Assessing Product Viability for Follow on Funding

Case Study: Assessing the Viability of SatCase’s Communications Platform

Background: SatCase, a technology company aiming to combine multiple communication technologies into a single platform, had attracted investment from a small group of private equity (PE) investors. The core product, SATcase™, sought to integrate smartphone technology with global satellite communications, addressing gaps in mobile coverage for industries like oil and gas, emergency services, and adventurers​. Despite the promise of the concept, the project was severely behind schedule, having already gone through three revisions to its plan. Investors grew concerned and requested my assessment of both the project’s roadmap and the ability of the engineering team to deliver.

Challenges: The SatCase project was complex, involving multiple suppliers and technological relationships, including critical partnerships with satellite technology providers like Iridium. The engineering team was highly specialised but was clearly struggling to meet deadlines. This was partly due to the innovative nature of the product, which involved integrating several technologies in a way that had not been done before. The team had been revising the plan in an attempt to accommodate technical difficulties, but it became evident that they were not on track to deliver.

Assessment: After reviewing the revised project plan, it was apparent that while the SATcase™ product had commercial potential, there was a significant risk that the innovation required to bring it to market would be too great. The engineering challenges had been underestimated, and the likelihood of further delays and cost overruns was high. I advised the investors that although the market potential for the product was strong, the risk of the technology being non-viable or too costly to complete was substantial.

Investor Decision: Despite my cautionary advice, the investors decided to back the project one final time, albeit with the condition that I would oversee the project as an interim manager to focus on delivery. I accepted the role but maintained that, at best, the project had a 50/50 chance of success due to the technical hurdles involved.

Outcome: Unfortunately, despite our best efforts, the project was not completed. The technical issues proved insurmountable within the given timeframe and budget. When the time came for investors to decide whether to fund another round, I advised against it. My recommendation was based on the mounting evidence that while the concept was solid, the execution was proving too complex and costly.

Strategic Pivot: While a large contingent of shareholders considered further investment, my independent and trusted advice led some investors to pivot their strategy. Recognising that the SatCase project was unlikely to yield a return, they opted to merge the investment vehicle with an alternative opportunity. This pivot allowed them to make the most of the existing investment framework, redirecting resources toward a more viable venture. By doing so, they preserved the value of the initial investment and positioned themselves for future growth, mitigating the potential loss from the failed SatCase project.

Investor Feedback:

James Eden, Private Equity Investor – Eden Capital
“I have nothing but positives to say about Trevor. So professional, hard-working, and great support to me not just business-wise but also on a personal level. Honest, reliable, and trustworthy, a true gent. I would absolutely recommend Trevor.”

Geoff Broomhead, Private Equity Investor & Business Angel
“I have known and worked with Trevor for 5 years. His ability to think through problems logically and break down complex issues into manageable bite sizes is excellent. His honesty and probity are undoubted, and his would be amongst the first names on my dream management team-sheet.”

Conclusion: Though the SatCase project did not achieve the desired outcome, my role in overseeing its final phase and providing trusted advice allowed investors to pivot and merge the investment vehicle with a more promising opportunity. This strategic shift ultimately preserved the value of their investment, highlighting the importance of recognising when to cut losses and pursue alternative paths. The case serves as a reminder that while technological innovation is exciting, it must be balanced with sound investment judgment and a willingness to adapt when necessary.