourings

"Male" 25 "$1000-1250"

5 5 years

"It saves me

money", "It's an

enjoyable hobby",

"To make high

quality alcohol"

Making all sorts

of tinctures,

fuelling my car

An Original build Its a pretty boss stillStill has some smell

to itEase of Use

Purity of

alcohol

produced

Look "From a Store"Spending ages tyring to

get it right."Male" 26 "$1000-1250"

6 2 years "It saves me money" reflux

I can save a massive

amount of money on

alcohol which is

vitally important when

your a student

Having to clean the

fermenting barrels

between each wash

and preparing each

wash

Price of the still Ease of UseTime taken per

run"From a Store"

Preparing the wash and

cleaning the barrel"Male" 23 "$1500-$1750"

What is the biggest

issue you have with

distilling your own

spirits Are you

How old

are you

What would you

pay for the restillRespondent

What aspects were most import

when you bought your stillHow long have

you been

distilling for

Whats the main

reason do you

distill Other

What kind of

still do you use

What do you like

about it

What frustrates

you about it

How do you buy

your distilling

equipment


Table 3: Current Distillers Continued

First Second Third

7 Not long

reflux 60 cm

column 30L

2600/1100W

I use a tall column

which enables me to

pinpoint the purity to

what I need but is

also fairly forgiving

when it comes to

temperature

Temperature can be

quite hard to control.

Purity of

alcohol

produced

Ease of Use Look"Online", "From a

Store"

Temp control its

painstaking to get it

perfect and requires

standing next to it.

"Male" 23

For a plug in and let

it go I would spend

very little (<750).

Likewise for

something that

allowed me to

control the exact

chemical

composition of the

distillate at every

turn I would spend

highly (1250+). For

something that

could do both I

would spend even

higher (1750+).

8 4 years Alex 30 Still

Great quality ethanol

when used

conservatively (not

pushing the ends

mainly).

Having to constantly

monitor how much

distillate is coming

off. Measuring for

30s every small

while takes up a lot

of time and doesn't

really let you set and

forget. And this is for

like 8 hours.

Also the ball valve is

very finicky to adjust

flow rate by a few ml

/ min.

Purity of

alcohol

produced

Price of the

stillEase of Use "Online"

See the frustration box.

A feedback system on

the still would be ideal.

"Male" 23

More info: I distil to

save money, and

because it is fun

learning the

process. I would be

happy with ~$40

bottle of vodka as

well - that is

acceptable quality

for me. Paying over

$1k for a still just

keeps making it

longer to pay off.

9 5 years reflux Easy Quality of alcohol Price of the still

Purity of

alcohol

produced

Ease of Use "From a Store"The taste of the distilled

alcohol"Male" 29 "$750-1000"

10 10 -12 years Reflux 50LIt produces good

quality consistently

Can only get about

82-83% alcohol from

each brew, and

expected more

Price of the still

Purity of

alcohol

produced

Ease of Use "From a Store"

No issues except the

quality of the product. If

that can be increased I

might be interested.

"Male" Over 70 "$750-1000"

11 1 year

45 litre reflux or

pot convertable

double condenser

robust ease of

use,puts out a lot at

high %

big Price of the still

Purity of

alcohol

produced

Price of the still "Online" filtering "Male" 61 "$750-1000"

12 one year still spirits compact too small

Purity of

alcohol

produced

Price of the

stillEase of Use "Online" alcohol strength "Male" 70 "$750-1000"

Are you

How old

are you

What would you

pay for the restill

What do you like

about it

What frustrates

you about it

What aspects were most import

when you bought your stillHow do you buy

your distilling

equipment

What is the biggest

issue you have with

distilling your own

spiritsRespondent

How long have

you been

distilling for

Whats the main

reason do you

distill Other

What kind of

still do you use


Table 4: Willingness to buy the reStill

Respondent

If the reStill was available would you

pay NZD1200 for it

1 "No"

2

"I'd need some more info but I'd consider

it"

3


it"

4 "No"

5 "No"

6 "No"

7 "No"

8 "Yes"

9 "No"

10 "Yes"

11 "No"

12


it"

MEM Project Report - ir.canterbury.ac.nz

Documents

Transcript of MEM Project Report - ir.canterbury.ac.nz